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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 2-7 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-7 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by McKenzie et al. (US Pat# 4,662,349).
Regarding claim 2, McKenzie teaches a porous grill grate (figure 2, abstract) comprising: a front and back plate 98 (can also be one set of side support walls that are opposite one another enclosing 72/74), opposite to one another; at least one pair of supports (49, 50, 60: Figures 4-6 and col. 7, lines 10-25: sides form frame around ceramic plates 72/74) , opposite to one another; and at least one porous ceramic plate 72/74, wherein the at least one porous ceramic plate is held in place by retaining walls incorporated within each of the at least one pair of supports. (figures 4-6: 72/74 are held in place within shoulders and walls (65,66, 86, 82, 81).
Regarding claim 3, McKenzie teaches wherein one porous ceramic plate and pair of support combination and another porous ceramic plate and pair of support combination are staggered against one another at a fixed angle. (figures 4-6: Shows angled staggering)
Regarding claim 4, McKenzie teaches wherein a multiple of the at least one pair of supports, holding in place the at least one porous ceramic plate, are affixed unto and in between the front and back plate. (figures 4-6: Supports and plates surround 72/74 and are fixed to each other.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Barreto (PGPUB US2014/0261378).
Regarding claim 2, Barreto teaches a porous grill grate (figures 16-18) comprising: a front and back plate (see annotated figure 18 below)3, opposite to one another; at least one pair of supports 110, opposite to one another; and at least one porous ceramic plate (par. 50, item 130), wherein the at least one porous ceramic plate is held in place by retaining walls incorporated within each of the at least one pair of supports (see figure 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie et al. (US Pat# 4,662,349) in view of Broerman (PGPub# US 2013/0192476).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, McKenzie teaches that an angle is provided between ceramic plates 72/74).
McKenzie does not explicitly teach wherein the fixed angle between the staggered combinations of porous ceramic plates and pair of supports is 90 degrees (claim 5), and wherein the fixed angle between the staggered combinations of porous ceramic plates and pair of supports is between 45 and 90 degrees.(claim 6)
However, Broerman teaches a similar grill apparatus. (figure 7) Broerman teaches that ceramic bricks/ stones can be positioned/staggered against each other with a 90o angle. (Figures 1-3 and 7, par. 23-24 Broerman teaches that such an arrangement allows for maximum uniformity in heat distribution. (par. 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the angled/staggered arrangement of Broerman, to the apparatus of McKenzie, in order to maximize uniformity in heat distribution as taught by Broerman.
Regarding claim 7, McKenzie does not explicitly teach wherein there are seven of the porous ceramic plate and pair of support combinations.
However, McKenzie teaches that the system can include at least two tiles. (col. 7, lines 25-31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the tile and support arrangement of McKenzie as many times as necessary in order to increase the grill area coverage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4413976, US 3847536, US 3013602.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights