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
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 11, examiner recommend deleting “differing ones of”.
In claim 16 line 9, examiner recommend deleting “differing ones of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0034], “FIG. 1” should be changed to “FIG. 2”.
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.
Claim 16-17 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.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaynes (US 4660724).
Regarding claim 1, Gaynes teaches method of a method of manufacturing a cooker hood, the cooker hood comprising a roof that defines a length and a width of the cooker hood, and sides that descend from the roof and define a height of the cooker hood, the method comprising:
- providing a first metal sheet that forms the sides (col 3 lines 39-41, “The most preferred form of the container is simply and inexpensively manufactured by stamping similar top and bottom walls and bending sheet metal for the four side walls”) of the cooker hood (the limitation “cooker hood” is intended function), the first metal sheet having a width and a length, the length being greater than the width, the first metal sheet having upper and lower lengthwise edges opposite from one another (first sheets that form walls of container 80 as shown in fig 2 inherently has a length and a width before bending process);
- providing a second metal sheet (col 5 lines 3-5, “top and bottom trays 12 and 14 are stamped from sheet steel”) that forms the roof of the cooker hood, the second metal sheet having a width and a length (top wall 18 of tray 12 inherently has a length and a width), the length being equal or greater than the width (see fig 2), the second metal sheet having peripheral edges (wall 18 inherently has edges);
- folding the first metal sheet across the width of the first metal sheet to define differing ones of the sides (sides of 16, fig 2. Col 4 lines 58-59, “integral sleeve 16 forming four rectangular walls”) of the cooker hood, and subsequently joining the upper lengthwise edge of the first metal sheet to the peripheral edges of the second metal sheet (top wall inherently is joined to sidewalls to form a container).
Regarding claim 2, Gaynes teaches the length of the second metal sheet is aligned with the length of the cooker hood and wherein the width of the second metal sheet is aligned with the width of the cooker hood (this is inherent in order for top wall to close the side walls).
Regarding claim 3, Gaynes teaches the length of the first metal sheet is aligned with the length of the cooker hood along a folded portion of the first metal sheet that defines a lengthwise side of the cooker hood, and wherein the length of the first metal sheet is aligned with the width of the cooker hood along a folded portion of the first metal sheet that defines a widthwise side of the cooker hood (see fig 2, sidewalls 16 are folded along corner seams 62, 64, 66, and 68).
Regarding claim 4, Gaynes teaches the second metal sheet forms the whole of the roof (top wall 18 forms roof of the container housing. “Cooker hood” is an intended function) of the cooker hood.
Regarding claim 7, Gaynes teaches the first metal sheet has a first widthwise edge and a second widthwise edge at an opposite end of the first metal sheet from the first widthwise edge, and wherein the method comprises joining the first and second widthwise edges to one another along the height (See fig 2, width edges are joined at joint 70) of the cooker hood.
Regarding claim 15, Gaynes teaches the length of the first metal sheet is substantially the same as a perimeter (perimeter of 12) of the second metal sheet.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gaynes (US 4660724) in view of Cheng (US 20210222964).
Regarding claims 5-6, Gaynes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach providing the first metal sheet (for claim 5) or second metal sheet (for claim 6) comprises unrolling the first metal sheet or the second metal sheet from a roll of metal sheet material wherein the width of the first metal sheet or second metal sheet is parallel to an axis of rotation of the roll.
Cheng teaches unrolling metal sheets from a roll metal sheet material ([0036] “the first and second metal sheets 150, 120 are metal coils, unrolled using an unwinder and then aligned by a suitable roller stand”).
As for the limitation about the width of the first metal sheet or second metal sheet is parallel to an axis of rotation of the roll, it would have been obvious for sheet metal to be rolled along the length of the sheet metal in order to form a compact metal sheet roll.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gaynes as taught by Cheng by unrolling sheet metal from rolls of sheet metal in order to allow users to transport large sheet metal more conveniently to different work sites. Users can just unroll enough length of sheet metal that is required to manufacture the product.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Applicant admitted prior art (figure 1 of instant application. Hereinafter AAPA).
Regarding claim 16, AAPA teaches a cooker hood comprising a roof (1) that defines a length and a width (roof 1 inherently has a length of width) of the cooker hood, the length being equal or greater than the width and the roof has a peripheral edge (length of roof 1 is greater than width of roof 1 and roof has a peripheral edge); sides (5) that descend from the roof and define a height (height of sides 5) of the cooker hood; the upper lengthwise edge of the sides is joined to the peripheral edges (upper edge of sides 5) of the second metal sheet.
As for the limitations that the sides are made from a first metal sheet while the roof is made from a second metal sheet, it’s noted that those limitations are considered “product-by-process” limitations. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 17, AAPA teaches the first metal sheet forms all of the sides of the cooker hood (again this is a product-by-process limitation. The sides are made from metal sheet. Whether or not they are made from one single sheet doesn’t distinguish over the structure of the prior art.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571)272-9059. 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights