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 .
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending in the current office action. Claims 3 and 4 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that based on amendments and explanation, the 112b rejections of claims 3-7 should be withdrawn. Applicant explains that the multiple of the at least one set of supports means there are more than one pair of supports.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner agrees and has withdrawn 112b rejection.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1, that the at least one set of supports cannot be 120 and 122 since they are adjacent to one another.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner disagrees with applicants’ characterization of the prior art. Figure 3 and par. 35 of Johnston makes clear that the plates 120 and 122 are fully surrounding porous plate 124. Meaning there are clearly front and corresponding back plates. Further, it is the examiners position that even adjacent plates could reasonably be interpreted as front and back plates as one is positioned in front of the other. The claim does not require that the front and back plate be positioned opposite of one another.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1, that 120 and 122 are two different components and cannot both be the at least one set of supports. Applicant further argues that it is unclear as to which of these two is considered to be at least one set of supports.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner disagrees. Either of 120 or 122 can properly anticipate the claim as both clearly show a “set “of supports. Further, any combination of 120 and 122 would also anticipate the “set” of supports as the claim does not limit the supports to a particular structure or require that the supports be identical.
Applicant’s Argument #4
Applicant argues with respect to claim 2, that plates 126 and 128 are relied on with respect to claim 1 as the claimed set of front and back plates and cannot be relied on to teach that the porous plate is suspended between the set of supports.
Examiner’s Response #4
Examiner disagrees. The claims as currently written are extremely broad and provide very little structural distinction amongst the claimed elements. Many interpretations of the art would still read on the breadth of the claim. Elements 126 and 128 encompass 4 elements. 2 of which can read on the set of supports and 2 which can read the claimed set of front and back plates. The plates clearly suspend the porous plate once the apparatus is flipped over. Further, any combination of any of the supports seen in figure 3 and addressed in claim 1 would properly anticipate the breadth of the claim as all would read on suspending the porous plate once the plate is flipped over. (Opposite supports of either 120 or 122 would have the porous plate positioned in between the supports.)
Applicant’s Argument #5
Applicant argues with respect to claim 3, that supports 120 and 122 do not support anything between them.
Examiner’s Response #5
Examiner disagrees. As stated in response to argument 4, either of the supports 120 or 122 include supports the are positioned at opposite ends of the porous plate. Once figure 3 is flipped over the porous plate would be suspended by the supports of either 120 or 122.
NOTE: Examiner invites applicant to schedule an interview in order to help advance prosecution. Many issues appear to be a result of the breadth of the claims and could benefit from a discussion on claim scope.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Johnston (US 20070125357 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Johnston teaches a porous grill grate 108 comprising: a set of front and back plates (126 & 128); at least one set of supports (120 & 122); and at least one porous plate (124). (par. 35-36 and figure 3)
Regarding claim 2, Johnston teaches wherein the at least one porous plate is suspended in between the at least one set of supports. (par. 35-36 and figure 3: Walls 126 & 128 form a frame to support/suspend the porous plate.)
Regarding claim 3, Johnston teaches wherein a multiple of the at least one set of supports suspending the at least one porous plate are staggered against one another at a fixed angle. (par. 35-36 and figure 3: Multiple supports 120 & 122 suspend plate 124. The multiple supports 120 & 122 are staggered at a 90o angle.)
Regarding claim 4, Johnston teaches wherein the multiple of the at least one set of supports suspending the at least one porous plate are affixed unto the set of the front and back plates. (par.35: supports, plates and walls are fastened together by a number of methods disclosed including interference fit and welding.)
Regarding claims 5 & 6, Johnston teaches wherein the fixed angle between the multiple of the at least one set of supports is 90 degrees, between 45-90o. (par. 35-36 and figure 3: Multiple supports 120 & 122 suspend plate 124. The multiple supports 120 & 122 are staggered at a 90o angle.)
Regarding claim 7, Johnston teaches wherein there are seven of the at least one set of supports suspending the at the at least one porous plate. (par. 35-36 and figure 3: Multiple supports 120 & 122)
Conclusion
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 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