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 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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14 and16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vines (U.S. Patent No. 3729764).
Regarding Claim 1, Vines discloses a baking pan 10 (Figure 1) for baking a product having different levels of doneness, the baking pan comprising: a first bottom portion 26a (figure 1) at a first depth from and generally parallel with an upper edge (figure 1) of the baking pan; and a second bottom portion 26b (Figure 1) generally parallel with the upper edge of the baking pan (figure 2), the second bottom portion at a second depth from the upper edge of the baking pan that is different than the first depth of the first bottom portion from the upper edge (Figure 2), the first and second bottom portions being unobstructed from each other (Figure 2); wherein the first and second bottom portions extend fully across a width of the baking pan (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Vines discloses the baking pan is configured such that when a material is placed into the baking pan, the material has: a first depth from an upper surface of the material over the first bottom portion (Figure 1), and a second depth from the upper surface of the material over the second bottom portion different from the first depth of the material from the upper surface of the material over the first bottom portion (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Vines discloses the baking pan is configured such that after baking the material in the baking pan, the material has different levels of doneness due to the difference in the first depth of the material from the upper surface of the material over the first bottom portion and the second depth of the material from the upper surface of the material over the second bottom portion (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Vines discloses the baking pan defines a single compartment for placement of a material therein (Figure 1), the single compartment including the first bottom portion and the second bottom portion (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Vines discloses the baking pan includes an open top hollow body configured to hold material therein (Figure 1), the open top hollow body including the upper edge, the first bottom portion, and the second bottom portion (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Vines discloses the open top hollow body includes at least four side walls each terminating at a bottom edge (Figure 1) generally parallel to a plane defined by the upper edge of the open top hollow body (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Vines discloses the upper edge of the baking pan defines a plane generally parallel to an upper surface of a material when the material placed into the baking pan (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Vines discloses the first and second bottom portions are generally parallel with a plane defined by the upper edge of the baking pan (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Vines discloses the first and second bottom portions extend fully across a width of the baking pan (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Vines discloses a transition portion 18/34 (Figure 1) between the first bottom portion and the second bottom portion.
Regarding Claim 11, Vines discloses the transition portion is an inclined surface 34 (Figure 1) extending from the first bottom portion to the second bottom portion (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Vines discloses the transition portion is vertical 18 (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Vines discloses a baking pan 10 (Figure 1) for baking a product having different levels of doneness, the baking pan comprising: a first bottom portion 26a (Figure 1) at a first depth from and generally parallel with an upper edge of the baking pan (Figure 2); and a second bottom portion 26b (Figure 1) generally parallel with the upper edge of the baking pan (Figure 2), the second bottom portion at a second depth from the upper edge of the baking pan that is different than the first depth of the first bottom portion from the upper edge (Figure 2), the first and second bottom portions being unobstructed from each other (Figure 2); wherein a length of the first bottom portion is equal to a length of the second bottom portion (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Vines discloses the baking pan includes at least two opposite side wall portions that terminate in a bottom straight edge such that the baking pan is level when placed on a level oven rack (Figure 2, lowest portions of 22/24).
Regarding Claim 17, Vines discloses the baking pan is configured such that the second depth of the second bottom portion from the upper edge of the baking pan is less than or shallower than the first depth of the first bottom portion from the upper edge of the baking pan (Figure 2); the baking pan includes a bottom (lower edges of 22/24, figure 2); and the second bottom portion is spaced apart from and above the bottom of the baking pan (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Vines discloses at least a portion of the bottom of the baking pan is generally flat and/or configured such that the baking pan is level when placed on a level oven rack (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Vines discloses a baking pan 10 (Figure 1) for baking a product having different levels of doneness, the baking pan comprising: a first bottom portion 26a (Figure 1) at a first depth from and generally parallel with an upper edge of the baking pan (Figure 2); and a second bottom portion 26b (Figure 1) generally parallel with the upper edge of the baking pan (Figure 2), the second bottom portion at a second depth from the upper edge of the baking pan that is different than the first depth of the first bottom portion from the upper edge (Figure 2), the first and second bottom portions being unobstructed from each other (Figure 2); wherein: the baking pan is configured such that the second depth of the second bottom portion from the upper edge of the baking pan is less than or shallower than the first depth of the first bottom portion from the upper edge of the baking pan (Figure 2); the baking pan includes a bottom (lower edge of 22/24 (Figure 2); the second bottom portion is spaced apart from and above the bottom of the baking pan (Figure 2); and the bottom of the baking pan includes one or more openings therethrough that are configured to allow a heated airflow from an oven to flow through the one or more openings to a lower surface of the second bottom portion (lower opening between 22/24 figure 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Vines discloses the first bottom portion is integrally defined by an interior portion of the bottom of the baking pan (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 21, Vines discloses the bottom of the baking pan defines an open area underneath the second bottom portion that is configured to allow a heated airflow from an oven to flow through the open area to a lower surface of the second bottom portion (Figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vines (U.S. Patent No. 3729764).
Regarding Claims 13 and 15, Vines teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a depth difference between the first depth and the second depth is within a range from about 1/4 inches to about 3/8 inches and a length of the first bottom portion is different than a length of the second bottom portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have different lengths of the first and second bottom portion since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP2144.004(IV)(A)
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vines (U.S. Patent No. 3729764) in view of Colonna (U.S. Patent No. 7288745).
Regarding Claim 22, Vines discloses a baking pan 10 (Figure 1) for baking a product having different levels of doneness, the baking pan comprising: a first bottom portion 26a (Figure 1) at a first depth from and generally parallel with an upper edge of the baking pan (Figure 2); and a second bottom portion 26b (Figure 1) generally parallel with the upper edge of the baking pan (Figure 2), the second bottom portion at a second depth from the upper edge of the baking pan that is different than the first depth of the first bottom portion from the upper edge (Figure 2), the first and second bottom portions being unobstructed from each other (Figure 2); wherein :the baking pan is configured such that the second depth of the second bottom portion from the upper edge of the baking pan is less than or shallower than the first depth of the first bottom portion from the upper edge of the baking pan (Figure 2); the baking pan includes a bottom (lower edge of 22/24 (Figure 2)); the second bottom portion is spaced apart from and above the bottom of the baking pan (Figure 2); the second bottom portion is spaced apart from and above the bottom of the baking pan by a spaced distance (Figure 2). Vines does not disclose the baking pan includes a sealed airtight cavity defined within the spaced distance between the second bottom portion and the bottom of the baking pan. However, Colonna teaches a lid (to seal the cavity; 25 figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vines to include the above, as taught by Colonna, in order to seal the compartment.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vines (U.S. Patent No. 3729764) in view of Rade (U.S. Patent No. 1531569).
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, Vines discloses a flat bottom defining the first bottom portion 26a (Figure 1). Vines does not disclose an insert configured to fit onto the flat bottom within the baking pan such that an upper surface of the insert defines the second bottom portion; wherein the insert includes a tapered edge for transitioning from the second bottom portion defined by the upper surface of the insert to the first bottom portion defined by the flat bottom of the baking pan. However, Rade teaches an insert 16 (Figure 2) configured to fit onto the flat bottom within the baking pan such that an upper surface of the insert defines the second bottom portion (Figure 2); wherein the insert includes a tapered edge 17 (Figure 2) for transitioning from the second bottom portion defined by the upper surface of the insert to the first bottom portion defined by the flat bottom of the baking pan (Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vines to include the above, as taught by Rade, in order to easily clean the pan.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 have been 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm 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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733