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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Russa et al. (U.S. D243,993) in view of Chatterton et al. (U.S. 6,149,053). O’Russa et al. teaches a cooking pan (either upper or lower component; figure 7) comprising a metal bottom wall including a substantially smooth and flat inside surface (figures 7, 8, see also figure 2 which partial view of smooth inner surface of both upper and lower components) and a substantially flat outside surface, the substantially flat outside surface including a plurality of raised ribs (upper component ribs shown in figures 1, 6) extending away from a lower surface of the bottom wall (figures 7 and 8), the plurality of raised ribs being arranged in a pattern to cooperate with supports of a portable stove to hold the portable stove in place (figures 1, 6; capable of supporting and appropriately sized portable stove), with the substantially flat outside surface of the bottom wall facing upward and a combustion chamber of the portable stove above the bottom wall (upper component has bottom wall facing upward and is capable of receiving a combustion chamber thereon), and four metal sidewalls (figure 6 extending from perimeter of the bottom wall) extending away from the bottom wall and arranged in a substantially rectangular configuration to form a container closed on a first side by the bottom wall and open on second side opposite the bottom wall (figures 2 and 6).
Further regarding claim 1, O’Russa et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the bottom wall and side walls being made of metal. Chatterton et al. teaches that it is known to form a pan from metal (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the coking pan of O’Russa et al. with the bottom wall and side walls being made of metal, as taught by Chatterton et al., in order to use a durable material, suitable for cooking and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
*Note that the claims are drawn to the subcombination of the cooking pan and not the combination of the cooking pan and portable stove. The portable stove is not an element of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the metal bottom wall further includes a raised rim that extends away from the lower surface around a perimeter of the bottom wall (on upper component; figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, the plurality of raised ribs include ribs having straight middle sections of various lengths and rounded end sections (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, the pattern of the plurality of raised ribs includes perpendicular lines devoid of ribs (space between ribs located inwardly of ribs that run about the perimeter) between pluralities of the raised rib, the perpendicular lines devoid of ribs being arranged to cooperate with one or more support structures of a portable stove to hold the portable stove in place (capable of cooperating with appropriately sized support structures).
Regarding claim 8, the pattern of the plurality of raised ribs includes a rectangular path along the lower surface that surrounds a plurality of the raised ribs, wherein the path is devoid of any raised ribs (space between ribs located inwardly of ribs that run about the perimeter) and is configured to cooperate with one or more support structures of a portable stove to hold the portable stove in place (capable of cooperating with appropriately sized support structures).
Regarding claim 9, a first sidewall of the four metal sidewalls includes a first flange extending outwardly away from the first sidewall and away from the container (figure 3), wherein a second sidewall of the four metal sidewalls, which is opposite to the first sidewall, includes a second flange extending outwardly away from the sidewall and away from the container (figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, O’Russa et al. teaches an apparatus, shown in figure 1, comprising a first cooking pan (upper component) including a metal bottom wall including a substantially smooth and flat inside surface (figures 2, 7 and 8) and a substantially flat outside surface (figures 7, 8), the substantially flat outside surface including a plurality of raised ribs (figures 1 and 6) extending away from a lower surface of the bottom wall (figure 7), the plurality of raised ribs being arranged in a pattern to cooperate with supports of a portable stove to hold the portable stove in place (capable of supporting an appropriately sized portable stove), with the substantially flat outside surface of the bottom wall facing upward (figure 1) and a combustion chamber of the portable stove above the bottom wall, and four metal sidewalls extending away from the bottom wall (figures 7 and 8) and arranged in a substantially rectangular configuration to form a container closed on a first side by the bottom wall (figure 6) and open on second side opposite the bottom wall (figure 2), the container having a first depth (figure 7), and a second cooking pan (lower component) including a metal bottom wall including a substantially smooth and flat inside surface (figures 2, 7 and 8) and a substantially flat outside surface, the substantially flat outside surface including a plurality of raised ribs extending away from a lower surface of the bottom wall (figures 7 and 8; shown extending downwardly from bottom wall at perimeter of bottom wall), the plurality of raised ribs being arranged in a pattern to cooperate with supports of a portable stove to hold the portable stove in place (capable of supporting an appropriately sized portable stove), with the substantially flat outside surface of the bottom wall facing upward (figure 2) and a combustion chamber of the portable stove above the bottom wall, and four metal sidewalls extending away from the bottom wall (figures 7, 8) and arranged in a substantially rectangular configuration (figure 6) to form a container closed on a first side by the bottom wall and open on second side opposite the bottom wall (figure 2), the container having a second depth (figures 7 and 8).
Further regarding claim 11, O’Russa et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the bottom wall and side walls being made of metal. Chatterton et al. teaches that it is known to form a pan from metal (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the coking pan of O’Russa et al. with the bottom wall and side walls being made of metal, as taught by Chatterton et al., in order to use a durable material, suitable for cooking and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, the second depth is different from the first depth (figures 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 18, the plurality of raised ribs of each of the first and second cooking pans include ribs having straight middle sections of various lengths and rounded end sections (figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, the pattern of the plurality of raised ribs of each of the first and second cooking pans includes perpendicular lines devoid of ribs between pluralities of the raised rib (space inwardly of ribs that run about the perimeter), the perpendicular lines devoid of ribs being arranged to cooperate with one or more support structures of a portable stove to hold the portable stove in place (capable of cooperating with appropriately sized support structures).
Regarding claim 20, the pattern of the plurality of raised ribs of each of the first and second cooking pans includes a rectangular path along the lower surface that surrounds a plurality of the raised ribs (figure 1), wherein the path is devoid of any raised ribs (space located radially inwardly of ribs extending about the perimeter) and is configured to cooperate with one or more support structures of a portable stove to hold the portable stove in place (capable of cooperating with appropriately sized support structures).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Russa et al. (U.S. D243,993) in view of Chatterton et al. (U.S. 6,149,053), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Klock et al. (U.S. 2016/0106253).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, O’Russa et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the cutout section. Klock et al. teaches that it is known to provide a cooking assembly with a cutout section (see element 54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of O’Russa et al. with a cutout, as taught by Klock et al., in order to accommodate irregularities in the supporting surface, as shown in figure 2 of Klock et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Russa et al. (U.S. D243,993) in view of Chatterton et al. (U.S. 6,149,053), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kim (U.S. D1,047,591).
Regarding claim 4, O’Russa et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of "L"-shaped ribs. Kim teaches that it is known to provide a cooking assembly with a plurality of "L"-shaped ribs (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of O’Russa et al. with a plurality of "L"-shaped ribs, as taught by Kim, in order to provide more evenly distributed ribs for a more stable support.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Russa et al. (U.S. D243,993) in view of Chatterton et al. (U.S. 6,149,053), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Khormaei et al. (U.S. 2019/0104884).
Regarding claim 6, O’Russa et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the ribs that form letters. Khormaei et al. teaches that it is known to provide a cooking assembly with ribs that from letters (see figure 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of O’Russa et al. with ribs that from letters, as taught by Khormaei et al., in order to provide advertising of the product.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Russa et al. (U.S. D243,993) in view of Chatterton et al. (U.S. 6,149,053), as applied to claims 9 and 11 above, and further in view of Chou (U.S. 2008/0237228).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, O’Russa et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the divots and raised nubs. Chou teaches that it is known to provide a container assembly with the flange having divots and raised nubs (see elements 31a and 31b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of O’Russa et al. with divots and raised nubs, as taught by Chou, in order to lock the upper and lower components together and prevent movement of one with respect to the other.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Russa et al. (U.S. D243,993) in view of Chatterton et al. (U.S. 6,149,053), as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Raichlen et al. (U.S. 7,938,285).
Regarding claim 14, O’Russa et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the basket. Raichlen et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container assembly with a basket (see element 15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of O’Russa et al. with a basket, as taught by Raichlen et al., in order separate liquid out of the contents within the assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the primary reference of O’Russa et al. does not teach that the bottom wall and side walls are made of metal. The secondary reference of Chatterton et al. (U.S. 6,149,053) has been added to the rejections for the teaching of forming a cooking pan from a metal material. It is well known to form a cooking pan from metal.
Applicant argues that O’Russa et al. does not teach that the raised ribs are arranged in a pattern to cooperate with supports of a portable stove to hold the portable stove in place. It is the examiner’s position that the claims are drawn to the subcombination of the cooking pan and not the combination of the cooking pan and portable stove. It is also the examiner’s position that the pan of O’Russa et al. is capable of supporting an appropriately sized portable stove. The claims do not positively recite an assembly wherein a claimed cooking pan supports a claimed portable stove. The claims are drawn to the subcombination of a cooking pan which is capable of supporting a portable stove. The cooking pan of O’Russa et al. is capable of supporting a portable stove of appropriate size and weight.
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).
Applicant argues that O’Russa et al. does not teach a rib-free engagement path. The examiner disagrees with this position as O’Russa et al. teaches a rib-free engagement path along the perimeter inwardly of the perimetric ribs.
Applicant argues that O’Russa et al. does not teach a plurality of ribs. The examiner disagrees with this position as multiple ribs are shown in the drawings. The perimeter rib configuration is comprised of 4 joined ribs. Additionally, there are a plurality of centrally disposed ribs.
Conclusion
In view of the new grounds of rejection, THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
