DETAILED ACTION
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 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:
There is no antecedent basis in the specification for the term “air gap” as recited in claims 35 and 41.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 18, 28, 30 – 34, and 43 – 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now recites “the cooking device comprises a plurality of mounting legs positioned on the external outer surface of and rigidly affixed on the device”.
Claim 28 now recites “the cooking device comprises a plurality of mounting legs rigidly affixed on an external outermost surface of the cooking device”.
Applicant’s specification (paragraph [0329]) provides support for the mounting legs to be integrally formed with the housing of the cooking device or to be releasably coupled to the housing. The term “rigidly affixed” connotes that separately formed mounting legs would be attached in a non-removable manner, i.e., “rigidly affixed” which applicant’s specification does not provide support for. Therefore the recitations in claim 1, that “the cooking device comprises a plurality of mounting legs positioned on the external outer surface of and rigidly affixed on the device” and claim 28 that “the cooking device comprises a plurality of mounting legs rigidly affixed on an external outermost surface of the cooking device” are seen to constitute an issue of new matter and as such must be deleted.
Claims 31 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 recites “a handling feature is positioned on the cooking device and configured to be gripped by a user”. As recited it would appear that this represents a separate feature that would be positioned on the cooking device. Applicant has support for a specific “handle” “formed as a channel within the upper portion of the housing” of the cooking device (specification paragraph [0101]) but no support is seen for the provision of a much broader generic handling device that would be positioned on the cooking device. Therefore claim 31 is seen to raise an issue of new matter and as such must be deleted.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 18, 30, 32 – 36, and 43 – 46 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Remarks
All citations to Xia CN 210354406 refer to the attached machine translation.
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 1, 4, 5, 18, and 31 – 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. CN 210354406 in view of Shi et al. US 20200146497 as further evidenced by Insights.
Regarding claim 1, Xia discloses a method which comprises positioning a food product (placed within the basket) within the cavity of a vessel (inner pot 2) having a rim defining an opening which opening is capable of accessing the cavity (paragraph [0035] and fig. 2). A cooking device (cover 3) is positioned over the opening, (fig. 2 and 4), which cooking device comprises a plurality of mounting legs (flanges 321) positioned on the external outer surface of and rigidly affixed on the cooking device (paragraph [0043]) such that at least one of the plurality of mounting legs is visible when the cooking device is positioned on the vessel (fig. 4), and a heated airflow would be generated via the cooking device into the cavity (paragraph [0035]). In order to access the vessel and thus the food product contained therein the cooking device would necessarily have to be removed from the vessel.
Claim 1 differs from Xia in a lid being further fixed to the rim to seal in the food product within the vessel.
Shi discloses a method which comprises positioning a food product within the cavity of a vessel (container 102) having a bottom surface and a rim defining an opening (fig. 6) which opening is capable of accessing the cavity (paragraph [0033]) and fig. 2). A cooking device (104) would be positioned over the opening which cooking device would be positioned at a first height above the bottom surface of the vessel (fig. 2). Via the cooking device a heated airflow would be generated into the cavity (paragraph [0033]). In order to access the vessel and thus the food product contained therein the cooking device would necessarily have to be removed from the opening and the cooking device would be capable of contacting a support surface at a second height below the bottom surface of the vessel. Shi further discloses a lid (103) would be fixed to the rim of the vessel which lid obviously would seal the food product within said vessel (fig. 2).
As further evidenced by Insights (page 2), when you put a lid on, the heat stays in the pot. Therefore to modify Xia and fix a lid over the opening where the lid seals the food product within the vessel to keep the food product warm would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan when the cooking device is removed from the opening of the vessel
Regarding claim 4, Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights disclose the vessel would include a base (1) positioned on the bottom surface of the vessel (‘406, paragraph [0035] and fig 4).
Regarding claim 5, Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights disclose positioning the cooking device (16) over the opening comprises vertically positioning the cooking device over the vessel (‘406, fig. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 18, Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights disclose the cooking device includes a heating element (315) (‘406, paragraph [0036]) which heating element would obviously be spaced from a support surface when the cooking device would be removed from the opening.
Regarding claim 31, Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights disclose a handling feature (cover 3 can be separated and closed) is positioned on the cooking device and capable of being gripped by a user (‘406, paragraph [0035] and fig. 3) which is to say that since the cover can be separated and closed it is obvious that there would be a handling feature thereon as clearly seen in figure 3.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights disclose an input interface (control panel 35) is positioned on the cooking device which input interface comprises a plurality on inputs capable of allowing a user to control the cooking device (‘406, paragraph [0036] and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 34, Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights, as seen in figure 2 of Xia, shows the handling feature to have raised ridges around the periphery of said handling feature which is to say that it would be obvious that each handling feature would have at least one depression. Further, once it was known to provide handling features the configuration of the claimed handling feature would have been a matter of choice and or design which the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed handling feature was significant (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.).
Regarding claim 35, Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights disclose there would be an air gap (space between positioning ribs 53) (‘406, paragraph [0038]) (holes 11) (‘406, paragraph [0042]) between a portion of the base and the vessel (‘406, fig. 5 – 7 and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 36, Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights disclose the base (1) would include a first handle and a second handle positioned on opposite sides of the vessel (‘406, fig. 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. CN 210354406 in view of Shi et al. US 20200146497 as further evidenced by Insights in view of Moller et al. US 3,817,419 as further evidenced by Antal, SR. et al. US 2012/0006824, Smyers et al. US 2012/0248116, and Koo US 2004/0084464.
Regarding claim 2, Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights does not disclose a clamping member, it is seen as obvious to have provided a mechanism to secure the lid to positively mechanically connect the lid to the vessel to prevent the spillage of a contained food product when moving or storing said vessel. Further note that Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights does disclose the use of engagement hooks (51) (‘298, paragraph [0055]) to clamp the cooking device to the vessel therefore it would have been an obvious matter of choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan to use a clamping member to hold the lid in place as well. Nevertheless, once it was known to positively mechanically connect any lid to the vessel the substitution of one known positive mechanical connection member for another known positive mechanical connection member to obtain predictable results would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan absent compelling evidence to the contrary. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (2144.06). Nevertheless, Moller discloses that it was old and conventional in the art to provide a lid with a clamping member (latching mechanism 20) with which to positively mechanically connect the lid (closure or cover 21) to a vessel (col. 1, ln 63 – col, 2, ln 22 and fig. 1 and 2). Moller is providing a lid with a clamping member capable of positively mechanically connecting the lid to a vessel in order to conveniently open and seal the vessel in use which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights does and provide the lid with a clamping member to conveniently open and seal the vessel as taught by Moller would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Antal (paragraph [0023] and fig. 2 – 4), Smyers (paragraph [0016] and fig. 3), and Koo (paragraph [0016] – [0019} and fig. 3) provide further evidence that it was well established and conventional in the art to provide lids with clamping members that would be capable of positively mechanically connecting a lid to a vessel.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. CN 210354406 in view of Shi et al. US 20200146497 as further evidenced by Insights in view of Zakowski et al. US 2021/0137298.
Claim 7 differs from Xia in view of Shi as further evidenced by Insights in there being a crisper tray capable of being positioned within the cavity of the vessel.
Zakowski discloses there would be a crisper tray (basket 18) capable of being positioned within the cavity of a vessel and that the crisper tray would be used for convective, i.e., air frying (‘298, paragraph [0065] – [0066]) which would allow for heated air circulation around a food product positioned therein which is applicant’s reason for using a crisper tray as well. To therefore modify Xia in view of Shin and provide a crisper tray for use in the vessel as taught by Zakowski would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claims 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30, and 37 – 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. CN 210354406.
Regarding claims 20 and 22, Xia discloses a method which method comprises positioning a vessel on a support surface. The vessel has a rim defining an opening capable of accessing a cavity, a cooking device separate from the vessel is positioned onto the vessel such that the cooking device is vertically spaced from the support surface (paragraph [0011] and fig. 2), and the cooking device includes a heating element and a plurality of mounting legs (321) extending downward from and integral with the cooking device (fig. 2) such that at least one of the plurality of mounting legs is visible when the cooking device is positioned on the vessel (paragraph [0043] and fig. 4). The cooking device generates a heated airflow into the cavity of the vessel and the cooking device is removed from the vessel thereafter (paragraph [0009]). Regarding positioning the cooking device on the support surface such that the heating element faces and is exposed to the support surface, even though no food product has been claimed to have been placed in the vessel it is seen that in order for any food that might be placed in said vessel to be removed therefrom the cooking device would obviously have to have been removed from the vessel and placed on a support surface. When the cooking device is subsequently positioned on the support surface the heating device would obviously face and be exposed parallel to the support surface.
Regarding claim 24, Xia discloses the vessel would include a base (1) positioned on the bottom surface of the vessel (‘406, paragraph [0035] and fig 4) which as seen in figures 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Xia has legs that would support the vessel on the support surface.
Regarding claim 25, Xia discloses that positioning the cooking device over the opening comprises vertically positioning the cooking device over the vessel (‘406, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 37, Xia, as seen in figure 2 of Xia, shows the handling feature to have raised ridges around the periphery of said handling feature which is to say that it would be obvious that each handling feature would have at least one depression. Further, once it was known to provide handling features the configuration of the claimed handling feature would have been a matter of choice and or design which the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed handling feature was significant (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.).
Regarding claims 38 and 39, Xia discloses an input interface (control panel 35) is positioned on the cooking device which input interface comprises a plurality on inputs capable of allowing a user to control the cooking device (paragraph [0036] and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 40, Xia in view of Shi disclose a handling feature (cover 3 can be separated and closed) is positioned on the cooking device and capable of being gripped by a user (paragraph [0035] and fig. 3) which is to say that since the cover can be separated and closed it is obvious that there would be a handling feature thereon as clearly seen in figure 3.
Regarding claim 41, Xia discloses there would be an air gap (space between positioning ribs 53) (paragraph [0038]) (holes 11) (paragraph [0042]) between a portion of the base and the vessel (fig. 5 – 7 and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 42, Xia discloses the base (1) would include a first handle and a second handle positioned on opposite sides of the vessel (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, Xia discloses a method which comprises positioning a vessel on a support surface. The vessel has a rim defining an opening capable of accessing a cavity, a cooking device is positioned onto the vessel such that the cooking device is vertically spaced from the base (paragraph [0011] and fig. 2), which cooking device comprises a plurality of mounting legs (321) rigidly affixed on an external outermost surface of the cooking device (fig. 2) such that at least one of the plurality of mounting legs is visible when the cooing device is positioned on the vessel (paragraph [0043] and fig. 4), and the cooking device generates a heated airflow into the cavity of the vessel, and the cooking device is removed from the vessel thereafter (paragraph [0009]).
Claim 28 differs from Xia in the vessel having an irremovable base that supports the vessel above the support surface. Xia discloses that the vessel to which the cooking device would be positioned on and removed from would be provided in multiple sizes and that each vessel would further require a support body to account for differences in the various vessel sizes. In order to avoid having to provide multiple support bodies for each sized vessel it would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design. The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Zakowski, would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 V.B.).
Regarding claim 30, Xia discloses the cooking device includes a heating element (315) positioned therein (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claims 43 and 44, Xia, as seen in figure 2 of Xia , shows the handling feature to have raised ridges around the periphery of said handling feature. Figure 3 of Xia shows the coking device first and second handling features which is to say that it would be obvious that each handling feature would have at least one depression. Further, once it was known to provide handling features the configuration of each handling feature with respect to the number of depressions would have been a matter of choice and or design which the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed handling feature was significant (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.).
Regarding claims 45 and 46, Xia discloses an input interface (control panel 35) is positioned on the cooking device which input interface comprises a plurality on inputs capable of allowing a user to control the cooking device (paragraph [0036] and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 47, Xia discloses the base (1) would include a first handle and a second handle positioned on opposite sides of the vessel (fig. 3).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. CN 210354406 in view of Zakowski et al. US 2021/0137298.
Claim 27 differs from Xia in view of Shi in there being a crisper tray capable of being positioned within the cavity of the vessel.
Zakowski discloses there would be a crisper tray (basket 18) capable of being positioned within the cavity of a vessel and that the crisper tray would be used for convective, i.e., air frying (‘298, paragraph [0065] – [0066]) which would allow for heated air circulation around a food product positioned therein which is applicant’s reason for using a crisper tray as well. To therefore modify Xia and provide a crisper tray for use in the vessel as taught by Zakowski would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been fully and carefully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 30 January 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792