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 Amendment
In the 01/23/2026 response, the status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 22 and 33 been amended; Claim 42 is cancelled; and claims 22-41 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Beginning at pg. 6 of the Remarks, with regards to the prior art rejection of claim 22, the Applicant argues that McKenzie fails to disclose the “rounded corners” feature of amended claim 22. On pg. 7, Applicant makes note to the annotated Fig. 33 of McKenzie from the previous OA, and argues that the “Corners” identified “are the corners of the rim of body (i.e. the casing) of McKenzie – they are not the corners of the cavity itself.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, since although in Fig. 33 of McKenzie, the body of lower casting 78 does, indeed, have a rim. However, the vertical internal length that runs between the upper rim and lower corner (i.e. the floor lower casting 78’s interior 684) is clearly round and forms the corner (not just the rim). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these features based on annotated Fig. 33 of McKenzie from the previous OA, and not only confine any rounded features to only the rim, per se. Moreover, please see the annotated figure 33 of McKenzie, below; the bottom rounded corner section is analogous or equivalent to the rounded corner of the cavity as noted by the Applicant per Figs 4 and 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
655
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On pg. 8, the Applicant points to the disclosure of the precursor PCT application which notes, “It will be appreciated that junctions or corners 31 between the side walls 26 and a base 28 may be rounded of curved.”
Examiner respectfully notes that claims 22/33 don’t require that the claimed rounded corners must be formed in this manner. Although the claimed “rounded corners” feature could be interpreted this way, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim would not necessarily require such an interpretation. Per MPEP 2111. 01, Section II, It is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. Should the Applicant desire the “rounded corners” feature to be interpreted this way, then the claim(s) should be amended to recite limitations that would be exclusive to this interpretation.
Moreover, per the annotated figure 33 of McKenzie, above; the rounded corner at the base clearly has a rounded curvature, as one of ordinary skill in the art would infer from looking at the figure. Thus, no redesign of McKenzie would be needed as the Applicant argues on pg. 8 of the Remarks.
On pg. 9 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that McKenzie doesn’t teach the removal of a burner assembly for conversion into a cleaning mode. The Examiner respectfully disagrees since per the previous and present rejection to at least independent claims 22 and 33, para. 0340 of McKenzie was cited for teaching removal of the burner. This action would clearly create space for cleaning, i.e a “cleaning mode.”
On pg. 9 of the Remarks, the Applicant makes arguments related to the teaching reference of Vanhorn regarding the rejection of claim 22 and its dependents. Applicant argues that Vanhorn isn’t concerned with cleaning a cooking cavity, which is true. However, what Vanhorn teaches is reasonably pertinent to the problem the Applicant is trying to solve, i.e. cleaning dirty cooking apparatuses. One feature of the Applicant’s invention that facilitates this cleaning operation (i.e. claimed cleaning mode) is the removable burner assembly per decoupling of the magnet.
Vanhorn discloses that it is known to utilize a means of decoupling a stand that has a magnetically attractive material, from a magnet. McKenzie, as noted above, already teaches a removable burner per para. 0340. Removing the burner would provide greater exposure to internal surfaces of McKenzie’s interior 684, which would result in the ability for said surfaces to be cleaned, i.e. corresponding to the claimed “cleaning mode.” As the previous and instant OA cited, paragraphs 0008 and 0027 of Vanhorn explicitly note that that the coupling/decoupling feature per the use of magnetic material/magnets is at least easy and quick.
On pg. 10 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that “McKenzie gives no teaching about removing the burner or stand.” Examiner respectfully disagrees since para. 0340 of McKenzie discloses this feature.
PNG
media_image2.png
562
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As noted in the previous and present OA, incorporating the feature of Vanhorn with McKenzie would result in a simple substitution of one connection form for another to retain the same predicable result of inserting and removing McKenzie’s burner. Any cleaning of McKenzie would be implied, and also removal of the burner would result of the function or capability of cleaning, i.e. resulting in a “cleaning mode.”
PNG
media_image3.png
521
803
media_image3.png
Greyscale
On pp. 11-14 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues against the rejection to claim 33 and use of the reference directed to Simpson.
Applicant argues that McKenzie doesn’t teach multiple discrete cavities for cooking and cleaning. However, as noted above, a cooking mode is merely when a burner is placed for cooking, and a cleaning mode is merely for when the burner is removed. Both positions of the burner allow for cooking and cleaning, respectively.
The Applicant argues that McKenzie would teaching against multiple cavities (pg. 11) because shipping costs would be high with fully assembled barbeques (para. 0007), however the Examiner respectfully doesn’t find this argument persuasive, since McKenzie (see para. 0008) desires to ship barbecues in unassembled form. Modifying McKenzie in view of Simpson wouldn’t eliminate this feature, but merely introduced at least one more cavity (i.e a plurality of cavities) which would be in unassembled form, too.
