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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/19/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 1/19/26 response to the Office Action dated 8/18/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 10, 11, 15, and 16 are amended.
Claim 46 is new.
Claims 12 and 21-45 remain cancelled.
Claims 1-11, 13-20, and 46 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to claims have overcome the previously set forth 112(b) rejection, so that rejection is withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks on Pgs. 7-8 with respect to the claim interpretation of “washer” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pgs. 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant states Jackson does not disclose a burner valve that supports a primary and secondary manifold. However, this is not an issue because this limitation is rejected by Barkhouse in view of Jackson, not Jackson individually. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.”
On Pg. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant submits there is no reason why a person of skill in the art would modify a burner valve as taught by Barkhouse to support two manifolds in view of the teachings of Jackson. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted on Pg. 7 of the Final Rejection dated 8/18/25, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to make the manifolds parallel so the cooking appliance is narrower, thereby allowing the cooking appliance to fit in a wider variety of spaces and be usable by a wider range of users (i.e., apartment renters and homeowners, etc.) and permit isolated servicing and replacement of individual valves, as suggested by Par. 0026 of Jackson, thereby decreasing maintenance costs and increasing the speed of maintenance activities.
For the reasons above, the rejection to the claims is respectfully maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, line 2, “securing the at least one of the flanges” should read securing “securing .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkhouse et al. (US 2009/0183729 A1, hereafter Barkhouse) and further in view of Jackson (US 20170097159 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barkhouse discloses a cooking apparatus (Fig. 1, barbecue 20) comprising:
a. a main fuel manifold (Fig. 7, manifold 108) that provides fuel to at least one manual burner (Par. 0161, line 10, burner 86 and Par. 0157, lines 4-8, which discloses when temperature control apparatus 32 is off, the control knob associated with burner 86 may be used to control the combustible fuel in a conventional manner (i.e., manually)) and at least one control valve (Par. 0161, lines 12-14, valve 38 and valve 60);
b. at least one controlled fuel manifold (Par. 0161, lines 8-9, second manifold 110 and Par. 0161, lines 12-14 which discloses temperature control apparatus 32 controls zone 2. As Par. 0161, lines 8-9 disclose second manifold 110 is in zone 2, second manifold 110 is necessarily controlled by temperature control apparatus 32 and is thereby a “controlled” manifold) in fluid communication with the at least one control valve (Par. 0161, lines 12-14, valve 38 and valve 60. Second manifold 110 and valve 60 are both associated with zone 2 which Examiner notes necessarily means second manifold and 110 and valve 60 are in fluid communication) each controlled fuel manifold for providing fuel to at least one controlled burner (Par. 0191, lines 9-14, infrared burner 178, which discloses infrared burner 178 is controlled by temperature control apparatus 32 and is thereby a “controlled” burner);
c. at least one sensor (Par. 0121, lines 1-3, thermocouple 42), each sensor monitoring at least one measured temperature (Par. 0121, lines 3-7) within the cooking apparatus;
d. a controller (Par. 0019, line 1, temperature control apparatus 32) operable to receive a desired temperature set-point (Par. 0196, lines 1-6), the controller comprising a microprocessor (Par. 0019, lines 1-2, microprocessor 36) operable to compare the at least one measured temperature (Par. 0121, lines 1-3) and the temperature set-point (Par. 0006, lines 2-4), and in response to the comparison selectively adjust the at least one control valve (Par. 0132, valve 60) to restrict an amount of fuel flowing to the at least one controlled fuel manifold (Par. 0161, lines 8-9, second manifold 110, which is necessarily a controlled manifold as explained above in this claim); and
e. a plurality of manually operable burner valves (Par. 0161, line 10, burner 86; Par. 0157, lines 4-8, which discloses when temperature control apparatus 32 is off, the control knob associated with burner 86 may be used to control the combustible fuel in a conventional manner (i.e., manually). Given each control knob includes an associated valve, the knob can be used to control the combustible fuel in a conventional manner (i.e., manually), and the control knob is associated with burner 86, the valve associated with burner 86 is a ‘manually operable burner valve’ and Par. 0191, lines 5-last line, which discloses temperature control system 32 or control knob 100 controls fuel flow to infrared burner 178 via valve 60. Given valve 60 can be manually controlled via control knob 100 and controls fuel flow to infrared burner 178, it is a ‘manually operable burner valve’) each coupled to a burner to supply fuel to the burner (Par. 0191, lines 5-last line, which discloses temperature control system 32 or control knob 100 controls fuel flow to infrared burner 178 via valve 60), the plurality of manually operable burner valves including a manual burner valve (Par. 0161, line 10, burner 86; Par. 0157, lines 4-9, which discloses when temperature control apparatus 32 is off, the control knob associated with burner 86 may be used to control the combustible fuel in a conventional manner (i.e., manually) and each control knob includes an associated valve. Given the control knob associated with burner 86 is manual, the associated valve must necessarily be manual too, so it is a ‘manual valve’. The associated valve is also used to control fuel supply to burner 86, therefore it is a ‘manual burner valve’) between each of the at least one manual burner and the main fuel manifold (Fig. 7, manifold 108 and control knob associated with burner 86. For the valve to control the flow of fuel from the manifold 108 to the burner 86, the valve associated with burner 86 must necessarily be between burner 86 and manifold 108) and a controlled burner valve (Par. 0191, lines 5-last line, which discloses temperature control system 32 controls fuel flow to infrared burner 178 via valve 60 and is therefore a ‘controlled valve’. Given valve 60 also controls fuel flow to infrared burner 178, it is a ‘controlled burner valve’) between each of the at least one controlled burner and the at least one controlled fuel manifold (Fig. 7, manifold 110 and valve 60 ; Par. 0191, lines 5-last line; and Par. 0161, lines 12-14, valve 38 and valve 60. Second manifold 110 and valve 60 are both associated with zone 2 which Examiner notes necessarily means second manifold and 110 and valve 60 are in fluid communication. For valve 60 to control the flow of fuel from the manifold 110 to the burner 178, the valve associated with burner 86 must necessarily be between burner 86 and manifold 108).
However, Barkhouse does not disclose the plurality of manually operable burner valves includes at least one flanged manually operable burner valve, each of the at least one flanged manually operable burner valve comprising a pair of flanges configured to engage with and support the main fuel manifold and the at least one controlled fuel manifold.
Jackson discloses a range (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Jackson further discloses it is known to have a plurality of valves (Fig. 3, safety shut-off devices 32 which are valves per Par. 0022, lines 7-9) includes at least one flanged valve (Fig. 3, compression nut 70 is part of safety shut off-devices 32. A flange is a rim for attachment to another object, therefore compression nut 70 is a ‘flange’ because it is a rim of safety shut-off device 32 that attaches to adapter 38) each of the at least one flanged manually operable valve comprising a pair of flanges (Fig. 3, compression nut 70, as explained above, and flanges identified in annotated Fig. A. A flange is a rim for attachment to another object, therefore the flanges identified in annotated Fig. A are ‘flanges’ because they are the rims of safety shut-off devices 32 that attach to the primary manifold 24) configured to engage with and support a main fuel manifold (Fig. 3, primary manifold 24) and a controlled fuel manifold (Fig. 3, secondary manifold 40. Per Par. 0022, lines 7-last line, safety shut-off devices 32 are in an open condition when a pilot flame is detected and closed when a pilot flame is not detected. Safety shut-off devices 32 are at least controlled by the presence or absence of the pilot flame and are therefore, ‘controlled valves’. Hence, secondary manifold 40 which branches off of safety shut-off device 32 to feed fuel to burner valves 46 and burners 12 is also a ‘controlled fuel manifold’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1) modified the main fuel and controlled fuel manifolds of Barkhouse with the same as disclosed by Jackson and 2) modified the manually operable valves of Barkhouse with the valves as disclosed by Jackson in order to 1) make the manifolds parallel so the cooking appliance is narrower, thereby allowing the cooking appliance to fit in a wider variety of spaces and be usable by a wider range of users (i.e., apartment renters and homeowners, etc.) and 2) permit isolated servicing and replacement of individual valves, as suggested by Par. 0026 of Jackson, thereby decreasing maintenance costs and increasing the speed of maintenance activities.
NOTE: It’s the Examiner’s position that the limitation “the plurality of manually operable burner valves includes at least one flanged manually operable burner valve, each of the at least one flanged manually operable burner valve comprising a pair of flanges configured to engage with and support the main fuel manifold and the at least one controlled fuel manifold” (emphasis added) is necessarily met by modified Barkhouse. To elaborate, Barkhouse teaches the valves are manually operable burner valves, so adding a pair of flanges as disclosed by Jackson necessarily means the valves of modified Barkhouse are manually operable burner valves.
PNG
media_image1.png
270
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flanges)]
Figure A: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Jackson showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 2, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses at least one of the manual burners (From Barkhouse: Fig. 6, burner 88 and Par. 0157, lines 4-9. Examiner notes burner 88 is controlled by “manual” knob 92 and is thereby a manual burner) are located centrally of the cooking apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses at least one of the controlled burners (From Barkhouse: Par. 0191, line 12-14, infrared burner 178. Examiner notes infrared burner 178) are located towards a periphery of the cooking apparatus (From Barkhouse: Par. 0191, lines 14-27. Examiner notes the disclosed location of infrared burner 178 above burners 86, 88, and 90 would place it on the outward bounds rather than the center (i.e., periphery) of the barbeque (i.e., cooking appliance)).
Regarding claim 4, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses the at least one control valve (Par. 0161, last line, valve 60) includes a first control valve (From Barkhouse: Par. 0161, last line, valve 60) in fluid communication with a first controlled fuel manifold (From Barkhouse: Par. 0161, lines 8-9, second manifold 110, which is necessarily a controlled manifold as explained above in claim 1), and a second control valve (From Barkhouse: Par. 0161, last line, valve 38) in fluid communication with a second controlled fuel manifold (From Barkhouse: Par. 0161, lines 11-14, manifold 38. Similar to second manifold 110, manifold 38 is controlled by temperature control apparatus 32 which necessarily means it is a “controlled” manifold).
Regarding claim 5, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses a third control valve (From Barkhouse: Par. 0156, lines 9-12 which discloses barbecue 20 may be separated into three different zones. Par. 0158, lines 1-2 which discloses each zone has a valve associated with it. As Par. 0161, lines 12-14 discloses valve 38 and valve 60 are for zones 1 and 2 respectively, this necessarily means zone 3 has a third valve) in fluid communication with a third controlled fuel manifold (From Barkhouse: Par. 161, lines 5-8 which discloses each zone has its own manifold. As Par. 0161, lines 8-9 discloses there is already a second manifold 110 for zone 2, this necessarily means there is a third manifold for zone 3. This would necessarily be a “controlled” manifold like second manifold 110, as explained above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses at least one control knob (From Barkhouse: Par. 0157, lines 4-8, control knob 92) for manually controlling fuel to at least one of the manual burners (From Barkhouse: Par. 0157, lines 4-8, burner 88, which is necessarily a manual burner as explained above in claim 2).
Regarding claim 7, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses at least one control knob (From Barkhouse: Par. 0191, lines 6-7, control knob 100) for manually controlling fuel to at least one of the controlled burners (From Barkhouse: Par. 0191, line 12-14, infrared burner 178, which is necessarily a controlled burner as explained above in claim 2).
Regarding claim 8, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses the at least one manual burner (From Barkhouse: Fig. 6, burner 86 and Par. 0157, lines 4-8, which discloses when temperature control apparatus 32 is off, the control knob associated with burner 86 may be used to control the combustible fuel in a conventional manner (i.e., manually) includes a side burner (From Barkhouse: Fig. 6, burner 86).
Regarding claim 10, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses the at least one controlled fuel manifold (Par. 0161, lines 8-9, second manifold 110, which is necessarily a controlled manifold as explained above in claim 1) and main fuel manifold (From Barkhouse: Fig. 7, manifold 108) are mounted to the at least one flanged manually operable burner valve (From Barkhouse: Fig. 7, second manifold 108 is mounted to control 92 and manifold 110 is mounted to control 98. Combined with Par. 0157, lines 8-9, which discloses each control knob includes an associated valve to control fuel flow to a burner. These valves are necessarily ‘manually operable burner valves’ because the controls they are associated with are manual and they control fuel flow to burners).
Regarding claim 11, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses the at least one flanged manually operable burner valve (From Barkhouse: Par. 0161, line 10 and Par. 0157, lines 4-9; valve associated with burner 86; and Par. 0191, lines 5-last line, valve 60, as explained in claim 1. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with the flanged valves of Jackson, as explained in claim 1) includes a first flanged manually operable burner valve (From Barkhouse: Par. 0161, line 10; Par. 0157, lines 4-9, valve associated with burner 86, as explained in claim 1. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with the flanged valve of Jackson, as explained in claim 1) supporting the controlled fuel manifold (From Barkhouse: Par. 0161, lines 8-9, second manifold 110 and Par. 0161, lines 12-14 which discloses temperature control apparatus 32 controls zone 2. As Par. 0161, lines 8-9 disclose second manifold 110 is in zone 2, second manifold 110 is necessarily controlled by temperature control apparatus 32 and is thereby a “controlled” manifold) and main fuel manifold (Fig. 7, manifold 108) toward a first end thereof (From Jackson: Fig. 3, left end of main manifold 24), and a second flanged manually operable burner valve (From Barkhouse: Par. 0191, lines 5-last line, valve 60, as explained in claim 1. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with the flanged valves of Jackson, as explained in claim 1) supporting the controlled fuel manifold (From Barkhouse, as explained above) and main fuel manifold (From Barkhouse, as explained above) toward a second end thereof (From Jackson: Fig. 3, right end of main manifold 24).
Regarding claim 13, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses each flange (From Jackson: Fig. 3, compression nuts 70 and annotated Fig. A, flanges, as explained in claim 1) includes a surface (From Jackson: Fig. 3, top of compression nuts 70 and annotated Fig. A, bottom of flanges, as explained in claim 1) for engaging with an outer surface of the manifolds (From Barkhouse: bottom surface of second manifold 110 and top surface of manifold 108. See Par. 0161, lines 8-9, second manifold 110 and Par. 0161, lines 12-14 which discloses temperature control apparatus 32 controls zone 2. As Par. 0161, lines 8-9 disclose second manifold 110 is in zone 2, second manifold 110 is necessarily controlled by temperature control apparatus 32 and is thereby a “controlled” manifold).
Regarding claim 17, Barkhouse discloses the sensor (From Barkhouse: Par. 0121, lines 1-3, thermocouple 42) is a thermocouple.
Regarding claim 18, Barkhouse discloses the temperature set-point (From Barkhouse: Par. 0006, lines 2-4) is a first temperature set-point, and the input device (From Barkhouse: Par. 0118, lines 5-8, input device 34) is operable to receive a second temperature set-point (From Barkhouse: Par. 0009, lines 16-18, which disclose the interface may be configured for manually inputting a second desired temperature. Combined with Par. 0126, lines 5-6 which disclose the input device 34 includes an LCD screen 52 and line 12, which discloses LCD screen 52 is an interface. Together, these necessarily mean the interface that allows a user to input a second desired temperature (i.e., temperature set-point) is part of the input device 34).
Note: Examiner interprets “input device” as described in the Claim Interpretation section above.
Regarding claim 19, Barkhouse discloses the first temperature set-point (From Barkhouse: Par. 0006, lines 2-4) and second temperature set-point (From Barkhouse: Par. 0009, lines 16-18) are for different heating zones of the cooking apparatus (From Barkhouse: Par. 0144, lines 2-8).
Regarding claim 20, Barkhouse discloses the different heating zones (From Barkhouse: Fig. 13, zone 1 and zone 2) comprise a first cookbox (From Barkhouse: Fig. 13, area within barbecue 20 to the left of divider 136 (unnumbered)) and a second cookbox (From Barkhouse: Fig. 13, area within barbecue 20 to the right of divider 136 (unnumbered)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkhouse et al. (US 2009/0183729 A1), hereafter Barkhouse, and further in view of Rummel (US 5536518 A).
Regarding claim 9, Barkhouse discloses the at least one controlled burner (Par. 0191, line 12-14, infrared burner 178, which is necessarily a controlled burner as explained above in claim 1).
However, Barkhouse does not disclose the at least one controlled burner includes a rear burner.
Rummel discloses a barbecue (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Rummel further discloses a rear burner (Col. 2, lines 8-10, rear radiant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the burners of Barkhouse to include a rear radiant as disclosed by Rummel because the rear radiant is sized so as to fit in a rear portion of the barbecue cooking area and not underneath the rotisserie spit location (From Rummel: Col. 2, lines 12-14). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the rear radiant behind the rotisserie spit location so grease and droppings from a food item mounted on the rotisserie spit can fall directly downward into the receptable 166 of Barkhouse positioned in the bottom of the housing (From Rummel: Col. 2, lines 14-17, “grease and droppings from a food item mounted on the rotisserie spit can fall directly downward into a basting tray positioned in the bottom of the housing”) and thereby make it easier to clean the barbecue after use with a rotisserie spit.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkhouse et al. (US 2009/0183729 A1, hereafter Barkhouse) and Jackson (US 20170097159 A1) and further in view of Smith (US 0821758 A).
Regarding claim 14, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses the flanges (From Jackson: Fig. 3, compression nuts 70 and annotated Fig. A, flanges, as explained in claim 1) designed and shaped to be received (Fig. 3, adapter 38) in a corresponding manifold (From Barkhouse: second manifold 110 and manifold 108. See Par. 0161, lines 8-9, second manifold 110 and Par. 0161, lines 12-14 which discloses temperature control apparatus 32 controls zone 2. As Par. 0161, lines 8-9 disclose second manifold 110 is in zone 2, second manifold 110 is necessarily controlled by temperature control apparatus 32 and is thereby a “controlled” manifold).
However, Barkhouse, as modified above, does not disclose at least one of the flanges includes a post sized and shaped to be received in a hole in a corresponding manifold.
Smith discloses a valve (Fig. 1, entire figure) with a nut (Fig. 1, nut 7), gasket (Fig. 1, gasket 8), and post (Fig. 1, threaded stem 1). Examiner considers this disclosure to be analogous, since its disclosure is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even though it’s not in the same field of endeavor. MPEP 2141.01(a). For example, Pars. 0141-0143 of the as-filed specification describes the purpose of the flange is “The valve 1200 also includes a pair opposing flanges…The flange 1222, clip 1240, manifold 712, and gasket are sized and shaped such that tightening the screw 1248 securely engages the manifold 712 to the flange 1220, and generally provides a leak proof seal therebetween” In other words, Smith discloses a valve designed to prevent leakage that would provide a predicable solution for the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have suitably modified Barkhouse, as modified above, with the nut, gasket, and post of the valve disclosed by Smith. While not in the same field of endeavor, the valve is analogous art (See MPEP 2141.01(a)) because it prevents leakage, see Smith, pg. 3, lines 6-14, “a gasket 8, which is bound tightly between the disk and head when the clamping-nut 7 is tightened up, and thereby there is prevented the possibility of leakage through the valve itself which might otherwise occur at the thread on which the nut is screwed and at the base of the disk 3, where it is stopped upon the flange 5 of the head”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this teaching reference in an area of non-analogous art to suitably modify toward a similar valve in order to create an appropriate connection between the valve and corresponding manifold to ensure proper fit, cleanliness, and energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses the at least one flanged manually operable burner valve (From Barkhouse: Par. 0161, line 10 and Par. 0157, lines 4-9; valve associated with burner 86; and Par. 0191, lines 5-last line, valve 60, as explained in claim 1. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with the flanged valves of Jackson, as explained in claim 1) further comprises a gasket (From Smith: Fig. 1, gasket 8) positioned between the surface of the flange (From Jackson: Fig. 3, compression nuts 70 and annotated Fig. A, flanges, as explained in claim 1) and the outer surface of the corresponding manifold (From Barkhouse: bottom surface of second manifold 110 and top surface of manifold 108. See Par. 0161, lines 8-9, second manifold 110 and Par. 0161, lines 12-14 which discloses temperature control apparatus 32 controls zone 2. As Par. 0161, lines 8-9 disclose second manifold 110 is in zone 2, second manifold 110 is necessarily controlled by temperature control apparatus 32 and is thereby a “controlled” manifold).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkhouse et al. (US 2009/0183729 A1, hereafter Barkhouse), Jackson (US 20170097159 A1), Smith (US 0821758 A), and further in view of Kaylan et al. (US 6363971 B1, hereafter Kaylan).
Regarding claim 16, Barkhouse, as modified above, discloses the flange and corresponding manifold.
However, Barkhouse, as modified above, does not disclose at least one clip for securing the at least one of the flanges to the corresponding manifold.
Kaylan discloses a cooktop (Col. 1, lines 1-2) similar to the present invention and Kaylan further discloses it is known to have at least one clip (Fig. 5, clip 84) for securing a flange (annotated Fig. B. A flange is a rim for attachment to another object, therefore the flanges identified in annotated Fig. B are ‘flanges’ because they are the rims of gas line connection tube 82 that attach to the valve body 50) to a corresponding manifold (Fig. 5, valve body 50. A manifold is a pipe fitting with several lateral outlets for connecting one pipe with others, therefore valve body 50 is a ‘manifold’ because it connects the several lateral outlets of the several instances of gas line connection tubes 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance of Barkhouse, as modified above, with the clips as disclosed by Kaylan in order to provide a redundant connection between the flange and corresponding manifold and thereby ensure a secure engagement, as suggested by Col. 4, lines 52-55 of Smith, for increased reliability and cleanliness of the cooking appliance.
PNG
media_image3.png
364
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flanges)]
Figure B: Annotated copy of Fig. 5 from Kaylan showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 46 is allowed.
Prior art references Barkhouse et al. (US 2009/0183729 A1, hereafter Barkhouse), Jackson (US 20170097159 A1), Frost et al. (US 20070044786 A1, hereafter Frost. See citation in the 892 dated 1/2/25), and Brites (BR 102013025440 A2) represent the closest prior art of record to the Applicant's claimed invention as recited in claims 46. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 46, Barkhouse discloses a cooking apparatus (Fig. 1, barbecue 20) comprising,
a. a main fuel manifold (Fig. 7, manifold 108) that provides fuel to at least one manual burner (Par. 0161, line 10, burner 86 and Par. 0157, lines 4-8, which discloses when temperature control apparatus 32 is off, the control knob associated with burner 86 may be used to control the combustible fuel in a conventional manner (i.e., manually)) and at least one control valve (Par. 0161, lines 12-14, valve 38 and valve 60);
b. at least one controlled fuel manifold (Par. 0161, lines 8-9, second manifold 110 and Par. 0161, lines 12-14 which discloses temperature control apparatus 32 controls zone 2. As Par. 0161, lines 8-9 disclose second manifold 110 is in zone 2, second manifold 110 is necessarily controlled by temperature control apparatus 32 and is thereby a “controlled” manifold) in fluid communication with the at least one control valve (Par. 0161, lines 12-14, valve 38 and valve 60. Second manifold 110 and valve 60 are both associated with zone 2 which Examiner notes necessarily means second manifold and 110 and valve 60 are in fluid communication) each controlled fuel manifold for providing fuel to at least one controlled burner (Par. 0191, lines 9-14, infrared burner 178, which discloses infrared burner 178 is controlled by temperature control apparatus 32 and is thereby a “controlled” burner);
c. at least one sensor (Par. 0121, lines 1-3, thermocouple 42), each sensor monitoring at least one measured temperature (Par. 0121, lines 3-7) within the cooking apparatus;
d. a controller (Par. 0019, line 1, temperature control apparatus 32) operable to receive a desired temperature set-point (Par. 0196, lines 1-6), the controller comprising a microprocessor (Par. 0019, lines 1-2, microprocessor 36) operable to compare the at least one measured temperature (Par. 0121, lines 1-3) and the temperature set-point (Par. 0006, lines 2-4), and in response to the comparison selectively adjust the at least one control valve (Par. 0132, valve 60) to restrict an amount of fuel flowing to the at least one controlled fuel manifold (Par. 0161, lines 8-9, second manifold 110, which is necessarily a controlled manifold as explained above in this claim); and
e. a plurality of burner valves (Par. 0161, line 10, burner 86; Par. 0157, lines 4-8, which discloses when temperature control apparatus 32 is off, the control knob associated with burner 86 may be used to control the combustible fuel in a conventional manner (i.e., manually). Given each control knob includes an associated valve and the control knob is associated with burner 86, the valve associated with burner 86 is a ‘burner valve’ and Par. 0191, lines 5-last line, which discloses temperature control system 32 or control knob 100 controls fuel flow to infrared burner 178 via valve 60. Given valve 60 controls fuel flow to infrared burner 178, it is a ‘burner valve’) each burner valve coupled to a burner to supply fuel to the burner (Par. 0191, lines 5-last line, which discloses temperature control system 32 or control knob 100 controls fuel flow to infrared burner 178 via valve 60) from one of the controlled fuel manifold (Fig. 7, manifold 110 and valve 60 ; Par. 0191, lines 5-last line; and Par. 0161, lines 12-14, valve 38 and valve 60. Second manifold 110 and valve 60 are both associated with zone 2 which Examiner notes necessarily means second manifold and 110 and valve 60 are in fluid communication. For valve 60 to control the flow of fuel from the manifold 110 to the burner 178, the valve associated with burner 86 must necessarily be between burner 86 and manifold 108) and the main fuel manifold (Fig. 7, manifold 108 and control knob associated with burner 86. For the valve to control the flow of fuel from the manifold 108 to the burner 86, the valve associated with burner 86 must necessarily be between burner 86 and manifold 108).
However, Barkhouse does not disclose the plurality of burner valves includes at least one burner valve shaped to support both the controlled fuel manifold and the main fuel manifold, the at least one burner valve including:
a controlled fuel manifold support forming a first curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with the controlled fuel manifold, and
a main fuel manifold support forming a second curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with the main fuel manifold.
Jackson discloses a range (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Jackson further discloses it is known to have a plurality of valves (Fig. 3, safety shut-off devices 32 which are valves per Par. 0022, lines 7-9) includes at least one valve to support both a controlled fuel manifold (Fig. 3, secondary manifold 40. Per Par. 0022, lines 7-last line, safety shut-off devices 32 are in an open condition when a pilot flame is detected and closed when a pilot flame is not detected. Safety shut-off devices 32 are at least controlled by the presence or absence of the pilot flame and are therefore, ‘controlled valves’. Hence, secondary manifold 40 which branches off of safety shut-off device 32 to feed fuel to burner valves 46 and burners 12 is also a ‘controlled fuel manifold’) and a main fuel manifold (Fig. 3, primary manifold 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1) modified the main fuel and controlled fuel manifolds of Barkhouse with the same as disclosed by Jackson and 2) modified the manually operable valves of Barkhouse with the valves as disclosed by Jackson in order to 1) make the manifolds parallel so the cooking appliance is narrower, thereby allowing the cooking appliance to fit in a wider variety of spaces and be usable by a wider range of users (i.e., apartment renters and homeowners, etc.) and 2) permit isolated servicing and replacement of individual valves, as suggested by Par. 0026 of Jackson, thereby decreasing maintenance costs and increasing the speed of maintenance activities.
NOTE: It’s the Examiner’s position that the limitation “the plurality of burner valves includes at least one burner valve shaped to support both the controlled fuel manifold and the main fuel manifold” (emphasis added) is necessarily met by modified Barkhouse. To elaborate, Barkhouse teaches the valves are burner valves, so adding a pair of flanges as disclosed by Jackson necessarily means the valves of modified Barkhouse are burner valves.
However, Barkhouse, as modified above, does not disclose the at least one burner valve including:
a controlled fuel manifold support forming a first curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with the controlled fuel manifold, and
a main fuel manifold support forming a second curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with the main fuel manifold.
Frost discloses a range (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Frost further discloses it is known for a valve (Figs. 5 and 9-10, valve 52) to include:
a main fuel manifold support (Figs. 5 and 9-10, connection device 66) forming a second curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with a main fuel manifold (Figs. 5 and 9-10, manifold 20).
However, Frost only discloses one manifold support per valve, instead of two manifold supports per valve as claimed. Therefore, the manifold support taught by Frost would need to be duplicated to meet the limitation “at least one burner valve including: a controlled fuel manifold support forming a first curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with the controlled fuel manifold, and a main fuel manifold support forming a second curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with the main fuel manifold”. However, criticality or this limitation is disclosed in Par. 0141 of the Applicant’s as-filed specification, which states the curved inner surface of the flange serve a critical purpose of supporting the manifolds, and Par. 0143, which notes the interaction between the manifold and the flange creates a generally leak proof seal.
At the time of this writing, Examiner hasn’t found a prior art teaching that discloses at least one burner valve including: a controlled fuel manifold support forming a first curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with the controlled fuel manifold, and a main fuel manifold support forming a second curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with the main fuel manifold. In addition, any design choice rejection regarding duplicating the manifold support taught by Frost in lieu of a prior art teaching would result in an unreasonable hindsight rejection and reconstruction of the Applicant’s claimed invention. Therefore, the limitation “at least one burner valve including: a controlled fuel manifold support forming a first curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with the controlled fuel manifold, and a main fuel manifold support forming a second curved inner surface sized and shaped to engage with the main fuel manifold.”, when combined with the other limitations of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Prior art reference Brites is similar in nature to Frost, so it is also noted as prior art closest to the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, like Frost, Brites only discloses one manifold support per valve, therefore Brites does not read on the claims for the same or substantially the same reasons as explained above for Frost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762