DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on August 8, 2026, the objection to the drawings and specifications in the previous office action (dated 05/07/2026) are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1-2, 9, 12 and 14 have been amended,
Claim 3 has been cancelled,
Claims 4-5, 10-11 and 13 were previously presented, and
Claims 6-8 were and still are withdrawn from further consideration.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9-14 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 12, ln. 14, the phrase, “…at least one food receptacle…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. For instance, is the applicant encompassing the same “at least one compartment” (claim 12, ln. 5) when referring to “at least one food receptacle” OR a different structure altogether? In other words, is “at least one compartment” and “at least one food receptacle” the same structure OR are they two different structures? Further clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, examiner construes the “at least one food receptacle” to be the same as the claimed at least one compartment (of ln. 5) in the art rejection below; emphasis added.
As for claims 13 and 14, due to their dependencies from claim 12, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valderrama (US 11639252 B2; hereinafter Valderrama).
Regarding claim 1, Valderrama discloses a food preparation and serving system (18) comprising:
a base (24) having a predetermined geometric shape, a bottom, side walls extending upward from the bottom and an open top (128) with a top edge (132, 152 or 160); and
a combined serving board and cutting board (i.e. in the form of inner container (32)) having a geometric shape similar to that of the base and having an edge, the combined serving board and cutting board being sized so as to at least partially nest into the open top of the base such that the edge of the combined serving board and cutting board at least partially rests within the open top of the base;
wherein the combined serving board and cutting board includes a cutting board side (i.e. the exterior of the inner container bottom (172) is what examiner equates to the claimed cutting board - for cutting) and a serving board side, facing a direction opposite the cutting board side, that includes at least one food receptacle (i.e. the receptacle of the inner container is what examiner equates to the claimed serving board side) having a planar profile (i.e. the flat outer rim (174) of the inner container is what examiner equates to the claimed planar profile) configured to support cutting operations on the cutting board side (Valderrama Col. 2 ln. 43 – Col. 6 ln. 43 and Figs. 1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
1154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s note: since, the outer rim of the inner container is FLAT, then, when the inner container is flipped over and placed onto a horizontal or working surface, the bottom surface (i.e. the claimed cutting board side) will also be flat AND support the cutting operations by the user (much like the claimed invention); emphasis added.
Applicant is further reminded of the following, “…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…” See MPEP §2125(I).
Regarding claim 2, Valderrama further discloses wherein the top edge of the base includes an angled inward surface, and the edge of the combined serving board and cutting board has a similarly angled surface such that the angled inward surface of the top edge of the base receives the similarly angled surface of the combined serving board and cutting board (see annotated Valderrama Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 4, Valderrama further discloses a cover (20) configured to fit onto the top edge of the base, the cover having at least one locking mechanism (i.e. in the form of latches (26 and 28)) configured to secure the cover to the base (see Valderrama Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 10, Valderrama further discloses wherein the cover is transparent (Valderrama Col. 2 ln. 38-39 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Valderrama further discloses wherein the base comprises a bowl (see Valderrama Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 12, Valderrama discloses a food preparation and serving system (18) comprising:
a base bowl (24) having a bottom, side walls extending upward from the bottom and an open top (128) having a top edge (132, 152 or 160) and an inside upper circumferential edge;
a combined serving board and cutting board (i.e. in the form of inner container (32)) comprising two sides, one side being a serving side (i.e. the receptacle of the inner container is what examiner equates to the claimed serving board side) having at least one compartment for receiving a food product, and an other side being a cutting board (i.e. the exterior of the inner container bottom (172) is what examiner equates to the claimed cutting board - for cutting), the combined serving board and cutting board being sized and configured to be received into the open top and rest within the inside upper circumferential edge such that one of the serving side or cutting board side is flush with the top edge (specifically inner edge (160) of the base bowl; as shown in annotated Valderrama Fig. 3 above);
a transparent cover (20) configured to be releasably attached to the base bowl; and
a locking mechanism (i.e. in the form of latches (26 and 28)) connected to the transparent cover and configured to selectively lock the cover onto the base bowl;
wherein the combined serving board and cutting board includes a cutting board side and a serving board side, facing a direction opposite the cutting board side, that includes at least one [compartment or] food receptacle (i.e. the receptacle of the inner container is what examiner equates to the claimed serving board side) having a planar profile (i.e. the flat outer rim (174) of the inner container is what examiner equates to the claimed planar profile) configured to support cutting operations on the cutting board side (Valderrama Col. 2 ln. 43 – Col. 6 ln. 43 and Figs. 1-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valderrama in view of Baker et al. (US 7909191 B2 – art of record; hereinafter Baker).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Valderrama as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1, 4 and 12(respectively), except for wherein the at least one locking mechanism comprises: at least one opening in the side wall of the base; and a sliding handle having an upper portion configured to receive an edge of the cover, and a lower portion configured to be received into the at least one opening such that when the sliding handle is in place, the cover is rigidly connected to the base.
Baker is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Valderrama, which is a container assembly. Baker teaches a container assembly embodiment (i.e. in the form of a sterilization tray; as shown in Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a base (20) having a predetermined geometric shape, a bottom, side walls extending upward from the bottom and an open top with a top edge;
a cover (22) configured to fit onto the top edge of the base, the cover having at least one locking mechanism (i.e. the form of sliding latches (41)) configured to secure the cover to the base; and wherein the at least one locking mechanism comprises: at least one opening in the side wall of the base; and a sliding handle having an upper portion configured to receive an edge of the cover, and a lower portion configured to be received into the at least one opening such that when the sliding handle is in place, the cover is rigidly connected to the base (Baker Col. 4 ln. 21 – Col. 6 ln. 24).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a similar locking mechanism between the cover and the base (as taught by Baker) onto the sides (of Valderrama) THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY LATCHES as an additional locking mechanism on the cover (of Valderrama).
Claims 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valderrama (US 20130341335 A1; hereinafter Valderrama) in view of Bair et al. (US 3255607 A; hereinafter Bair).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Valderrama as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 12 (respectively), except for wherein the combined serving board and cutting board further comprises at least one opening, recess or cutout configured to assist a user in removing the combined serving and cutting board from the at least partially nested position within the open top of the base.
Bair is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Valderrama, which is a container assembly. Bair teaches a container assembly embodiment (i.e. in the form of a thermally insulated chest; as shown in Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a base (14) having a predetermined geometric shape, a bottom, side walls extending upward from the bottom and an open top with a top edge;
a combined serving board and cutting board (i.e. in the form of a shelf member (18)) having a geometric shape similar to that of the base and having an edge, the combined serving board and cutting board being sized so as to at least partially nest into the open top of the base (see Bair Fig. 1) such that the edge of the combined serving board and cutting board at least partially rests within the open top of the base;
a cover (12) configured to fit onto the top edge of the base; and wherein the combined serving board and cutting board further comprises at least one recess (i.e. in the form of inner and outer finger recesses (22)) configured to assist a user in removing the combined serving and cutting board from the at least partially nested position within the open top of the base (Bair Col. 2 ln. 1-51).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combined serving board and cutting board (of Valderrama) with a similar at least one recess (as taught by the other tray assembly of Bair) to allow to user easily lift the combined serving board and cutting board.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights