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 Objections
Claims 20 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 20 and 25 should be amended to depend from claim 19 to provide proper antecedent basis for the second lid. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 21, 23, and 25 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 scope of the claims cannot be ascertained because it is unclear which claim these claims depend from. The claims appear to have different limitations for different parent claims which renders the scope indefinite. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2021/137317 (hereinafter Tawara) in view of US Patent 2,780,163 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Tawara shows a sandwich crimper (fig. 1) for producing a sealed sandwich from two slices of bread comprising: a crimper base (2) with a substantially flat lower surface (10); a crimper lid (1) with a substantially flat upper surface (uppermost ring surface is flat); a bottom set (19) of peripheral crimping teeth disposed along the outer edge of the crimper base; a top set (18) of peripheral crimping teeth disposed along the outer edge of the crimper lid; wall (11) disposed along the outer edge of the bottom set of crimper teeth for aligning the bread relative to the crimping teeth and restraining the sandwich during the crimping process (par. 29). Tawara fails to show the teeth are formed from protruding trapezoidal prisms. Attention is turned to Lee in the same field of endeavor of food crimpers which shows configuring teeth as claimed (see fig. 1, 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to shape the teeth in any reasonable complementary geometric shape, and to select protruding trapezoidal prisms falls well within the purview of the invention as evidenced by the teachings of Lee.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7-9, and 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to shape and size the device depending on engineering design considerations. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed dimensions, and it appears that the device of Tawara as modified by Lee would work equally well within the claimed dimensions as such dimensions fall within typical bread thicknesses and slices.
Regarding claim 5, Tawara shows a protruding base wall (10) is disposed along the bottom set of crimping teeth for containing a crimped sandwich's contents during the crimping process.
Regarding claim 6, the base wall features a slope (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Tawara shows the edges of the crimper base and crimper lid are straight (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Tawara shows the crimper is square in shape (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 13, Tawara shows the corners are rounded (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 14, Tawara shows a lower crimping tooth in the bottom set of crimping teeth is disposed in each rounded corner of the crimper base with a complementary gap in the top set of crimping teeth in the crimper lid (see fig. 13, 14).
Regarding claim 15, Tawara shows the sandwich crimper is circular in shape (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Tawara shows each crimping tooth is identical in size and shape (fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 17, Tawara shows the top and bottom sets of crimping teeth are complementary in shape in a plurality of orientations (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Tawara shows an aperture (17) disposed in the crimper base for facilitating the removal of a crimped sandwich.
Regarding claims 21-25, the method would be performed under normal use of the device of Tawara (par. 35).
Claim(s) 19-20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tawara and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0235404 (hereinafter Atoui).
Regarding claims 19 and 20 and 25, Tawara and Lee fail to show a second lid is provided for forming a sealed container for storing the crimped sandwich in the crimper base after crimping, wherein the second lid is made from silicon. Attention is turned to Atoui which shows including a separate lid (20) in a food molding device that is made from silicone to aid in storage (par. 13, 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a second lid for forming a sealed container made from silicone to allow a user to easily transport the food without contamination or spilling as evidenced by the teaching of Atoui.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 6,754,965 is directed to the art of sandwich crimping tools.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights