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 § 112
Claims 1-3, 6-18, and 20 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.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to state the first surface is “configured to receive the food item”. However, based on what is shown in the figures, it would appear as though the second surface (130) would receive the food item on it so that when the fork pierces the food, the fork tines can go in to the recesses between the ribs (134). If the food was on the first surface (120), the panel would not facilitate insertion of a utensil through a food item. For purposes of further examination, the claims are being interpreted as stating the second surface is “configured to receive the food item”.
Claim 1 has been amended to state “the plurality of protrusions elevate the panel creating a vacuum space under portions of the second surface” and claim 11 has been amended to state “the plurality of ribs elevate the panel creating a vacuum space under portions of the second surface”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is unclear how a vacuum space is created under the portions of the second surface. In order to maintain a vacuum, the space has to retain a closed configuration. Nowhere in the specification or figures does the Applicant appear to show a “vacuum space”. The claims have been examined below as best the Examiner can understand.
In addition to the vacuum space, Claim 11 also now states “the plurality of ribs elevate the panel”. It’s unclear how the plurality of ribs “elevate” the panel. Does the Applicant intend to state “the plurality of ribs elevate the [[panel]] second surface”? For purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as stating the plurality of ribs elevate the second surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-3 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ein-Gal (US 2010/0252561) in view of Hatcher (US 2012/0211394), and further in view of Bryant (US 6279771).
Regarding Claim 1
Ein-Gal teaches a panel (below – Fig. 1 and 2) for facilitating insertion of a utensil through a food item, the panel comprising: a first surface (22), a second surface (12) opposite the first surface and configured to receive the food item, and a panel perimeter (shown at 15) defining a panel shape; wherein the first surface is substantially planar and a plurality of protrusions (shown at 17) extend downward away from the second surface toward the first surface; the plurality of protrusions elevate the second surface creating a vacuum space (16) (inasmuch as Applicant shows) under portions of the second surface; a panel thickness extending between the first surface and the second surface; wherein the panel is formed of a material that is food-grade, and may include silicone (Paragraphs [0015]-[0024]).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
136
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ein-Gal does not teach the plurality of protrusions extend downward away from the second surface in a direction perpendicular to the first surface the panel is formed of an elastic panel material that is flexible, resilient, and food-grade.
Hatcher teaches a panel (below – Fig. 1 and 5), the panel (120b) comprising: a first surface (e.g. 500), a second surface (510) opposite the first surface and configured to receive the food item, and a panel perimeter defining a panel shape; wherein the first surface is substantially planar; a panel thickness extending between the first surface and the second surface; a plurality of protrusions; wherein the panel is formed of an elastic panel material that is flexible, resilient, and food-grade (Paragraphs [0012] and [0015]).
PNG
media_image3.png
282
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
215
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ein-Gal and Hatcher are analogous inventions in the field of food containers with inserts. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the food-grade panel material of Ein-Gal with the teachings of an elastic panel material that is flexible, resilient, and food-grade of Hatcher in order to provide traction when inserted in to another container (Paragraph [0012]).
Bryant teaches a panel for a food item (Fig. 2 and 4), the panel comprising: a first surface (28), a second surface (26) opposite the first surface and configured to receive the food item, and a panel perimeter (32) defining a panel shape; wherein the first surface is substantially planar and a plurality of protrusions (27) extend downward away from the second surface in a direction perpendicular to the first surface; the plurality of protrusions elevate the second surface creating a vacuum space (18/20) (inasmuch as Applicant shows) under portions of the second surface; and a panel thickness extending between the first surface and the second surface.
PNG
media_image5.png
307
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
150
410
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ein-Gal in view of Hatcher and Bryant are analogous inventions in the field of food containers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the protrusions of Ein-Gal in view of Hatcher with the teachings of perpendicular protrusions of Bryant in order to provide larger recesses for the utensil to be inserted in to.
Regarding Claim 2
Ein-Gal in view of Hatcher and further in view of Bryant (hereinafter “modified Ein-Gal”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hatcher further teaches elastic panel material comprises food-grade silicone.
Regarding Claim 3
Modified Ein-Gal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ein-Gal further teaches the second surface comprises a rim (15) extending around the panel perimeter.
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Ein-Gal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ein-Gal further teaches substrate (24) coupled to the second surface (12) of the panel, wherein the substrate is formed of a rigid material (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Ein-Gal teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Ein-Gal further teaches the panel and the substrate together are formed in the shape of a plate, as can be seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Ein-Gal teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as stated above. However, Ein-Gal does not specifically teach the panel and the substrate together are formed in the shape of a bowl. At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the panel and the substrate together formed in the shape of a bowl since such a modification would have involved a mere change of shape. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Applicant has not disclosed that the panel and the substrate together being formed in the shape of a bowl provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the panel and the substrate together being formed in the shape of a bowl does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Ein-Gal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ein-Gal further teaches the panel is configured for placement on top of a plate (Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Ein-Gal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. However, Ein-Gal does not specifically teach the panel is configured for placement on top of a bowl. At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the panel is configured for placement on top of a bowl since such a modification would have involved a mere change of shape. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Applicant has not disclosed that the panel being configured for placement on top of a bowl provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the panel being configured for placement on top of a bowl does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ein-Gal (US 2010/0252561) in view of Hatcher (US 2012/0211394).
Regarding Claim 11
Ein-Gal teaches a panel (Fig. 1 and 2) for facilitating insertion of a utensil through a food item, the panel comprising: a first surface (22), a second surface (12) opposite the first surface and configured to receive the food item, and a panel perimeter (shown at 15) defining a panel shape; wherein the first surface is substantially planar; a panel thickness extending between the first surface and the second surface; wherein the second surface comprises a plurality of ribs (17) formed in a parallel line pattern; and the plurality of ribs elevate the second surface creating a vacuum space (16) (inasmuch as Applicant shows) under portions of the second surface; and the panel is formed of an material that is food-grade (Paragraphs [0015]-[0024]).
Ein-Gal does not teach the second surface comprises a plurality of ribs formed in a crossed pattern; and panel is formed of an elastic panel material that is flexible, resilient, and food-grade.
Hatcher teaches a panel (Fig. 1 and 5), the panel (120b) comprising: a first surface (e.g. 500), a second surface (510) opposite the first surface and configured to receive a food item, and a panel perimeter defining a panel shape; wherein the first surface is substantially planar; a panel thickness extending between the first surface and the second surface; wherein the second surface comprises a plurality of ribs formed in a crossed pattern; wherein the panel is formed of an elastic panel material that is flexible, resilient, and food-grade (Paragraphs [0012] and [0015]).
Ein-Gal and Hatcher are analogous inventions in the field of food containers with inserts. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the food-grade panel material of Ein-Gal with the teachings of an elastic panel material that is flexible, resilient, and food-grade of Hatcher in order to provide traction when inserted in to another container (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 12
Ein-Gal in view of Hatcher (hereinafter “modified Ein-Gal2”) teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Modified Ein-Gal2 does not teach the panel thickness is between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the panel thickness being between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches, 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. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that having the panel thickness between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the panel thickness being between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Ein-Gal2 teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Ein-Gal further teaches the panel shape comprises a circular shape.
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Ein-Gal2 teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Ein-Gal further teaches second surface (12) comprises a rim (15) extending around the panel perimeter and formed integrally with the plurality of ribs (17).
Regarding Claim 15
Modified Ein-Gal2 teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Ein-Gal further teaches the rim comprises a rim height. Ein-Gal does not specifically teach the rim height is between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches and equal to a rib height. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the rim height between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches and equal to a rib height, 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. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that having the rim height between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches and equal to a rib height provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the rim height being between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches and equal to a rib height does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17
Modified Ein-Gal2 teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Ein-Gal does not specifically teach the plurality of ribs comprise a rib width between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches; and a rib height between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the plurality of ribs comprise a rib width between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches; and a rib height between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches, 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. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that having the plurality of ribs comprise a rib width between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches; and a rib height between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the plurality of ribs comprising a rib width between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches; and a rib height between 0.050 inches and 0.125 inches does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 18
Modified Ein-Gal2 teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Ein-Gal does not specifically teach the plurality of ribs comprises between 5 and 10 individual ribs. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the plurality of ribs comprises between 5 and 10 individual ribs based on the size of the plate, 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. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that having the plurality of ribs comprise between 5 and 10 individual ribs provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the plurality of ribs comprising between 5 and 10 individual ribs does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 20
Modified Ein-Gal2 teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Hatcher further teaches elastic panel material comprises food-grade silicone.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Based on Applicant’s arguments it’s unclear what the Applicant believes is the first surface and the second surface with regards to the claim limitations versus the drawing descriptions and reference numbers. The claims have been interpreted as best the Examiner can understand above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 23 March 2026