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, the “planar portion” as recited in claim 1; and a “camber” in the planar portion, as recited in claim 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 11-27 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 1, it is unclear from the specification to what or which structure applicant is referring with the recited “planar portion”. Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/24/2026, indicates the planar portion is disclosed with reference numeral 12, however those arguments contradict the Amendment to the Written Description which discloses reference numeral 12 as “central portion”. Further, Applicant arguments indicated reference numeral 12 is the planar portion, but reference numeral 12 appears to be the same surface as reference numeral 16 in figure 2, however in figure 3, reference numeral 16 is not planar. Regarding claim 26, it is unclear which structure is referred as a “camber” of the planar portion. Applicant’s Written Description mention the terms of the “planar portion” and the “camber” of the planar portion, but fails to properly disclose what exactly is the “planar portion” and its “camber”. Nowhere in the written description is a reference numeral identifying any of the planar portion and a camber of the planar portion. Regarding claims 12-27, the claims are rejected because inherit the same issues from independent claim 11 based on its dependency.
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 11-15, 17, 19, 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilkinson (US 2020/0237144).
Claim 11
Wilkinson discloses a carrier (10) for items to be cooked, comprising a sheet-like base (defined by 100 in combination with 200) including a planar portion (110) with alternately relatively higher portion (defined by top surface of 130) and deeper (defined by bottom of 130) portions (see figures 6 and 7), with the higher portions forming closed elevations capable of supporting the items to be cooked, and with the deeper portions between the elevations having each a plurality of base apertures (132), wherein the base contains a placement portion (240), said planar portion being arranged above the placement portion in a height direction, wherein the placement portion encloses the planar portion in a frame-shaped manner (see figure 6).
Claim 12
Wilkinson further discloses the carrier is constructed in a form of a baking tray (see figure 6).
Claim 13
Wilkinson further discloses the elevations are ridges (see figures 6 and 7).
Claim 14
Wilkinson further discloses the deeper portions are channels (see figure 6).
Claim 15
Wilkinson further discloses the plurality of base apertures are uniformly spaced (see figure 6).
Claim 17
PNG
media_image1.png
364
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wilkinson further discloses the placement portion is arranged adjacent to a wall of the carrier which wall extends away from the base (see figure above).
Claim 19
Wilkinson discloses a carrier (10) for items to be cooked, the carrier comprising a base (100) including a planar portion having alternating higher portions (defined by top surface of 130) and deeper portions (defined by bottom of 130) (see figures 6 and 7), wherein the base is shaped as a sheet, wherein the higher portions form elevations capable of supporting the items to be cooked, and wherein the deeper portions are arranged between the higher portions and each deeper portion comprises a plurality of base apertures (132), wherein the base contains a placement portion (140), wherein the planar portion is arranged above the placement portion in a height direction (see figure 4).
Claim 21
Wilkinson further discloses the base apertures are shaped configured as slots which extend parallel to the closed elevations at a lowest point of the planar portion in a height direction (see figure 7).
Claim 26
Wilkinson further discloses the planar portion has a camber in a negative height/downward direction (see figure 4).
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 20, 24, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson (US 2020/0237144) as applied to claims 11, 16, or 26 above.
Claims 20, 24, 25 and 27
Wilkinson is silent disclosing distance between the planar portion and the placement portion; distance between the base apertures and the crest portions; distance between base apertures; and a sized of the camber in the planar portion, as required. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier of Wilkinson having the required distance between the planar portion and the placement portion; distance between the base apertures and the crest portions; and distance between base apertures as required depending the desired size of the carrier and/or drainage effectiveness of the carrier when food is placed over the carrier. Please note that applicant’s specification does not disclose any criticality for the distances and/or measurements required for the carrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant argument with respect to the drawing objection, the examiner disagrees. The amendment of the Applicant’s Written Description indicates the planar portion is reference numeral 12, however this is inconsistent with the Amended Written Description which discloses reference numeral 12 is “central portion”. Regarding the arguments that the “camber”, recited in claims 26 and 27, does not need to be shown, the examiner disagrees. Every single structural feature required in the claims needs to be shown for complete and proper understanding of the invention. See MPEP 608.02(d). With respect to the argument of the 112, second paragraph, the examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/24/2026, indicates the planar portion is disclosed with reference numeral 12 which contradict the Amendment to the Written Description that discloses reference numeral 12 as “central portion”. In addition, Applicant arguments indicated reference numeral 12 is the planar portion, but reference numeral 12 appears to be the same surface and/or structure as reference numeral 16 in figure 2. Furthermore, figure 3, reference numeral 16, is not planar. Nowhere in the written description is a reference numeral explicitly indicating what is the “planar portion”, and in a same way disclosing what structure is the “camber” of the planar portion. The definiteness of the claim elements is not determined by the presence of reference labels in the specification but helps to better understand the feature applicant is referring to and properly interpret the claimed invention. Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to the prior art, the arguments are moot because the claims are rejected based on the teachings of a new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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. Aviles 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