On pgs. 11-12 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the plurality of cavities feature is for charcoal and gas cooking “at the same time.” However, the claim(s) don’t recite this feature and therefore this feature isn’t given patentable weight. Moreover, McKenzie at least has the burners for gas cooking. The cavity of McKenzie would be capable of receiving ignited charcoal for charcoal cooking.
On pg. 12 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the modification of McKenzie in view of Simpson would involve complex design considerations. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees since the structure / design that McKenzie already has, would merely be duplicated with no significant or complex changes.
On pg. 13 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues: “This would not address the problem of improving cooking flexibility and cleaning efficiency within a single integrated apparatus, or the ability to have a common drain point into a vessel or the ability to slide (potentially hot) heavy cooking surfaces from one cavity to another.
With regards to cooking and cleaning within a single integrated apparatus, it’s understood that modifying McKenzie in view of Simpson would result in a larger housing divided into at least two sub-chambers (each chamber being a substantial duplicate of the one chamber McKenzie initially had). Each sub-chamber would be capable of cooking, and being cleaned.
With regards to the features of a common drain point, or sliding heavy cooking surfaces from one cavity to another, Examiner respectfully notes that these features aren’t presently recited in the claims and therefore aren’t given patentable weight.
On pg. 13 of the Remarks, the Applicant targets the cavities 12g and 12h of Simpson. However, any features that Simpson has, or allegedly doesn’t, i.e. whether they are cooking or cleaning cavities, isn’t relevant since McKenzie already has any of the features that Simpson is allegedly deficient in. Regardless, Simpson’s cavities are cooking and cleaning cavities since they have the capability of being used for cooking and cleaning operations.
Any arguments to claim 22, that overlap with that of claim 33 are addressed by the Examiner per the same rationale as explained, above.
For the above reasons, the rejections to the claims are respectfully sustained by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 22-24 and 26-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie et al. (US 20040244790, hereinafter McKenzie; cited in the Applicant’s 12/05/2023 IDS) in view of Varnhorn et al. (US 20030041740, hereinafter Varnhorn).
Regarding Claim 22, McKenzie discloses a cooking apparatus including:
a burner assembly including at least one burner (burner 80, Fig. 33) supported by a stand (at least one of the four support members 646, Fig. 80),
a body (lower casting 78, Fig. 32; also shown in Figs. 33 and 34 although not labeled with 78) including a cavity (interior 684, Fig. 34) in which the burner assembly is locatable (see Fig. 34) and being adapted (capable of; structured to) to support a cooking surface (grill plate 82) at least partially over the cavity, the cavity including a drain (drainage opening 638, Fig. 3; not labeled in Fig. 33), rounded corners (see annotated figures, below) and substantially smooth surfaces (the bottom and side surfaces of interior 684, appear substantially smooth when viewing Figs. 33 and 34) arranged to direct a fluid to the drain (para. 0337);
a gas port (burner duct passages 676 and 678, Fig. 34) fitted to the body (“located in lower casting 78…” See para. 0345) to provide the at least one burner with gas (para. 0345); and
wherein the cooking apparatus is configurable between:
a cooking mode in which the burner assembly is fitted to the gas port (para. 0345) with the stand supported and located relative to the cavity (via support members 646 engaging with openings 658, Fig. 33 – see para. 0339-0343. Para. 0339 specifically states “support members 646 are attached to burners to retain and maintain the burner in a preferred orientation within lower casting 78.”) , and the cooking surface is fittable at least partially thereover (see Fig. 2; para. 0164), and
a cleaning mode in which the cooking surface and burner assembly are removeable (see Fig. 2, everything is disassembled and/or removed) from the cavity (see at least para. 0340 – “The support members 646 of the illustrative embodiments described below permit the burner to be manually installed in and removed from barbecue 60 without tools.”), to reveal the substantially smooth surfaces (see Fig. 3; burner 80 is removed and the smooth surfaces are revelated) for (“for” denotes intended use) cleaning the cavity with the fluid (cleaning fluid, such as water, could be applied).
McKenzie doesn’t disclose (per the striken-out limitations of claim 1, above):
That the stand includes a magnetically attractive material, and a magnet arranged to releasably couple with the magnetically attractive material of the stand so that the stand is supported and located relative to the cavity by the magnet in the cooking mode, and the magnet being decoupled in the cleaning mode.
However, Varnhorn discloses, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a gas cooker (see title) arrangement that comprises a stand (pot support 8, Fig. 3) with legs (14-1, 14-2, 14-3, Fig. 2/3) that can be made of a magnetically attractive material (iron; see para. 0033 – “Instead of two permanent magnets 16, 18, it is possible to provide, at each permanent-magnet connecting location, just one permanent magnet and a metal element (iron) that can be attracted magnetically by the same.”), and a magnet (permanent magnet 18, Fig. 3) arranged to releasably couple (para. 0027) with the magnetically attractive material of the stand so that the stand is supported and located relative to a cooktop panel (2, Fig. 3) by the magnet in a cooking mode (see Fig. 3), and the magnet being decoupled from the pot support 8 in a cleaning mode (“cleaning purposes” – see para. 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McKenzie by applying the teachings of Varnhorn to McKenzie, i.e. suitably modifying and/or replacing McKenzie’s support members 646 + openings 658, by adopting the coupling arrangement as taught by Varnhorn comprising iron legs 14 to couple with respective permanent magnets 18 situated on the underside of an intervening base (i.e. cooktop panel 2). This modification would be in order to provide a more simple means of effectively coupling and removing McKenzie’s burner 80 from barbecue 60 for predetermined positioning and/or cleaning, respectively. See the abstract, para. 0008, and para. 0027 of Varnhorn. This proposed modification also amounts to a “(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” per MPEP 2143, i.e. substituting one form of connection for another.
PNG
media_image4.png
560
800
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
655
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the cavity includes at least one side wall and a base that are formed substantially continuously (see Figures 33 and 34).
Regarding Claim 24, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the cavity is formed of a single piece (casting 78 – see the rejection to claim 37 below for additional explanation as to why casting 78 is a single piece) having substantially smooth transitions between the at least one wall and base. See this annotated figure.
PNG
media_image5.png
592
966
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 26, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the drain is located in or at the base of the cavity (drainage opening 638, Fig. 3; not labeled in Fig. 33. 638 is located in and at the cavity’s base.)
Regarding Claim 27, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 26, wherein the magnet (i.e. permanent magnet 18) is below the base of the cavity (i.e. interior 684).
Regarding Claim 28, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to
claim 27, wherein the magnet includes one or more magnetic elements (i.e. a magnet 18 that corresponds to each corresponding leg 14 as articulated per the rejection to claim 22, above).
Regarding Claim 29, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the stand of the burner assembly includes spaced apart legs (i.e. legs 14) arranged to coincide with the position of the magnet (i.e. 18).
Regarding Claim 30, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 29, wherein the legs include feet (i.e. the distal end) arranged to seat (rest on) on the base, and wherein at least the feet are formed of the magnetically attractive material (implied per the rejection to claim 22, above).
Regarding Claim 31, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the magnet includes a plurality of magnetic elements (18) fitted to an underside of the cavity and arranged to align with the feet of the burner assembly such that the burner assembly is drawn to a preferred location within the cavity (as implied per the rejection to claim 22, above).
Regarding Claim 32, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the at least one burner is adapted to releasably attach to the gas port (see para. 0345 – “manually install”).
Claim 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie et al. (US 20040244790, hereinafter McKenzie; cited in the Applicant’s 12/05/2023 IDS) in view of Simpson (US 4724823).
Regarding Claim 33, McKenzie discloses a cooking apparatus including:
a body (lower casting 78, Fig. 32; also shown in Figs. 33 and 34 although not labeled with 78) including a cavity (interior 684, Fig. 34) that is adapted to (capable of; structured to) support a cooking surface (grill plate 82) at least partially over the cavity, the cavity including a drain (drainage opening 638, Fig. 3; not labeled in Fig. 33), rounded corners (see the annotated figure, below) and substantially smooth surfaces (the bottom and side surfaces of interior 684, appear substantially smooth when viewing Figs. 33 and 34) arranged to direct a fluid to the drain (para. 0037);
a heat source (burner 80, Fig. 33) locatable in the cavity and supported by a stand (at least one of the four support members 646, Fig. 80);
wherein the cooking apparatus is configurable between:
a cooking mode in which the stand of the heat source is supported and located relative to the cavity (via support members 646 engaging with openings 658, Fig. 33 – see para. 0339-0343. Para. 0339 specifically states “support members 646 are attached to burners to retain and maintain the burner in a preferred orientation within lower casting 78.”), and the cooking surface is fittable at least partially thereover (see Fig. 2; para. 0164), and
a cleaning mode in which the heat source is removeable from the cavity (see at least para. 0340 – “The support members 646 of the illustrative embodiments described below permit the burner to be manually installed in and removed from barbecue 60 without tools.”), to reveal the substantially smooth surfaces (see Fig. 3; burner 80 is removed and the smooth surfaces are revelated) for (“for” denotes intended use) cleaning the cavity with the fluid (cleaning fluid, such as water, could be applied).
