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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the ceramic kettle base, kettle support bowl, and kettle securing collar are mechanically assembled by fasteners that extend through the ceramic kettle base” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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(s) 1-2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (US Pub. 2016/0135645) in view of Pruitt et al. (US Pat. 10,842,317) and Hait (US Pt. 4,884,551) (all new cited).
Regarding claim 1, Walters et al. discloses a kamado-style charcoal grill assemblies, comprising: a ceramic kettle base (304, Par. 64) having an exterior surface and an interior surface and defining an aperture (326) at its bottom; a lid (224) hinged to the ceramic kettle base (304) (Par. 45); a kettle support bowl (308 with wall 334) defining an inner concave surface and an outer convex surface and a central aperture (324); a kettle securing collar (328) defining an inner concave surface and an outer convex surface and a central aperture (348); and plurality of legs (218); and wherein, when the kettle support bowl, (308 with wall 334) is mounted to the exterior surface of the ceramic kettle base (304), and the kettle securing collar (328) is mounted to the interior surface of the ceramic kettle base (304), the kettle support bowl central aperture (324) and the kettle securing collar central aperture (348) and the ceramic kettle base aperture (326) are concentric (Fig. 4-6; Par. 49-54). Walter does not disclose the lid is a ceramic lid; wherein the kettle support bowl comprises plurality of leg support extension associated with the outer convex surface; and the plurality of legs mechanically received by the plurality of leg supporting extension. Pruitt et al. discloses the lid (32) is a ceramic lid (Col. 9, Line 19). Hait discloses the support bowl (20) comprises plurality of leg support extension (43) associated with the outer surface; and the plurality of legs (44) mechanically received by the plurality of leg supporting extension (Fig. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Walters et al., the lid is a ceramic lid, as taught by Pruitt et al., for the purpose of having the same material as the kettle bow for superior heat retention, distribution, unsurpassed heat insulation, allowing temperature to be maintained over long periods of time; and the kettle support bowl comprises plurality of leg support extension associated with the outer convex surface; and the plurality of legs mechanically received by the plurality of leg supporting extension, as taught by Hait, for the purpose of securing the legs to the leg support bowl.
Regarding claim 2, Walters et al. discloses an ash bucket (receptacle 210) mounted beneath the convex surface of the kettle support bowl (308 with wall 334) and over its central aperture (324 (Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 7, Walters/Pruitt/Hait disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Walters, the ceramic kettle base (304), kettle support bowl, (308 with wall 334); and kettle securing collar (328) except the ceramic kettle base, kettle support bowl, and kettle securing collar are mechanically assembled by fasteners that extend through the ceramic kettle base. However, Hait disclose the use of screw (45) for securing the legs (44) within the sockets (43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Walters/Pruitt/Hait, the ceramic kettle base, kettle support bowl, and kettle securing collar are mechanically assembled by fasteners that extend through the ceramic kettle base, as taught by Hait, for the purpose of securing all the parts by the screws/fasteners for sturdy, strong and solid built.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (US Pub. 2016/0135645) in view of Pruitt et al. (US Pat. 10,842,317) and Hait (US Pt. 4,884,551) and further view of Kohli (US Pat. 10,687,668) (new cited).
Regarding claim 3, Walters/Pruitt/Hait disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above except a plurality of sidewall brackets mounted to the interior surface of the ceramic kettle base, wherein each of the sidewall brackets define an upper support surface and a lower support surface. Kohli discloses a plurality of sidewall brackets (combination of 13, 16, 17, 18, 23) mounted to the interior surface of the ceramic kettle base (114), wherein each of the sidewall brackets define an upper support surface and a lower support surface (Fig. 2-5; Col. 2, Line 61 to Col. 3, Line 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Walters/Pruitt/Hait, a plurality of sidewall brackets mounted to the interior surface of the ceramic kettle base, wherein each of the sidewall brackets define an upper support surface and a lower support surface, as taught by Kohli, for the purpose of providing a bracket for support the cooking/grilling rack/grate.
Regarding claim 4, Kohli discloses a charcoal basket (12) suspended from the lower support surfaces of the sidewall brackets (13, 16, 17, 18, 23) and a cooking grate (20, 26) resting upon the upper support surface of the sidewall brackets (Fig. 2, 3B and 5).
Regarding claim 5, Kohli discloses a heat deflector (24) resting upon the lower support surface of the sidewall brackets (Fig. 3-5).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (US Pub. 2016/0135645) in view of Pruitt et al. (US Pat. 10,842,317) and Hait (US Pt. 4,884,551), Kohli (US Pat. 10,687,668) and further view of McLemore (US Pat. 6,029,566) (new cited).
Regarding claim 6, Walters/Pruitt/Hait/Kohli disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Kohli, the plurality of sidewall brackets (combination of 13, 16, 17, 18, 23) except the sidewall brackets are mounted to the ceramic kettle base by fasteners extending through the ceramic kettle base. McLemore discloses the sidewall brackets (14) are mounted to the base (10) by fasteners extending through the base (Fig. 1 and 4; Col. 2, Lines 1-6; Claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Walters/Pruitt/Hait/Kohli, the sidewall brackets are mounted to the ceramic kettle base by fasteners extending through the ceramic kettle base, as taught by McLemore, for the purpose of securing the brackets to the side wall of the base.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571)272-9059. 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/25/2025
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights