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, 2, 4-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR101545265).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses cookware (Figure 1), comprising: a cooking vessel 200 (Figure 1); a bracket 220 (Figure 1) coupled to the cooking vessel (Figure 1), the bracket including: a bracket body (Figure 3); and a bridge (Figure 3) coupled to the bracket body and extending away from the cooking vessel (Figure 3), the bridge defining a slot (Figure 3); and a handle 100 (figure 1) removably coupled to the bracket, the handle including: a handle body 110 (Figure 1); a release tab 131 (Figure 4) coupled to the handle body and configured to move between a secure position and a release position (Figure 5a-c), wherein moving the release tab to the release position causes the release tab to disengage the bridge to decouple the handle from the bracket (Figure 5a).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses the cooking vessel is at least one of a pot, a pan, or a griddle 200 (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses the release tab further comprises a catch 131a (Figure 4) to receive the bridge in the secure position (Figure 5c).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the handle further comprises an alignment tab 121 (Figure 4) coupled to the handle body adjacent the release tab (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses the secure position the bridge is positioned between the alignment tab and the release tab (Figure 5c).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses the alignment tab engages with the bridge to position the bridge within a catch 131a (Figure 4) of the release tab (Figure 5c).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses moving the release tab to the release position comprises moving the release tab relative to the alignment tab remove the bridge from the catch to decouple the handle from the bracket (Figure 5a-c).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses a removeable handle 100 (Figure 1) for use with cookware comprising, comprising: a bracket220 (Figure 1) including: a bracket body (Figure 3); and a bridge (Figure 3) extending away from the bracket body and defining a slot (Figure 3); and the handle including: a handle body 110 (figure 1); a release tab 131 (Figure 4) including a catch 131a (Figure 4) and movable relative to the handle body between a secure position and a release position (Figure 5c); and an alignment tab 121 (Figure 4) extending across the catch (Figure 4), wherein in the secure position the alignment tab extends through the slot such that the bridge is positioned between the alignment tab and the release tab and the bridge engages with the catch to couple the handle to the bracket (Figure 5a-c), and in the release position the catch disengages the bridge to decouple the handle from the bracket (Figure 5a).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses the handle is removably coupled to the bracket (Figure 5a-c).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses the release tab elastically deforms to move between the secure position and the release position (spring, figure 5a-c).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim discloses the alignment tab has a first stiffness and the release tab has a second stiffness less than the first stiffness (figure 5a-c).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim discloses the bracket body comprises a first half (Figure 3) and a second half (figure 3), the bridge extending between the first half and the second half (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim discloses a first end (Figure 3) opposite a second end (Figure 3); and a middle section (Figure 3) extending between the first end and the second end and protruding out away from the first end and the second end, wherein the bridge extends within the middle section (Figure 3).
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) 3, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR101545265).
Regarding Claim 3 and 11, Kim discloses the bridge further comprises an upper extension and a lower extension (upper face and lower face of 220, figure 4), and wherein moving the release tab between the secure position to the release position causes the release tab to disengage the lower extension to decouple the handle from the bracket (figure 5a). Kim does not disclose the release tab disengaging from the upper extension. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made reverse the attachment since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for span of the bridge is substantially cross-shaped and the catch is substantially cross-shaped to receive the span. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the above since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR101545265) in view of Scott et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20100031475).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim discloses a cooking vessel 200 (figure 1); a bracket 220 (figure 1), wherein each bracket is coupled to a cooking vessels (figure 1), each bracket including: a bracket body (Figure 3); and a bridge (Figure 3) extending away from the bracket body and defining a slot (Figure 3); and a handle 100 (Figure 1) including: a handle body 110 (Figure 1); a release tab 131 (Figure 4) including a catch 131a (Figure 4) and movable relative to the handle body between a secure position and a release position (figure 5a-c); and an alignment tab 121 (Figure 4) extending across the catch, wherein in the secure position the alignment tab extends through the slot such that the bridge is positioned between the alignment tab and the release tab and the bridge engages with the catch to couple the handle to the bracket (Figure 5c), and in the release position the catch disengages the bridge to decouple the handle from the bracket (Figure 5a). Kim does not disclose a plurality of cooking vessels in a kit. However, Scott et al. teaches a plurality of pans (figure 11, paragraph 12) in a kit with a bracket on each pan (figure 11). 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 Kim to include multiple pans in a kit, as taught by Scott et al., in order to allow for less handles for easy storage.
Regarding Claim 18, Kim discloses the bridge further comprises an upper extension and a lower extension (upper face and lower face of 220, figure 4), and wherein moving the release tab between the secure position to the release position causes the release tab to disengage the lower extension to decouple the handle from the bracket (Figure 5a-c). Kim does not disclose the release tab disengaging from the upper extension. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made reverse the attachment since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding Claim 19, Kim discloses the release tab elastically deforms to move between the secure position and the release position (Figure 4 and 5a-c).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the plurality of cooking vessels comprises at least two of a pot, a pan, or a griddle. However, Scott et al. teaches a plurality of pans (figure 11, paragraph 12). 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 Kim to include multiple pans, as taught by Scott et al., in order to allow for less handles for easy storage.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights