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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 14-19, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarver (CA 3112101) in view of Brian (US 2019/0230147).
Tarver discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations, including:
1. (Original) A grill 100, comprising: a controller 102; and a 304,306 (page 7, line 13 – page 8, line 33; while Tarver fails to specifically recite the term “dongle”, Tarver lists devices that are included in applicant’s memory component of the dongle – para. 0075) connectable to the controller, the (page 7, line 13 – page 8, line 33).
2. (Original) The grill of claim 1, further comprising a main memory 204 in electrical communication with the controller, wherein the main memory is to store the configuration data read from the memory of the (page 6, lines 1-13; page 7, line 13 – page 8, line 33; fig. 2,3).
3. (Original) The grill of claim 1, further comprising a user interface 412 in electrical connection with the controller, wherein the user interface is to access the configuration data read from the memory of the (page 5, lines 3-17; fig. 4)
4. (Original) The grill of claim 1, wherein the grill is to transmit the configuration data read from the memory of the dongle to a remote device (page 6, lines 1-13; fig. 2).
8. (Original) The grill of claim 1, wherein the grill is to transmit the configuration data read from the memory of the (page 9, lines1-13; page 13, line 17 – page 15, line 27; fig. 2,4,6).
9. (Original) The grill of claim 8, wherein the grill is to receive configuration- specific cook program data from the remote device, the configuration-specific cook program data being based on the configuration data (page 9, lines1-13; page 13, line 17 – page 15, line 27; fig. 2,4,6).
10. (Original) The grill of claim 9, wherein the controller is to implement a configuration-specific cook program based on the received configuration-specific cook program data (page 9, lines 1-13; page 13, line 17 – page 15, line 27; fig. 2,4,6).
14. (Original) The grill of claim 1, wherein the (page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 8; fig. 3).
15. (Original) The grill of claim 1, wherein the (page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 8; fig. 3).
16. (Original) The grill of claim 15, wherein the an opening configured to receive a fastener to facilitate coupling the dongle to a structure of the grill (page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 8; fig. 3).
17. (Original) The grill of claim 1, further comprising a side table, wherein the controller and the (page 4, lines 18-26; fig. 1).
18. (Original) The grill of claim 1, wherein the configuration data includes at least one of burner configuration data associated with the grill, valve configuration data associated with the grill, fuel source configuration data associated with the grill, ignitor configuration data associated with the grill, cooking surface configuration data associated with the grill, table configuration data associated with the grill, lighting module configuration data associated with the grill, temperature sensor configuration data associated with the grill, flame sensor configuration data associated with the grill, lid position sensor configuration data associated with the grill, fuel level sensor configuration data associated with the grill, product manufacturing data associated with the grill, or product identification data associated with the grill (page 2, lines 16-30).
19. (Original) A method, comprising: determining, via a controller of a grill, whether a (see previous claims).
32. (Original) A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer- readable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a grill to at least: determine whether a (see previous claims).
Tarver teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the dongle.
Brian, in the same or related field of endeavor (cooking device control), teaches that it is known in the art to provide a dongle 104 for use of controlling a cooking device 102 (para. 0046).
Brian teaches that such an arrangement provides for servicing a consumer appliance (para. 0006).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention incorporate the dongle as taught by Brian into the invention disclosed by Tarver, so as to provide for servicing a consumer appliance.
Claims 5-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarver (CA 3112101) in view of Brian (US 2019/0230147), and further in view of Chin (US 2016/0037966).
Tarver and Brian teach substantially all of the claimed limitations as described above, but fail to explicitly teach that the grill is to transmit the configuration data read from the memory of the dongle to a remote device to facilitate a registration process associated with the grill, the configuration data includes product identification data including a serial number of the grill, and wherein the configuration data includes authentication process security data including at least a portion of a security key, an encryption key, or an access key that is needed to unlock a feature of the grill.
Chin, in the same or related field of endeavor (cooking device control), teaches that it is known in the art to provide a cooking device control such that the grill is to transmit the configuration data read from the memory of the dongle to a remote device to facilitate a registration process associated with the grill, the configuration data includes product identification data including a serial number of the grill, and wherein the configuration data includes authentication process security data including at least a portion of a security key, an encryption key, or an access key that is needed to unlock a feature of the grill (para. 0136; fig. 2B).
Chin teaches that such an arrangement provides for user convenience by providing control of a grill to improve ease, quality, predictability, and repeatability of cooking (para. 0003).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention incorporate the above mentioned claimed limitations as taught by Chin into the invention taught by Tarver and Brian, so as to provide for user convenience.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
January 27, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762