DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauerwein (US 20170164783 A1) in view of Gonnella (US 8291896 B1), and Zhuang (CN 109464036 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sauerwein discloses a grill device, comprising:
a cooking portion assembly, comprising:
a fire pot assembly (370, Fig. 4);
an ash-collection container (the structure defined by elements 304 and 306, see Fig. 4) (it can collect ash that is mixed with grease);
an outer wall (Figs. 1 and 2: outer housing of the cooking chamber including sidewalls and back panel 210) laterally surrounding the fire pot assembly and the ash-collection container (the firepot and ash container are housed inside the outer wall as shown by Fig. 1);
a bottom plate extending between the fire pot assembly and the ash-collection container (see Figs. 4/5 showing a floor located below the drip tray 345 and extending between the firepot 370 and the container 304);
a drip tray (345, Fig. 5) disposed above the fire pot assembly and ash-collection container;
a cooking chamber (305, Fig. 4) defined above the drip tray; and
an expansion chamber defined beneath the drip tray and above the fire pot assembly, the ash-collection container, and the bottom plate (see Figs. 4/5 showing a space/expansion chamber located below the drip tray 345), wherein the expansion chamber is configured (i.e., capable) to facilitate particulate within smoke produced by combustion within the fire pot assembly to fall out of the smoke before the smoke reaches the cooking chamber (it’s a region where particulates can fall out from the smoke due to gravity before the smoke reaches the cooking chamber; the chamber also has walls for the particulates within the smoke to adhere).
Sauerwein fails to disclose:
an air gap defined between each inner lateral surface of the outer wall and each lateral outer surface of the fire pot assembly and the ash-collection container; and
a baffle disposed in an opening of the drip tray, the opening and the baffle positioned vertically above and laterally aligned with the ash-collection container.
Sauerwein discloses multiple air gaps between the inner lateral surface (i.e., vertical side wall) of the outer wall and each lateral outer surface of the fire pot assembly and the ash-collection container, as explained in the last office action and in earlier office actions. It is not clear whether there is an air gap to the left of the left wall of the chamber 306, when looking at Fig. 3.
However, Gonnela teaches an air gap spaced from the housing of the outdoor oven for the purpose of inhibiting heat transfer between the cooking chamber and the external environment (col. 7, lines 64 – col. 8, line 3).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Sauerwein to include an air gap defined between each inner lateral surface of the outer wall and each lateral outer surface of the fire pot assembly and the ash-collection container. The motivation to combine is to inhibit heat transfer between the inner compartment of the cooking unit and the external environment. The air gap would reduce heat loss and keep the outer wall cool to the touch.
Zhuang teaches a cooking device comprising a baffle (Fig. 1 shows a downward slopping baffle at the right end of shelf 12) disposed in an opening of the drip tray (Fig. 1, 11). The drip tray then guides the oil into a tube for drainage (note: this drainage tube corresponds to the drainage tube 304 of Sauerwein).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Sauerwein to include a baffle disposed in an opening of the drip tray, the opening and the baffle positioned vertically above and laterally aligned with the ash-collection container. With the modification, the end of the shelf (Fig. 5 of Sauerwein, 345) would be modified to have a baffle and a drip tray that guides oil into the tube (Sauerwein, 304) (note: the drip tray of Zhuang corresponds to the drip tray of the claim).
The motivation to combine is so that all of the oil is cleanly and completely guided into the tube (Sauerwein, 304), instead of collecting and congealing at the edge of the shelf (Sauerwein, 345).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are moot since they do not apply to the current rejection.
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 JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights