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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“an insulating layer removably disposed within the compartment on a bottom of the compartment” as in claim 15
Must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-14 are too faint (i.e. grayscale) for publication or reproduction. Each of the figures mentioned above need to be replaced with black and white drawings. See MPEP §608.02(VII)(B)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character 26 has been used to designate both “internal compartment” and “compartment” (see [0028])
reference character 72 has been used to designate “rigid side wall” “side wall” “zippable side wall” and “folded zippable side wall” (see [0042]-[0047])
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as noted in the drawing objections above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, ln. 6-10, the phrase in each instance, “…the compartment…” should read “…the internal compartment…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claims 2-17, ln. 1, the preamble of each claim currently reads, “The device of claim…” which should all be change to “The food serving device of claim…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes.
In claim 3, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the grooves…” should read “…the pair of grooves…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 15, ln. 2, the phrase in each instance, “…the compartment…” should read “…the internal compartment…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 16, ln. 6, the phrase, “…the side walls…” should read “…the rigid side walls…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 18, ln. 8, the phrase, “…the compartment…” should read “…the internal compartment…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 20, ln. 9, the phrase, “…the compartment…” should read “…the internal compartment…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“temperature control element” in claims 1, 13 and 18-20 (respectively).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The “temperature control element” is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a refrigeration pack or a hot pack, and equivalents thereof.
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 1-17 and 20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 1 is drawn to the sub-combination of: a food serving device with an internal compartment, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of: a food serving device with an internal compartment AND a temperature control element. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (claim 1, ln. 2-3, “…the main body including an internal compartment configured to receive a temperature control element…”), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (claim 1, ln. 7-8, requiring “…the temperature control element is enclosed within the compartment”). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of the claim(s) is/are required.
In claim 1, ln. 10, the phrase, “…can be…” is unclear, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the term “can” are required or optional. For examination purposes the recitation following the term “can” are consider to be optional limitations.
In claim 13, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…further comprises the temperature control element…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant defined “an internal compartment” in reference to “a temperature control element” which HAS NOT been positively recited per se in claim 1 (which claim 13 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 16, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the assembled main body and panel…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 20, ln. 8-10, the phrase in each instance, “…its…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
As for claims 2-17, due to their dependencies from claim 1, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TATMOHIK Wooden Gift Box (hereinafter Tatmohik).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Tatmohik discloses a device (i.e. in the form of a wooden gift box - which is capable of serving food) comprising:
a main body capable of receiving and serving food thereon, the main body including an internal compartment capable of receiving a temperature control element therein; and
a panel selectively engageable with the main body and movable between a closed position and an open position,
wherein, when the panel is in the closed position, the panel closes the compartment and forms a contiguous enclosure with the main body such that the temperature control element is enclosed within the compartment, and
wherein, when the panel is in the open position, the panel exposes the compartment such that the temperature control element can be removed from the compartment (see about this item, customer reviews and annotated fig. below).
Examiner’s note: with respect to the following limitation(s), “…configured to receive and serve food thereon…”, “…configured to receive a temperature control element…”, “…when the panel is in the closed position….the temperature control element is enclosed within the compartment…” and “…when the panel is in the open position….can be removed from the compartment…” are considered to be functional or intended-use limitations to no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Examiner further notes that applicant has set forth product or apparatus claims, which include functional language or terminology reciting the use, operation, or employment of the apparatus. Therefore, the examiner has treated such claim language in accordance with the MPEP and applicable case law. In other words, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP §2114); emphasis added.
PNG
media_image1.png
771
1178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tatmohik further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a top, a bottom, and an open side; and
the panel comprises an elongated side panel with a shape and size that corresponds to the open side such that, in the closed position, the elongated side panel fully covers the open side (see annotated fig. above).
Regarding claim 3, Tatmohik further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a pair of grooves; and the panel is slidably engaged within the grooves of the main body (see annotated fig. above).
Regarding claim 4, Tatmohik further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a compartment opening in a side of the main body; and the compartment opening comprises a pair of grooves configured to receive top and bottom sides of the panel such that the panel is slidably engaged therein (see annotated fig. above).
Regarding claim 5, Tatmohik further discloses wherein the compartment opening further comprises a lip configured to extend over an end of the panel, the lip having a groove therein configured to receive the end of the panel (see annotated fig. above).
Regarding claim 8, Tatmohik further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a magnet embedded within a panel-mating surface thereof; and the panel further comprises a corresponding magnet in a body-mating surface thereof such that the panel is magnetically engaged with the main body to retain the panel in the closed position (see highlighted portion of annotated fig. of “About this item” below).
PNG
media_image2.png
395
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s note: In the above disclosure (i.e. highlighted part). Examiner construe or interprets that to mean that the main body as well as the [slidable] panel each have magnets in order to ensure the panel closes the overall box or device. Therefore, Tatmohik teaches the claimed limitations above; emphasis added.
Regarding claim 12, Tatmohik further discloses wherein the panel is completely removable from the main body.
Alternative art rejection(s):
Claims 1-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zampichelli (US 3441165 A; hereinafter Zampichelli).
Regarding claim 1, Zampichelli discloses a device (5; i.e. in the form of a packaging box - which is capable of serving food) comprising:
a main body (10; capable of receiving and serving food thereon, the main body including an internal compartment capable of receiving a temperature control element therein; and
a panel (12) selectively engageable with the main body and movable between a closed position and an open position,
wherein, when the panel is in the closed position, the panel closes the compartment and forms a contiguous enclosure with the main body such that the temperature control element is enclosed within the compartment, and
wherein, when the panel is in the open position, the panel exposes the compartment such that the temperature control element can be removed from the compartment (Zampichelli Col. 2 ln. 33 – Col. 4 ln. 75 and Figs. 1-6).
Examiner’s note: with respect to the following limitation(s), “…configured to receive and serve food thereon…”, “…configured to receive a temperature control element…”, “…when the panel is in the closed position….the temperature control element is enclosed within the compartment…” and “…when the panel is in the open position….can be removed from the compartment…” are considered to be functional or intended-use limitations to no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Examiner further notes that applicant has set forth product or apparatus claims, which include functional language or terminology reciting the use, operation, or employment of the apparatus. Therefore, the examiner has treated such claim language in accordance with the MPEP and applicable case law. In other words, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP §2114); emphasis added.
Regarding claim 2, Zampichelli further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a top (11), a bottom (13), and an open side; and
the panel comprises an elongated side panel with a shape and size that corresponds to the open side such that, in the closed position, the elongated side panel fully covers the open side (see Zampichelli Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 3, Zampichelli further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a pair of grooves (31 and 32); and the panel is slidably engaged within the grooves of the main body (see Zampichelli Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Zampichelli further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a compartment opening in a side of the main body; and the compartment opening comprises a pair of grooves configured to receive top and bottom sides of the panel such that the panel is slidably engaged therein (see Zampichelli Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Zampichelli further discloses wherein the compartment opening further comprises a lip configured to extend over an end of the panel, the lip having a groove therein configured to receive the end of the panel (see Zampichelli Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Regarding claim 6, Zampichelli further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a first longitudinal side, a second longitudinal side, and a lateral side extending in between the first and second longitudinal sides;
the lateral side of the main body including a compartment opening therein; and
the compartment opening extends through the first longitudinal side of the main body (see Zampichelli Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, Zampichelli further discloses wherein: the panel is configured to slide across the compartment opening in a pair of opposing grooves in a top and a bottom of the main body from the first longitudinal side and toward the second longitudinal side until the panel covers the compartment opening in the lateral side of the main body (see Zampichelli Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Regarding claim 12, Zampichelli further discloses wherein the panel is completely removable from the main body (see Zampichelli Figs. 1-2).
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (TW M396807 U; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a device embodiment (i.e. in the form of a packaging box; as shown in Figs. 1-4 - which is capable of serving food) comprising:
a main body (10; capable of receiving and serving food thereon, the main body including an internal compartment capable of receiving a temperature control element therein; and
a panel (i.e. in the form of a sliding cover (2)) selectively engageable with the main body and movable between a closed position and an open position,
wherein, when the panel is in the closed position, the panel closes the compartment and forms a contiguous enclosure with the main body such that the temperature control element is enclosed within the compartment, and
wherein, when the panel is in the open position, the panel exposes the compartment such that the temperature control element can be removed from the compartment (Li pg. 2 – pg. 3 and Figs. 1-4).
Examiner’s note: with respect to the following limitation(s), “…configured to receive and serve food thereon…”, “…configured to receive a temperature control element…”, “…when the panel is in the closed position….the temperature control element is enclosed within the compartment…” and “…when the panel is in the open position….can be removed from the compartment…” are considered to be functional or intended-use limitations to no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Examiner further notes that applicant has set forth product or apparatus claims, which include functional language or terminology reciting the use, operation, or employment of the apparatus. Therefore, the examiner has treated such claim language in accordance with the MPEP and applicable case law. In other words, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP §2114); emphasis added.
Regarding claim 2, Li further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a top (14), a bottom (15), and an open side; and
the panel comprises an elongated side panel with a shape and size that corresponds to the open side such that, in the closed position, the elongated side panel fully covers the open side (see Li Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Li further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a pair of grooves (16); and the panel is slidably engaged within the grooves of the main body (see Li Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, Li further discloses wherein: the main body further comprises a compartment opening in a side of the main body; and the compartment opening comprises a pair of grooves configured to receive top and bottom sides of the panel such that the panel is slidably engaged therein (see Li Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Li further discloses wherein the compartment opening further comprises a lip (141 and 151) configured to extend over an end of the panel, the lip having a groove therein configured to receive the end of the panel (see Li Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Li further discloses wherein the panel further comprises: an elongated and rectangular body with a first end and a second end opposite the first end; and
a handle (i.e. in the form of ridge (24)) at the first end (see Li Figs. 2 and 4)
Regarding claim 11, Li further discloses wherein the handle matches a contour of the main body when the panel is engaged with the main body in the closed position (see Li Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, Li further discloses wherein the panel is completely removable from the main body (see Li Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Li further discloses wherein the panel is comprised of wood (Li pg. 2 – pg. 3).
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 of this title, 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 13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatmohik and further in view of Prosser (US 6386531 B1; hereinafter Prosser) and Scott (US 6651970 B2; hereinafter Scott).
Regarding claim 13, Tatmohik as above further teaches wherein the main body is comprised of wood and forming a cutting board; however, Tatmohik fails to teach a drip groove in a top thereof.
Prosser is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a food serving device (i.e. a multi-functional cutting board). Prosser teaches a food serving device (i.e. a cutting board (100)) comprising:
a main body (102-103 and 111-112) made of wood and a drip groove (i.e. in the form of flow through (106)) in a top thereof (Prosser Col. 2 ln. 31 – Col. 4 ln. 10 and Figs. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the top surface (of Tatmohik) with a similar drip groove (as taught by Prosser) to collect any excess debris or liquid on the top surface (which can also be an aesthetic design).
Further, Tatmohik fails to teach the device further comprises the temperature control element.
Scott is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a food serving device (i.e. a multi-functional cutting board). Scott teaches a food serving device embodiment (as shown in Fig. 9) comprising: a main body (i.e. the combination of cutting surface (66) AND a base unit (24) is what examiner equates to the claimed main body) having a compartment (i.e. the large central hole (25) formed within the base unit (24) is what examiner equates the claimed compartment), and
a temperature control element (i.e. in the form of a refreezable ice pack (70)) being received within the compartment of the main body (Scott Col. 8 ln. 54-67).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall device (of Tatmohik) with a similar temperature control element (as taught by Scott) in order to cool the cutting surface (i.e. the top surface of the main body).
Regarding claims 18-19, Tatmohik teaches a device (i.e. in the form of a wooden gift box - which is capable of serving food) comprising:
a main body capable of receiving and serving food thereon, the main body including an internal compartment with a compartment opening in a side of the main body (see annotated Tatmohik fig. above),
a panel selectively slidable within the compartment opening of the main body and configured to slide in a first direction to cover the compartment opening and enclose any content within the [internal] compartment in a closed position and slide in an opposite second direction to expose the compartment opening, allowing the user to remove or insert the content within the internal compartment (see about this item, customer reviews and annotated fig. above).
However, Tatmohik fails to teach a temperature control element removably disposed within the internal compartment and configured to maintain a temperature of the food on the main body.
Scott is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a food serving device (i.e. a multi-functional cutting board). Scott teaches a food serving device embodiment (as shown in Fig. 9) comprising: a main body (i.e. the combination of cutting surface (66) AND a base unit (24) is what examiner equates to the claimed main body) having a compartment (i.e. the large central hole (25) formed within the base unit (24) is what examiner equates the claimed compartment), and
a temperature control element (i.e. in the form of a refreezable ice pack (70) – what examiner equates to the claimed refrigeration pack) removably disposed within the compartment of the main body and configured to maintain a temperature of the food on the main body (Scott Col. 8 ln. 54-67).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall device (of Tatmohik) with a similar temperature control element (as taught by Scott) in order to cool the cutting surface (i.e. the top surface of the main body).
Claims 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatmohik in view of Hanson (US 10039358 B2; hereinafter Hanson).
Regarding claims 16-17, Tatmohik teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for an insulated carrying bag configured to encase and transport the assembled main body and panel, the insulated carrying bag comprising: a rigid bottom wall; rigid side walls extending from the bottom wall, one side wall comprising a zippable side wall; a zippable clear top removably connected to the side walls; and a multiplane zipper assembly comprising a slider and pull tab mechanism and a zipper chain extending around a portion of the perimeter of the clear top and each lateral side end of the zippable side wall, allowing a user unzip and outwardly and downwardly fold the clear top and zippable side wall and furthermore allowing the user to access and remove the main body from the now unzipped clear top and zippable side wall, without tilting the main body and wherein: the rigid bottom wall comprises a rigid structural support member; and each rigid side wall comprises a rigid structural support member.
Hanson is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is an insulated carrying bag. Hanson teaches an insulated carrying bag (11-12) that is capable of encasing and transporting the assembled main body and panel, the insulated bag comprising: a rigid bottom wall (15);
rigid side walls (13 and 14) extending from the bottom wall, one side wall comprising a zippable side wall;
a zippable top (16) removably connected to the side walls; and
a multiplane zipper assembly (26) comprising a slider and pull tab mechanism and a zipper chain extending around a portion of the perimeter of the top and each lateral side end of the zippable side wall, allowing a user unzip and outwardly and downwardly fold the top and zippable side wall and furthermore allowing the user to access and remove the main body from the now unzipped top and zippable side wall, without tilting the main body and wherein: the rigid bottom wall comprises a rigid structural support member (i.e. in the form heat-resistant lining (31 or 33); and
each rigid side wall comprises a rigid structural support member (i.e. in the form heat-resistant lining (31 or 33); Hanson Col. 2 ln. 60 – Col. 4 ln. 26 and Figs. 1a-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a similar insulated bag (as taught by Hanson) for the overall food serving device (of Tatmohik) to allow the user to carry multiple items at once and still maintain the freshness of the contents (due to the insulative properties of the carrying bag).
Further, 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 top (of modified Tatmohik) clear or transparent to allow the user to see the content stored within the overall carrying bag without opening the overall carrying bag. 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. See MPEP §2144.07
Claims 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (TW M396807 U; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 10, Li as above further teaches the handle having a protrusion extending outwardly from the elongated and rectangular body; however, Li fails to teach the protrusion being rounded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or make the protrusion (of Li) to provide a more comfortable grip for the user and the resultant structure(s) will work equally well.
Further, 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. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B)
Regarding claim 15, Li as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for an insulating layer removably disposed within the [internal] compartment on a bottom of the [internal] compartment.
Li teaches another device embodiment (as shown in Fig. 9) comprising: a main body capable of receiving and serving food thereon, the main body including an internal compartment capable of receiving a temperature control element therein; and
a panel (i.e. in the form of a sliding cover (20)) selectively engageable with the main body and movable between a closed position and an open position,
wherein, when the panel is in the closed position, the panel closes the compartment and forms a contiguous enclosure with the main body such that the temperature control element is enclosed within the compartment, and
wherein, when the panel is in the open position, the panel exposes the compartment such that the temperature control element can be removed from the compartment; and
an insulating layer (i.e. in the form of an inner box (60)) disposed within the [internal] compartment on a bottom of the [internal] compartment (see Li pg. 2-3).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device (of the embodiment of Li Figs. 1-4) with a similar insulating layer (as taught by the embodiment of Li Fig. 9) to allow the content being stored within the internal compartment is more stably secured.
Claims 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 3817372 A; hereinafter Smith) in view of Scott (US 6651970 B2; hereinafter Scott).
Regarding claim 20, Smith teaches a device (capable of serving food in the form of medication or pills) comprising:
a main body (6, 8, 10 and 12) configured to receive and serve food thereon, the main body including a top, a bottom, longitudinal sides, lateral sides, and an internal compartment with a pair of compartment openings thereof in both lateral sides;
a pair of panels (2 and 16) selectively and respectively slidable within the pair of compartment openings of the main body, each panel configured to slide in a first direction to cover its respective compartment opening and enclose the content within the compartment in a closed position and slide in an opposite second direction to expose its respective compartment opening, allowing a user to remove or insert the content within the internal compartment (Smith Col. 2 ln. 13-64 and Figs. 1-6).
However, Smith fails to teach a temperature control element removably disposed within the internal compartment and configured to maintain a temperature of the food on the main body.
Scott is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a food serving device (i.e. a multi-functional cutting board). Scott teaches a food serving device embodiment (as shown in Fig. 9) comprising: a main body (i.e. the combination of cutting surface (66) AND a base unit (24) is what examiner equates to the claimed main body) having a compartment (i.e. the large central hole (25) formed within the base unit (24) is what examiner equates the claimed compartment), and
a temperature control element (i.e. in the form of a refreezable ice pack (70) – what examiner equates to the claimed refrigeration pack) removably disposed within the compartment of the main body and configured to maintain a temperature of the food on the main body (Scott Col. 8 ln. 54-67).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall device (of Smith) with a similar temperature control element (as taught by Scott) in order to cool the overall device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 on 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736