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 for Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 08/13/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected Group II (claims 12-20) is withdrawn from consideration. Since the applicant did not point out errors of restriction; therefore, the restriction will be treated as without traverse. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the term: "a griddle surface" as cited in line 4, should be changed to --the griddle surface --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 –
(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, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bari et al. (US 20090133285 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bari discloses
A cover (worktop 3, fig.3) for use on a griddle surface (griddle surface is intended use) comprising: a mat (heating mat 7, fig.3) made from an elastomeric material [Par.0019 cited: “…heating mat 7 preferably includes a flexible resistor 8 disposed in an elastomeric material such as silicone rubber, neoprene or polyamide…”] having a first surface (bottom surface of heating mat 7, fig.3) and a second surface (top surface of heating mat 7, fig.3) opposing the first surface (bottom surface of heating mat 7), the first surface (bottom surface of heating mat 7) having a gloss finish forming a glossy surface [bottom surface of heating mat 7, is flat], wherein the mat (heating mat 7) is configured to be placed on the griddle surface (intended use) having the glossy surface in contact with the griddle surface [bottom surface of worktop 3 can be used on a griddle surface].
Regarding claim 3, Bari discloses
the elastomeric material is silicone [Par.0019 cited: “…heating mat 7 preferably includes a flexible resistor 8 disposed in an elastomeric material such as silicone rubber, neoprene or polyamide…”].
Regarding claim 5, Bari discloses
the mat (heating mat 7, fig.3) is configured for use on a grill griddle surface [bottom surface of worktop 3 can be used on a grill griddle surface].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bari et al. (US 20090133285 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Bari discloses substantially all the features as set forth in the claims above, but does not disclose the glossy finish of the first surface has an Ra value of between 0.012 to 0.025 μm; and the elastomeric material has a durometer Shore A hardness measured between about 50 and about 70.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a mat of Bari, with glossy finish of the first surface has an Ra value of between 0.012 to 0.025 μm; and the elastomeric material has a durometer Shore A hardness measured between about 50 and about 70, as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, in order suitable for the user application.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bari et al. (US 20090133285 A1) in view of Stroud et al. (US 20200094721 A1).
Bari discloses substantially all the features as set forth in the claims above, but does not disclose a first raised ridge, a second raised ridge, and a third raised ridge.
Regarding claim 6, Stroud discloses
a first raised ridge (ridges 108, fig.1) running around a perimeter of the mat (exemplary mat 100, fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Stroud discloses
the first raised ridge (ridges 108, fig.1) extends from the second surface of the mat (exemplary mat 100, fig.1).
Regarding claim 8, Stroud discloses
a second raised ridge (ridges 106, fig.1) within the perimeter of the mat (exemplary mat 100, fig.1).
Regarding claim 9, Stroud discloses
the second raised ridge (ridges 106, fig.1) extends from the second surface of the mat (exemplary mat 100, fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, Stroud discloses
a third raised ridge (ridges 106 inner, fig.1) within the perimeter of the mat (exemplary mat 100, fig.1).
Regarding claim 11, Stroud discloses
the third raised ridge (ridges 106 inner, fig.1) extends from the second surface of the mat (exemplary mat 100, fig.1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a mat of Bari, by including a first raised ridge, a second raised ridge, and a third raised ridge, as taught by Stroud, in order to create a differently shaped and sized mat periphery (Par.0015 of Stroud).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
08/25/2025