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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Apparent typographical error at paragraphs 0043, 0067, 0068, “silicon pad” (vs. “silicone” in paragraph 0036).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Apparent typographical error “silicon pad” (vs silicone as supported at paragraph 0036 of the specification). 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 6-12 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the support leg unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the leg supporting unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the lid cover unit includes a hole at an edge position of the lid cover unit through which the axle pin unit is coupled to the lid cover”. However, it is unclear how the axle pin unit (108/1106/1400) is to extend through a hole at an edge position of the lid cover unit, when the axle pin is required to extend through the hinge assembly and supporting leg in claim 6, and the disclosure (paragraph 0027, 004, 0047, 0070, Figs. 10-14) does not support the claimed configuration. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring the leg retainer unit mounted at the hole at the edge of the lid cover.
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) 1-3, 13-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 2012/0080430 (Hoff et al. hereinafter) in view of US PG Pub No. 2019/0021537 (Park hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2 below, Hoff et al. discloses: A condensation remover self-standing pan lid, comprising: a lid cover unit (16); a collection and disposal unit (18, 20, 22) coupled to the lid cover unit; a lid holder unit (17) coupled to the lid cover unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
717
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hoff et al. fails to disclose a self-standing unit coupled to the lid holder unit and the lid cover unit.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 4, Park discloses a self standing pan lid (2) wherein a self standing unit is coupled to a lid holder unit and a lid cover unit.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Self Standing unit)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support Leg Unit)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lid cover unit)][AltContent: textbox (Lid holder unit)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
422
384
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
395
385
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the lid holder unit of Hoff et al. to have included a self standing unit as taught by Park for the purposes of aiding in stable support of the lid in a removed position on a countertop when access to the contents of the pan are desired (Park paragraph 0033).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park discloses the claimed invention including wherein the lid cover unit is round (see Figs. 1 and 2 of Hoff et al. above), but not wherein the lid cover unit is concave in shape and the lid cover unit is made of tempered glass.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have designated the unknown shape of the inner surface of the lid 16 of Hoff et al. as concave, for example to ensure room to house element 22 in Fig. 5, since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 0037-38 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Further, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilized a known lid material such as tempered/fortified glass (Hoff et al. paragraph 0025), 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. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0038 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park discloses the claimed invention including wherein the lid cover unit includes a mount (see Fig. 2 of Hoff et al. and Fig. 5a of Park) at a geometric center of the lid cover unit to which the lid holder unit is coupled to the lid cover unit, but not wherein the mount is a hole.
However, with reference to Fig. 6, Park further discloses wherein a mount for the lid holder unit (at 21) is a hole through which a threaded fastener is provided (at 212-1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the mount for the lid holder unit of Hoff et al. as a hole as taught by Park for the purposes of ensuring a secure connection of the lid holder unit by provided attachment above and below the lid cover unit.
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park discloses the claimed invention including wherein the collection and disposal unit is configured to collect condensation accumulated on an inside face of the lid cover unit when the condensation remover self-standing pan lid is rotated to a vertical position (paragraphs 0036-0037), and to dispose of the collected condensation into a sink without dripping onto a countertop (note that condensation on areas which are above the collector when the lid is rotated vertically will run along lid 18 into the collector).
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitations “configured to collect condensation accumulated on an inside face of the lid cover unit when the condensation remover self-standing pan lid is rotated to a vertical position, and to dispose of the collected condensation into a sink without dripping onto a countertop” which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park discloses the claimed invention including wherein the collection and disposal unit has a shape of a ring that is firmly fixed to the lid cover unit by an upper diameter and rests on a pan by a lower diameter (See figs. 1 and 2).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park discloses the claimed invention including wherein the collection and disposal unit (18, 20, 22) is made of stainless steel (paragraph 0025).
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park discloses the claimed invention except wherein the lid holder unit includes an internal thread through which the lid holder unit is coupled to the lid cover unit by threading a screw into the internal thread.
However, with reference to Fig. 6, Park further discloses wherein a mount for the lid holder unit (at 21) is a hole through which a threaded fastener is provided (at 212-1), and attaches to an internally threaded portion of the lid holder unit (at 210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the mount for the lid holder unit of Hoff et al. as a threaded connection as taught by Park for the purposes of ensuring a secure connection of the lid holder unit by provided attachment above and below the lid cover unit.
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park discloses A cooking apparatus comprising: a pan (12); and a condensation remover self-standing pan lid fitting securely on top of the pan, wherein the condensation remover self-standing pan lid includes: a lid cover unit; a collection and disposal unit coupled to the lid cover unit; a lid holder unit coupled to the lid cover unit; and a self-standing unit coupled to the lid holder unit and the lid cover unit (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park discloses the claimed invention including wherein the condensation remover self-standing pan lid fits securely on top of the pan through the collection and disposal unit (as in re claim 14 above).
Claim(s) 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoff et al. in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 10,905,227 (Carnevali hereinafter).
In re claims 4, 5, 6 and 7, with reference to the Figs. above, Hoff et al. in view of Park discloses the claimed invention including wherein the self-standing unit includes a supporting leg unit , but not wherein the self-standing unit includes a hinge assembly unit through which the self-standing unit is coupled to the lid holder unit and the lid cover unit, the hinge assembly unit includes a hinge plate unit and a hinge base unit, and wherein the hinge assembly unit includes an axle pin unit and a supporting leg unit, the support[ing] leg unit being coupled to the hinge plate unit and the hinge base unit through the axle pin unit.
However, with reference to Figs. 3, 13 and 14, Carnevali discloses self standing unit which includes a hinge assembly unit through which the self-standing unit is coupled to a holder unit and a cover unit, the hinge assembly unit includes a hinge plate unit (30, 80) and a hinge base unit (32), and wherein the hinge assembly unit includes an axle pin unit (62) and a supporting leg unit (22), the support leg unit being coupled to the hinge plate unit and the hinge base unit through the axle pin unit (see figs. 15 and 16), the hinge assembly unit includes a leg retainer unit, the support leg unit being received by the leg retainer unit when the support leg unit is retracted (see figs. 13 and 3 below, channel of leg retainer unit is occupied by leg crossmember when retracted).
[AltContent: textbox (Leg Retainer Unit)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image5.png
694
539
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
777
498
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the self standing unit of Hoff et al. in view of Park to have provided a hinged attachment for the supporting leg unit of Park in the manner taught by Carnevali for the purposes of allowing the leg unit to position between a stowed state and a deployed state such that storage space requirements are minimized for an objected having a stowed supporting leg, while providing retention and guiding of the support leg into a leg retainer unit to ensure the leg is securely stowed in the retracted position.
In re claims 8 and 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park and Carnvali disclose the claimed invention including a plastic base (at 80), but not wherein the leg retainer unit comprises separate elements adhered together, namely a retaining silicon pad contacting the support leg unit and a retaining plastic base surrounding the retaining silicon pad, the leg retainer unit comprises an adhesive layer located between the retaining silicon pad and the retaining plastic to join the retaining silicon pad and the retaining plastic together.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the retainer unit of separate elements yet fixed to one another, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, V, C. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0043 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized a known material such as silicon for an element of the retainer unit, 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. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0043 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park and Carnvali disclose the claimed invention including wherein the axle pin unit (62) is configured to have a cylindrical shape (see figs. 15 and 16).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park and Carnvali disclose the claimed invention except wherein the lid cover unit includes a hole at an edge position of the lid cover unit [at which the leg retainer unit] is coupled to the lid cover.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided additional mounting holes in the lid cover for attachment of other portions of the self-standing unit, such as the leg retainer unit at a distance from the central hole of Hoff et al., since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0037 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hoff et al. in view of Park and Carnvali disclose the claimed invention including wherein the leg supporting unit is configured to tilt an angle with respect to the lid cover unit (see Figs. 13 and 14 above).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoff et al. in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2005/0205577 (Park ‘577 hereinafter).
In re claims 16 and 17, with reference to the Figs. above, Hoff et al. in view of Park discloses the claimed invention except wherein the lid holder unit is made of plastic, the lid holder unit is non-stick, durable and heat resistant, protecting a hand from heat.
However, Park ‘577 discloses a cookware lid having a handle (3) made of heat resistant plastic (paragraph 0029) which protects a hand from heat, and is known to be durable and non-stick (i.e. smooth plastic as shown).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized a known cookware handle material such as plastic as the handle material to protect a hand from heat as taught by Park ‘577, 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. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0054 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733