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 Amendments
The amendments filed 09/25/2025 have been entered. Accordingly, the previous USC § 112 rejections have been overcome. Claims 1-4, 8-16, 19 and 22-24 remain rejected.
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.
Claims 8-14 and 22 are 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 8 reads, emphasis added “to automatically actuate the fryer lid via at least one piston having a first piston end connected to a motor driven actuator and a second piston end connected to the fryer lid to actuate the fryer lid” it is unclear if the to automatically actuate and the to actuate of the fryer lid are the same of different actuations with same or different limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues (page 7-9):
In the present office action it is indicated that Applicant's previous arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 8-16, 19, 22 and 23 have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 1-4, 8-16, 19 and 22-24 remain pending, with claims 1, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 19 amended to clarify the claims and address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
On page 4 of the Office Action, Claims 1-3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 5,402,712), Harter (US 5,847,365) and Pauty (LU 81821 Al). It was asserted that King discloses "a tank closure assembly (generally lid 6) for a vat of a deep fryer, comprising: a motor driven (46) actuator (cable drum 37, carriage 28) adapted to actuate the tank7
closure assembly (generally lid 6) between an open position and a closed position (actuated open and closed position of lid/ tank closure assembly..." Office Action, page 4.
King, the primary reference in all of the § 103 rejections, discloses a MOTORIZED ASSIST FOR RAISING AND LOWERING THE LID OF A LARGE CAPACITY PRESSURE COOKER and discloses that "[t]he motorized assist assembly of the present invention uses a cable operated by an electric motor driven cable drum. The motorized assist assembly of the present invention is simple in construction and inexpensive to manufacture." (King, Col. 2, lines 4-8, emphasis added).
Indeed, as acknowledged in the Office Action, King discloses a tank lid that is actuated by a cable drum 37 and a plurality of cables 40 and 41. As disclosed in King (and acknowledged in the Office action) "... electric motor 46 causes rotation of drum 37 in a counterclockwise direction (as viewed in FIG. 3), cables 40 and 41 will be wound upon the drum 37 and the carriage 28 will be caused to shift upwardly within support frame 23. Upward movement of carriage 28 will result in upward movement of mounting arms 9 and 10 together with vat lid 6." (King, Col. 4-5, lines 66-7).
As further provided in King "operation of electric motor 46 in such a manner as to cause the drum 37 to rotate in a clockwise direction (as viewed in FIG. 3) will cause the cables 40 and 41 to pay off the drum 37, resulting in a downward movement of carriage 28, mounting arms 9 and 10, together with vat lid 6. The weight of these elements will assure such downward movement." (King, Col. 5, lines 8-14, emphasis added).
Thus, King describes a drum and cable system that raises the fryer lid, and gravity-assisted system that lowers the fryer lid. Nowhere does King mention any piston(s), nor any physical structures particularly configured with the piston(s) to raise and lower a fryer lid as Applicant particularly discloses and claims.
The Office Action misrepresents King in rejecting claims 1-3, among other places, wherein it is stated "lift arms (10) removably coupled to respective pistons of the plurality of pistons (lid (6) holding arms (10) held to lifting component through inherently removable bolts "Lid mounting arm 10 is affixed by bolts 49 to the upper end of the vertical carriage frame member 30" (column 4, lines 61-65)), the lift arms including a first and second pair of travelers (actuation track portions of U shaped guide rails 24/25 retain pair of travelers having roller wheels 33/34, see guiding carriage 28 having element 30 in attachment to arms 10, see figure 3) adapted to actuate in substantially parallel fashion (see parallel orientation of said travel components in figure 3), on an actuation support structure (u shaped guide rails 24/25), between an open position and a closed position (open and closing of lid as disclosed above)...". Office Action, pg. 4-5.
King nowhere mentions any pistons in describing its implementation. Nonetheless, the Office Action acknowledges that "King is silent regarding a plurality of pistons each piston extending in a substantially upward direction from the motor driven actuator,... " but cites to Harter as making up for that deficiency. Office Action, pg. 6.
However, Harter does not make up for the deficiencies of King as regards the particular piston structure disclosed and claimed by Applicant. Harter discloses an "instant-on feature for a cooking device that allows microprocessor control of the device after a period of idling. When activated, the instant-on enabler switch sends a signal to the microprocessor, which checks an internal clock to determine the amount of time the device has remained idle since the last cook cycle. This information is sent back to the instant-on enabler switch, which then selects among an appropriate array of cooking times." (Harter, Abstract). As regards Harter's microprocessor controlled system, it does not disclose or suggest any "piston" nor the associated structure(s) such as Applicant discloses and claims.
King and Harter, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest a tank closure assembly such as Applicant particularly discloses and claims. Harter, like King, does not disclose or suggest at least a tank closure assembly for a vat of a deep fryer, comprising "a plurality of pistons coupled to the motor driven actuator, each piston extending in a substantially upward direction from the motor driven actuator, and each piston having a first piston end connected to the motor driven actuator and a second piston end" such as Applicant claims in the claims amended herewith.
Harter, like King, does not disclose or suggest, at least, a tank closure assembly for a vat of a deep fryer, comprising "lift arms removably coupled to the second piston end of respective pistons of the plurality of pistons, the lift arms including a first and second pair of travelers adapted to actuate in substantially parallel fashion, on an actuation support structure, between the open position and the closed position" such as Applicant claims in the claims amended herewith.
However Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Applicant acting as there own lexicographer has provided that the pistons are not drawn to the traditional sense of a piston by definition, emphasis added -“a disk or short cylinder fitting closely within a tube in which it moves up and down against a liquid or gas, used in an internal combustion engine to derive motion, or in a pump to impart motion.” -Oxford dictionary, but are worm gear driven actuators, Applicants specifications “The motor driven actuator 102 may be a worm gear linear actuator or any of various other devices capable of driving the tank closure assembly 100. [0017] The motor driven actuator 102 is coupled to at least one piston 104. Each piston 104 extends in a substantially upward direction from the motor driven actuator 102 and removably couples to a lift arm 106 at a second end of the piston 104 that is opposite of the first end.” [0016-0017]. The Applicants specifications do not provide for the piston having any piston structure as defined by the traditional term piston, at most the term piston as used by Applicant may suggest concentric tubes in view of the drawings and is akin to the structure of Harters linear actuator tubes 42 seen in figure 1, accordingly little weight is given to the Applicants term use of piston in view of the actual definition of pistons.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant secondly argues (page 9-10):
The Office Action acknowledges that "King is silent regarding the fryer lid comprising a collection channel adapted to collect moisture within the collection channel and drain collected moisture from the fryer lid at at least one corner of the fryer lid through the collection channel, and exhaust pressure and moisture from the vat while the deep fryer is in the closed position", but cites to Pauty as making up for those deficiencies. Office Action, pg. 8.
Pauty discloses a pressure vessel having a "seal made of flexible and elastic material of the lip seal type" having "lips coming to bear on the upper part of the container. This lip, inscribing itself substantially in a very flared cone, is sufficiently long for that when the cover is placed substantially vertically the condensates closed on the internal face of the cover can be entirely contained in the part lower located between the seal and the cover..., the liquid mass then having a volume comparable to a cylinder based on a segment of circle." Pauty discloses trapping the condensates, in one example via a sponge - "[o]ne of the features of the [Pauty's] invention is precisely to cause the slow elimination of the condensates, when the lid is closed." (Pauty, page 2, emphasis added).
In stark contrast, Applicant discloses and claims a configuration that does not implement complex physical structures such as Pauty discloses to "ensure the slow evacuation" of liquid condensate. (Pauty, page 3). Rather, Applicant discloses a "collection channel 122 may be adapted to collect moisture that forms as condensation on the interior of the lid 120 while the food product is cooked in the vat 12. The geometry of the lid 120, along with gravity, may direct moisture into the collection channel 122. As moisture is collected by the collection channel 122, the moisture is further directed to one (or more) corner(s) of the lid 120 through the channel 122. Once funneled to the corner(s) of the lid 120, the moisture collected by the collection channel is drained from the collection channel 122. The lid 120 may be positioned to capture more or less moisture as a function of the position of the lid above the vat." Present Application, [0021], emphasis added.
However Examiner respectfully disagrees because Pauty as already cited in the action, discloses a collection system of Lid condensation powered by gravity to a drain (see various drains of Fig-2 (24) Fig-4 (34) Fig-9 (51) not all of which dealing with sponges, however the sponge does not teach away from draining and it is unclear how the sponge / “slow evacuation” provides differentiation to the present invention) as already provided it would be obvious to modifying the condensate collection/drain location of Pauty having a rounded structure to the finite space having corners/rectangular structure of King. The Lid of King being structurally liftable (as already cited to) provides inherency to variations of condensation quantity that would contact the lid and therefore be in the collection system.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant Thirdly argues (page 10-11):
None of King, Harter, nor Pauty, alone or in any combination, disclose or suggest Applicant's claimed invention as recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15, that comprises "a plurality of pistons coupled to the motor driven actuator, each piston extending in a substantially upward direction from the motor driven actuator, and each piston having a first piston end connected to the motor driven actuator and a second piston end;" and lift arms removably coupled to the second piston end of respective pistons of the plurality of pistons...". None of King, Harter, nor Pauty, alone or in any combination, disclose or suggest Applicant's claimed invention as recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15, that comprises "a collection channel adapted to collect moisture within the collection channel and drain via gravity funneling of the collected moisture from the fryer lid at at least one corner of the fryer lid through the collection channel, the gravity funneling of collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position, above the vat" (language from amended claim 1 is cited here but substantially the same language is amended into independent claims 8 and 15).
No new argument is provided over the above first two arguments.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant fourthly argues (page 11):
Furthermore, persons skilled in the art would not combine King, which teaches away from Applicant's invention, in any combination with the Harter and/or Pauty prior art cited, wherein King provides "efforts to mechanize the operation of large capacity pressure cookers by means of electro-mechanical or hydraulic controls for raising and lowering the lids of the vats have produced more problems than they have solved." (King, Col. 1, lines 55-60).
(Examiner notes King is drawn to an electro mechanical control and so does not teach away therefrom)
Harter, without describing pistons anywhere in its embodiments, represents and epitomizes an effort to mechanize the operation of large capacity pressure cookers by means of electro-mechanical or hydraulic controls for raising and lowering the lids of the vats.
(Examiner notes that the present application cites the term piston but provides contradictory to term explanation of pistons being worm gears providing movement [0016-0017])
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant fourthly argues (page 11-12):
On page 10 of the Office Action, Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Harter and Pauty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimansky (US 6,427,583). Shimansky does not make up for the deficiencies of King, Harter, nor Pauty. Shimansky merely discloses "An apparatus and method for frying food is comprised of a housing provided with a receiving opening in which food stuff to be fried is inserted. The foodstuff is directed to a perforated frying basket which is displaced upon actuation of a switch by the user into a frying pot containing hot oil. While the basket is in the frying pot, it is being shaken to provide more even cooking and to prevent the foodstuff from sticking together. After the frying cycle the frying basket is displaced to a position above the frying pot where the basket is again shaken to drip oil from the foodstuff and the basket into the frying pot. The basket is then conveyed to a discharge position where a chute directs the fried foodstuff to a discharge opening where a container has been placed to receive the fried foodstuff" Shimansky, Abstract.
Like King, Harter, and Pauty, Shimansky does not disclose or suggest, at least, several material elements of Applicant's claimed invention as recited in independent claim 1 from which claim 4 is dependent, including "a plurality of pistons coupled to the motor driven actuator, each piston extending in a substantially upward direction from the motor driven actuator, and each piston having a first piston end connected to the motor driven actuator and a second piston end;" and "lift arms removably coupled to the second piston end of respective pistons of the plurality of pistons...". Like King, Harter, and Pauty, Shimansky does not disclose or suggest Applicant's claimed invention as recited in independent claim 1, from which claim 4 is dependent, including "a collection channel adapted to collect moisture within the collection channel and drain via gravity funneling of the collected moisture from the fryer lid at at least one corner of the fryer lid through the collection channel, the gravity funneling of collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position, above the vat". The combination of King, Harter, Pauty, and Shimansky does not render obvious Applicant's claimed invention as recited in claim 4.
(Examiner notes that Shimansky is directed to the fire suppression features not argued to by applicant in present remarks (09/25/2025)).
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant Fifthly argues (page 12):
On page 12 of the Office Action, Claims 8 and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Pauty. King does not disclose or suggest, at least, "activating an actuation support structure to automatically actuate the fryer lid via at least one piston having a first piston end connected to a motor driven actuator and a second piston end connected to the fryer lid to actuate the fryer lid between an open position and a closed position, and the gravity funneling of the collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position, above the vat" as recited in independent claim 8. Nor does Pauty, as discussed above, disclose or suggest such claimed features of independent claim 8. Therefore, the combination of King and Pauty does not render obvious Applicant's claimed invention as recited in independent claim 8 nor claim 14 which is dependent from claim 8.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because King provides motor driven control as already cited to and is aligned to the “activating” as presently claimed because the only mention of activate/activating found in applicants specs similarly cites an operator initiating motor driven control “Further, the lift assembly control components 130 may be adapted to actuate the tank closure assembly 100 when an operator activates the lift assembly control components 130.” [0025].
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant sixthly argues (page 12-13):
On page 15 of the Office Action, Claims 9-11 and 13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Pauty as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Harter. Claims 9-11 and 13 are dependent directly or indirectly from independent claim 8, and as discussed above King and Pauty do not disclose or suggest, at least, "activating an actuation support structure to automatically actuate the fryer lid via at least one piston having a first piston end connected to a motor driven actuator and a second piston end connected to the fryer lid to actuate the fryer lid between an open position and a closed position, and the gravity funneling of the collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position, above the vat" as recited in independent claim 8.
Likewise, Harter does not disclose or suggest, among other things, "activating an actuation support structure to automatically actuate the fryer lid via at least one piston having a first piston end connected to a motor driven actuator and a second piston end connected to the fryer lid to actuate the fryer lid between an open position and a closed position, and the gravity funneling of the collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position, above the vat" as recited in independent claim 8.
Therefore, the combination of King and Pauty in view of Harter does not render obvious Applicant's claimed invention as recited in independent claim 8 nor claims 9-11 and 13 which are dependent directly or indirectly from claim 8.
No new argument is provided over the above arguments.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant seventhly argues (page 13):
On page 18 of the Office Action, Claim 12 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Pauty and Harter as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jones (US 2011/0011278). Claim 12 is dependent from claim 11, which is dependent from claim 9 which is dependent from claim 8. As discussed in detail above, the combination of King and Pauty in view of Harter does not render obvious Applicant's claimed invention as recited in independent claim 8 nor claims 9-11 and 13 which are dependent directly or indirectly from claim 8. The cited reference of Jones (cited in a previous Office Action) does not make up for the deficiencies of King, Pauty or Harter. Jones discloses a racking system for a deep fryer with an actuator associated with raising and lowering the rack into a housing, where the racking system also includes a sensor that detects a property of the cooking oil, which determines whether to raise or lower the rack. In a prior Office Action the Examiner acknowledged that Jones fails to disclose a fryer lid covering the fryer.
Examiner notes that claim 12 - “determining there has been a change in the pressure and actuating the lid to the open position.” Provides that the pressure is a forced applied directly by operator to initiate motion control and not a pressure of the cooking oil, see Applicants specifications [0025] “when pressure is applied to the lift assembly control components 130 by an operator, the tank closure assembly will begin to actuate to the closed position. In addition, if there is a change in the pressure applied to the operator while the tank closure assembly 100 is actuating from the open position to the closed position and the tank closure assembly 100 has not reached the fully closed position, the tank closure assembly 100 may be adapted to automatically return to the open position to prevent injuries to the operator and keeps items from being caught in the actuation of the tank closure assembly 100.” Also see parent claims of 12 providing such pressure in relation to lift system not cooking oil properties. Therefor the open top of Jones is not relevant to issue as lifting is not related to systems cooking oil conditions.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant eighthly argues (page 13-14):
Specifically, like King, Pauty and Harter, Jones (which does not make up for the deficiencies of King, Pauty and Harter as discussed above) does not disclose or suggest, at least, "activating an actuation support structure to automatically actuate the fryer lid via at least one piston having a first piston end connected to a motor driven actuator and a second piston end connected to the fryer lid to actuate the fryer lid between an open position and a closed position, and the gravity funneling of the collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position, above the vat" as recited in independent claim 8. Therefore, the combination of King, Pauty and Harter in view of Jones does not render obvious Applicant's claimed invention as recited in independent claim 8 nor claim 12 which is dependent from claims 11 and 9 which are dependent directly or indirectly from claim 8.
On page 20 of the Office Action, Claims 15, 16, 19, 22 and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Pauty, Harter and Jones. Independent claim 15 recites, a lift assembly control comprising "at least one lift assembly control component configured to control the at least one lift arm, via at least one piston having a first piston end connected to a motor driven actuator and a second piston end connected to the fryer lid to actuate the fryer lid to an open position and a closed position and the gravity funneling of the collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position, above the vat;" Again, none of King, Pauty, Harter, or Jones, alone or in any combination, disclose or suggest "at least one lift assembly control component configured to control the at least one lift arm, via at least one piston having a first piston end connected to a motor driven actuator and a second piston end connected to the fryer lid to actuate the fryer lid to an open position and a closed position" as recited in independent claim 15. Furthermore, none of King, Pauty, Harter, or Jones alone or in any combination disclose or suggest at least "the gravity funneling of the collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position, above the vat" as recited in independent claim 15. Claims 16, 19, 22 and 23 do not disclose or suggest the foregoing either, and are allowable for at least their dependencies on claim 15.
No new argument is provided over the above arguments.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant ninthly argues (page 14):
Erroneously, the present Office Action, on page 22 states "Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of King and Pauty before him or her, to modify the lid having corners of King to include the lid collection channel features of Lu, because collections channels permit the collection of condensate" however Lu is nowhere cited in the office action or properly applied. See Notice of References Cited. Accordingly, Applicant does not specifically address the reference to any purported Lu prior art, and relies on the foregoing discussions and distinctions discussed in regard to King and Pauty.
Examiner agrees “Lu” presence to Pautys combination reasoning statement is in typographical error to country code of Pauty and has provided correction/replacement with “Pauty” as already present in preceding advantage statement.
Applicant ninthly argues (page 14-15):
On page 29 of the Office Action, Claim 24 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Harter and Pauty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bringe (US 2013/0307385). Bringe is merely cited as disclosing "nylon rollers." However, Bringe does not make up for the deficiencies of King, Harter or Pauty. Bringe, like King, Harter or Pauty does not disclose or suggest, at least "a plurality of pistons coupled to the motor driven actuator, each piston extending in a substantially upward direction from the motor driven actuator, and each piston having a first piston end connected to the motor driven actuator and a second piston end;" or "lift arms removably coupled to the second piston end of respective pistons of the plurality of pistons...," as particularly recited in claim 1 from which claim 24 is dependent. Bringe, like King, Harter, and Pauty, alone or in any combination, does not disclose or suggest
"a collection channel adapted to collect moisture within the collection channel and drain via gravity funneling of the collected moisture from the fryer lid at at least one corner of the fryer lid through the collection channel, the gravity funneling of collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position, above the vat," as particularly recited in claim 1 from which claim 24 is dependent.
No new argument is provided over the above arguments.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “each piston having a first piston end connected to the motor driven actuator” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). the specifications provide “a motor driven actuator 102” [0015], however the drawings provide 102 as best seen in figure 4b pointing to housing sheet metal surrounding piston 104, it is unclear from the drawings that a motor or actuator driver exists or where placement thereof is in relation to each piston. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 5,402,712), Harter (US 5,847,365) and Pauty (LU 81821 A1).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a tank closure assembly (generally lid 6) for a vat of a deep fryer, comprising:
a motor driven (46) actuator (cable drum 37, carriage 28) adapted to actuate the tank closure assembly (generally lid 6) between an open position and a closed position (actuated open and closed position of lid/ tank closure assembly “it will be evident that if electric motor 46 causes rotation of drum 37 in a counterclockwise direction (as viewed in FIG. 3), cables 40 and 41 will be wound upon the drum 37 and the carriage 28 will be caused to shift upwardly within support frame 23. Upward movement of carriage 28 will result in upward movement of mounting arms 9 and 10 together with vat lid 6.” (column 4-5, lines 66-7))
lift arms (10) removably coupled to 3), on an actuation support structure (u shaped guide rails 24/25), between an open position and a closed position (open and closing of lid as disclosed above);
the actuation support structure having at least one actuation track (U-shaped track 24/25 guiding wheels 33/34 of carriage 28, see figure 3) adapted to guide the first and second pair of travelers and maintain an orientation of the tank closure assembly during actuation (parallel orientation and opening/closing as disclosed above), the actuation support structure coupled to a support flange (general housing 1, side panels 52/53, see figure 2/3);
the at least one actuation track disposed on a first of the actuation support structure (see guide wheels 33/34 contacting 2 of the 3 walls of the actuation support structure, said 2 walls constituting the track, figures 2 and 3) and a second side of the actuation support structure (see figure 3, mirroring of actuation support structure between sides of deep frying apparatus), the first side of the actuation support structure being opposite to the second side of the actuation support structure (opposite/mirroring as disclosed above);
a lid hanger (12 of lid in 14 of arm, see figure 2) disposed on a
a fryer lid (6) removably coupled to the lid hanger (slot 14 being removable enabling feature, see figure 2), the gravity funneling (see angled sides of lid 6, figure 2, necessarily interacting condensation with gravity) of collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position (nature of open and closed position to the escape of condensation), above the vat, and the fryer lid is configured to retain heat within the vat (nature of closure/body of lid having thermal reflectivity); and
a cooking carriage (cooking carriage/ carrier attached under lid “The under side of lid 6 is provided with hangers (not shown) adapted to detachably receive a carrier (not shown) for the support of wire product-carrying baskets or trays,” (column 3, lines 58-68)) removably coupled to a
King is silent regarding a plurality of pistons each piston extending in a substantially upward direction from the motor driven actuator, a lid hanger disposed at bottom portion of lift arms and each piston having a first piston end connected to the motor driven actuator and a second piston end coupled to lift arms.
However Harter teaches a plurality (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of parts, it would be obvious to provide more pistons, because increasing the number of piston merely increases the capacity of lifting no unexpected result is present) of pistons (linear actuators 42, see figure 2, Examiner acknowledges Applicant as lexicographer, the known definition of piston is given to an object confined to a cylinder and under movement from or to gas or liquid, it is best understood from applicants specifications [0016-0017] that a piston should be interpreted in this application as the moved portion of a lead screw actuator ) each piston extending in a substantially upward direction from the motor driven actuator (as shown in figure 1), a lid hanger (component connecting arm 52 to cooking cover 12 entirely below arm 52, see figure 1) disposed at bottom portion of lift arms (as shown in figure 1, cover 1 attaches to arm 52 at a bottom portion thereof) and each piston having a first piston end (where piston is connectively driven by motor 56, see figure 1) connected to the motor driven actuator and a second piston end coupled to lift arms (second piston end where vertical lifting of lid/lid hanger/lift arms 52 occurs via piston, see figure 1);.
The advantage of a plurality of pistons each piston extending in a substantially upward direction from the motor driven actuator, a lid hanger disposed at bottom portion of lift arms, is to positive connection to lift mechanism in both lifting and lowering of cover so that load of operations may be sensed by motor amperage changes and movement of the lid can be responsive thereto “the upper platen drive system of the preferred embodiment of FIGS. 2 and 3 has a safety system built into microprocessor 26 which monitors the amperage of the motor of upper platen 12 when in motion. If microprocessor 26 receives information from linear actuator 42 that is outside the window of acceptable amperage, microprocessor 26 determines that there is some problem causing impairment of motion. If upper platen 12 was descending, microprocessor 26 will stop linear drive motor 56 and output an alarm sound 82 and display an error message on user interface control display 70. If upper platen 12 is in an upward motion when an obstruction is encountered, the microprocessor will reverse the motion of upper platen 12 and move it to a position approximately one inch above lower platen 14 and again output an alarm sound 82 and display an error message on the user interface control display 70. After either of the above events occur, the power to the controls must be reset in order for automatic motion of upper platen 12 to be reinitiated.” (column 11, lines 19-37).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of King and Harter before him or her, to modify the single motor rope/pulley actuation system connecting at two locations 43/42 of King to be driven by the safety linear actuator driven lid system of Harter, because the safety linear actuator system provides safety response to detection of obstacles in the movement path of the lid.
King is silent regarding the fryer lid comprising a collection channel adapted to collect moisture within the collection channel and drain via gravity funneling of the collected moisture from the fryer lid at at least one corner of the fryer lid through the collection channel,
and exhaust pressure and moisture from the vat while the deep fryer is in the closed position.
However Pauty teaches (Fig-9) the fryer lid (30) comprising a collection channel (50) adapted to collect moisture within the collection channel (“FIG. 9 is an exemplary embodiment of this embodiment in which we see the lip 50, locally perforated with a large orifice 51. opening into a container 52 removably fixed along the wall 53 of the container.” (page 3, last paragraph)) and drain via gravity funneling of the collected moisture (via gravity driven drain 24/51) from the fryer lid at at least one corner (Pauty anticipates modification to shape “it is possible to make various modifications to it in terms of shapes” (page 3, second to last paragraph), such that placing drainage (51/24) at a corner would be obvious under Routine Optimization (see MPEP 2144.05 B. II.) because the amount of space available to place a drain is limited to the finite space of the collection channel at a permitter of lid) of the fryer lid through the collection channel (as shown in figure 9),
and exhaust pressure and moisture from the vat while the deep fryer is in the closed position (collection and subsequent evaporation venting are anticipated “It is possible to rapidly discharge the condensates collected in the peripheral groove into an auxiliary volume, and it is this which diffuses the condensate. FIG. 9 is an exemplary embodiment of this embodiment in which we see the lip 50, locally perforated with a large orifice 51. opening into a container 52 removably fixed along the wall 53 of the container. This reservoir can contain a spongy body 54 or be replaced itself by the spongy body.
