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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/11/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 remain pending in the application.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, US 20170156545 (hereafter Davis), and further in view of Huegerich et al. , US 6707015 (hereafter Huegerich) and Bardeau, US 3472156 (hereafter Bardeau).
A gastronomy roller heater comprising a cuboid …base (Davis teaches a roller grill in Fig. 1 comprising a cuboid base.)
PNG
media_image1.png
528
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Davis teaches a roller heater
“…and equipped from the front with a thermostat,” (Annotated Fig. 1 teaches temperature controls 60a at the front of the base. This corresponds to a thermostat in the instant claim.)
“a power switch,” (Fig. 1 teaches power switch.)
“and an operating indicator” (Paragraph [117] teaches a visible display,)
“over which, rotating heating rollers are mounted between side walls, above the base,” (Annotated Fig. 1.)
“wherein an upper part of the side walls … fitted with temperature sensors,”(Annotated Fig. 1.)
“wherein an upper part of the side walls is in a shape of a ventilation hood” (The limitation “shape of a ventilation hood” is interpreted as a structure with ventilation capability. Paragraph[120] teaches “the plenum panel 20a, 20b includes one or more ventilation holes 28 that allow fluid (e.g., airflow) communication between the plenum 11a, 11b and a volume defined between the bottom housing 13 and the drip plate 25 and also defined between the side housing 12a, 12b. In some embodiments, airflow may be circulated between the plenum 11a, 11b and an ambient airspace through, for example, the ventilation holes 28 and one or more louvered openings in the bottom housing 13.” Thus sidewalls in Davis form ventilation hood.)
“wherein a top surface of the temperature sensors is configured to be directed angularly and downwardly towards inter-rows of the heating rollers for a measurement of the heating rollers temperature,” (The limitation “top surface” is interpreted as any surface of the sensor.
PNG
media_image2.png
565
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Davis teaches path of a laser beam incident from infrared laser sensor
Davis teaches in paragraph [116] “an indirect temperature sensing means 50 (e.g., an infrared laser sensor directed to a region of the heating tube array) mounted to the roller grill and configured to sense the temperature of the outer surfaces 14b of the heating tubes 14.” Fig. 1 teaches sensors 50 are mounted on the side wall at a higher height than the rollers, thus it is implied that the top surface of the sensor is directed angularly and downwardly towards heating rollers.)
“where heated meat is placed for a precise measurement of each heated meat temperature,” (Davis teaches placing hotdogs, sausage links upon heated roller tubes in paragraph [2]. Davis also teaches using infrared sensors for measuring temperatures of the heated rollers in paragraph [116]. It is implied that when hotdogs are placed on the tubes, the sensors would measure temperature of the hot dog.
The limitation “heated meat” is directed to a material or article worked upon by the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115. )
“and wherein the temperature sensors are non-contact infrared sensors” (Davis teaches in paragraph [116] “an indirect temperature sensing means 50 (e.g., an infrared laser sensor directed to a region of the heating tube array) mounted to the roller grill and configured to sense the temperature of the outer surfaces 14b of the heating tubes 14.”)
“wherein each individual temperature sensor measures temperature of individual heated meat located in each inter-rows of the heating rollers,” (Davis teaches placing hotdogs, sausage links upon heated roller tubes in paragraph [2]. Davis also teaches using infrared sensors for measuring temperatures of the heated rollers in paragraph [116]. Fig. 1 teaches that the laser sensor is directed at the inter-row of heating rollers. It is implied that when hotdogs are placed on the tubes, the sensors would measure temperature of the hot dog.
The limitation “heated meat” is directed to a material or article worked upon by the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115. )
“wherein number of the individual temperature sensors corresponds to number of the inter-rows of the heating rollers,” (Davis teaches in paragraph [117] “the heating tube array of the roller grill 10 may be divided into one or more temperature regions (e.g., Z1, and Z2) indicated by dotted lines (FIG. 1), to enable selective temperatures for one or more types of comestibles. For example, the heating tube array may include a front and rear heat zone, or, front, mid and rear heat zones controllable by a heat controller with user settable ranges, and which may include a display visible and/or controls accessible from the cabinet of the roller grill.”
Even though Davis is silent about having number of sensors equal to number of the inter-rows of rollers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the number of sensors in Davis to equal the number of inter-rows of heated rollers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to enable selective temperatures” for each temperature zone as taught in paragraph [117] in Davis. Duplicating the number of sensors would yield the expected result of measuring temperature of respective inter-row heated rollers.
Additionally, regarding duplicating the sensors “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B.)
“base fitted with a socket for connecting electric current,” (Davis teaches in paragraph [121] that heating elements are coupled to a power source.
Even though Davis is silent about a socket, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a socket to the base to supply electric current as taught in Davis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to electrically couple the heating elements to a power source as taught in paragraph [121] of Davis.)
Davis is silent about “wherein temperature displays are mounted on top surface of the side walls presenting a temperature measured by the individual temperature sensor,” “wherein each individual temperature sensor is connected to each individual temperature display mounted on the top surface of the side walls,”, and “stainless steel base”.
Huegerich teaches “wherein each individual temperature sensor is connected to each individual temperature display,… wherein temperature displays…presenting a temperature measured by the individual temperature sensor” (Huegerich teaches a heating control system for a roller grill. Column 3, lines 18-22 teaches “The embodiment shown in FIG. 1 shows a roller grill having two temperature control panels 24, one each for two separate heating sections. Each temperature control panel 24 contains a display 26 and temperature setting means 28.” Thus Huegerich teaches individual sensor and display for each individual section of the grill.
PNG
media_image3.png
410
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Huegerich teaches display for temperature sensor
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a display for each sensor as taught in Huegerich in the heater in Davis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to provide a roller grill with a larger number of separate heating areas that allow different foods to be heated to different temperatures at the same time” as taught in column 2, lines 9-14 in Huegerich.)
“temperature display mounted on the top surface of the side walls… wherein temperature displays are mounted on top surface of the side walls” (Huegerich teaches that displays are mounted at the front of the base.
Even though Huegerich is silent about mounting the displays on the top surface of the side walls, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add displays as taught in Huegerich on top surface of side walls in the grill of Davis, because this is merely a rearrangement of parts. Rearranging the display locations would not modify the operation of the display device. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.)
Primary combination of references is silent about “stainless steel base”.
Bardeau teaches a roller grill for sausages. The grill has a base with side walls, rollers extended from the upper part of side walls. Thus Bardeau is from the same field as the instant claim. Column 3, lines 20-25 teaches “Base 10, support structures 11 and 12, rolls 13 and tray 15 may be suitably fashioned from sheet metal sections, preferably of stainless steel.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to build the base in Davis with stainless steel as taught in Bardeau. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to provide improved apparatus for grilling or broiling articles of food of the character aforementioned in commercial quantities, more efficiently than with conventional equipment and with a minimum of maintenance procedures and which can serve if desired as a display unit for direct viewing of the processing by customers” as taught in column 1, lines 55-65 in Bardeau.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/11/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments on pages 3-6 against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument on page 4-5 that Huegerich teaches two modes of operation and control device to minimize variation in temperature, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant's arguments on page 5 against rearrangement of parts fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to 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.
The applicant repeats their argument on page 4 that Davis does not teach that a surface of the sensor is directed angularly and downwardly towards inter-rows of heating tubes. As discussed previously, Davis teaches in Fig. 1 that sensors are positioned at a height above the tubes. Fig. 1 also teaches that a laser beam from the sensor is incident at inter-row of tubes. It is understood that the beam is directed angularly and downwardly towards inert-row of tubes. It is implied that a surface of the sensor is angled to the downward direction which enables the laser beam to be directed angularly and downwardly.
PNG
media_image2.png
565
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Davis teaches a path of the laser beam from infrared laser sensor
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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 Crabb can be reached on (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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761