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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because infrared wave transmitting member 30 is made of glass (claim 11). However, the cross-sections shown in Figures 1 and 2 indicate metal. See MPEP 608.02 IX. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs 25-30 of the specification refer the reference numerals and subject matter found in the drawings within the brief description of drawings. These paragraphs should be moved to the detailed description, see MPEP 608.01(f) Brief Description of Drawings, 37 C.F.R. 1.74 Reference to drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation “an infrared wave-transmitting separator, comprising a first side surface facing the infrared heating member and a second side surface facing away from the infrared heating member, at least a part of the first side surface being non-coplanar with another part of the first side surface” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is the infrared wave-transmitting separator in the absence of sufficient structure and lack of clear functional language. Is the separator actually transmitting infrared waves and is the separator separating anything. Clarification is needed.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the other of the first side surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein one of the first side surface and the second side surface forms a smooth plane, and at least a part of the other of the first side surface and the second side surface forms an inclined surface obliquely arranged relative to the smooth plane” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 states that the first side surface has a non-coplanar section but claim 3 appears to have an interpretation where the first side surface “forms a smooth plane”. This embodiment allowed by the claim seems to no longer require the non-coplanar section required by claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the other of the first side surface" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “at least a part of the first side surface forms the inclined surface obliquely arranged relative to the smooth plane” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if addition inclined surfaces are being added since “at least a part of the first side surface” may be difference than “at least a part of the other of the first side surface” as recited in claim 3 or is the non-coplanar section of claim 1 required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein there are a plurality of inclined surfaces, and the plurality of inclined surfaces are spaced in an extension direction of the infrared wave-transmitting separator” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “inclined surface” of claim 3 in which claim 6 depends upon is one of the “plurality of inclined surfaces” as recited in claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein included angles between the plurality of inclined surfaces and the smooth plane are equal” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what constitutes “included angles” and are these angles between the set of the plurality of inclined surfaces or between each inclined surface and the smooth plane.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein included angles between the plurality of inclined surfaces and a horizontal plane increase successively from top down” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what constitutes “included angles” and are these angles between the set of the plurality of inclined surfaces or between each inclined surface and the horizontal plane. The angled surfaces 331, 332, and 333 are planar. Therefore, the angles relative to the horizontal never change (See Figure 2).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein two adjacent inclined surfaces are connected in a smooth transition; and/or two adjacent inclined surfaces are connected by a plane” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “two adjacent inclined surfaces” are surfaces of the “plurality of inclined surfaces” of claim 6 in which claim 9 depends upon or two additional inclined surfaces and what is the difference between the two options found in the claim 9. One of them is not shown as only 1 embodiment is shown where all transitions are identical, i.e. either a smooth transition or connected by a plane.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the object holder is grid-shaped” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what constitutes grid-shaped.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the cooking utensil is a smokeless infrared grill” renders the claim indefinite because based on the claimed structure it is unclear how the infrared grill would be smokeless and what structure is needed to make the grill smokeless.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 states the first side surface has a non-coplanar section. Claim 3 includes an interpretation where the first side surface “forms a smooth plane”. This embodiment allowed by the claim seems to no longer require the non-coplanar section required by claim 1.. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. (US 20110062151 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. discloses a cooking utensil (1, Fig. 1), comprising:
a body (base 2, Fig. 1), comprising an infrared heating member (electric heating device 4 having shielded resistors 10, Fig. 1, ¶0029); and
an infrared wave-transmitting separator (food-support 3 and partition element 12 which forms an infrared radiation area 14, Fig. 1, ¶0030, 0046) comprising a first side surface (interior surface of 3 and 12 enclosing the infrared heating member 4, Fig. 1) facing the infrared heating member (4) and a second side surface (exterior surface of 3 and 12 with respect to the infrared heating member 4, Fig. 1) facing away from the infrared heating member (4), at least a part of the first side surface (vertical portion of 12, Fig. 1) being non-coplanar with another part of the first side surface (top of 3 and bottom portion of 12, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
712
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. discloses the cooking utensil according to claim 1 and further disclose wherein the second side surface (vertical portion of 12 in Fig. 1) is arranged perpendicularly to a horizontal plane (wherein the bottom portion of 12 sits in the horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 11, Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. discloses the cooking utensil according to claim 1 and further disclose wherein the infrared wave-transmitting separator is a glass member (food-support 3 is made of “glass-ceramic and most preferably quartz (SiO.sub.2, Silica)”, ¶0038).
Regarding claim 12, Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. discloses the cooking utensil according to claim 1, wherein a support frame is arranged within the body (support frame shown in Fig. 1 supports bottom surface of partition element 12, Figs. 1, 3), and a part of the infrared wave-transmitting separator (12) close to an edge of the infrared wave-transmitting separator (12) forms a straight section (bottom surface) fixedly connected to the support frame (Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 13, Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. discloses the cooking utensil according to claim 1, wherein the body (2) further comprises: an object holder (top surface of food-support 3), wherein the infrared heating member (4) is arranged below the object holder (3), and the infrared wave-transmitting separator (3, 12) separates the object holder (top surface of food-support 3) from the infrared heating member (4) shown in Fig. 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. (US 20110062151 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. discloses the cooking utensil according to claim 1, except wherein at least a part of one of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged at a preset acute angle to at least a part of the other of the first side surface and the second side surface. Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. instead show in Fig. 1 a vertical portion of 12 wherein the first and second side of the vertical portion is arranged at a preset angle (appears to be 90 degrees) to at least a part of the other of the first side surface and the second side surface. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the infrared wave-transmitting separator (12) to have the cited arrangement for the purpose of accommodating a small footprint in the body (2) and for directing the infrared energy in a desired direction, a feature that would require routine skill in the art.
Claims 3, 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. (US 20110062151 A1) in view of Zhou et al. (CN206560355) cited in IDS filed 15 December 2021.
Regarding claim 3, Mang-Ina et al. discloses the cooking utensil according to claim 1, and further disclose wherein one of the first side surface and the second side surface forms a smooth plane (see bottom portion of the infrared wave-transmitting separator (12), Fig. 1), and at least a part of the other of the first side surface and the second side surface forms an inclined surface (vertical portion of the infrared wave-transmitting separator (12), Fig. 1) obliquely arranged relative to the smooth plane (bottom portion).
Mang-Ina et al. does not expressly show an inclined surface obliquely arranged relative to the smooth plane.
Zhou et al in the same field of endeavor discloses a cooking utensil (electric grill, ¶0036) having a housing (10, Fig. 2), heating element (31, Fig. 2), an infrared wave-transmitting separator (reflective cover (33) and protective window 35 form an enclosure for the heating element 31, Fig. 2) with a first side facing the heating element (31) and a second side facing away from the heating element (31) and a, Fig. 2). A bottom portion of the infrared wave-transmitting separator (33, 35) below the heating element (31) forms a smooth plane wherein an inclined surface of the protective window (35) is obliquely arranged relative to the smooth plane (Fig. 2).
Since the enclose of the infrared wave-transmitting separator of both Mang-Ina et al. and Zhou et al are configured to direct infrared waves to a desired location toward the food stuff, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the infrared wave-transmitting separator to have a inclined surface obliquely arranged relative to the smooth plane as taught by Zhou et al for the purpose of directing infrared waves to a desired location toward the food stuff.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
968
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Mang-Ina et al. modified discloses the cooking utensil according to claim 3, wherein the inclined surface (of vertical portion as modified with Zhou et al) extends as towards the smooth plane from top down (See Fig. 1 of Mang-Ina et al. and Fig. 2 of Zhou et al).
Regarding claim 14, Mang-Ina et al. discloses the cooking utensil according to claim 13, Mang-Ina et al. further disclose wherein the object holder (top surface of food-support 3) is grid-shaped, see Fig. 1 above.
Mang-Ina et al. is silent on the body further comprises a receiving tray arranged below the object holder to receive dripping objects from the object holder.
Zhou et al is the same field of endeavor discloses an electric grill comprising a receiving tray (oil receiving pan 70, Fig. 2) arranged below an object holder (grill 50) to receive dripping objects from the object holder, ¶0054, 0055).
Since receiving trays were convention for capturing grease during a cooking process in grills, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cooking utensil (electric grill) of Mang-Ina et al. with the receiving tray as taught by Zhou et al for the purpose of allowing the oil drippings and other debris generated by the cooking process to make the grill convenient for cleaning.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. (US 20110062151 A1) in view of Home (US 7475632 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Tassan-Mang-Ina discloses the cooking utensil according to a claim 1 except wherein the cooking utensil is a smokeless infrared grill.
Home in the same field of endeavor discloses a smokeless barbeque grill (Fig. 2, Col. 1, line 17).
Since smokeless infrared grills were well known at the time of filing, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cooking utensil of Tassan-Mang-Ina et al. to be a smokeless infrared grill as taught by Home for the purpose of cooking food stuff while eliminating smoke harmful to the human respiratory system and avoids adding smoke which causes environmental problems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-9 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features. However, these claims cannot be considered to be "allowable” at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of these claims with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES F SIMS III whose telephone number is (571)270-7496. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30 EST M-F.
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, Landrum F Edward can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/JAMES F SIMS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761