Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 7/29/2025, wherein claims 1, 4, 6-7 were amended, claims 2-3,5,8-9 are cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 6-7 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “the second sheet portion being located outermost of the margin portion and covering the first sheet portion, the fifth sheet portion, the fourth sheet portion, and the third sheet portion” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the second sheet portion being located outermost of the margin portion and covering the first sheet portion, the fifth sheet portion, the fourth sheet portion, and the third sheet portion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Firstly, the second sheet portion is stated to be part of the margin portion. So, how can the second sheet be "outermost of" the margin portion? Perhaps it is the outermost segment of the outer portion? That would not make sense either since the corner layer would be considered the outermost portion. Secondly, how does the second layer "cover" the other portions? It doesn't appear to do so. For example the first sheet portion (presumed to be the first layer 21 in spec) is always on top/ahead of the second layer and is always visible. Claims 4 and 6-7 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 20200296974 A1) in view of Hodgson (US 2289782 A).
With respect to claim 1, Henry discloses a cooking vessel comprising: a vessel portion having at least one accommodating recess (2a/4); and a margin portion (2b) connected to and surrounding the vessel portion,
Henry failed to disclose of the margin portion folded downwardly multiple times such that the margin portion includes a first sheet portion, a second sheet portion, a third sheet portion, a fourth sheet portion, and a fifth sheet portion serially and integrally connected, the first sheet portion, the fifth sheet portion, the fourth sheet portion, and the third sheet portion being located from top to bottom, the second sheet portion being located outermost of the margin portion and laterally covering the first sheet portion, the fifth sheet portion, the fourth sheet portion, and the third sheet portion, the first sheet portion being directly connected to the vessel portion and extending away from the vessel portion, the second sheet portion being directly connected to the first sheet portion and having a lateral surface facing outward and surrounding the vessel portion, the third sheet portion being directly connected to the second sheet portion and located below the first sheet portion, the fourth sheet portion being directly connected to the third sheet portion and located between the first sheet portion and the third sheet portion, a bottom surface of the fourth sheet portion contacting a top surface of the third sheet portion, the fifth sheet portion being directly connected to the fourth sheet portion and located between the first sheet portion and the fourth sheet portion, a top surface of the fifth sheet portion contacting a bottom surface of the first sheet portion, and a bottom surface of the fifth sheet portion contacting a top surface of the fourth sheet portion, wherein the lateral surface of the second sheet portion is curved along a direction from the first sheet portion to the third sheet portion, and the lateral surface protrudes outwardly.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers formed from sheet metal, Hodgson taught of a containers whose outer edge (12) is folded over to create a reinforcement structure (page 1, col 2 lines 31-39). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer edge of Henry to include folded edges as taught by Hodgson in order to allow for reinforced edges. Further Hodgson features a different folding structure; however, it is considered as a change of shape of Hodgsons design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The implementation of directionally more folds is only a modification in the shape of the folds featured in Hodgsons and still provides the same results as Hodgsons (i.e. reinforcement of the edges). Essentially, Hodson and the present invention operate the same with the same working pieces, the only difference is the shape of Hodgsons folds is less and different directions than the present applications. In re Dailey established that a "change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results." The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their folds for the reinforcing the edge structure is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing reinforced edges from Henry in view of Hodgsons invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
Examiner Note: Other applications featuring folded structure include US 6848160 B1, US 4131980 A, CH 559128 A5, US 3525455 A, US 3186583 A, US 2384042 A, US 2289782 A. A singular outer edge concealing the folds is taught by US 4131980 A.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Henry further discloses wherein the vessel portion has a plurality of accommodating recesses (4’s between 5’s), and the plurality of accommodating recesses are arranged spaced apart from each other.
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Henry further discloses the vessel portion has a connecting part (wall 2A) surrounding the at least one accommodating recess, the connecting part being curved (curve around 4 and 2B) and obliquely extending upward; and the vessel portion (4) is connected to the margin portion (2B) via the connecting part (2A).
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Henry further discloses wherein: the vessel portion further has a connecting part (wall 2A) surrounding the accommodating recesses, the connecting part (2A) being curved and obliquely extending upward; and the vessel portion is connected to the margin portion (2B) via the connecting part.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20150208860-A1 OR US-20150096668-A1 OR US-20200296974-A1 OR US-20170042375-A1 OR US-20160353922-A1 OR US-20140084011-A1 OR US-20120237656-A1 OR US-20120175492-A1 OR US-20110272415-A1 OR US-4790292-A OR US-9532676-B1, US 6848160 B1, US 4131980 A, CH 559128 A5, US 3525455 A, US 3186583 A, US 2384042 A, US 2289782 A
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735