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.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosse (US4583452) in view of Manuel (US20080044537) and further in view of Didier (US4470343).
PNG
media_image1.png
246
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Grosse
Regarding claim 1, Grosse teaches a system for improving rotisserie grilling applications (10000), comprising:
a support frame (10) comprising at least one central shaft (11), a first side shaft (12), and a second side shaft (13) wherein the first side shaft and second side shaft (12, 13) are in parallel arrangement with each other (Fig. 1) and the at least one central shaft (11) ; and
a basket (30), each having a side wall component (Fig. 5 Col. 4 lines 65-68 trays 31 and 32 having side walls), a bottom surface component (32), and a top component (31) that collectively define a volume for receiving foodstuff (Col. 5 lines 1-10 enclosure within which relatively small food items may be placed) and configured to releasably couple to the first and second side shafts (11, 12 Col. 6 lines 20-30 releasably fastened),
wherein each of the basket (30) comprises a locking device (Col. 4 lines 10-40 wing nuts 21 are then threaded onto their respective spokes 16, 17, 18 and 19) that releasably couples to the first side shaft (11, 12)
wherein, during a rotisserie-style cooking event, the support frame (10) is operable to rotate around a central axis defined by the at least one central shaft (11, Col. 4 lines 1-15 rotation on a rotisserie).
Grosse is silent on a plurality of baskets, a c-shaped side shaft engagement mechanism that slidably couples to the second side shaft; and wherein, for each of the plurality of baskets, the top component is configured to hinge open for access to the defined volume while the basket remains coupled to the first side shaft and second side shaft via said locking device and c-shaped side shaft engagement mechanism;
PNG
media_image2.png
688
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Manuel
PNG
media_image3.png
794
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2A-2B of Manuel
Manuel teaches a c- shaped side shaft engagement mechanism (260, 262, 264, 266) that slidably couples to the second side shaft ([0041] hanger hooks 260, 262, 264, 266 engage with engage rotisserie rails 120, 122), and wherein, for the basket, the top component is configured to hinge open for access to the defined volume ([0038] lid 140 of the removable grilling basket 30 hingedly secured to well 130 of the basket 30) while the basket remains coupled to the first side shaft and second side shaft via said locking device and c-shaped side shaft engagement mechanism ([0038] Fig. 2A-2B lid 140, capable of being opened while hanger hooks 260, 262, 264, 266 engage with rotisserie rails 120, 122).
Grosse and Manuel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of grilling devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Grosse to incorporate the teachings of Manuel to have a c-shaped engagement mechanism and to have a basket hinge open while engaged to a first and second side shaft in order to be allow the basket to be placed and attached to the grilling apparatus advantageously whether or not it contains food items, and ensure cooking a variety of food items, such as loose food items (Manuel [0010-0011]).
Grosse and Manuel are silent on a plurality of baskets.
Didier teaches wherein each of the plurality of baskets (Fig. 1 the two plurality of baskets 16).
Grosse, Manuel, and Didier are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of grilling devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Grosse and Manuel to incorporate the teachings of Didier to have a plurality of baskets in order to be able to process a large quantity of food, which increases by having multiple food baskets ready to process a plurality of food (Didier Col. 2 lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 2, Grosse, Manuel, and Didier teach the system of claim 1, but Grosse and Didier are silent on wherein the c-shaped side shaft engagement mechanism comprises a clamp.
Manuel teaches wherein the c-shaped side shaft engagement mechanism comprises a clamp ([0038] hanger hooks 260, 262, 264, 266 engage with rotisserie rails 120, 122, functions as a clamp by holding onto rails 120, 122).
It would have been obvious to have modified Grosse to incorporate the teachings of Manuel to have a c-shaped engagement mechanism with a clamp in order to be allow the basket to be placed and attached to the grilling apparatus (Manuel [0010-0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Grosse, Manuel, and Didier teaches the system of claim 2, and Grosse teaches wherein the support frame (10) further comprises a side shaft mounting unit (Fig. 1 grill) that receives the one central shaft (11) within a central portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Grosse, Manuel, and Didier teach the system of claim 1, but Grosse and Manuel is silent on wherein a first basket of the plurality of baskets are releasably coupled to the support frame and adjacently positioned along the support frame.
Didier teaches wherein a first basket (Fig. 1 one of the plurality of baskets 16) and a second basket (Fig. 1 one of the plurality of baskets 16) of the plurality of baskets are releasably coupled to the support frame and adjacently positioned along the support frame (Fig. 1 the two plurality of baskets 16 shown positioned adjacent to each other).
It would have been obvious to have modified Grosse and Manuel to incorporate the teachings of Didier to have a plurality of baskets comprise a first and second basket in order to be able to process a large quantity of food (Col. 2 lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 6, Grosse, Manuel, and Didier teach the system of claim 4, and Grosse and Manuel are silent on wherein the first and second baskets have substantially identical geometries relative to each other.
Didier teaches wherein the first and second baskets have substantially identical geometries relative to each other (Fig. 1 plurality of baskets 16 shown to be substantially identical).
It would have been obvious to have modified Grosse and Manuel to incorporate the teachings of Didier to have a plurality of baskets comprise a first and second basket in order to be able to process a large quantity of similar foods (Didier Col. 2 lines 1-20).
Claims 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Grosse (US4583452), Manuel (US20080044537), and Didier (US4470343) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Backus (US7225730).
Regarding claim 5, Grosse, Manuel, and Didier teach the system of claim 4, but are silent on wherein the first and second baskets have different geometries relative to each other
Backus teaches wherein the first and second baskets have different geometries relative to each other (Col. 3 lines 45-55 a variety of accessories including wire basket and rotating stir fryer, having different geometries).
Grosse, Manuel, Didier and Backus are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of grilling devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Grosse, Manuel, and Didier to incorporate the teachings of Backus to have the first and second baskets have different geometries in order to be able to cook a variety of types of foods with different requirements in the same device (Backus Col. 3 lines 45-55).
PNG
media_image4.png
750
678
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 16 of Backus
Regarding claim 7, Grosse, Manuel, and Didier teach the system of claim 1, but are silent on wherein at least one of the plurality of baskets comprises an adjustable grating.
Backus teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of baskets comprises an adjustable grating (Col. 23 lines 30-45 Fig. 16 lid 272 able to be adjusted).
It would have been obvious to have modified Grosse, Manuel, and Didier to incorporate the teachings of Backus to have a basket with an adjustable grating in order to clamp onto and hold during rotisserie cooking several different thicknesses of foods (Backus Col. 23 lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 8, Grosse, Manuel, and Didier teach the system of claim 1, but are silent on wherein at least one of the plurality of baskets defines a barrel-shape geometry.
Backus teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of baskets defines a barrel-shape geometry (Col. 24 lines 15-35 tubular rotary cooking container 298).
It would have been obvious to have modified Grosse, Manuel, and Didier to incorporate the teachings of Backus to have a barrels shaped basket in order to cook foods such as meats, vegetables, popcorn, shrimp, and seafood that require stir frying and rotary cooking (Backus Col. 24 lines 15-35).
Regarding claim 9, Grosse, Manuel, and Didier teach the system of claim 1, but are silent on wherein at least one of the plurality of baskets a wire-frame grating that is removable.
Backus teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of baskets has a wire-frame grating that is removable (Col. 22 lines 55-65 Fig. 16 lid 272 moved from one position and slid into various slots 278, understood to be removable as the lid must be taken completely out of one slot 278 to be moved to another slot 278).
It would have been obvious to have modified Grosse, Manuel, and Didier to incorporate the teachings of Backus to have a basket with a removable grating in order to be able to move the adjustable lid into a position that accommodates different thicknesses of foods (Backus Col. 23 lines 30-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/22/2025, with respect to Manuel (US20080044537) and Didier (US4470343) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Applicant's amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, wherein the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited reference Grosse (US4583452) Manuel (US20080044537), and Didier (US4470343).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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 ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/15/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761