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 .
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) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruaz (US2007/0095817A1) in view of Pierre Bouvier (CN1942128A, European Patent Office, Machine Translation) and further in view of Huang (6576263B1).
Re claims 11, Gruaz teaches a method of cleaning a contact grill comprising a lower grille assembly (3,5,6) comprising a lower housing (5) and a lower grill plate (6) connected together and to be supported for used on a surface, the lower grille plate provided with a lower heating element (7) having electrical contacts (10) extending from the lower heating element; an upper grille assembly (2, 5, 7) comprising an upper housing (5) and an upper grille plate to be positioned above the lower grille plate (Fig. 1) and comprising an upper heating element having electrical contacts (paragraph 20). Gruaz further teaches a hinge assembly 4 comprising a power circuit 8 connectable to a power supply (Fig. 3, paragraph 27). The hinge assembly includes a lower and an upper hinge component pivotally connected together to allow pivotal relative movement, since the hinge 4 allows for pivotal relative movement of the plates along axis 19, as disclosed (Fig. 2; paragraph 34). Paragraph 34 teaches that the hinge 4 is configured so as to be able to implement the articulation between the two heating assemblies 2, 3, wherein the lower hinge component comprises a lower plug for connection with the lower grille plate and the upper hinge component comprises an upper plug for connection to the upper grille plate, wherein the plug is the electrical supply component 8. Paragraph 35 specifically teaches element 8 connected to each of the two subassemblies. Paragraph 22 teaches that the electrical supply component 8 includes contactors 9 which connect to the connection terminals 10 at the ends of the electrical resistances 7 of each assembly. Paragraph 25 teaches the heating subassemblies includes an electrical resistance. In summary, Gruaz teaches each of the upper and lower grill plates, and a hinge assembly having an upper and lower hinge component pivotally connected together and further teach an electrical component (i.e. plug) which are connected to each of the subassemblies.
Gruaz teaches a hinge assembly having an upper and lower component, wherein the hinge assembly is a single unit and not two individual components. Bouvier teaches a cooking appliance 1 comprising two electrical boxes 8, 9 (Fig. 2), attached to two heating parts 2-3, wherein the cooking appliance is hinged to each other through hinge 4. Claim 5 teaches fixture structure 17 which cooperate with the fixture structure 18 of each box 8, 9, so as to fix each of the upper grille body 6 and the lower grille body to the electrical connection box 8, 9. Page 4 of the translation teaches that the electrical boxes are connected to each other with the hinges of the device. There is a clear teaching and/or suggestion of using multiple hinges to couple two components. Page 4 of the translation further teaches that once each of the baking bodies are separated from their respective boxes, they are completely independent allowing for washing in an automatic dishwasher. In reference to the newly amended limitations of claim 11, Bouvier teaches a lower hinge component (9) which cooperate with the upper hinge component (8), wherein the low hinge component (i.e. electrical box) 9 comprises a fixture 18 for connection to a lower body and an upper hinge component 8 comprising a fixture 18 for connection to the upper body, wherein the upper and lower electrical connection boxes include at least one power connection (i.e. power cord).
It appears that applicant claim is directed to making separable a single hinge assembly into two components. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose." 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 method of Gruaz to include two separate units, as taught by Bouvier, such that the cooking appliance can be separated and completely independent to allow for washing easily in an automatic dishwasher.
Re claim 1, Gruaz in view of Bouvier teach the invention substantially as claimed. Both references are directed to two components (upper and lower plates) that are hinged. However, Gruaz in view of Bouvier fail to teach a hinge pin to allow for an axis of rotation. Huang et al. teach a grill device comprising an upper and lower grill unit (10,20). Huang et al. is relied upon as a general teaching of using pivot pins (12,13) to allow for rotation of the a grill unit. 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 modified method of Gruaz to include the use of fasteners, such as pivot pins, as taught by Huang et al., as a conventional means for attachment/coupling, rotational movement and positioning of component parts.
Re claims 12-15, the limitations are broadly directed to the disassembly of the grill unit for cleaning. Bouvier teaches disassembly of the entire grill assembly and removing the heating elements from the plates, to allow for cleaning in a household dishwasher.
Response to Arguments
Applicant continues to argue that there is motivation to combine the teachings of Bouvier with the device to Gruaz, because Gruaz teaches an electrical supply component with separate heating components such that the electricity supply component 8 does not inhibit the articulation of the two heating subassemblies. Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive as the Bouvier is relied upon to teach separate hinge assemblies which do not inhibit separate heating components. It is also noted that the abstract of Gruaz teaches separate electrical supply components as both being elements 8 and 11. Paragraph 26 of Gruaz teaches two electrical supply components with cases 11 and 12. Additionally, the prior art of Bouvier clearly teaches separate electrical boxes which supply power to each of the heating units and separate hinge components, as described above, to allow disassembly of the entire grilling assembly for cleaning in the dishwasher. The examiner maintains the position that applicant's claim is directed to making a hinge assembly into two separable units, wherein such modification would not render Gruaz unsuitable for its intended purpose since Gruaz specifically teaches the same purpose of separating the components from each other to allow for easier cleaning in the dishwasher. The examiner takes the position that a plurality of hinged components is not a patentable feature. The use of hinged assemblies connectable to grill plates are neither novel nor unpatentable in view of the teachings of Gruaz, Bryan (US2006/0049164) and Huang et al. Additionally, the use of clips and fasteners as hinged components are neither novel and/or patentable subject matter, as further evidenced by Bryan, and as previously argued by the examiner.
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights