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 .
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/4/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a heat source.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “a heat source” is the same as “a heat source” recited previously in claim 1. For purposes of examination, they are taken to be the same element.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claim 1, 2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi (US20120073453).
PNG
media_image1.png
222
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 of Choi
PNG
media_image2.png
307
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 17 of Choi
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches equipment for grilling food (3100), comprising:
at least two vertical uprights (3130, 3230) equipped with guides (3140, 3240) for a vertical sliding movement of a grate-holding frame ([0266] one end of the convex grill 3300 is mounted in the slider 3150, annotated Fig. 17) supporting one or more pairs of grates (3300), each of said vertical uprights (3130, 3230) having a lower end and an upper end connected to said lower end by a straight segment (Fig. 17);
said grate-holding frame (Annotated Fig. 17), which is configured to translate in a vertical direction and to rotate ([0266, 0275] convex grill 3300 is rotated by the fourth driving motor 3310; first slider 3150 is moved up and down by the rotation of the second feed screw 3130, the convex grill 3300 is also moved up and down);
one or more pairs of grates ([0170] Fig. 9 automatic grill 510) hinged to each other, made integral with said grate- holding frame (520), and configured to be opened to receive the food and closed to hold the food during rotation and grilling ([0184] first grill 511 and the second grill 512 can be designed in such a way that a predetermined space is provided according to the shape of the food inserted therebetween).
a first motor ([0261] motor) configured to translate said one or more pairs of grates vertically ([0261] a shaft of a motor (not shown) is connected to one end portion of the second feed screw 3130; [0275] first slider 3150 is moved up and down by the rotation of the second feed screw 3130, the convex grill 3300 is also moved up and down);
a second motor (3310) configured to rotate said grate-holding frame (Annotated Fig. 17, [0266] convex grill 3300 is rotated by the fourth driving motor 3310), said second motor (3310) translating vertically along guides on said vertical uprights (3130, Fig. 17); and
a control system ([0025] controller) configured to provide for a cyclical translation and rotation of said grates (3330, [0273-0277] rotate the grill, grill is moved up and down) by controlling a vertical translation of said one or more pairs of grates by said first motor ([0275-0276] convex grill 3300 is moved up and down, [0261] motor connected to screw 3130)),
said control system further controlling a rotation of said grate-holding frame by said second motor ([0274, 0277] convex grill is rotated, motor 3130);
a heat source ([0254] grill operator 3100 is mounted above the heat supply part) placed under said grate-holding frame and said grate (3300).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches the equipment according to claim 1, Choi teaches further comprising one or more gas plates operating as a heat source ([0024 gas burner).
Regarding claim 6, Choi teaches the equipment according to claim 1, wherein said one or more pairs of grates (510) comprises upper and lower grates (511, 512) hinged to each other with rotation hinges (513) between said upper grates and lower grates (511, 512), wherein said rotation hinges comprise two or more rotation points (Fig. 9, two hinges 513), thus making it possible to vary a distance of the lower grates from the upper grates (511, 512).
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches the equipment according to claim 1, Choi 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 ([0225] movement means employs a plurality of wheels 701, Fig. 16 showing at least two wheels).
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 3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20120073453) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mazzariol (ITTV20100044) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches the equipment according to claim 1, but is silent on further comprising one or more lower elements adapted to contain embers as providing a heat source
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).
Choi and Mazzariol are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of grilling equipment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Choi to incorporate the teachings of Mazzariol to have a lower element that contain embers as providing a heat source so that when embers are used, the grill may be positioned at a greater distance then be able to move closer as time passes due to lower intsensity of embers (Mazzariol [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches the equipment according to claim 1, further wherein said control system ([0025] controller) is configured to control the vertical translation ([0275-0276] convex grill 3300 is moved up and down, [0261] motor connected to screw 3130)), and the rotation of said grate-holding frame ([0274, 0277] convex grill is rotated, motor 3130), but is silent on according to preset time intervals.
Mazzariol teaches control the vertical translation and the 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).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Choi to incorporate the teachings of Mazzariol to control vertical translation and rotation of the grate holding frame according to time intervals so that the grill is at the desired cooking positions according to the user’s needs (Mazzariol [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches the equipment according to claim 1, but is silent on comprising control devices that allow a complete rotation of the grate-holding frame only when the grate-holding frame is in a completely lifted position.
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).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Choi to incorporate the teachings of Mazzariol to rotate the grate holding frame only when it is completely lifted so that it is possible to keep the food warm, without burning it, by simply rotating the grill and keeping it at the maximum distance from the embers (Mazzariol [0070]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20120073453) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Stahli (US 20050199616).
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches the equipment according to claim 1, but is 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).
Choi 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 Choi 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 Choi (US20120073453) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Popeil (US7514651).
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches 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).
Choi 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 Choi 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, Choi teaches the equipment according to claim 1, but is 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 Choi 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, Choi teaches the equipment according to claim 1, but is 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 Choi 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20120073453) and Mazzariol (ITTV20100044) as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Jenkins (US20180310760).
Regarding claim 8, Choi and Mazzariol 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 control system.
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).
Choi, Mazzariol, 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 Choi and Mazzariol 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]).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20120073453) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hook (US20040129693).
Regarding claim 10, Choi teaches the equipment according to claim 1, but is 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).
Choi 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 Choi 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, Choi teach the equipment according to claim 1, but is 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 Choi to incorporate the teachings of Hook to have remote in order to control cooking operations from remote locations (Hook [0050]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20120073453) and Mazzariol (ITTV20100044) as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Popeil (US7514651).
Regarding claim 15, Choi and Mazzariol teach the equipment according to claim 5, and Choi teaches wherein said control system is further configured to adjust gas burners ([0243] controller 2090 at one side thereof for controlling the gas burner 2600), but Choi is silent on an opening and closing of heat shields.
Popeil said control system is further configured to adjust an opening and closing of heat shields (Col. 2 lines 19-25 control box selectively seal the opening).
It would have been obvious to have modified Choi and Mazzariol to incorporate the teachings of Popeil to adjust an opening and closing of heat shields so that the cooking area is selectively sealed and opened (Popeil Col. 2 lines 10-25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 6/4/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Mazzariol (ITTV20100044) in view of Oh (KR101694398) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Applicant's amendment necessitated a new ground of rejection presented in this Office action, wherein the new ground of rejection is made in view of newly cited reference Choi (US20120073453).
Conclusion
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, Steven 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/17/2026
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights