DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (U.S. 2003/0111072) in view of Faddi (U.S. 2005/0069602). Regarding Claim 1, Takeda discloses a frypot of a commercial deep fat fryer (frypot, “Liquid heating cooker’, title) comprising a foam deck (middle front wall portion 13b; figures 2, 3) and a front wall that is a downward extending vertical face of the frypot (lower front wall portion 13a; figures 2, 3), the foam deck and the front wall being formed by sheet metal (10, 13 is inherently made of metal since it is welded, the cross hatching indicates metal and the device is subject to extremely hot oil; paragraph [0071]) that has a radius bend between the foam deck of the frypot and the front wall (radius bend joining 13b to 13a; figures 2, 3; paragraph [0054]).
Takeda fails to explicitly disclose the radius bend has a bend radius of between 0.25 inches and 1.5 inches and except for the sheet metal being 16 or 18 gauge stainless steel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the radius bend such that it has a bend radius of between 0.25 inches and 1.5 inches, in order to eliminate sharp edges, thereby protecting objects, like fry baskets, that would repeatedly come into contact therewith, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Faddi teaches that it is known to use 16 or 18 grade stainless steel in a cooking utensil which is meant to be submerged in hot oil (see paragraph [0004] and paragraphs [0042]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified frypot of Takeda made from the material taught by Faddi, in order to use food grade material that withstands cooking heat and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, the modified frypot of Takeda fails to explicitly disclose that the bend radius is between 0.95 and 1.05 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bend radius such that it is between 0.95 and 1.05 inches, in order to eliminate sharp edges with a very rounded bend, thereby protecting objects, like fry baskets, that would repeatedly come into contact therewith, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 3, the modified frypot of Takeda fails to explicitly disclose that the bend radius is 0.5 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bend radius such that it is 0.5 inches, in order to provide a rounded edge, thereby protecting objects, like fry baskets, that would repeatedly come into contact therewith, while making it sufficiently sharp that it does not waste material, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)), and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 4, the modified fry pot of Takeda fails to explicitly teach the radius bend having a length of 1 inch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the radius bend such that it has a length of 1 inch, in order to provide a long, rounded edge, thereby protecting objects, like fry baskets, that would repeatedly come into contact therewith, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 5, the metal sheet of the foam deck and the radius bend have a thickness
that are substantially equal (middle front wall portion 13b and the bend have substantially equal thicknesses; figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, the sheet metal of the radius bend and the front wall have a thickness that are substantially equal (lower front wall portion 13a and the bend have substantially equal thicknesses; figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Takeda, as modified above by Faddi, teaches stainless steel (paragraphs [0042]-[0045] of Faddi).
Regarding claim 21, the sheet metal of the radius bend has a thickness that is substantially uniform (figure 3).
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (U.S. 2003/0111072) in view of Kuwayama (U.S. 2011/0192232) and Faddi (U.S. 2005/0069602). Regarding claim 10, Takeda discloses a method of forming a frypot, comprising sheet metal having a radius bend between a foam deck (middle front wall portion 13b; figure 2, 3) and a front wall that is a downward extending vertical face of the frypot (lower front wail portion 13a, a radius bend between 13b and 13a; figures 2, 3). Takeda fails to explicitly disclose bending sheet metal by a punch and a press break die to form the radius bend between the foam deck and the front wall. Kuwayama teaches bending sheet metal by a punch and a press break die to form a radius bend between a foam deck and a front wall (paragraph [0095]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeda with the teaching of Kuwayama where the vat components are formed by the very conventionally known punch and die process, in order to use the most economical manner to manufacture the bent metal components.
Takeda also fails to explicitly disclose the radius bend has a bend radius of between 0.25 inches and 1.5 inches and except for the sheet metal being 16 or 18 gauge stainless steel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the radius bend such that it has a bend radius of between 0.25 inches and 1.5 inches, in order to eliminate sharp edges, thereby protecting objects, like fry baskets, that would repeatedly come into contact therewith, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Further regarding claim 10, Faddi teaches that it is known to use 16 or 18 grade stainless steel in a cooking utensil which is meant to be submerged in hot oil (see paragraph [0004] and paragraphs [0042]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified frypot of Takeda made from the material taught by Faddi, in order to use food grade material that withstands cooking heat and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, the modified frypot of Takeda fails to explicitly disclose the bend radius is between 0.95 and 1.05 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bend radius such that it is between 0.95 and 1.05 inches, in order to eliminate sharp edges with a very rounded bend, thereby protecting objects, like fry baskets, that would repeatedly come into contact therewith, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 12, the modified fry pot of Takeda fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bend radius is 0.5 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bend radius such that it is 0.5 inches, in order to provide a rounded edge, thereby protecting objects, like fry baskets, that would repeatedly come into contact therewith, while making it sufficiently sharp that it does not waste material, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)), and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 13, the modified fry pot of Takeda fails to explicitly teach the radius bend having a length of 1 inch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the radius bend such that it has a length of 1 inch, in order to provide a long, rounded edge, thereby protecting objects, like fry baskets, that would repeatedly come into contact therewith, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 14, the metal sheet of the foam deck and the radius bend have a thickness that are substantially equal (middle front wall portion 13b and the bend have substantially equal thicknesses; figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, the sheet metal of the radius bend and the front wall have a thickness that are substantially equal (lower front wall portion 13a and the bend have substantially equal thicknesses; figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, Takeda, as modified above by Faddi, teaches stainless steel (paragraphs [0042]-[0045] of Faddi).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (U.S. 2003/0111072). Regarding claim 19, Takeda teaches a frypot of a commercial deep fat fryer (frypot, “Liquid heating cooker”; title) comprising a foam deck (middle front wall portion 13b; figures 2, 3), a front wall that is a downward extending vertical face of the frypot (lower front wall portion 13a; figures 2, 3), and a radius bend between the foam deck of the frypot and the front wall (radius bend joining 13b to 13a; figures 2, 3; paragraph [0054]), the thickness of the sheet metal at the foam deck and at the radius bend are substantially equal (lower front wall portion 13a and the bend have substantially equal thicknesses; figure 3).
Takeda fails to explicitly disclose the radius bend has a bend radius of between 0.25 inches and 1.5 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the radius bend such that it has a bend radius of between 0.25 inches and 1.5 inches, in order to eliminate sharp edges, thereby protecting objects, like fry baskets, that would repeatedly come into contact therewith, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 20, the thickness of the sheet metal at the foam deck, the radius bend, and the front wall are substantially equal (figure 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed April 4, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-16 based upon Takeda et al. (U.S. 2003/0111072) applied under 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth above and in the last Office action because the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The affidavit discusses the criticality of the angle of 0.50”, however, the rejected claims do not require this specific angle. The claims set forth an angle with a range of .025” to 1.5”. There is no nexus between the evidence of unexpected results and the scope of the claims. The evidence showing unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the invention as claimed.
Applicant argues that if “a large bend radius in a frypot were obvious, it would have been disclosed in the prior art by now”. The examiner disagrees with this position because when the larger bend radius is obvious, it prevents patenting because it is obvious under 35 U.S. 103.
Applicant states that forming a frypot with a larger radius is more difficult. It is the examiner’s position that one of the reasons the Takeda frypot is still in use could be because it is easier to form. Even when a larger radius is known, users may still choose the Takeda frypot because it is easier to form.
Applicant argues that Takeda does not the relationship between bend radius and durability. It is the examiner’s position that it is well known in the metal container making arts that a bend radius impacts material integrity in sheet metal fabrication. Typically, a smaller bend radius can lead to material cracking and a larger bend radius reduces this risk of material cracking.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights