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 .
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, 3-33 and 35-36 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 "the bottom sides" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the bottom sides” is referring to the “two lower sides” introduced earlier in the claim. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the phrase “the bottom sides” in the last line of the claim 1 and in dependent claims 9 and 25 is interpreted as if amended as follows: “the two lower sides”. In addition, dependent claims 6 and 28 recite “respective bottom sides” which are interpreted as if amended as follows: “respective lower sides”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the tip structure" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this may be a typographical error where Applicant intended to recite “the top surface”. In the interest of advancing prosecution Claim 3 is interpreted as if amended to recite “the top surface”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the side corners" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the side corners" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the side corners" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the bottom sides" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the bottom sides” is referring to the “two lower sides” introduced earlier in the claim. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the phrase “the bottom sides” in the last line of the claim 33 is interpreted as if amended as follows: “the two lower sides”.
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.
Claim 1, 3-30, 33 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090032235 A (hereinafter “KR’235”) in view of KR 200398857 Y1 (hereinafter “KR’857”).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
1648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, KR’235 discloses a grill grate for use on a grill, the grill grate comprising: a plurality of grill rods (4) arranged in parallel and spaced apart, each grill rod including bar end surfaces at opposite ends of each grill rod (see Figs. 2 &3); and first and second grill connectors (5), the grill connectors extending in a direction perpendicular to the grill rods and connecting the grill rods by the end surfaces of the grill rods, wherein each grill rod comprises: a top surface (see the top surface in Figs. 1-3), for supporting food to be grilled; and wherein the top surface is flat and extends substantially horizontally (see again the top surface in Figs. 1-3).
KR’235 does not disclose wherein the grill rods define a substantially pentagonal shape when viewed from the direction of the end surfaces, two upper sides extending downwardly from opposite edges of the top surface; and two lower sides extending downwardly from respective upper sides, wherein the top surface, two upper sides and two lower sides define the substantially pentagonal shape when viewed from the direction of the end surfaces, wherein the bottom sides meet at a bar edge and form a bottom angle.
PNG
media_image2.png
756
2695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KR’857 teaches a grill grate for use on a grill, the grill grate comprising: wherein the grill rods (64; see the embodiment of Fig. 4(E)) define a substantially pentagonal shape when viewed from the direction of the end surfaces (see the blowup of Fig. 4(E) below), two upper sides extending downwardly from opposite edges of the top surface (see the annotated blowup of Fig. 4(E) below); and two lower sides extending downwardly from respective upper sides (see the annotated blowup of Fig. 4(E) below), wherein the top surface, two upper sides and two lower sides define the substantially pentagonal shape when viewed from the direction of the end surfaces (see the annotated blowup of Fig. 4(E) below), wherein the bottom sides (interpreted as the two lower sides) meet at a bar edge and form a bottom angle (see the annotated blowup of Fig. 4(E) below).
PNG
media_image3.png
948
2109
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KR’235 wherein the grill rods define a substantially pentagonal shape when viewed from the direction of the end surfaces, two upper sides extending downwardly from opposite edges of the top surface; and two lower sides extending downwardly from respective upper sides, wherein the top surface, two upper sides and two lower sides define the substantially pentagonal shape when viewed from the direction of the end surfaces, wherein the bottom sides meet at a bar edge and form a bottom angle as taught and/or suggested by KR’857, since KR’857 teaches that grill rods can comprise various shapes, including a pentagonal shape (64; see the provided English translation of KR’857: “The shape of the bongche 60 is in the state description of the subject innovation, but is configured in a circular shape, a polygon such as a triangle 62, a rectangle 63, a pentagonal shape (64), a hexagon (65) as shown in Figure 4 phase will be able to be configured in various shapes, of course, forming a groove (58,59) placed to match the shape of the grill bars 52 will be granted.”) therefore, since both references teach grill rods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one grill rod for the other to achieve the predictable result of supporting an item being heated or cooked thereon.
Regarding Claim 35, KR’857 further teaches wherein each grill rod is an item that includes the top surface, two upper sides, two lower sides and bar edge as integral parts of the grill rod (see the annotated blowup of Fig. 4(E) above).
Regarding Claim 36, KR’857 further teaches wherein each bar edge forms a point at the bottom of the grill rod, when viewed from the direction of the end surfaces (see the annotated blowup of Fig. 4(E) above), and wherein each grill rod is configured such that liquids from cooked food collect at the point of the bar edge (this intended use recitation is taught by KR’857 when grill rod 64 is positioned such that the bar edge is opposite the food supporting surface, in the present case the food supporting surface would be the indicated top surface).
Regarding method Claim 33, the method claimed is deemed obvious over the prior art combination of KR’235 in view of KR’857 as applied in Claim 1 above. In the interest of brevity, the same or equivalent claim limitations and the obviousness rationale for combining the references, as already discussed above, will not be repeated here.
Regarding Claims 3-30, KR’235 in view of KR’857 does not explicitly disclose the claimed angular and dimensional limitations. Nonetheless, in a regular pentagon, each interior angle measures 108 degrees, because the sum of all five interior angles is 540 degrees, and dividing 540 by 5 gives you 108. For irregular pentagons the sum of its five interior angles will also always be 540 degrees, but the individual angles can vary as long as they add up to this total.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify KR’235 in view of KR’857 to comprise the claimed angular limitations recited in Claims 3-11, since applicant has not disclosed that said angular limitations solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the angular limitations suggested by KR’857. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (in the present case the sum of all five interior angles of a pentagon equaling 540 degrees) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). With regard to Claims
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify KR’235 in view of KR’857 to comprise the claimed dimensional limitations of a top bar height, bottom bar height and top width recited in Claims 12-21, since applicant has not disclosed that said heights or widths solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the height and width limitations suggested by KR’857. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (in the present case the top height, the bottom height and the top width can be varied based on the value of the pentagon’s interior angles so long as the sum of all five interior angles of the pentagon equal 540 degrees) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Furthermore, see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.), and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify KR’235 in view of KR’857 to comprise the claimed gap between top surfaces on respective adjacent grill grates, gap between bar edges on respective adjacent grill grates and gap between side corners on respective adjacent grill grates recited in Claims 22-30, since applicant has not disclosed that said gaps solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the gaps suggested by KR’235 in view KR’857. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (in the present case the gaps recited in Claims 22-30 would affect the type of foods which can be effectively supported by said grill grate without said food easily falling between said gaps; further yet said gaps would affect the searing patterns which can be applied to food being cooked thereon) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR’235 in view KR’857 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20140251316 A1 (hereinafter “UNITAS”).
Regarding Claims 31 and 32, KR’235 in view KR’857 does not disclose wherein the grill rods are formed of at least one of aluminum, iron and stainless steel; wherein the grill rods are coated with a non-stick coating.
UNITAS teaches a grill grate wherein the grill rods (14) are formed of at least one of aluminum, iron and stainless steel (see para. [0032]: “The grill bars 14 are roughly cylindrical in shape in the depicted embodiment, but no size or shape of the bars is specifically claimed. The material of the grill bars 14 comprises cast iron, stainless steel, or any other type of metallic material that is capable of being heated to sufficient temperatures to cook food without melting.”); wherein the grill rods are coated with a non-stick coating (see para. [0032]: “In an alternative embodiment of the present invention, the metal grill bars 14 may further be coated with a non-stick coating.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify KR’235 in view KR’857 wherein the grill rods are formed of at least one of aluminum, iron and stainless steel; wherein the grill rods are coated with a non-stick coating as taught and/or suggested by UNITAS, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. And furthermore, since a non-stick coating would provide the benefit of preventing food items being cooked on said grill rods from sticking to said grill rods which would on the one hand foul said grill rods and would on the other hand simultaneously impede removal of a cooked food item from said grill rods.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 29, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven B. McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799