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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 in the reply filed on 24 September 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a search burden, as the search for one species would include the other. Given how the inventive feature is in the deflector and its openings shared among the species, and horizontal and vertical smokers are generally well-known, this argument is persuasive, and the restriction requirement is withdrawn. However, Applicant’s arguments are, at this point, moot because the claims that would be non-elected have been canceled. Applicant is free to refile the canceled claims in a reply.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 11–13 should be designated by a legend such as —Prior Art— because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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 vertical rectangular outlet of the deflector opening being orthogonal (i.e. literally at a right angle) of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. For examination purposes, the claim will be understood to mean generally orthogonal, since the disclosure suggests that this may be what Applicant meant.
The drawings are objected to because they have a few quotation marks incorrectly. Figs. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, each feature one or more of ‘’A”, ‘’B”, or ‘’G” where the first double quotation marks are formed by a single open quote and a single closed quote, where it should be one forwards double quote. Additionally, fig. 3 includes 8'’ twice, each with one straight quote and one curly quote, where this should be a single straight double quote, or more preferably a double prime mark.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 12, line 3 of the submitted specification should be amended to recite “a[[n]] homogenization.”
Page 16, line 17 should have the semi-colon replaced by a comma.
Page 16, line 18, should be amended to recite “[[a]] deflector openings.”
The second-to-last line of page 16 uses the term “modulated,” which refers to regulating and is inappropriate here. The correct term is “modular,” meaning composed as a module for construction.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, should be amended to recite “a horizontal type.”
Claim 1 recites “shapes and dimensions (geometry)” (ll. 18–19). The language in parentheses is narrative and is inappropriate for claims, and should be struck or placed plainly into the claim in an appropriate way.
Claim 1, line 21, should be amended to recite “the passages.”
Claim 1, line 23, ends with an apostrophe which should be a semi-colon.
Claim 1 recites “an inclined angle (oblique) direction” (ll. 27–28). The language in parentheses is narrative and is inappropriate for claims, and should be struck or placed plainly into the claim in an appropriate way. The Office would understand “inclined” to mean “oblique.”
Claim 2 should correct the inappropriate sectioning between “displaced” on line 2 and “furnace” on line 3.
Claim 3 is objected to for being presented in block format, where the sections of the claim should be separated. See 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i).
In claim 3 on line 6, “(8)′” should be amended to have the prime symbol within the parentheses.
Claim 14 recites the term “modulated” (l. 2), which refers to regulating and is inappropriate here. The correct term is “modularly,” meaning composed as a module for construction.
In claim 14 on line 2, “(2)′” should be amended to have the prime symbol within the parentheses.
Claims 5, 8, 9, and 12 are objected to due to dependency upon objected-to claims.
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.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “the outlet” (l. 2). This limitation has insufficient antecedent basis because this limitation is introduced in claim 3, but claim 8 depends from claim 1.
Claim 12 recites that “side walls” on the projections “are provided with deflector openings.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it depends from, and contradicts, claim 3, which provides that the deflector openings are “made in the plane of the dividing plate.” Because of this contradiction, the claim will be examined assuming it depends from claim 1.
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, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox, Jr. (US Pat. 4,700,618) in view of Measom et al. (US Pub. 2018/0368618) and Zuccarini (US Pat. 6,187,359).
Claim 1: Cox discloses a smoker for meat and other foods (see title), of horizontal type (see figs. 1–3), with a displaced furnace (14) and direct flow, formed by:
a horizontal smoking chamber (12);
a furnace (14) displaced laterally and below the horizontal smoking chamber (see fig. 3) and communicating with this smoking chamber through a passage (116), through which heated gases circulate;
wherein said horizontal smoking chamber is constituted by:
a dividing plate (52);
a lower chamber (96) arranged under the dividing plate (2), in which a passage (via 118) to feed heated gases (different from those that reach the smoking chamber) is opened;
a smoking chamber itself (94) arranged above the dividing plate (see fig. 3); passages (5), provided in the dividing plate (2) and through which the heated gases are fed from the lower chamber (3) to the smoking chamber itself (4);
sets of grids (nothing explicit in the disclosure, but this is clearly represented by 100 in fig. 3) assembled in different levels in the smoking chamber itself (see fig. 3), over which the meat and food are laid down; and
a chimney (54) derived from the smoking chamber itself (see fig. 3).
