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 .
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 limitation
“the heating platform comprises two conductive plates with electric heating elements sandwiched in between them” in claim 2;
“electric heating elements” in claim 2;
“a lid which is closeable over the grill bars to provide an enclosed cooking chamber” in claim 14
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 Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble “An electric grill as claimed” in claims 2-15 should read “The electric grill as claimed”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first air supply located centrally in the heating platform for delivery of pressurised air into the heating chamber and configured to direct airflow evenly across the heating platform" in claim 1.
“a secondary air supply located in the side walls and configured to direct airflow along the side walls to create a vortex of air flowing around the centrally located air supply” in claim 1.
“electric heating elements” in claim 2
“the heating platform is configured to reach a temperature of up to 500° C so as to heat the grill bars to a temperature up to 350° C” in claim 5
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the heating platform comprises two conductive plates with electric heating elements sandwiched in between them” is indefinite. 1) It is unclear what the structure the term “them” refers to. 2) it is unclear the term “conductive” means electrical conductive or thermal conductive.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the heating platform comprises two conductive plates with electric heating elements sandwiched in between them” is interpreted to the heating platform comprises two thermal conductive plates with electric heating elements sandwiched in between the two conductive plates.
Claim limitation ““electric heating elements” in claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “the first plate” and “the second plate” are insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the limitations “the first plate” and “the second plate” are interpreted to “a first plate of the conductive plates” and “a second plate of the conductive plates”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “the opening in the heating platform” and “the openings in the side walls” are insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the limitations “the opening in the heating platform” and “the openings in the side walls” are interpreted to “an opening in the heating platform” and “openings in the side walls”
Regarding claim 13, the limitations “the openings in the side walls” is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the openings in the side walls” are interpreted to “openings in the side walls”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cadbury (US 2020/0245812).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
554
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Cadbury teaches an electric grill comprising
a heating platform (heating platform; see the annotation of fig.4),
a plurality of side walls (side walls 12 b),
a plurality of grill bars (grill rack 44) spaced above the heating platform (heating platform) and
a heating chamber (heating chamber; see the annotation of fig.4) defined between the heating platform (heating platform), the side walls (side walls 12 b) and the grill bars (grill rack 44),
wherein the heating platform (heating platform) is electrically heated (heating platform is capable to be electrically heated, such as by an external electrical heater.),
the grill further comprising
a first air supply (second opening 28) located centrally in the heating platform (heating platform) for delivery of pressurised air into the heating chamber (heating chamber) and configured to direct airflow evenly across the heating platform (heating platform) (see fig.6, the second opening 28is capable to allow air flow into and evenly across the heating platform.), and
a secondary air supply (apertures 22) located in the side walls (side walls 12 b) and configured to direct airflow along the side walls to create a vortex of air flowing around the centrally located air supply (see para.[0024] “Due to the location of the apertures 22 near each corner of the base assembly 12, air flowing out of the chamber 20 via the apertures 22 tends to swirl around the heating volume 50 creating a vortex which, in the FIG. 1 arrangement would flow in an anticlockwise direction.”).
Regarding claim 4, Cadbury teaches the grill bars (grill rack 44) do not contain heating elements and are heated by radiation from the heating platform (See figures and para.[0026] “a grill rack 44, or solid conductive plate, (shown schematically in FIG. 3) is placed across the top of the heating volume 50 and receives food to be cooked. Radiant heat from the ceramic base assembly and the flame itself cook the food directly via the grill or conductive plate.” Grill rack 44 does not container.)
Regarding claim 7, Cadbury teaches the first air supply comprises at least one opening (second opening 28) in the heating platform connected to a source (fan 30) of pressurised air and an airflow diverter (opening of apertures 22) configured to divert airflow out across the surface of the heating platform (see fig.4, the opening of apertures 22 configured to allow airflow out across the surface of the heating platform.).
Regarding claim 10, Cadbury teaches the second air supply (apertures 22) comprises at least one opening (apertures 22) in each side wall located adjacent an end of the side wall and connected to a source (fan 30) of pressurised air (See figs 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Cadbury teaches the heating platform and side walls are located within a housing having inner (side wall 12b) and outer walls (side walls 18b) and an air chamber (chamber 20) between the inner (side wall 12b) and outer walls (side walls 18b), wherein the air chamber (chamber 20) is connected to a source (fan 30) of pressurised air and communicates with the opening (second opening 28) in the heating platform and with the openings (apertures 22) in the side walls (See figs.1 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Cadbury teaches the source of pressurised air comprises at least one fan (fan 30).
Regarding claim 14, Cadbury teaches a lid 9which is closeable over the grill bars to provide an enclosed cooking chamber.
Regarding claim 15, Cadbury teaches the source of the pressurised air comprises at least one fan (fan 30).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadbury in view of Choi (US 2020/0008621).
Regarding claim 2, Cadbury teaches the heating platform comprises two conductive plates (plates; see the annotation of fig.3) with heating elements (burner 16) sandwiched in between them (See fig.3), but does not explicitly teach the heating elements are electric heating elements.
However, Choi teaches the same field of endeavor of a grill comprising a heating platform comprises two conductive plates (plates; see the annotation of fig.6) with electric heating elements (heater 105) sandwiched in between them (See fig.6).
PNG
media_image3.png
558
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the grill of Cadbury by replacing the heating elements of Cadbury with electric heating elements as taught by Choi, in order to provide a desired heating elements in a grill, since applicant does not disclose the electrical heating elements solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadbury in view of Mao (US 2020/0229644).
Regarding claim 5, Cadbury does not explicitly teach the heating platform is configured to reach a temperature of up to 500° C so as to heat the grill bars to a temperature up to 350° C.
However, Mao teaches in the same field of endeavor of a grill comprising a heating platform (a burner and a temperature equalizing device; see para.[0012]) is configured to reach a temperature of up to 500° C so as to heat the grill bars to a temperature up to 350° C. (See fig.8, the heater of the grill is capable to reach a temperature of up to 500° C so as to heat the grill bars to a temperature up to 350° C. )
PNG
media_image4.png
254
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the heating platform of Cadbury with the heating platform is capable to reach a temperature of up to 500° C so as to heat the grill bars to a temperature up to 350° C as taught by Choi, in order to achieve a quick temperature rising effect and a desirable heat aggregation effect, so that the temperature equalizing device can be quickly heated to a certain temperature within a short period and kept at the high temperature stably (See para.[0043] of Mao).
Regarding claim 6, Cadbury does not explicitly teach the heating platform is formed from metal or a ceramic material.
However, Mao teaches in the same field of endeavor of a grill comprising a heating platform (a burner and a temperature equalizing device; see para.[0012]) formed from metal or a ceramic material (see para.[0002] “ceramic plate infrared burner”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the material of heating platform of Cadbury with the heating platform formed from ceramic material as taught by Mao, in order to provide a conventional hearing platform, since ceramic is a well-known material that has high energy efficiency and rapid heating capabilities.
Claims 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadbury in view of Lam (WO 2020/139853).
Regarding claims 8-9, Cadbury does not explicitly teach the airflow diverter comprises an elongate column extending through an opening in the heating platform and a cap mounted on the upper end of the column, and the airflow diverter comprises a column with a plurality of radially projecting ribs
However, Lam teaches in the same field of endeavor of a grill comprising an airflow diverter (exhaust housing 30) comprises an elongate column (sidewall 28) extending through an opening in the heating platform and a cap (top wall 29) mounted on the upper end of the column (exhaust housing 30) (See fig.1), and the airflow diverter comprises the column (sidewall 28) with a plurality of radially projecting ribs (see fig.1, sidewall 28 has a plurality of radially projecting ribs.)
PNG
media_image5.png
458
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
220
686
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the airflow diverter Cadbury with an airflow diverter comprising an elongate column with a plurality of radially projecting ribs and a cap mounted on the upper end of the column as taught by Lam, in order to transit the airflow between a fan and the heater platform.
Regarding claim 13, Cadbury teaches the heating platform and side walls are located within a housing having inner (side wall 12b) and outer walls (side walls 18b) and a first air chamber (chamber 20) between the inner and outer walls, wherein the air chamber (chamber 20) is connected to a source (fan 30) of pressurised air and communicates with the openings (apertures 22) in the side walls of the heating chamber (See figs.1 and 4), and further comprising a second air chamber defined between the heating platform (heating platform) and the inner wall (side wall 12b) of the housing, but does not explicitly teach the source of pressurised air comprises a fan (fan 30) configured to draw air from the second air chamber and to supply it to the first air chamber.
However, Lam teaches in the same field of endeavor of a grill comprising a source of pressurised air comprises a fan (fan 36) configured to draw air from a second air chamber (2nd chamber) and to supply it to a first air chamber (1st chamber) (see page 9, lines 1-2, “the fan 36 when energized by electricity forms negative pressure within the exhaust housing 30 which draws smoke in the flow paths 24 diagonally running in the gaps 20 below and between the members 16, into the exhaust housing 30 and through the filter 38.”).
PNG
media_image7.png
376
614
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to replace the fan of Cadbury with the fan as taught by Lam, in order to generate negative pressure so that draws the smoke out of the housing, since applicant does not disclose the flow path of the fan solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761