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
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) 1-3, 9, 11-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Lill (US 4006675), cited by applicant.
Lill discloses a fry portioning basket, comprising: a frame having a first side (first longitudinal side with bottom, middle and top rim rails extending longitudinally as shown in Fig. 1), a second side (second longitudinal side with bottom, middle and top rim rails extending longitudinally as shown in Fig. 1), a front (end wall 16 at left in Fig. 1), a rear side (end wall 16 at right in Fig. 1), and a bottom side (base 12), the frame defining a cavity (defined by the interior of the sides) and having a frame height defined as a first distance between the bottom side and a top rim of the frame; one or more dividers (the trays 20 provide a food shelf 19, each tray having a horizontally extending portion and a vertically extending portion, the vertically extending portion forms a divider, there are five trays 20 shown in Fig. 1) positioned within the cavity and extending from the bottom side between the first side and the second side of the frame, the one or more dividers having a divider height defined as a second distance from a top of the one or more dividers and the bottom side of the frame, wherein the divider height is less than the frame height; and a handle (18) extending adjacent the rear side.
Re claim 2, a sub-cavity within the cavity of the frame is defined between the top of the one or more dividers and the bottom side of the frame, and between a first side of one of the one or more dividers and the front of the frame, and between the first side and the second side of the frame, and wherein the sub-cavity is sized to accommodate a serving of a food item 21.
Re claim 3, an upper area within the cavity of the frame is between the top of the one or more dividers and the top rim of the frame and between the first side and the second side and front and back of the frame, and wherein the upper area is sized to allow food items to float out of the sub-cavity when the fry portioning basket is at least partially submerged in cooking oil.
Re claim 9, insofar as wires cross each other, the frame is constructed of wire mesh.
Re claim 11, further comprising a hook (at front top rim there are two U-shaped bent portions connected by a laterally extending wire to form a hook) coupled to the top rim of the frame and configured to engage a fryer.
Re claim 12, a fry portioning basket, comprising: a wire mesh frame (horizontal, vertical and diagonal wires of base 12, front wall, back wall 14, end walls 16) having a first side, a second side, a front side, a rear side, and a bottom side, the wire mesh frame defining a cavity and having a frame height (height extending from base 12 to handle 18) defined as a first distance between the bottom side and a top rim (rim formed from diagonal wires adjacent to handle) of the wire mesh frame; two or more dividers (vertically extending portions of trays 20) positioned within the cavity and extending between the first side and the second side, each of the two or more dividers having a divider height defined as a second distance from the bottom side of the wire mesh frame and a top of one of the two or more dividers, wherein the divider height is less than the frame height, and wherein the two or more dividers are spaced apart such that a distance between the two or more dividers is substantially equal; and a handle 18 extending adjacent the rear side.
Re claim 13, a sub-cavity within the cavity of the wire mesh frame is defined as a space between the top of a first divider and the bottom side of the wire mesh frame, and between a first side of the first divider and the front side of the wire mesh frame, and between the first side and the second side of the wire mesh frame, and wherein the space of the sub-cavity is sized approximately to accommodate a serving of a food item 21.
Re claim 14, wherein an upper area within the cavity of the wire mesh frame is defined as between the top of the first divider and the top rim of the wire mesh frame and between the first side and the second side and the front side and the rear side of the wire mesh frame, and wherein the upper area is sized to allow food items to float out of the sub-cavity when the fry portioning basket is at least partially submerged in cooking oil.
Re claim 20, a method of manufacturing a fry portioning basket, comprising: providing a frame (horizontal, vertical and diagonal wires of base 12, front wall, back wall 14, end walls 16) having a first side, a second side, a front, a rear side, and a bottom side, the frame defining a cavity and having a frame height (height extending from base 12 to handle 18) defined as a first distance between the bottom side and a top rim (rim formed from diagonal wires adjacent to handle) of the frame; coupling one or more dividers (vertically extending portions of trays 20) within the cavity such that the dividers extend from the bottom side between the first side and the second side of the frame, the one or more dividers having a divider height defined as a second distance from a top of the one or more dividers and the bottom side of the frame, wherein the divider height is less than the frame height; and coupling a handle 18 to the frame such that the handle extends away from the rear side of the frame.
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) 4, 5, 10, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lill in view of Leng (US 2022/0408971), cited by applicant.
Re claims 4, 5, 15 and 16, Lill fails to disclose a removably coupled divider. Leng teaches removably coupled dividers (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 32, lines 1-9) which teaches C-shaped hooks formed as a first assembly part 22. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the attachment of the dividers to be removably coupled to allow selective repositioning, removal and addition of dividers in a manner to accommodate the food cavity size and spacing for appropriate frying of food elements. Re claims 5, 15 and 16, all five of the dividers are modified to be removably coupled.
Re claim 10, Lill fails to disclose dividers constructed of wire mesh. Leng teaches dividers constructed of wire mesh. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dividers to be wire mesh construction to lessen the weight of the divider and to allow the frying oil to be unobstructed in flow through the divider.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lill in view of Hodge (US 367981).
Re claims 6 and 19, Lill fails to disclose a first divider height different from a second divider height. Hodge teaches two dividers, each is adjustable in height, and one divider (lateral divider) is always higher than the other divider (longitudinal divider). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dividers to have a different height to accommodate segregated elements of different height or of different capacity requirement, e.g., to make the cavity larger to accommodate a larger volume and or quantity of elements.
Re claims 7, 8, 17, 18, Lill fails to disclose the specified divider height. Hodge teaches two dividers, each is adjustable in height such that the dividers can be collapsed to a very low profile or expanded to the full height of the container and match the height of the top rim of the container. Also, the dividers can be expanded to match approximately one-half the height of the frame height. Note that at one-half the frame height, “being between one-quarter and three-quarters” the frame height (claim 7); “being between one-third and two-thirds” the frame height (claim 8); “being between approximately one-quarter and approximately three-quarters” the frame height (claim 17); “being between approximately one-third and approximately two-thirds” the frame height (claim 18) are all met. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dividers to be one half the frame height as a compromise to provide a height sufficiently high enough to properly segregate elements in the compartments while not being a height which is considered too high such that it obstructs the user’s access to the compartments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733