Cox does not disclose
that a lower chamber arranged under the dividing plate has the passage to feed the heated gases; passages, provided in the dividing plate and through which the heated gases are fed from the lower chamber to the smoking chamber itself; wherein the lower chamber constitutes a plenum box, with shapes and dimensions selected to maintain the static pressure of the heated gases in its interior uniform and constant; wherein passages between the plenum box and the smoking chamber itself, comprise sets of deflector openings, aligned on the opposite sides of the dividing plate, wherein each deflector opening is formed by an opening made in the dividing plate, with a selected dimension in order to provide an increased speed of feeding the heated gas in the smoking chamber itself; and wherein a deflector directs the flow of heated gas in an inclined angle direction in relation to the horizontal plane of the dividing plate, so that the streams of heated gas are fed obliquely and with high speed into the smoking chamber itself and collide with each other and/or with surfaces of the smoking chamber itself, generating and intensifying a vortex effect that increases the mixture of hot gas streams, resulting in the homogenization of the temperature of the hot gases and the increase of the heat transfer efficiency of said heated gases for the food being smoked.
However, Measom discloses a similar apparatus with a lower chamber (between 106 and 110) arranged under a dividing plate (110 functions as a dividing plate) and has a passage to feed heated gases (evident at least from fig. 4);
passages (201), provided in the dividing plate (shown at least in fig. 4) and through which the heated gases are fed from the lower chamber to a smoking chamber itself (101);
wherein the lower chamber constitutes a plenum box, with shapes and dimensions selected to maintain the static pressure of the heated gases in its interior uniform and constant (this limitation is broad, and the structure of 201 inherently has such a feature);
wherein passages between the plenum box and the smoking chamber itself, comprise sets of deflector openings (201; ¶ 116, “fixed louvers”), aligned on the opposite sides of the dividing plate (evident from figs. 3 and 4), and
wherein each deflector opening is formed by an opening made in the dividing plate (201 being on 110 as evidenced by at least fig. 4), with a selected dimension in order to provide an increased speed of feeding the heated gas in the smoking chamber itself (the dimensions of the openings would naturally have a kind of Venturi effect that would increase speed at the openings).
Measom is not clear about what the structure of its fixed louvers 201 are, and so it’s likely, but less than perfectly clear, that its deflectors direct the flow of heated gas in an inclined angle direction in relation to the horizontal plane of the dividing plate, so that the streams of heated gas are fed obliquely and with high speed into the smoking chamber itself and collide with each other and/or with surfaces of the smoking chamber itself, generating and intensifying a vortex effect that increases the mixture of hot gas streams, resulting in the homogenization of the temperature of the hot gases and the increase of the heat transfer efficiency of said heated gases for the food being smoked.
However, based on the figures and their description as fixed louvers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to guess that they were supposed to look like what is shown with louvers 28 in fig. 4 of Zuccarini. Such a structure, when mapped onto Measom, would result in obliquely fed streams of heated gas that would, invariably, and to some extent, collide with each other and the surfaces of the smoking chamber itself, causing vortex effects and temperature homogenization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the dividing plate of Cox with the dividing plate of Measom (as better understood in light of Zuccarini), and to replace Cox’s passage 116 with its passage 118 with an end sealed to the chimney as 116 has it, to better distribute and homogenize the heat and smoke within the smoking chamber.
Comment: Should Applicant disapprove of Cox as a primary reference because of its complex arrangement with passages 116 and 118, and their associated structure, the Office may instead cite to Applicant’s fig. 11 as applicant-admitted prior art.
Claim 8: Modified as per claim 1 above, Measom discloses that the deflector openings are arranged with the outlets facing the central region of the dividing plate or with the outlets facing the edges of the dividing plate adjacent to said deflector openings (some of Measom’s deflector openings, as visible in figs. 3 and 4, either face the central region, or face the adjacent edge of the dividing plate; see the rejection of claim 9 regarding how the outlets face).
Comment: Given how Measom’s deflector openings are positioned on a drip tray that conveys drippings to a bucket 109, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, by process of elimination, that the louver openings would have to project from the upper face of the dividing plate, with the closed side of the louver being upstream
Also, claim 8 may be able to be narrowed to allowability by making clear that these two options are exclusive of each other, and each apply to each or every deflector opening.
Claim 14: Modified as per claim 1 above, Measom discloses that the dividing plate is integral (Measom overall clearly suggests that 110 is a single piece).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, Measom does not disclose or suggest the claimed arrangement because the claim requires that “each deflector opening” (i.e. every one) have the features in the claim, including the upper oblique section extends from one side of the rectangular opening parallel to the adjacent edge; but in Measom, this does not apply to the louvers in the middle of 110 (i.e. as visible in fig. 4), since the louvers are clearly extending left-to-right.
Claims 5 and 9 depend from claim 3. Claim 12 also depends from claim 3, but also contradicts claim 3 (see the § 112(b) rejection above), and is examined assuming it depends from claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, deflector openings on projections are not unknown (see Orozco et al., US Pub. 2006/0213497, fig. 6)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Owczarzak (US Pat. 9,339,145) discloses a dividing plate with deflectors of a different sort.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761