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, 3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzariol (ITTV20100044) in view of Oh (KR101694398) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, Mazzariol teaches
equipment for grilling food, comprising:
at least two vertical uprights (46) equipped with guides (15) for a vertical sliding movement of a grate-holding frame (30) supporting one or more pairs of grates (32,34), ([0038] Fig. 1 vertical movement devices 12 with two grooves 15 to receive grill 30, having grates 32, 34),
said grate-holding frame (30), which is configured to translate in a vertical direction and to rotate ([0042] movement device 12 lifts grill vertically and rotates grill 30, Fig. 3-4),
one or more pairs of grates (32,34) hinged to each other ([0040] connected to each other by two hinges 28), made integral with said grate-holding frame (30) and configured to be opened to receive the food and closed to hold the food during rotation and grilling ([0040] two grill elements 32 and 34, connected to each other by two hinges 28, adjustable to the thickness of food being cooked),
a first motor ([0047] motor means) configured to translate said one or more pairs of grates (32,34); ([0047-0049] motor to operate movement device) vertically,
a control system ([0064] control system) configured to provide for a cyclical translation and rotation of said grates ([0064-0067] control system to move grill from horizontal position for a specific period then rotates and alters the height of the grill after a preset period of time),
and a heat source ([0074] heat emission means) placed under said gate-holding frame and said grates ([0074] heat emission means on frame 16, under grill 30).
Mazzariol is silent on a second motor configured to rotate said grate holding frame, said translating vertically along guides on said vertical uprights.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Oh
PNG
media_image2.png
550
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Oh
Oh teaches a motor ([0023] motor may be connected to the rotation shaft 113 to automatically rotate the rotation shaft 113) configured to rotate said grate-holding frame (113), said motor ([0023] motor may be connected to the rotation shaft 113, Annotated Fig. 3) translating vertically along guides on said vertical uprights (Fig. 4, rotation shaft 113 vertically moving)
Mazzariol and Oh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of grills. It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol to incorporate the teachings of Oh to, in combination with the motor of Mazzariol, have a second motor configured to rotate the grate holding frame which translate vertically so that the food being roasted is able to properly and automatically rotated even within a limited space, by adjusting a vertical height of the rotated food, without risking injuring the food itself (Oh [0004, 0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 1, and Mazzariol teaches further comprising one or more lower elements adapted to contain embers as providing a heat source ([0034] tub 14 suitable for containing embers).
Regarding claim 9, Mazzariol and Oh the equipment according to claim 1, Mazzariol teaches further comprising two or more wheels at a base of said equipment, said two or more wheels being configured to allow a translation of the equipment ([0033] four legs equipped with wheels for moving the barbecue).
Regarding claim 12, Mazzariol and Oh the equipment according to claim 1, Mazzariol teaches further comprising control devices ([0065] sensor means 26, sending a signal to the management and control system which in turn controls the motor means and the direction of rotation of the same) that allow a complete rotation of the grate-holding frame only when the grate-holding frame is in a completely lifted position ([0065-0066] rotation of grill 30 at a defined height, Fig. 4 shown being completely lifted).
Claims 2, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzariol (ITTV20100044) and Oh (KR101694398) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Jenkins (US20180310760).
Regarding claim 2, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 1, but is silent on further comprising one or more gas plates operating as a heat source.
Jenkins teaches further comprising one or more gas plates operating as a heat source (([0034]) heat source system being a gas burner).
Mazzariol, Oh, and Jenkins are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of grills. It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol and Oh to incorporate the teachings of Jenkins to have a gas plate to provide an amount of energy that may be used to cook the food item (Jenkins [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 1, and Mazzariol teaches further comprising a control system configured to control the cyclic translation and rotation of said grate-holding frame according to preset time intervals ([0064-0067] control system to move grill from horizontal position for a specific period then rotates and alters the height of the grill after a preset period of time) but is silent on a PLC control system.
Jenkins teaches a PLC control system ([0050] processor 30 may be a programmable logic controller, PLC).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol and Oh to incorporate the teachings of Jenkins to have a PLC in order to control operation and administration of the cooking device based on processing information of the cooking device (Jenkins [0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 5, but are silent on further comprising a heat probe configured to control a temperature of the heat source, wherein said probe is connected to said PLC.
Jenkins teaches further comprising a heat probe configured to control a temperature of the heat source ([0039] thermal probe to measure temperature), wherein said probe is connected to said PLC ([0091] temperature sensor sending indications of measured temperature, to PLC 30).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol and Oh to incorporate the teachings of Jenkins to have a heat probe to control the heat source in order to cause a heat source to modify an amount of energy provided by the heat source to cook a food item (Jenkins [0013]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzariol (ITTV20100044) and Oh (KR101694398) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Stahli (US 20050199616).
Regarding claim 4, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein said grate-holding frame is divided in a plurality of sectors on which two or more pairs of grates can be rested and constrained.
Stahli teaches wherein said grate-holding frame is divided in a plurality of sectors on which two or more pairs of grates can be rested and constrained ([0036] multi-tier arrangements of frying pans, taken to be grates, supported in and rested in side panels 6a, 6b).
Mazzariol, Oh, and Stahli are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of grills. It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol and Oh to incorporate the teachings of Stahli to increase the effectiveness of delivering energy and to reduced cooking times and to more dependable cooking results (Stahli [0014]).
Claims 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzariol (ITTV20100044) and Oh (KR101694398) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Popeil (US7514651).
Regarding claim 7, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 1, but are silent on further comprising, as a protection element for the heat source, at least one rear shield, side shields, and a door in a front part of said equipment, said at least one rear shield, said side shield, and said front door being configured to close the equipment on each side after insertion of the food.
Popeil teaches further comprising, as a protection element for the heat source, at least one rear shield (72), side shields (68, 56), and a door (34) in a front part of said equipment (Col. 3 lines 45-55 a generally vertical metal back 72, and two essentially vertical side walls, left oven wall 68 and right oven wall 56, and a glass door 34), said at least one rear shield (72), said side shields (68, 56), and said front door (34) being configured to close the equipment on each side after insertion of the food (Col. 3 lines 45-55 metal enclosure 10 to enclose spit assembly 20).
Mazzariol, Oh, and Popeil are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of grills. It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol and Oh to incorporate the teachings of Popeil to have a rear shield, side shield, and door surrounding the food in order to provide an indoor use oven which has construction features and scale which make the cleaning process easier (Popeil Col. 1 lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 11, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 1, but are silent on further comprising light-emitting devices configured to warn an operator that the equipment is working and to provide information regarding a cooking process.
Popeil teaches further comprising light-emitting devices configured to warn an operator that the equipment is working and to provide information regarding a cooking process (Col. 5 lines 5-10 Light 112 is part of control box 36 and is protected from breakage and from producing glare outside of oven cavity 28 by guard 114).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol and Oh to incorporate the teachings of Popeil to have a light emitting device in order to illuminate food being cooked within oven cavity (Popeil Col. 5 lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 14, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein said grate-holding frame is configured to be replaced with a rotisserie spit in order to cook entire animals.
Popeil teaches wherein said grate-holding frame is configured to be replaced with a rotisserie spit in order to cook entire animals (Col. 3 lines 55-65 spit assembly 20 is suspended within oven cavity 28).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol and Oh to incorporate the teachings of Popeil to have a removable rotisserie spit in order to have a single device which could cook a variety of foods and overcomes the aforementioned problems of traditional indoor household rotisseries (Col. 1 lines 45-55).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzariol (ITTV20100044) and Oh (KR101694398) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hook (US20040129693).
Regarding claim 10, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 1, but are silent on further comprising an emergency switch to be used to stop any movement of the equipment or to off the heat source.
Hook teaches further comprising an emergency switch to be used to stop any movement of the equipment or to off the heat source ([0053] The control system of the preferred embodiment also has OFF switch 75 for an emergency stopping operation that places the grill in a safe mode in the event of an emergency situation).
Mazzariol, Oh, and Hook are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of grills. It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol and Oh to incorporate the teachings of Hook to have an emergency switch in order to place the grill in a safe mode in the event of an emergency situation (Hook [0053]).
Regarding claim 13, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 1, but are silent on further comprising a remote control configured to set and/or control all grilling stages, including a start of the first and the second motors, from a suitable distance.
Hook teaches further comprising a remote control configured to set and/or control all grilling stages, including a start of the first and the second motors, from a suitable distance ([0050] computer system 50 to remotely communicate with the cooking device).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol and Oh to incorporate the teachings of Hook to have remote in order to control cooking operations from remote locations (Hook [0050]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzariol (ITTV20100044) and Oh (KR101694398) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Fritz (DE202005003138) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 6, Mazzariol and Oh teach the equipment according to claim 1, Mazzariol teaches further comprising a control system ([0064] control system) configured to control the cyclic translation and rotation of said grate-holding frame according to preset time intervals ([0064-0067] control system to move grill from horizontal position for a specific period then rotates and alters the height of the grill after a preset period of time) but is silent on wherein said rotation hinges comprise two or more rotation points, thus making it possible to vary a distance of the lower grates from the upper grates.
Fritz teaches wherein said rotation hinges comprise two or more rotation points, thus making it possible to vary a distance of the lower grates from the upper grates ([0006, 0021] roasting racks 1 and 2 pivot to between three stable positions, a first folded position, second half open position, and a third fully open position, Figs. 3, 4A-B).
Mazzariol, Oh, and Fritz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of grills. It would have been obvious to have modified Mazzariol and Oh to incorporate the teachings of Fritz to have two or more rotation points in order to adjust the grill to cook different thickness and quantities of food being cooked, adapted to thick grilled foods, thin grilled foods in small quantities, and grilling foods for a large crowd (Fritz [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image3.png
804
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Oh
Regarding applicant’s argument that Oh does not specify the location of the motor 113, the specified location is also noted in Fig. 2 of Oh, which is annotated above, where the circled term is translated to be motor, so it is understood the Oh teaches the location of the motor as previously shown in annotated Fig. 3.
Additionally, regarding applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine Mazzariol and Oh, as the modification “would change the principle operation of Mazzariol,” the modification of Mazzarioal to have the second motor as taught in Oh would not be understood to change the principle operation of Mazzariol as adding the second motor, that is translated with the vertical uprights, does not negate the “u-shaped path and the operation of the combined lifting and rotating mechanism” described by Mazzariol as applicant argues. The second motor as taught by Oh would not hinder or render the operation of Mazzariol’s invention useless given that there can also be an independent rotation affected by the translated motor of Oh, such that there may be an automatic rotation of food at an adjusted vertical height, which would be able to be done at any desired vertical height in the “u-shaped path” of Mazzariol, which together reduces the risk of injuring to food rotated itself as taught in Oh in [0004, 0023].
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 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 3/3/2026
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761