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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 18/949,728 for a MODULAR CULINARY IMPLEMENT STORAGE SYSTEM, filed on 11/15/2024. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conner (U.S. Pat. 5,850,784).
Regarding claim 1, Conner teaches a modular culinary storage system (see below) comprising: a tray; a utensil bucket; and a knife block comprising: a first front end member; a second front end member; a plurality of elongated members; a back-end member; and a plurality of dividers disposed between at least one of the first front end member, the second front end member, the plurality of elongated members, and the back-end member; the tray, configured to house at least one of the utensil bucket and the knife block.
[AltContent: textbox (Back-end member)][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of dividers)]
[AltContent: textbox (Utensil bucket)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Knife block)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Elongated member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st
front end
member)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
508
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Elongated member)][AltContent: textbox (tray)]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd front end member)][AltContent: textbox (Elongated member)]
Regarding claim 13, Conner teaches of claim 1, wherein the plurality of dividers define a plurality of knife block compartments.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner (U.S. Pat. 5,850,784) in view of Umholtz et al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0120906).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 9, Conner teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach that the tray further comprises one or more magnetic tray members, the utensil bucket further comprises one or more magnetic utensil bucket members or the knife block further comprises one or more magnetic knife block members. Umholtz teaches a tray that comprises one or more magnetic tray members (300) in order to facilitate quick assembly of the system to other magnetic tray members. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the tray of Connor further comprising one or more magnetic tray members, the utensil bucket further comprising one or more magnetic utensil bucket members and the knife block further comprising one or more magnetic knife block members in order to provide a quick temporary connection to various members of the system, in view of Umholtz.
Regarding claim 12, Conner teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach that the tray further comprises a foot not traversing an entirety of the tray. Umholtz teaches that the tray further comprises a foot (170) not traversing an entirety of the tray in order to prevent a supporting surface from being scratched or damaged. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the tray of Connor further comprising a foot not traversing an entirety of the tray in order to prevent the tray from undesired movement and sliding, in view of Umholtz.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 10, 11 and 15-18 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 12042070, 7934610, 7448506 (culinary systems)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 February 7, 2026