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 .
Examiner’s Note
The patent process is a complex set of laws, regulations, policies and procedures; therefore, the USPTO always recommends using a registered patent attorney or agent to assist in preparing your application. The USPTO also recognizes that the cost of legal assistance is prohibitive for many applicants, particularly independent inventors and small businesses. The Pro Se Assistance Program provides resources to help independent inventors and small businesses meet their goal of protecting valuable intellectual property. You can access information and services by going to uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program . The Inventors Assistance Center also offers information about responding to Office Actions like this one at uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/inventors-assistance-center-iac . Further, the Examiner for this application is available for an interview to further explain the rejections and how to overcome 112(b) rejections and claim objections. Examiner Daniel Hatten can be reached at 703-756-1362. In this particular case, it appears that the prior art teaches or anticipates the claimed invention, and the examiner does not have a particular recommendation for language to overcome the 102 rejection.
Replying to this Office Action
This is a non-Final Rejection. Although all claims have been rejected, it is not a final decision. Typically, the second Office Action is a Final Rejection, and continuing prosecution after the second, Final Office Action may require additional fees. The Applicant may reply to this Office Action within 3 months without incurring any additional fee. Replies must be in the proper format and properly signed, as described in the internet resources described above – otherwise corrections will be required, causing delays that can incur fees. The Applicant may contact the Inventors Assistance Center, the Pro Se Assistance Program, or the Examiner without incurring any additional fees. The Examiner typically returns phone calls within one business day.
Specification
The amendment filed 07/19/2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The first line of the abstract reads “Revisions submitted contained no new material except additional technical details of the original concept”, however additional technical details are not allowed after the original filing date. The abstract continues by providing brief descriptions of the newly added or revised figures, see further below regarding drawing revisions and new matter concerns. For additional information related to new matter please see MPEP 608.04.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The abstract of the disclosure is also objected to for improper form and content. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the revisions submitted on 07/19/2022 contain new matter. The new drawings contain and introduce new elements or features that were not present in the originally filed drawings or disclosure submitted on 05/25/2022. 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because it is multiple sentences long. According to MPEP 608.01(m), “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “In combination with a thermostat” in line 3 of the claim. There is no mention of a “thermostat” in the originally filed disclosure. The amended abstract submitted on 07/19/2022 mentions a “thermostat” in the second paragraph of page 20, which is after the original filing date of 05/25/2025.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “The existing product is a 14” charcoal grill” whereas the originally filed drawing describes the size as an “18” diameter grill”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “There is a heat and debris shield” in lines 11 and 12 of the claim. There is no mention of a “heat and debris shield” in the originally filed disclosure.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim is narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patents cited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "The cooking surface" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. That is, a cooking surface had not yet been described so it is unclear what “the cooking surface” is referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the heat source” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. That is, a heat source had not yet been described so it is unclear what “the heat source” is referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the quality” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. That is, it is unclear what “the quality” is referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “The temperature” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. That is, a temperature had not yet been described so it is unclear what “the temperature” is referring to, is it the temperature of the object being heated or a temperature of the space inside the grill?
Claim 1 recites the limitation “In combination with a thermostat the cooking process can be controlled better” in lines 3 and 4 of the claim is unclear, this limitation is a statement and provides no explanation as to how a thermostat is involved or controls any sort of cooking process. Please see the 103 rejection below for how a thermostat is used in a rotary grill cooking process.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “The utility of the system” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. That is, no “system” has been described so it is unclear what “the system” is referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “The grill person utilizes air vents to control the temperature…” in lines 11 and 12 of the claim, this should read “air vents configured to be operated by a user to control temperature…”, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 1 is lacking in structure for many of the limitations, some examples are “The product reduces the supervision required while improving the quality of the end result of the cooking process” and “The temperature is more consistent and there is better control of the temperature” and “Less food is wasted and food can be cooked to safe temperature with greater consistency”, these lack structure and are not able to be claimed.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5787873 by Jack Whitehouse (“Whitehouse”) in view of US Patent 3012496 by E.L. Kelley et al. (“Kelley”).
PNG
media_image1.png
774
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Whitehouse teaches a rotary grill (Fig. 2) wherein the cooking surface (Col. 3, lines 40-62, grill grid 30) rotates about a vertical axis. By rotating the cooking surface over the heat source the quality is improved (Col. 1, lines 55-65, “steadily turning the grill tends to provide a far more even distribution of heat to the various pieces of food, so efforts have been made to provide a motor drive to provide rotation”). The temperature is more consistent and there is better control of the temperature. The constant rotation of the cooking surface reduces burning of the food due to irregular heat (Col. 7, lines 17-38 discloses the operation of a rotary grill which provides even and consistently cooked food). The utility of the system applies over various heat sources (Col. 8, lines 1-6 “the means of cooking heat from charcoal to say coke, or gas, or electricity, or wood”), sizes of cooking surface and motors/power sources (Fig. 20 shows a 12 volt battery, also see Col. 6, lines 48-56). The existing product is a charcoal grill with plug or battery power (Col. 6, lines 28-45, “dimensions of grill drive head 108 are cut to accept the grid bars of a 567mm (22.5”) diameter prior-art grill grid”). The product reduces the supervision required while improving the quality of the end result of the cooking process (Col. 1, lines 5-15, “without the need for … continual monitoring by the cook”). The cooking surface utilizes a stem (Fig. 7, vertical stem 54) through the bottom of the grill to float the cooking surface over the heat source and rotate it (See Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
898
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
886
627
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The motor (Fig. 7, drive motor 48) is attached to the bottom of the grill frame (Figs. 2, and 6-8, col. 4, lines 23-51 describe the mounting of the motor to the grill frame). The motor mount supports the weight of the food being prepared and the cooking surface in addition to the motor (Col. 4, lines 55-67 and col. 5, lines 1-23 provide additional details related to mounting the motor drive assembly to the grill frame and attaching the drive shaft to the cooking surface). There is a heat and debris shield (Fig. 6, heat and debris shield “cone-shaped housing 62”) that protects the motor from charcoal ashes falling inside it (Col. 2, lines 33-53, “a drive mechanism in which the drive motor is protected against heat and/or ashes from the barbecue fire and also from rain if left uncovered”). The grill person utilizes air vents (Fig. 1, air vent 28) to control the temperature of the coals (Col. 3, lines 41-53, “a lid 26 with adjustable ventilator 28 … air inlet holes 34 at the bottom of the fire bowl 22 are arranged concentrically around the center of the base and allow an even distribution of incoming air to enter beneath the burning charcoal”). The grill surface rotates approximately 2.5 times per minute (Col. 6, lines 57-64). Less food is wasted and food can be cooked to safe temperature with greater consistency (Col. 7, lines 17-38).
Whitehouse does not expressly disclose the grill being 14” in diameter. According to MPEP 2144.04 §IV §§A, limitations concerning size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including such a change in size, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” In this case, since the reference discloses a 22.5” diameter grill it would be obvious to form it in various sizes and would be deemed appropriate in order to provide additional options for consumers.
Whitehouse does not expressly disclose the use of a thermostat.
However, Kelley teaches in a similar rotary grill cooking device (Figs. 1 and 2) in combination with a thermostat the cooking process can be controlled better (Col. 2, lines 35-56 “the temperature sensing assembly or thermostat operates to control the burners so that a generally constant temperature is maintained over the surface of the hot plate”).
PNG
media_image4.png
818
526
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the rotary grill of Whitehouse the thermostat feature as taught by Kelley. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a thermostat feature in order to provide a consistent temperature and provide suitably cooked food (Col. 2, lines 46-56, “the temperature differentials or the temperature difference between the hottest and coolest portions of the hot plate should not exceed 10 degrees F … [i]f the temperature differential exceeds this range the food will not be properly cooked”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 11445854 by Willie Gresham II discloses a “rotating charcoal grill comprises a base, a charcoal bowl, a cooking grate, a support shaft, a grate coupler, and a spring”.
PNG
media_image5.png
710
493
media_image5.png
Greyscale
US Patent 3298301 by Jane Lowndes discloses “a dual purpose barbecue stand, as set forth above, wherein the combined motor and gear box, when employed for rotating the gridiron, is shielded from direct radiation of heat from the burning coals within the charcoal pit of the bowl”.
PNG
media_image6.png
819
527
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W HATTEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571)270-5569. 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.
/DANIEL WARD HATTEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761