DETAILED ACTION
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
The amendment filed on 07/02/2025 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to one of the 112b rejections of claim 6 has been accepted and that rejection has been withdrawn. The Office notes that the other 112b rejection of claim 6 appears not to have been resolved and is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. A new rejection of claim 1 has been made in view of Hungerford (US 5009151 A). A full rejection can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitation recites “said third lateral side and said fourth lateral side”. However, the claim does not previous introduce a third or fourth lateral side. The claim only introduces a first lateral side and a second lateral side. Figure 3 of the applicant’s drawings appears to only teach of two lateral sides. The drawings, and claim, do also introduce a front and a back side. These sides, however, extend perpendicularly to the lateral sides. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the third and fourth sides draw antecedent basis from the front and back sides.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hungerford (US 5009151 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hungerford (US 5009151 A) teaches a grilling sheet assembly being positionable on a cooking grill thereby facilitating a food item to be cooked on a clean surface (Figures 2 and 7 Column 6 Lines 21-37, food 42 placed upon top surface 94 of the food support 20), said assembly comprising:
a sheet being comprised of a thermally conductive material (Column 4 Lines 24-28, protective food support 20 formed of a light gauge metal) thereby facilitating
said sheet to be heated by a cooking grill when said sheet is positioned on the cooking grill (Figure 2 Column 4 Lines 19-59, the food support is well heated during the cooking time by placing said food support upon a cooking grill), said sheet being comprised of a rigid material1 (Column 6 Lines 38-43, food support structure is formed of aluminum; Line 31 of the applicant’s specification 05/30/2022 states that aluminum is a sufficiently rigid material) thereby facilitating said sheet to support a food item (Figure 2 Column 4 Lines 18-42, food is placed on top of food support 20 wherein said food support 20 is formed of a metal), said sheet being corrugated (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests and troughs of the food support are both curved) thereby facilitating said sheet to drain grease from the food item to drip below the food item (Column 5 Lines 10-24, food juices and liquid fat drip down to be deflected by the slanted sides of the trough into the bottom reservoir of each trough); and
wherein said sheet has a top surface, a bottom surface (Column 6 Lines 21-37, top surface and bottom surface of the food support 20 are interchangeable) and a perimeter edge extending between said top surface and said bottom surface (Figure 3, perimeter edge between top and bottom surface extends between said surfaces), said perimeter edge having a first lateral side, a second lateral side, a front side and a back side (Figures 1-4, perimeter edge of the food support 20 has four sides surrounding said food support), said top surface being continuous within said perimeter edge (Figures 1-4, top surface of food support is placed continuously within the four edges of the food support) wherein said sheet is configured for inhibiting the grease from passes through the sheet within said perimeter edge (Column 4 Lines 43-59, no dripping of food juices down into the heating source; Column 5 Lines 10-24, food juices and liquid fat drip down to be deflected by the slanted sides of the trough into the bottom reservoir of each trough)
Regarding claim 2, Hungerford teaches the assembly according to claim 1, wherein:
said sheet has plurality of bends each extending between said front side and said back side, said plurality of bends being distributed between said first lateral side and said second lateral side (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests and troughs of the food support are both curved; Figures 1-4, crests and troughs of the food support 20 extend between two edges of the food support);
said plurality of bends includes a set of first bends and a set of second bends (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests and troughs of the food support are both curved);
each of said first bends is directed upwardly (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests of the food support are curved);
each of said second bends is directed downwardly (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, troughs of the food support are curved); and
said first bends and said second bends alternate between said first lateral side and said second lateral side (Figures 1-4, troughs and crests alternate between two edges of the food support).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hungerford (US 5009151 A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rhee (US 20060118101 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hungerford teaches the assembly according to claim 2.
While Hungerford fails to explicitly teach that “each of said first lateral side and second lateral side and said front side and said back side having a length being less than 18.0 inches thereby facilitating said sheet to fit on a typical cooking grill”, the MEPE teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having the length and width of the sheet be less than 18 inches would have been a matter of obvious engineering choice based on the size of the grill the sheet is used on.
Furthermore, Rhee (US 20060118101 A1) teaches that a liner 10 can be pulled from the roller 12 and cut to any convenient length for use on a barbecue wherein the width of the liner is between 10 and 18 inches (Paragraph 22). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hungerford with Rhee and have the length and width of the food support in question to be less than 18 inches. This would have been done due to obvious engineering choice based on the size of the grill the food support is intended to be placed upon.
Regarding claim 4, Hungerford teaches the assembly according to claim 2, wherein:
the food support is disposable (Column 4 Lines 50-52, food support 20 is disposable)
Rhee fails to teach:
said sheet has a thickness between said top surface and said bottom surface being less than 0.08 mm thereby facilitating said sheet to be crumpled into a ball to be discarded when the food item has finished cooking.
Rhee (US 20060118101 A1) teaches a disposable liner for a cooking grill, wherein:
said sheet has a thickness between said top surface and said bottom surface being less than 0.08 mm (Paragraph 23, gauge thickness of between 0.05mm and 0.3mm) thereby facilitating said sheet to be crumpled into a ball to be discarded when the food item has finished cooking (Paragraph 24, gauge thickness of the aluminum alloy foil is thin enough to enable the liner 10 to be easily deformed by hand).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hungerford with Rhee such that the thickness of the sheet is between 0.05mm and 0.3mm. This would have been done as a disposable cooking sheet of this thickness is known in the art and thus would have been used due to its standardized and predictable results.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hungerford (US 5009151 A) in view of Rhee (US 20060118101 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hungerford (US 5009151 A) teaches a grilling sheet assembly being positionable on a cooking grill thereby facilitating a food item to be cooked on a clean surface (Figures 2 and 7 Column 6 Lines 21-37, food 42 placed upon top surface 94 of the food support 20), said assembly comprising:
a sheet being comprised of a thermally conductive material (Column 4 Lines 24-28, protective food support 20 formed of a light gauge metal) thereby facilitating said sheet to be heated by a cooking grill when said sheet is positioned on the cooking grill (Figure 2 Column 4 Lines 19-59, the food support is well heated during the cooking time by placing said food support upon a cooking grill), said sheet being comprised of a rigid material thereby facilitating said sheet to support a food item (Figure 2 Column 4 Lines 18-42, food is placed on top of food support 20 wherein said food support 20 is formed of a metal), said sheet being corrugated (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests and troughs of the food support are both curved) thereby facilitating said sheet to drain grease from the food item to drip below the food item (Column 5 Lines 10-24, food juices and liquid fat drip down to be deflected by the slanted sides of the trough into the bottom reservoir of each trough), said sheet having a top surface, a bottom surface (Column 6 Lines 21-37, top surface and bottom surface of the food support 20 are interchangeable) and a perimeter edge extending between said top surface and said bottom surface (Figure 3, perimeter edge between top and bottom surface extends between said surfaces), said perimeter edge having a first lateral side, a second lateral side, a front side and a back side (Figures 1-4, perimeter edge of the food support 20 has four sides surrounding said food support), said top surface being continuous within said perimeter edge (Figures 1-4, top surface of food support is placed continuously within the four edges of the food support) wherein said sheet is configured for inhibiting the grease rom passing through said sheet within said perimeter edge (Column 4 Lines 43-59, no dripping of food juices down into the heating source; Column 5 Lines 10-24, food juices and liquid fat drip down to be deflected by the slanted sides of the trough into the bottom reservoir of each trough), said sheet having plurality of bends each extending between said front side and said back side, said plurality of bends being distributed between said first lateral side and said second lateral side (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests and troughs of the food support are both curved; Figures 1-4, crests and troughs of the food support 20 extend between two edges of the food support), said plurality of bends including a set of first bends and a set of second bends (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests and troughs of the food support are both curved), each of said first bends being directed upwardly (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests of the food support are curved), each of said second bends being directed downwardly (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, troughs of the food support are curved), said first bends and said second bends alternating between said first lateral side and said second lateral side (Figures 1-4, troughs and crests alternate between two edges of the food support)
Hungerford fails to explicitly teach:
each of said first lateral side and second lateral side and said front side and said back side having a length being less than 18.0 inches thereby facilitating said sheet to fit on a typical cooking grill, said sheet having a thickness between said top surface and said bottom surface being less than 0.08 mm thereby facilitating said sheet to be crumpled into a ball to be discarded when the food item has finished cooking.
Rhee (US 20060118101 A1) teaches a disposable liner for a cooking grill, wherein:
said sheet has a thickness between said top surface and said bottom surface being less than 0.08 mm (Paragraph 23, gauge thickness of between 0.05mm and 0.3mm) thereby facilitating said sheet to be crumpled into a ball to be discarded when the food item has finished cooking (Paragraph 24, gauge thickness of the aluminum alloy foil is thin enough to enable the liner 10 to be easily deformed by hand).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hungerford with Rhee such that the thickness of the sheet is between 0.05mm and 0.3mm. This would have been done as a disposable cooking sheet of this thickness is known in the art and thus would have been chosen based on obvious engineering choice and used due to its standardized and predictable results.
While Hungerford as modified with Rhee fails to explicitly teach that “each of said first lateral side and second lateral side and said front side and said back side having a length being less than 18.0 inches thereby facilitating said sheet to fit on a typical cooking grill”, the MEPE teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having the length and width of the sheet be less than 18 inches would have been a matter of obvious engineering choice based on the size of the grill the sheet is used on.
Furthermore, Rhee (US 20060118101 A1) teaches that a liner 10 can be pulled from the roller 12 and cut to any convenient length for use on a barbecue wherein the width of the liner is between 10 and 18 inches (Paragraph 22). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hungerford with Rhee and have the length and width of the food support in question to be less than 18 inches. This would have been done due to obvious engineering choice based on the size of the grill the food support is intended to be placed upon.
Regarding claim 6, Hungerford (US 5009151 A) teaches a grilling sheet system (Figures 2 and 7 Column 6 Lines 21-37, food 42 placed upon top surface 94 of the food support 20) comprising:
a cooking grill for burning a combustible fuel to cook a food item (Figure 1 Column 4 Line 68 – Column 5 Line 9, food support 20 is placed on a grill 24 of a barbecue cooker 26 which contains charcoal or other fuel within it)
a sheet being comprised of a thermally conductive material (Column 4 Lines 24-28, protective food support 20 formed of a light gauge metal) thereby facilitating said sheet to be heated by said cooking grill when said sheet is positioned on said cooking grill (Figure 2 Column 4 Lines 19-59, the food support is well heated during the cooking time by placing said food support upon a cooking grill), said sheet being comprised of a rigid material thereby facilitating said sheet to support the food item (Figure 2 Column 4 Lines 18-42, food is placed on top of food support 20 wherein said food support 20 is formed of a metal), said sheet being corrugated (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests and troughs of the food support are both curved) thereby facilitating said sheet to drain grease from the food item to drip below the food item (Column 5 Lines 10-24, food juices and liquid fat drip down to be deflected by the slanted sides of the trough into the bottom reservoir of each trough), said sheet having a top surface, a bottom surface (Column 6 Lines 21-37, top surface and bottom surface of the food support 20 are interchangeable) and a perimeter edge extending between said top surface and said bottom surface (Figure 3, perimeter edge between top and bottom surface extends between said surfaces), said perimeter edge having a first lateral side, a second lateral side, a front side and a back side (Figures 1-4, perimeter edge of the food support 20 has four sides surrounding said food support), said top surface being continuous within said perimeter edge (Figures 1-4, top surface of food support is placed continuously within the four edges of the food support) wherein said sheet is configured for inhibiting the grease from passing through said sheet within said perimeter edge (Column 4 Lines 43-59, no dripping of food juices down into the heating source; Column 5 Lines 10-24, food juices and liquid fat drip down to be deflected by the slanted sides of the trough into the bottom reservoir of each trough), said sheet having plurality of bends each extending between said front side and said back side, said plurality of bends being distributed between said first lateral side and said second lateral side (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests and troughs of the food support are both curved; Figures 1-4, crests and troughs of the food support 20 extend between two edges of the food support), said plurality of bends including a set of first bends and a set of second bends (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests and troughs of the food support are both curved), each of said first bends being directed upwardly (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, crests of the food support are curved), each of said second bends being directed downwardly (Figures 2-3 Column 5 Lines 10-36, troughs of the food support are curved), said first bends and said second bends alternating between said first lateral side and said second lateral side (Figures 1-4, troughs and crests alternate between two edges of the food support)
Hungerford fails to explicitly teach:
each of said first lateral side and said second lateral side and said third lateral side and said fourth lateral side having a length being less than 18.0 inches thereby facilitating said sheet to fit on a typical cooking grill, said sheet having a thickness between said top surface and said bottom surface being less than 0.08 mm thereby facilitating said sheet to be crumpled into a ball to be discarded when the food item has finished cooking.
Rhee (US 20060118101 A1) teaches a disposable liner for a cooking grill, wherein:
said sheet has a thickness between said top surface and said bottom surface being less than 0.08 mm (Paragraph 23, gauge thickness of between 0.05mm and 0.3mm) thereby facilitating said sheet to be crumpled into a ball to be discarded when the food item has finished cooking (Paragraph 24, gauge thickness of the aluminum alloy foil is thin enough to enable the liner 10 to be easily deformed by hand).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hungerford with Rhee such that the thickness of the sheet is between 0.05mm and 0.3mm. This would have been done as a disposable cooking sheet of this thickness is known in the art and thus would have been chosen based on obvious engineering choice and used due to its standardized and predictable results.
While Hungerford as modified with Rhee fails to explicitly teach that “each of said first lateral side and said second lateral side and said third lateral side and said fourth lateral side having a length being less than 18.0 inches thereby facilitating said sheet to fit on a typical cooking grill”, the MEPE teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having the length and width of the sheet be less than 18 inches would have been a matter of obvious engineering choice based on the size of the grill the sheet is used on.
Furthermore, Rhee (US 20060118101 A1) teaches that a liner 10 can be pulled from the roller 12 and cut to any convenient length for use on a barbecue wherein the width of the liner is between 10 and 18 inches (Paragraph 22). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hungerford with Rhee and have the length and width of the food support in question to be less than 18 inches. This would have been done due to obvious engineering choice based on the size of the grill the food support is intended to be placed upon.
See 112b rejections above for third lateral side and fourth lateral side.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 The Office further notes that using an aluminum foil as a foil for a grill wherein the liner is made of semi-rigid or heavy aluminum foil is well known in the art as evidenced by Column 2 Lines 38-43 of Robinson (US 6718866 B1).