The wall 53 of the tank being substantially at the temperature of the frying bath or of the product being cooked, the evaporation of the condensates is accelerated.” (page 3 last paragraph into beginning of page 4)).
The advantage of the fryer lid comprising a collection channel adapted to collect moisture within the collection channel and drain collected moisture from the fryer lid at at least one corner of the fryer lid through the collection channel,
and exhaust pressure and moisture from the vat while the deep fryer is in the closed position, is to provide collection of condensate from lid of fryer and subsequently evaporate the condensate out of the fryer “It is possible to rapidly discharge the condensates collected in the peripheral groove into an auxiliary volume, and it is this which diffuses the condensate. FIG. 9 is an exemplary embodiment of this embodiment in which we see the lip 50, locally perforated with a large orifice 51. opening into a container 52 removably fixed along the wall 53 of the container. This reservoir can contain a spongy body 54 or be replaced itself by the spongy body.
The wall 53 of the tank being substantially at the temperature of the frying bath or of the product being cooked, the evaporation of the condensates is accelerated.” (page 3 last paragraph into beginning of page 4), wherein the collection is able with the lid in an open or closed state “capable of absorbing the condensates (12) accumulated in the aforesaid groove, means being provided to bring said condensates into contact with said absorbing body, when the lid is opened or closed.” (abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of King and Pauty before him or her, to modify the lid having corners of King to include the lid collection channel features of Pauty, because collections channels permit the collection of condensate from the lid, keeping the condensate from returning to the fryer vat so that the condensate can be evaporated out of the system.
Regarding claim 2, King as modified teaches the tank closure assembly of claim 1, King as already modified teaches wherein the motor driver actuator comprises: a motor (56); and a worm gear assembly (Harter as already modifying provides worm gear assembly indicated by perpendicular placement between axis of motor 56 and actuator lead screw 42 of figure 2, where the drive gear (worm) is housed cylindrically and extends beyond lead screw base (worm wheel)) adapted to actuate the pistons (nature of linear actuator, Harter).
Regarding claim 3, King as modified teaches the tank closure assembly of claim 1, King as already modified teaches further comprising at least one assembly control component (Harter, cover drive control microprocessor 26) adapted to control actuation of the tank closure assembly (Harter, nature of cover drive control processor).
Regarding claim 8, King discloses a method of actuating a tank closure assembly comprising:
providing a cooking rack (baskets/trays/cooking rack on carrier that is attached under lid “The under side of lid 6 is provided with hangers (not shown) adapted to detachably receive a carrier (not shown) for the support of wire product-carrying baskets or trays,” (column 3, lines 58-68)), a rack carriage (carriage as “carrier” disclosed above), and a vat (3), the cooking rack configured to be detachably coupled to the rack carriage (“detachably” of connection disclosed above), and the rack carriage configured to be lowered within the vat (nature of deep fryer, see figure 2 showing lower position relative to vat);
loading a food onto the cooking rack (nature of cooking rack);
loading the cooking rack into the rack carriage (relation of connections disclosed above), the rack carriage configured to be removably coupled to a fryer lid above the vat (as disclosed above), and
activating an actuation support structure (structure in connection to movement of carriage 28, see figure 3) to automatically actuate the fryer lid between an open position and a closed position (motor actuated open and closed position of lid/ tank closure assembly “it will be evident that if electric motor 46 causes rotation of drum 37 in a counterclockwise direction (as viewed in FIG. 3), cables 40 and 41 will be wound upon the drum 37 and the carriage 28 will be caused to shift upwardly within support frame 23. Upward movement of carriage 28 will result in upward movement of mounting arms 9 and 10 together with vat lid 6.” (column 4-5, lines 66-7)), and the collected moisture being greater or lesser as a function of a position of the fryer lid between the open position and the closed position (nature of open and closed position to the escape of condensation), above the vat.
King is silent regarding the fryer lid comprising a collection channel adapted to collect moisture within the collection channel and drain via gravity funneling the collected moisture from the fryer lid at at least one corner of the fryer lid.
However Pauty teaches the fryer lid comprising a collection channel adapted to collect moisture within the collection channel (“FIG. 9 is an exemplary embodiment of this embodiment in which we see the lip 50, locally perforated with a large orifice 51. opening into a container 52 removably fixed along the wall 53 of the container.” (page 3, last paragraph) (see other examples of channels with drains 24, 34 and 51 in figures 2/4/9)) and drain via gravity funneling (draining as a function of gravity) the collected moisture from the fryer lid at at least one corner of the fryer lid through the collection channel (Pauty anticipates modification to shape “it is possible to make various modifications to it in terms of shapes” (page 3, second to last paragraph), such that placing drainage (51/24) at a corner would be obvious under Routine Optimization (see MPEP 2144.05 B. II.) because the amount of space available to place a drain is limited to the finite space of the collection channel at a permitter of lid) of the fryer lid through the collection channel (as shown in figure 9).
The advantage of the fryer lid comprising a collection channel adapted to collect moisture within the collection channel and drain collected moisture from the fryer lid at at least one corner of the fryer lid through the collection channel, is to provide collection of condensate from lid of fryer and subsequently evaporate the condensate out of the fryer “It is possible to rapidly discharge the condensates collected in the peripheral groove into an auxiliary volume, and it is this which diffuses the condensate. FIG. 9 is an exemplary embodiment of this embodiment in which we see the lip 50, locally perforated with a large orifice 51. opening into a container 52 removably fixed along the wall 53 of the container. This reservoir can contain a spongy body 54 or be replaced itself by the spongy body.
The wall 53 of the tank being substantially at the temperature of the frying bath or of the product being cooked, the evaporation of the condensates is accelerated.” (page 3, last paragraph into page 4), wherein the collection is able with the lid in an open or closed state “capable of absorbing the condensates (12) accumulated in the aforesaid groove, means being provided to bring said condensates into contact with said absorbing body, when the lid is opened or closed.” (abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of King and Pauty before him or her, to modify the lid having corners of King to include the lid collection channel features of Lu, because collections channels permit the collection of condensate from the lid, keeping the condensate from returning to the fryer vat so that the condensate can be evaporated out of the system.
King as modified is silent regarding actuating the fryer lid via at least one piston having a first piston end connected to a motor driven actuator and a second piston end connected to the fryer lid to actuate the fryer lid.
However Harter teaches actuating the fryer lid via at least one piston (42) having a first piston end connected to a motor driven actuator (motor 56 of piston/actuator, see figure 2) and a second piston end connected to the fryer lid to actuate the fryer lid (lid actuation via linear actuators 42, see figures 1, Examiner acknowledges Applicant as lexicographer, the known definition of piston is given to an object confined to a cylinder and under movement from or to gas or liquid, it is best understood from applicants specifications [0016-0017] that a piston should be interpreted in this application as the moved portion of a lead screw actuator ).
The advantage of actuating the fryer lid via at least one piston having a first piston end connected to a motor driven actuator and a second piston end connected to the fryer lid to actuate the fryer lid, is to provide positive connection to lift mechanism in both lifting and lowering of cover so that load of operations may be sensed by motor amperage changes and movement of the lid can be responsive thereto “the upper platen drive system of the preferred embodiment of FIGS. 2 and 3 has a safety system built into microprocessor 26 which monitors the amperage of the motor of upper platen 12 when in motion. If microprocessor 26 receives information from linear actuator 42 that is outside the window of acceptable amperage, microprocessor 26 determines that there is some problem causing impairment of motion. If upper platen 12 was descending, microprocessor 26 will stop linear drive motor 56 and output an alarm sound 82 and display an error message on user interface control display 70. If upper platen 12 is in an upward motion when an obstruction is encountered, the microprocessor will reverse the motion of upper platen 12 and move it to a position approximately one inch above lower platen 14 and again output an alarm sound 82 and display an error message on the user interface control display 70. After either of the above events occur, the power to the controls must be reset in order for automatic motion of upper platen 12 to be reinitiated.” (column 11, lines 19-37).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of King and Harter before him or her, to modify the single motor rope/pulley actuation system connecting at two locations 43/42 of King to be driven by the safety linear actuator driven lid system of Harter