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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Giebel 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.
Regarding Croft, applicant argues that Croft’s support 10 is not connected to the lid. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Croft Fig. 3 clearly shows connected to the lid in an operational arrangement. While Croft’s support is removable, nothing in the claim requires the bracket to be permanently attached to the lid.
Regarding the language “extending from an inner edge of the opening” and “extending from the outer edge of the opening” are interpreted in light of instant specification. Instant Fig. 4 depicts a portion of the bracket between the edge of the opening and the second tab 170. Instant Fig. 7 similarly depicts a portion of the bracket between the edge of the opening and the second tab. The term “extending” is a broad term meaning to spread or stretch forth.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner must apply the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Accordingly, the examiner construes Croft such that the intervening body of the bracket is part of the tab or, at least falls within the scope of the disclosure for “extending from”.
PNG
media_image2.png
348
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 lid covering half a bottom portion of claim 5, and the tabs extending over an outer edge of the lid in claims 10 and 11 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Croft US4759338.
Regarding claim 1, Croft US4759338 teaches a hood hanger assembly for a grilling apparatus including a lid (Fig. 3), comprising:
a bracket connected to the lid (Support device 10, Fig. 1 and Fig. 3), said bracket including an opening defined by a first tab extending from an inner edge of the opening and a second tab extending from the outer edge of the opening (tabs 18, seen in Fig. 1),
whereby the first tab is configured to attach to the grilling apparatus such that the lid is in a first position and the second tab is configured to attach to the grilling apparatus such that the lid is in a second position, wherein the first position is not the same as the second position (Best seen in Fig. 3).
The language “extending from an inner edge of the opening” and “extending from the outer edge of the opening” are interpreted in light of instant specification. Instant Fig. 4 depicts a portion of the bracket between the edge of the opening and the second tab 170. Instant Fig. 7 similarly depicts a portion of the bracket between the edge of the opening and the second tab. The term “extending” is a broad term meaning to spread or stretch forth.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner must apply the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Accordingly, the examiner construes Croft such that the intervening body of the bracket is part of the tab or, at least falls within the scope of the disclosure for “extending from”.
PNG
media_image2.png
348
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Croft further discloses the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the bracket is a metal bracket (Col. 2 Ln. 38-40).
Regarding claim 5, Croft further discloses the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein in the second position, the lid covers at least half a bottom portion of the grilling apparatus (Croft, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Croft further discloses the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the first and second tabs are separated by an opening in the bracket (Croft, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Croft further discloses the hood hanger assembly of claim [[1]] 6, wherein the first tab extends at least partially over the opening (Croft, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Croft further discloses the hood hanger assembly of claim [[1]] 8, wherein the second tab is positioned below the opening (Croft Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Croft further discloses the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the first tab extends over an outer edge of the lid in the first position (Croft, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Croft further discloses the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the second tab extends over an outer edge of the lid in the second position (Croft, Fig. 3).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croft US4759338 in view of Dickey US6705306
Regarding claim 3, Croft does not expressly disclose the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the bracket is connected to the lid via at least one fastener.
Dickey US6705306 teaches a lid positioning device for a grill comprising a bracket (fig 2) wherein the bracket is connected to the lid via at least one fastener (Fig. 4, lid side wall 10A, clamp member 48)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a clamping arrangement or fastener, as taught by Dickey, since doing so amounts to a known technique for attaching lid supports with the known predictable result of attaching the support to the lid.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croft US4759338 in view of Daily US4390002.
Regarding claim 4, Croft further discloses the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein in the first position, the lid covers less than half a bottom portion of the grilling apparatus
Daily US4390002 teaches a kettle grill cooker in which the lid is supported in two different open positions (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5), wherein in a first position, the lid covers less than half a bottom portion of the grilling apparatus (Fig. 5), and in a second position the lid covers at least half of the bottom portion (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device so as to hold the lid in a position which covers less than half a bottom portion of the grilling apparatus since doing so is a known positioning arrangement for supporting a lid above a cooking grill with the known predictable result of holding the lid in a partially opened position.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croft US4759338 in view of Kerulis US20170251870
Regarding claim 7, Croft does not expressly disclose the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the first and the second tabs have a plurality of openings.
Kerulis US20170251870 teaches, a securable lid for cookware comprising a plurality of tabs wherein each of the first and second tabs have a plurality of openings (Fig. 4, 60). Kerulis teaches that such openings improve flexibility of the tabs ¶30
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with openings in the tabs, as taught by Kerulis, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving securing tabs with the known predictable result of improving flexibility of the tabs.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daily US4390002 in view of Croft US4759338.
Regarding claim 1, Daily US4390002 discloses a hood hanger assembly for a grilling apparatus including a lid, comprising:
a bracket connected to the lid (Fig. 1, bracket 46), ,
whereby the first tab is configured to attach to the grilling apparatus such that the lid is in a first position (Daily Fig. 1).
Daily does not expressly disclose said bracket including an opening defined by a first tab extending from an inner edge of the opening and a second tab extending from the outer edge of the opening and the second tab is configured to attach to the grilling apparatus such that the lid is in a second position, wherein the first position is not the same as the second position.
Croft US4759338 teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a Barbecue Cover Support Device, comprising:
a bracket connected to the lid, said bracket including a first tab and a second tab (Figure 1, hooks 18),
whereby the first tab is configured to attach to the grilling apparatus such that the lid is in a first position and the second tab is configured to attach to the grilling apparatus such that the lid is in a second position, wherein the first position is not the same as the second position (Column 2, Lines 59-66). Croft teaches that such a plurality of tabs would allow the retaining hooks to hold the cover open in a variety of selected positions (abstract)
The language “extending from an inner edge of the opening” and “extending from the outer edge of the opening” are interpreted in light of instant specification. Instant Fig. 4 depicts a portion of the bracket between the edge of the opening and the second tab 270. Instant Fig. 7 similarly depicts a portion of the bracket between the edge of the opening and the second tab. The term “extending” is a broad term meaning to spread or stretch forth.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner must apply the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Accordingly, the examiner construes Croft such that the intervening body of the bracket is part of the tab or, at least falls within the scope of the disclosure for “extending from”.
PNG
media_image2.png
348
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the clip or bracket of Daily with a multiple tab configuration, as taught by Croft, since doing so amounts to a known technique for supporting lids or cover in grilling devices with the known predictable result of allowing for holding the lid open in a variety of positions.
Regarding claim 2, Daily does not expressly teach the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the bracket is a metal bracket.
Croft US4759338 teaches constructing grill cover supports from metal (Col. 2 Ln. 38-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device such that the bracket is metal since doing so amounts to a simple substitution of known materials in the art with the known predictable result of supporting a cover.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Daily teaches the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein in the first position, the lid covers less than half a bottom portion of the grilling apparatus (Daily Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified teaches the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein in the second position, the lid covers at least half a bottom portion of the grilling apparatus (Daily, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Daily teaches the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the first and second tabs are separated by an opening in the bracket (Croft Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Daily teaches the hood hanger assembly of claim [[1]] 6, wherein the first tab extends at least partially over the opening (Croft Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Daily teaches the hood hanger assembly of claim [[1]] 8, wherein the second tab is positioned below the opening (Croft Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daily US4390002 in view of Croft US4759338 in view of Schlosser US4453530.
Regarding claim 3, Daily does not expressly disclose the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the bracket is connected to the lid via at least one fastener.
Schlosser US4453530 teaches a cooking or grilling device wherein a bracket for supporting a lid of cover is attached to the lid via a fastener (Fig. 7, bracket 40, lid 16, Col. 2 Ln. 52-58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a fastener, as taught by Schlosser, since doing so amounts to a known technique for attaching brackets to grill covers with the known predictable result of securing the bracket.
Regarding claim 10, Daily does not expressly disclose the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the first tab extends over an outer edge of the lid in the first position.
Schlosser US4453530 teaches a bracket for supporting the lid of a cooking grill in a plurality of positions comprising a plurality of tabs (Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, brackets 40 have tabs) wherein the tabs extend over an outer edge of the lid in various positions (Fig. 2, Fig. 4, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a tab which extends over an outer edge of the lid in at least one position, since doing so amounts to a known arrangement of lid hangers for supporting cooking grill lids in various positions with the known predictable result of supporting the lid.
Regarding claim 11, Daily does not expressly disclose the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the second tab extends over an outer edge of the lid in the second position.
Schlosser US4453530 teaches a bracket for supporting the lid of a cooking grill in a plurality of positions comprising a plurality of tabs (Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, brackets 40 have tabs) wherein the tabs extend over an outer edge of the lid in various positions (Fig. 2, Fig. 4, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a tab which extends over an outer edge of the lid in at least one position, since doing so amounts to a known arrangement of lid hangers for supporting cooking grill lids in various positions with the known predictable result of supporting the lid.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daily US4390002 in view of Croft US4759338 in view of Kerulis US20170251870.
Regarding claim 7, Daily does not expressly disclose the hood hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the first and the second tabs have a plurality of openings.
Kerulis US20170251870 teaches, a securable lid for cookware comprising a plurality of tabs wherein each of the first and second tabs have a plurality of openings (Fig. 4, 60). Kerulis teaches that such openings improve flexibility of the tabs ¶30
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with openings in the tabs, as taught by Kerulis, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving securing tabs with the known predictable result of improving flexibility of the tabs.
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 Deepak Deean whose telephone number is (571)270-3347. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/DEEPAK A DEEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762