PNG
media_image4.png
560
800
media_image4.png
Greyscale
*These 4 corners in Fig. 33 are round.
PNG
media_image1.png
655
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McKenzie doesn’t disclose that the body includes a plurality of cavities to allow for use in one or more cooking or cleaning modes.
However, Simpson discloses a radiant gas burner assembly (see title) that comprises a larger body (housing 12, Fig. 1) that includes a plurality of cavities (compartments 12g and 12h, Fig. 1) to allow for use (intended use) in one or more cooking or cleaning modes (i.e. each compartment 12g and 12h could be separately used for cooking, or cleaning). Each cavity is independently controllable per a control assembly (20). See col. 2, lines 63-68; col. 3, lines 18-22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McKenzie by applying the teachings of Simpson to McKenzie, i.e. duplicating McKenzie’s body so that there’s a plurality of cavities to allow for use in one or more cooking or cleaning modes, which would provide the benefit of cooking different items of food requiring different levels of heat (independent control) for optimal cooking per their respective cavities, as one of ordinary skill in the art would find beneficial.
Claims 34-39 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie et al. (US 20040244790, hereinafter McKenzie; cited in the Applicant’s 12/05/2023 IDS) in view of Simpson (US 4724823), and further in view of Varnhorn et al. (US 20030041740, hereinafter Varnhorn).
Regarding Claim 34, claim 34 is rejected by the same or substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 22, above.
Regarding Claim 35, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 34, wherein the heat source is a burner assembly including at least one burner (burner 80, Fig. 33), or a charcoal housing, box, basket or tray (casting 78 can be considered a charcoal housing because it’s capable of holding charcoal, and it may be structurally considered to be a box, basket, or tray) having at least one integrated burner (burner 80, Fig. 33), and wherein the at least one burner includes a handle (the broadest reasonable interpretation of a handle is any structural feature that can be sufficiently grasped by a user to manipulate or move a structure said handle is a part of. In this case, the claim doesn’t set forth any additional structural limitations to define the claimed handle. It’s the examiner’s position that any elongated, narrow section that is a part of burner 80 that can be grasped by a user, can be considered a handle as it has to be grabbed in order to be manually installed per paragraph 0340).
Regarding Claim 36, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 35, further including a gas port (burner duct passages 676 and 678, Fig. 34) fitted to the body (“located in lower casting 78…” See para. 0345) to provide the at least one burner of the burner assembly or the charcoal housing, box, basket or tray with gas, and wherein in the cooking mode, the at least one burner of the burner assembly or the charcoal housing is fitted to the gas port (para. 0345).
Regarding Claim 37, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 33, wherein the cavity (casting 78) includes at least one side wall and a base that are formed substantially continuously (this would result from the casting being made from a casting method), and wherein the cavity is formed as a single piece (this would result from the casting being made from a casting method) having substantially smooth transitions (see the annotated figure, below) between the at least one wall and base (A casing is something that is cast in a mold from a casting process. A casting process is a manufacturing method where a liquid material is poured into a mold to solidify into a desired shape. See the attached Non-Patent Literature for evidence: https://www.lsrpf.com/blog/what-is-metal-casting).
PNG
media_image6.png
626
1310
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 38, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 34, wherein the one or more magnets are below the base of the cavity or the body of the cooking apparatus, and the magnetic coupling means includes one or more magnetic elements (as implied per the rejection to claims 22 and 34, above).
Regarding Claim 39, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 39, but doesn’t further include a magnetic coupling means in the form of one or more magnet cage assemblies arranged to releasably couple with one or more accessories of the cooking apparatus.
However, Varnhorn discloses a magnetic coupling means in the form of one or more magnet cage assemblies (permanent magnets 18, Fig. 3; para. 0030 – “permanent magnets 18 … are fastened on the underside of the cooktop panel 2…” In combination with the permanent magnets are additional sets of permanent magnets 16 that are within legs 14. The magnet 18s + its fasteners + magnets 16 collectively define an assembly, and specifically a “cage” assembly because the magnets 16 are caged or embedded within legs 14.) arranged to releasably couple (per at least the permanent magnets 18) with one or more accessories (pot support 8, Fig. 3) of a cooking apparatus. See para. 0030. Also see additional mapping to Varnhorn per the rejection to claim 22, above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McKenzie by applying the teachings of Varnhorn to McKenzie, i.e. suitably modifying and/or replacing McKenzie’s support members 646 + openings 658 by incorporating a magnetic coupling means in the form of magnet cage assemblies (i.e. legs 14 with embedded permanent magnets 16 therein, and fastened permanent magnets 18 on the underside of casting 78) arranged to releasably couple (per the permanent magnets 18) with one or more accessories (e.g. burner 80) of McKenzie’s cooking apparatus. This modification would provide the benefit of having a more simple means of effectively coupling and removing McKenzie’s burner 80 from barbecue 60 for predetermined positioning and/or cleaning, respectively. See the abstract, para. 0008, and para. 0027 of Varnhorn. This proposed modification also amounts to a “(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” per MPEP 2143, i.e. substituting one form of connection for another.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie et al. (US 20040244790, hereinafter McKenzie; cited in the Applicant’s 12/05/2023 IDS) in view of Varnhorn et al. (US 20030041740, hereinafter Varnhorn), and further in view of Barreto (US 20140261378).
Regarding Claim 25, McKenzie as modified by Varhorn discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 24, as set forth above, wherein the cavity is formed of a unitary construction (as set forth in the rejection to claim 24, above).
McKenzie in view of Varnhorn is silent to the unitary construction being a unitary “metal” construction, as claimed.
However, Barreto discloses a barbecue grill (see title) with a housing (bottom housing 40, Fig. 1) formed of a single piece via injection molded aluminum, which is more lightweight and economical. See para. 0048.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McKenzie so that the cavity is formed of a unitary metal construction via injection molded aluminum, for the benefit of economical production and a lightweight cavity as suggested in para. 0048 of Barreto.
Claim(s) 40 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie et al. (US 20040244790, hereinafter McKenzie; cited in the Applicant’s 12/05/2023 IDS) in view of in view of Simpson (US 4724823), and further in view of Huang (US 20190335888).
Regarding Claim 40, McKenzie discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 33, but doesn’t disclose further including a hand operable water source or spray jets to supply water to the cavity and to assist with cleaning the cooking apparatus, the hand operable water source or spray jets being fluidly connected to a hot water module.
Huang discloses a steam cleaner for a grill oven (see the title) that comprises a hand operable (para. 0009) water source or spray jets to (intended use) supply water (sprayed steam per a water source) to a cavity (e.g. to the cavity or casting 78 of McKenzie) and to assist with cleaning a cooking apparatus (e.g. McKenzie’s), the hand operable water source or spray jets being fluidly connected to a hot water module (“heating up water…” see para. 0002. Steam is produced by heating water).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify McKenzie by applying the teachings of Huang to McKenzie, i.e. further including a hand operable water source or spray jets to supply water to the cavity and to assist with cleaning the cooking apparatus, the hand operable water source or spray jets being fluidly connected to a hot water module. The benefit of this modification would be in order to easily sterilize and clean dirty surfaces of the cooking apparatus per para. 0002 of Huang.
Claim(s) 41 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie et al. (US 20040244790, hereinafter McKenzie; cited in the Applicant’s 12/05/2023 IDS) in view of Simpson (US 4724823), Varnhorn et al. (US 20030041740, hereinafter Varnhorn), and further in view of Stohrer (US 4626196).
Regarding Claim 41, McKenzie as modified by Varnhorn discloses the cooking apparatus according to claim 35, but does not further disclose an induction coil assembly operatively associated with the at least one burner of the burner assembly or the at least one integrated burner of the charcoal housing, box, basket or tray.
Rather, McKenzie discloses a standard igniter assembly. See para. 0355 and Fig. 33, elements 686, 690, 686, 694, etc.
Stohrer discloses a spark ignited gas burner assembly (see title and abstract. See the circuit of Figure 5, the control knob 22 and valve 16, ignition circuit 34, and burner assembly 12 of Fig. 1) that comprises an induction coil assembly (primary winding 132 and secondary winding 136 of ignition transformer 134, Fig. 5) operatively associated with at least one burner of the gas burner assembly (burner of burner assembly 12, Fig. 1). See col. 2, lines 60-66, and col. 5, line 18 to col. 6, line 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McKenzie in view of Varnhorn by applying the teachings of Stohrer to McKenzie in view of Varnhorn, i.e. replacing McKenzie’s standard igniter assembly with the ignited gas burner assembly of Stohrer, in order to benefit from an improved gas burner assembly for spark ignition as suggested in col. 1, line 64 to col. 2, line 8 of Stohrer. Moreover, such a modification would amount to a “(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results,” i.e. ignition, per MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Perrino (US 6,255,628) discloses a burner apparatus (100) that is removably coupled via magnetic strips (110).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6460. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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.
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.
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights