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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Furthermore, the Corrected Notice of Allowance mailed 4/22/2026 was mailed prematurely as the RCE had not yet been processed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first thermal break”, “second thermal break”, “third thermal break”, “first gap”, and “second gap” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 attempts to limit the vessel to only be made of glass but claim 10, which 13 is dependent upon, already limits the vessel to glass. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 3395266 A - Price.
Regarding claim 1, Price is directed towards an base for cooking vessels. Price does teach a unitary glass cooking vessel ([Col. 2 Ln. 10-12] The cooking container or dish 1 is preferably composed of a glass-ceramic material capable of withstanding a relatively high degree of heat.), a base releasably coupled to the cooking vessel ([Col. 2 Ln. 46-50] When the spring latch member 9 is actuated towards the dish 1 by the cam grooves in the grip 5, a projection 9a on the spring latch 9 enters a notch 13 in the side of the dish 1 to retain the dish on the base 2.), and configured to support the cooking vessel on a support surface during a cooking operation ([Col. 2 Ln. 12-16] The dish 1 is interchangeable with other cooking containers of the same general shape, but of different depths. Thus, the base 2 may be utilized to heat any one of a plurality of containers, such as a fry pan or sauce pans.), comprising: a support extending upward along a portion of a height of the cooking vessel (See figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Price also teaches a handle positioned on the support and configured to be contacted by a user ([Col. 2 Ln. 22-26] Each handle assembly 3 in addition to functioning as buffet type handle for carrying the base also contains a latching mechanism for engaging the dish 1 to retain it on the base over the heating element 2b.), wherein a first thermal break is formed between the cooking vessel and the support proximate the handle (See figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
351
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Price also teaches a second thermal break is formed between the cooking vessel and the support surface to protect the support surface during the cooking operation (Figure 5 shows feet 6 that forms a gap between the base 2 and the support surface.).
Regarding claim 2, Price does teach the limitations of claim 1. Prices does teach the first thermal break includes a first gap between the cooking vessel and the support (See figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
351
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Price does teach the limitations of claim 2. Prices does teach the second thermal break includes a second gap between the base and the support surface (Figure 5 shows feet 6 that form a gap between the base 2 and the support surface.).
Regarding claim 6, Price does teach the limitations of claim 1. Prices does teach the first thermal break are continuous (Figure 5 and annotated figure 5, in the previous rejection, show that the that the first thermal break is continuous.) and the second thermal break are continuous (Figures 1-3 shows a continuous second thermal break.)
Regarding claim 10, Price does teach a unitary glass cooking vessel ([Col. 2 Ln. 10-12] The cooking container or dish 1 is preferably composed of a glass-ceramic material capable of withstanding a relatively high degree of heat.), a base coupled to the cooking vessel via a non-positive connection ([Col. 2 Ln. 46-50] When the spring latch member 9 is actuated towards the dish 1 by the cam grooves in the grip 5, a projection 9a on the spring latch 9 enters a notch 13 in the side of the dish 1 to retain the dish on the base 2.), and configured to support the cooking vessel on a support surface during a cooking operation ([Col. 2 Ln. 12-16] The dish 1 is interchangeable with other cooking containers of the same general shape, but of different depths. Thus, the base 2 may be utilized to heat any one of a plurality of containers, such as a fry pan or sauce pans.), comprising: a support extending upward along a portion of a height of the cooking vessel (See figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Price also teaches a handle positioned on the support and configured to be contacted by a user ([Col. 2 Ln. 22-26] Each handle assembly 3 in addition to functioning as buffet type handle for carrying the base also contains a latching mechanism for engaging the dish 1 to retain it on the base over the heating element 2b.), a first gap is formed between the cooking vessel and the support proximate the handle (See figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
351
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Price also teaches a second gap is formed between the cooking vessel and the support surface to protect the support surface during the cooking operation (Figure 5 shows feet 6 that form a gap between the base 2 and the support surface.).
Regarding claim 12, Price does teach the limitation of claim 10. Price does teach the base is removably attached to the cooking vessel ([Col. 2 Ln. 46-50] When the spring latch member 9 is actuated towards the dish 1 by the cam grooves in the grip 5, a projection 9a on the spring latch 9 enters a notch 13 in the side of the dish 1 to retain the dish on the base 2.).
Regarding claim 13, Price does teach the limitation of claim 10. Price does teach the cooking vessel is made of glass ([Col. 2 Ln. 10-12] The cooking container or dish 1 is preferably composed of a glass-ceramic material capable of withstanding a relatively high degree of heat.).
Regarding claim 17, Price does teach the limitation of claim 10. Price does teach the base further comprises a connector configured to affix the cooking vessel to the base ([Col. 2 Ln. 46-50] When the spring latch member 9 is actuated towards the dish 1 by the cam grooves in the grip 5, a projection 9a on the spring latch 9 enters a notch 13 in the side of the dish 1 to retain the dish on the base 2.).
Regarding claim 18, Price does teach the limitation of claim 10. Price does teach the base further comprises a projection configured to abut the cooking vessel (See figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
364
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 5, 7-8, 11, 14-16, 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3395266 A – Price in view of US 20140021191 A1 – Moon.
Regarding claim 3, Price does teach the limitations of claim 2. Price does not expressly teach the second thermal break includes a second gap between the cooking vessel and the base
Moon is directed towards a cooking device. Moon does teach the second thermal break includes a second gap between the cooking vessel and the base. (See figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
751
645
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price to include the second thermal break includes a second gap between the cooking vessel and the base because the different gaps of Moon allow the heat to be spaced out and protect the base.
Regarding claim 5, Price does teach the limitations of claim 4. Price does not expressly teach a third thermal break is formed between the cooking vessel and the base.
Moon does teach a third thermal break is formed between the cooking vessel and the base (See figure 3 above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price to include a third thermal break is formed between the cooking vessel and the base because the different gaps of Moon allow the heat to be spaced out and protect the base.
Regarding claim 7, Price does teach the limitations of claim 1. Price does not expressly teach the first thermal break and the second thermal break are discontinuous.
Since thermal break being discontinuous is a key factor in the success of the cooking device. As discussed by Price, the thermal break being continuous. This practice is well known in the business community and would follow in cooking devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to perform discontinuous thermal breaks and to incorporate it into the system of Price since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e., add support within the thermal breaks) to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Price does teach the limitations of claim 1. Price does not expressly teach the support surface is a countertop.
Moon does teach the support surface is a countertop ([0003] The present invention relates generally to countertop ovens and dehydrators, and more particularly to food ovens and dehydrators).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price to include the support surface is a countertop because the cooking device of Price can be portable and placed a surface such as the countertop of Moon.
Regarding claim 11, Price does teach the limitations of claim 10. Price does not expressly teach the base is irremovably attached to the cooking vessel.
Since the base is irremovably attached to the cooking vessel is a key factor in the success of the cooking device. As discussed by Price, the base is removably connected to the vessel. This practice is well known in the business community and would follow in cooking devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to perform the base is irremovably attached to the cooking vessel and to incorporate it into the system of Price since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Price does teach the limitations of claim 13. Price does not expressly teach the base is made of a plastic material.
Moon does teach the base is made of a plastic material ([Abstract] a plastic base).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price to include the base is made of a plastic material because the plastic base of Moon allows for a lightweight durable material.
Regarding claim 15, Price and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 14. Price does teach the base includes a plurality of legs having a first height (Figure 1 shows the feet 6, [Col. 2 Ln. 19] two spaced feet 6, having a first height),
Price does not expressly teach the second gap has a second height the same as the first height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the second gap has a second height the same as the first height, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 16, Price and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 14. Price does teach the base includes a plurality of legs (Figure 1 shows the feet 6, [Col. 2 Ln. 19] two spaced feet 6,), and a third gap is formed between the support surface and the base (Figure 5 shows the feet 6 create a gap between the base and the support surface.).
Regarding claim 19, Price does teach a glass cooking vessel ([Col. 2 Ln. 10-12] The cooking container or dish 1 is preferably composed of a glass-ceramic material capable of withstanding a relatively high degree of heat.), a base configured to support the cooking vessel on a support surface during a cooking operation ([Col. 2 Ln. 12-16] The dish 1 is interchangeable with other cooking containers of the same general shape, but of different depths. Thus, the base 2 may be utilized to heat any one of a plurality of containers, such as a fry pan or sauce pans.), comprising: a support extending upward along a portion of a height of the cooking vessel (See figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
364
660
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Price also teaches a handle positioned on the support and configured to be contacted ([Col. 2 Ln. 22-26] Each handle assembly 3 in addition to functioning as buffet type handle for carrying the base also contains a latching mechanism for engaging the dish 1 to retain it on the base over the heating element 2b.), a first gap is formed between the cooking vessel and the support proximate the handle (See figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
351
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Price also teaches a second gap is formed between the cooking vessel and the support surface to protect the support surface during the cooking operation (Figure 5 shows feet 6 that form a gap between the base 2 and the support surface.).
