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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on April 1, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,446 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Avery et al. (U.S. 2012/0104006). Avery et al. teaches a device 110, shown in figure 17, for receiving foodstuffs, like a cooking mold or baking mold (paragraph [0003]) comprising a bottom wall 112 and a plurality of side walls 122, 124, wherein the side walls 122, 124 are displaceable from a rest position (figure 21), in which they lie flat relative to the bottom wall into an upright working position (figure 17), and wherein between two neighboring side walls there is arranged a mat-like portion 118 which forms an overlap (figure 18) when the side walls 122, 124 are in the working position, characterized in that the bottom wall 112 and the side walls 122, 124 are made of metal (paragraph [0093]), wherein the bottom wall 112 along its edge portions and the side walls 122, 124 along their edge portions bordering the bottom wall are covered with a plastic mass (paragraph [0094]), which is arranged on the outer side of the walls and which connects the edge portions of the side walls to the edge portions of the bottom wall (paragraph [0094]), wherein the inner sides of the walls are kept free of plastic mass, and wherein a side wall in its working position (figure 19) is arranged in abutment against the bottom wall and against each adjacently arranged side wall, so that the device in its use position forms an inner face that is provided continuously by metal faces (figure 19).
Regarding claim 2, the plastic mass is provided by a silicone compound, in particular by a silicone rubber (paragraph [0094]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments regarding the Double Patenting rejection are moot in view of the filing of a proper Terminal Disclaimer on April 1, 2026.
Applicant argues that plastic web 145 prevents the metal side and bottom walls from providing a continuous inner metal face free of plastic mass. It is the examiner’s position that claim 1 does not require that the connection between the bottom wall and the side walls be free of plastic. First, the language of claim 1 appears to set forth that the plastic mass is a different element from the side walls and not a component of the side walls. The plastic mass is attached to the sidewalls and bottom wall but not component thereof. Claim 1 then recites that the inner sides of the walls are kept free of plastic mass, if the walls do not comprise the plastic mass, then they are free of plastic. Continuing with claim 1, it is recited that a side wall in its working position is arranged in abutment against the bottom wall and against each adjacently arranged side wall. The “a sidewall” introduced in this limitation does not refer back to the previously introduced “plurality of side walls” and can be considered a separate component than the walls of the “plurality of side walls”. In this case one component 118 can be considered the “a wall” referred to in this limitation as it abuts the bottom wall and the side walls adjacent thereto. Claim 1 then sets forth that the device in its use position forms an inner face, that is provided continuously by metal faces. The inner face can comprise the inner face of just the plurality of side walls which form continuous metal faces along an inner circumferential direction. For these reasons, Avery meets the limitations of claim 1.
Note that if the recitation of “a side wall” is meant to refer to one of the plurality of side walls previously introduced in the independent claim, then all occurrences of “a side wall” in all of the claims should be changed to show that it is one of the side walls of the plurality of side walls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-14 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
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 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
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights