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 .
Priority
The claim to priority as a 371 filing of PCT/ES2021/070038, filed on January 21, 2021, which claims benefit to ES U202030121, filed on January 23, 2020 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 22, 2022 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 “internal fan” (claim 5); “advertising elements” (claim 17) and “a sealing means” (claims 18-19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claims 3, 8-9 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, the limitation “grille” recites in line 2 should be changed to “grill”
In claims 8-9, the limitation “the tube” recites in line 6 should be changed to “the tubular body”.
In claim 13, the limitation “grille” recites in lines 3 and 7 should be changed to “grill”
In claim 13, the limitation “the tube” recites in lines 4 and 6 should be changed to “the tubular body”
In claim 14, the limitation “the tube” recites in line 4 should be changed to “the tubular body”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. None of the physical structure for the sealing means that applicant had possession of at the time of filing was discussed in the original disclosure. A list of examples does not show possession.
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 4, 8-14 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 8, the limitations “a hole” recites in line 4; "a front opening" recited in line 5; and “an impurity collection tanks” recites in line 9 renders the claim indefinite and unclear to the relationship between “a hole” in line 8; “a front opening” at line 4; and “an impurity collection tanks” recites in line 15 in claim 1 to whether they are the same of different. Clarification is requested. NOTE: for purpose of examination, it is presumed it is the same hole, front opening and impurity collection tank.
In claim 9, the limitations “a hole” recites in line 5 renders the claim indefinite and unclear to the relationship between “a hole” in line 8 in claim 1 o whether they are the same of different. Clarification is requested. NOTE: for purpose of examination, it is presumed it is the same hole.
Regarding claim 18, please see the written description rejection above regarding the scope of claim 18 in terms of the applicant’s structure at the time of possession, and as a result, the equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear how the sealing means can be a cork stopper, closing gate…, a closure, and a clamp with a wire tie simultaneously. Applicant has not discussed how each of these independent type of closures is usable in combination with each other and as such the scope of the claim is unclear.
In claim 20, the limitations “a hole” recites in line 10 renders the claim indefinite and unclear to the relationship between “a hole” in line 8 in claim 1 o whether they are the same of different. Clarification is requested. NOTE: for purpose of examination, it is presumed it is the same hole.
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(s) 1-4, 6-8, 13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pla Cortes (ES 1184909) in view of Hamm (US Pub. 2017/0227232) (both cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Pla Cortes discloses a smoker for food preparation , comprising: a tubular main body (100) including: a front opening (4) connected to an internal combustion chamber (2) where combustible and flavoring material (3) are arranged in front of a grill or filter (5); a smoke outlet (6) on the opposite side of the tubular body (100), which a through hole (end of smoke outlet 6) provided for this purpose, is connected to a hood, lid or cover (11) suitable for covering a container (12) with foodstuff (14); a flame generator (7), which is driven through the front opening (4) to burn the combustible and flavoring material (3) generating a flow of smoke (10) into the interior of the hood, lid or cover (11) (Fig. 1-3; Abstract). Pla Cortes does not disclose an impurity collection tank located behind the grill or filter. Hamm discloses an impurity collection tank (13) located behind the grill or filter (36) (Fig. 1; Par. 18 and 20-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Pla Cortes, an impurity collection tank located behind the grill or filter, as taught by Turner, for the purpose of collecting solid particles, such as ash.
Regarding claim 2, Hamm discloses the impurity collection tank (13) is removable (Fig. 1; Par. 21).
Regarding claim 3, Hamm discloses a hatch that is provides access to the inner grill or filter (36) (Fig. 1). (Note: by removing the ash catcher 13, that provides access to the filter 36).
Regarding claim 4, Pla Cortes discloses the flame generator (7) is a driven flame generator, generating a flow of smoke into the tubular body (100) towards the inside of the hood, lid or cover (11) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Pla Cortes discloses the hole (15) of the hood, lid, or cover (11) is dimensioned to insert a part of the tubular body; and the smoke outlet (6) oriented towards the internal walls of the hood, lid or cover (11) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Pla Cortes discloses the smoke outlet (6) is in a vertical position (Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 8, Pla Cortes discloses the tubular body (100) is arranged vertically, being incorporated into the hood, lid or cover (11) through the hole (15) made at the top thereof, the tubular body (100) further comprising: the front opening (4) located at the top, at the end of a first angle section of the tube (Fig. 1-2); smoke outlet (6) in a second section of the wall on the side opposite of the tubular body (100) that is housed inside the hood, lid, or cover (11) (Fig. 3). Hamm discloses the impurity collection tank (13) located behind the grill or filter (36) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Pla Cortes disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Pla Cortes, the grill or filter (5) of the tubular body (100) is incorporated in the vicinity of the inner end of the tubular body such that the tubular body defines a surface on which the combustible and flavoring material (3) to be burned is supported; and from Hamm, the impurity collection tank (13) is located in the lower section of the tubular body (11) under the grille or filter (36) except the grill or filter is an inclined position. With respect to the limitation, the grill or filter is an inclined position, at the time the invention was made it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the grill or filter is an inclined position instead of horizontal position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the grill or filter is an inclined position or horizontal position, because both position performs the function of filtering ash equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Regarding claim 15, Pla Cortes discloses the tubular body (100) incorporates a stop (9) so that it does not slide inside the hood, lid, or cover (11) beyond what is provided for (Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Pla Cortes discloses the tubular body (100) further comprises a handle (8) to extract the tubular body 9100) from the hole (15) of the hood, lid, or cover (1) (Fig. 1 and 3).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pla Cortes (ES 1184909) in view of Hamm (US Pub. 2017/0227232) and further view of Rong (CN 209914924) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 5, Pla Cortes/Hamm disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above except an internal fan. Rong discloses an internal fan (220) (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Pla Cortes/Hamm, an internal fan, as taught by Rong, for the purpose of blowing smokes to the outlet hole.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pla Cortes (ES 1184909) in view of Hamm (US Pub. 2017/0227232) and further view of Sternin et al. (US Pat. 4,934,272) (new cited).
Regarding claim 9, Pla Cortes/Hamm disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Pla Cortes, the tubular body (100) incorporated into the hod, lid, or cover (11) position through the hole (15); and the front opening (4) is located laterally at the end of the external section of the tubular body (100) (Fig. 1-3) except the tubular body is in horizontal position through the hole made laterally. Sternin et al. discloses the tubular body (23) is in horizontal position through the hole made laterally (Fig. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Pla Cortes/Hamm, the tubular body is in horizontal position through the hole made laterally, as taught by Stemin et al., for the purpose of utilizing the smoker in horizontal position to the grill.
Regarding claim 10, Sternin et al. discloses the tubular body (28) is straight (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Pla Cortes discloses the tubular body (100) is angled (Fig. 1-3).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pla Cortes (ES 1184909) in view of Hamm (US Pub. 2017/0227232), Sternin et al. (US Pat. 4,934,272) and further view of Rong (CN 209914924).
Regarding claim 12, Pla Cortes/Hamm/Sternin disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Pla Cortes, the tubular body (100) (Fig. 1) except the tubular body is divided into separable and attached sections. Rong discloses the tubular body (300, 400) is divided into separable and attached sections (300 and 400) (Fig. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Pla Cortes/Hamm/Sternin, the tubular body is divided into separable and attached sections, as taught by Rong, for the purpose of de-assembly the main body for convenient to store and clean.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pla Cortes (ES 1184909) in view of Hamm (US Pub. 2017/0227232), Sternin et al. (US Pat. 4,934,272) and further view of Zimmerman (US Pub. 2006/0068067) (new cited).
Regarding claim 14, Pla Cortes/Hamm/Sternin disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Pla Cortes, the smoke outlet (6) is arranged vertically that closes the rear end of the tubular body (100) (Fig. 1-3) except the smoke outlets are defined by a plurality of perforations. Zimmerman discloses the smoke outlets (70) are defines by a plurality of perforations (74) (Fig. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Pla Cortes/Hamm/Sternin, the smoke outlets are defined by a plurality of perforations, as taught by Zimmerman, for the purpose of having a plurality of outlet orifices to release of the flavor.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pla Cortes (ES 1184909) in view of Hamm (US Pub. 2017/0227232) and further view of Heinrich (DE 202008000936) (new cited).
Regarding claim 17, Pla Cortes/Hamm disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Pla Cortes, the handle (8) defines a surface except the handle defines a surface capable of including advertising element. Heinrich discloses the handle (1) defines a surface capable of including advertising element (7) (Fig. 1 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Pla Cortes/Hamm, the handle defines a surface capable of including advertising element, as taught by Heinrich, for the purpose of having a logo on the handle for advertising the product.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pla Cortes (ES 1184909) in view of Hamm (US Pub. 2017/0227232) and further view of Ahumado en frio (new cited).
Regarding claims 18-19, Pla Cortes/Hamm disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Pla Cortes, the hole (15) of the hood, lid, or cover (1) (Fig. 3) except a sealing means to cover the hole of the hood, lid or cover; is one or more of a cork stopper, a closing gate that slides horizontally like a peephole on a door or a hatch, a closure, or a clamp with a wire tie. Ahumado en frio discloses a sealing means to cover the hole of the hood, lid or cover is a closure (the video shown the hood with the sealing means, a closure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Pla Cortes/Hamm, a sealing means to cover the hole of the hood, lid or cover; is one or more of a cork stopper, a closing gate that slides horizontally like a peephole on a door or a hatch, a closure, or a clamp with a wire tie, as taught by Ahumado en frio, for the purpose of sealing the hood to prevent the smoke to escaping from the hood.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pla Cortes (ES 1184909) in view of Hamm (US Pub. 2017/0227232) and further view of Zimmerman (US Pub. 2006/0068067).
Regarding claim 20, Pla Cortes/Hamm disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Pla Cortes, the tubular main body (100) with the smoke outlet (6) that allow directing the flow of smoke through the hole (15) of the hood, lid or cover (11) (Fig. 3) except an additional body comprising: one or more connectable ducts located on its perimeter; one or more directional duct coupled to the one or more connectable outlets that allows directing the flow of smoke simultaneously inside one or more hod, lid, or covers located independently of the tubular body and to which they are coupled at their opposite end through the hole made therein for that purpose. Zimmerman discloses an additional body comprising: one or more connectible outlets (108) located on its perimeter; one or more directional ducts (104A-104C) coupled to the one or more connectible outlet (108) that allow directing the flow of smoke simultaneously (Fig. 1 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Pla Cortes/Hamm, an additional body comprising: one or more connectable ducts located on its perimeter; one or more directional duct coupled to the one or more connectable outlets that allows directing the flow of smoke simultaneously inside one or more hod, lid, or covers located independently of the tubular body and to which they are coupled at their opposite end through the hole made therein for that purpose, as taught by Zimmerman, for the purpose of providing multiple smoke outlet to smoke multiple items.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Edward Landrum 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761