Price does not expressly teach configured to entirely support a cooking device at a top opening of the cooking vessel, wherein the cooking vessel receives a heated airflow through the top opening and into the cavity from the cooking device.
Moon does teach configured to entirely support a cooking device at a top opening of the cooking vessel, wherein the cooking vessel receives a heated airflow through the top opening and into the cavity from the cooking device ([0120] a power head 20 with handles 65 supported on the oven housing 18 and may be detachably connected to the oven 10. Together, the oven pan and the oven housing 18 may define an exemplary cooking enclosure 21 with the oven 10 as in the assembled state shown in FIG. 1.).
Replacing the heating element of Price and adding the rim of the vessel and the power head of Moon allows the user to remove the heating device off the vessel.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price to include the power head of Moon in order to make the cooking device easier to be portable.
Regarding claim 20, Price and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 19. Price does not expressly teach the base is irremovably attached to the cooking vessel.
Since the base is irremovably attached to the cooking vessel is a key factor in the success of the cooking device. As discussed by Price, the base is removably connected to the vessel. This practice is well known in the business community and would follow in cooking devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to perform the base is irremovably attached to the cooking vessel and to incorporate it into the system of Price since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, Price and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 19. Price does teach the base is removably attached to the cooking vessel ([Col. 2 Ln. 46-50] When the spring latch member 9 is actuated towards the dish 1 by the cam grooves in the grip 5, a projection 9a on the spring latch 9 enters a notch 13 in the side of the dish 1 to retain the dish on the base 2.).
Regarding claim 22, Price and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 19. Price does not expressly teach the base is made of a plastic material.
Moon does teach the base is made of a plastic material ([Abstract] a plastic base).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price to include the base is made of a plastic material because the plastic base of Moon allows for a lightweight durable material.
Regarding claim 23, Price and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 22. Price does teach the base includes a plurality of legs (Figure 1 shows the feet 6, [Col. 2 Ln. 19] two spaced feet 6,), and a third gap is formed between the support surface and the base (Figure 5 shows the feet 6 create a gap between the base and the support surface.).
Regarding claim 24, Price and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 23. Price does teach the base further comprises a connector configured to affix the cooking vessel to the base ([Col. 2 Ln. 46-50] When the spring latch member 9 is actuated towards the dish 1 by the cam grooves in the grip 5, a projection 9a on the spring latch 9 enters a notch 13 in the side of the dish 1 to retain the dish on the base 2.).
Regarding claim 25, Price and Moon does teach the limitation of claim 23. Price does teach the base further comprises a projection configured to abut the cooking vessel (See figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
364
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Price does teach the limitations of claim 19. Price does not expressly teach the support surface is a countertop.
Moon does teach the support surface is a countertop ([0003] The present invention relates generally to countertop ovens and dehydrators, and more particularly to food ovens and dehydrators).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price to include the support surface is a countertop because the cooking device of Price can be portable and placed a surface such as the countertop of Moon.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3395266 A - Price as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10793325 B2 - Cheng.
Regarding claim 9, Price does teach the limitations of claim 1. Price does not teach the cooking vessel is configured to be sealed with a removable lid.
Cheng is directed towards an cooking/storage device. Cheng does teach the cooking vessel is configured to be sealed with a removable lid ([Col. 2 Ln. 1-4] the food storage or cooking vessel is configured to be heated in a microwave oven while the food storage or cooking vessel is sealed by the lid.).
Adding the teachings of Cheng to have a sealable removable to the vessel of Price to allow the vessel to be used for cooking and storage.
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price to include the cooking vessel is configured to be sealed with a removable lid because the sealable removable lid of Cheng allows the cooking vessel of Price become a storage vessel.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3395266 A - Price and US 20140021191 A1 – Moon as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 10793325 B2 - Cheng.
Regarding claim 27, Price and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 27. Price does not teach the cooking vessel is configured to be sealed with a removable lid.
Cheng is directed towards an cooking/storage device. Cheng does teach the cooking vessel is configured to be sealed with a removable lid ([Col. 2 Ln. 1-4] the food storage or cooking vessel is configured to be heated in a microwave oven while the food storage or cooking vessel is sealed by the lid.).
Adding the teachings of Cheng to have a sealable removable to the vessel of Price and Moon to allow the vessel to be used for cooking and storage.
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price and Moon to include the cooking vessel is configured to be sealed with a removable lid because the sealable removable lid of Cheng allows the cooking vessel of Price become a storage vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights