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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: grooves “63” (Pg. 11, line 13). Based on Figure 8 it appears “53” should be “63”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “54” and “53” (Figure 3 and Figure 8 respectively). Based on Figure 8, it appears “53” should be the grooves “63”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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:
The description (Pg. 2, line 24 to Pg. 3, line 17) is a repeat of the above description (Pg. 2, lines 1 to 23).
“To be an open mode” (Pg. 4, line 21) should read “to be in an open mode”.
“Receives” (Pg. 5, line 4) should read “receive”.
“The second bottom support is routable” (Pg. 5, line 19) should read “the second bottom support is rotatable”.
“Stacked one another” (Pg. 6, line 26) needs correction.
“Of the second bottom part 614” (Pg. 9, line 5) should read “of the second bottom part 6023”. “Second bottom part” is previously established as “6023” (Pg. 7, line 16) and “second bottom support” is previously established as “614” (Pg. 8, line 18).
“The first bottom support 6013” (Pg. 9, line 8) should read “the first bottom support 613”. “First bottom support” is previously established as “613” (Pg. 8, lines 17 and 18) and “first bottom part” is previously established as “6013” (Pg. 7, lines 13 and 14).
“605are rotatable” (Pg. 10, line 7) should read “605 are rotatable”.
“Stacked one another” (Pg. 10, line 21) needs correction.
Reference character “1” has been used to designate both two folding plates and mesh in the description (Pg. 10, line 24).
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“Inner side” (Pg. 5, line 6).
“Inner side” (Pg. 8, lines 15-16).
“Outer side” (Pg. 5, line 9).
“Outer side” (Pg. 8, line 18).
“Far-infrared reflecting material” (Pg. 5, line 6).
“Far-infrared reflecting material” (Pg. 8, line 15).
“Trapezoidal shape” (Pg. 6, line 6).
“Trapezoidal shape” (Pg. 9, line 22).
“Top side” (Pg. 6, line 11)
“Top side” (Pg. 10, line 5)
“Inner sides” (Pg. 6, line 1)
“Inner sides” (Pg. 9, line 17)
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “to be an open mode” should read “to be in an open mode”.
In claim 3, “for heat of the first heater and the second heater to emit heat passing through” should read “for heat of the first heater and the second heater to pass through”.
In claim 4, “receives” should read “receive”.
In claim 8, “routable” should read “rotatable”.
In claim 9, “to spread” should read “spread”.
In claim 10, “first folding” should read “first folding plate”
In claim 10, “plate to spread” should read “plate spread”.
In claim 12, “plate to spread” should read “plate spread”.
In claim 19, “stopped to be heated” should read “stopped being heated”.
In claim 20, “stacked one another” should read “stacked on one another” or “stacked next to one another”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites the function of the first heater stopped being heated when the sensor detects a detected temperature larger than a first threshold. However, the disclosure does not identify any element, such as a controller, that performs this function. "An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved" (MPEP 2163.03).
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 4 -16 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "far-infrared reflecting material" in (Pg. 12, line 25) and “inner side” in (Pg. 12, line 26). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "outer side" in (Pg. 12, line 29). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-9 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "inner sides" in (Pg. 13, line 24). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "trapezoidal shape" in (Pg. 14, line 2) and “two opposite sides of the base part” in (Pg. 14, line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "top side" in (Pg. 14, line 10). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "inner sides" in (Pg. 14, line 16). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-16 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
501
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1 (Konishi)
PNG
media_image2.png
388
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2 (Konishi)
PNG
media_image3.png
434
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3 (Konishi)
PNG
media_image4.png
321
563
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4 (Konishi)
PNG
media_image5.png
355
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5 (Konishi)
PNG
media_image6.png
408
498
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 6 (Konishi)
PNG
media_image7.png
556
634
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 7 (Scherer)
PNG
media_image8.png
716
551
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Scherer)
PNG
media_image9.png
324
516
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 11 (Scherer)
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (J.P. Patent Document No. H0928577A) in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 (U.S. Patent Document No. 3358585).
Konishi teaches:
Regarding claim 1, (See Modified Figures 1, 2, and 3 above) A barbecue grill apparatus (Modified Figure 1), comprising: a first folding plate (7) with a first top part (Modified Figure 2), a first middle part (Modified Figure 2) and a first bottom part (Modified Figure 2); a second folding plate (8) with a second top part (Modified Figure 2), a second middle part (Modified Figure 2) and a second bottom part (Modified Figure 2);
a rotating connector (6 and 10) for connecting the first bottom part (Modified Figure 2) and the second bottom part (Modified Figure 2) for the first folding plate (7) and the second folding plate (8) to rotate along the rotating connector (6 and 10) to spread with a first angle (Modified Figure 1) to be an open mode (Modified Figure 1) and to rotate along the rotating connector (6 and 10) to collapse with a second angle (Modified Figure 3) to a close mode (Modified Figure 3), wherein in the open mode (Modified Figure 1), a grill bracket (22) is placed between the first folding plate (7) and the second folding plate (8);
Regarding claim 6, (See Modified Figures 1, 2, and 3 above) further comprising a first bottom support (2) and a second bottom support (3) respectively disposed on outer side of the first bottom part (Modified Figure 2) of the first folding plate (7) and the second bottom part (Modified Figure 2) of the second folding plate (8), wherein the first bottom support (2) and the second bottom support (3) are extended to stand on a bottom surface (Modified Figure 2) to keep a folding space (Modified Figure 2) defined by the first folding plate (7) and the second folding plate (8) in the open mode (Modified Figure 1) with an opening facing upwardly (Modified Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, (See Modified Figures 1, 2, and 3 above) wherein the first bottom support (2) and the second bottom support (3) are rotated with respect to the first folding plate (7) and the second folding plate (8) to spread for standing on the bottom surface (Modified Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, (See Modified Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 above) wherein a first bottom fixing lever (Modified Figure 4) has two ends respectively fixed to the first folding plate (7) and the first bottom support (2) and a second bottom fixing lever (Modified Figure 4) has two ends respectively fixed to the second folding plate (8) and the second bottom support (3) to keep the first bottom support (2) and the second bottom support (3) to spread.
Regarding claim 10, (See Modified Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 above) further comprising a bottom plate (Modified Figure 5), wherein the bottom plate (Modified Figure 5) has two wings (Modified Figure 5) and a base part (16 and 17), wherein the two wings (Modified Figure 5) are extended from two opposite sides of the base part (16 and 17) of the bottom plate (Modified Figure 5), wherein the two wings (Modified Figures 5) respectively leaning on inner sides of the first folding plate (7) and the second folding plate (8) to keep the first folding (7) and the second folding plate (8) to spread in the open mode (Modified Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, (See Modified Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) wherein two wind shielding plates (6a, 7a, 8a and 6b, 7a, 8a) with trapezoidal shape are placed on two opposite sides of the base part (16 and 17) to form an expanding structure to keep the first folding plate (7) and the second folding plate (8) to spread in the open mode (Modified Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, (See Modified Figures 1, 2, and 5) wherein the two wind shielding plates (6a, 7a, 8a and 6b, 7a, 8a) are detached from the bottom plate (Modified Figure 5) to collapse the bottom plate (Modified Figure 5). Examiner note: the bottom plate (Modified Figure 5) is always detached from the two wind shielding plates (6a, 7a, 8a and 6b, 7a, 8a).
Regarding claim 15, (See Modified Figures 5 and 6 above) wherein the two wings (Modified Figure 5) are rotatable with respect to the base part (16 and 17) to collapse the bottom plate (Modified Figure 5).
Regarding claim 16, (See Modified Figures 1, 5, and 6 above) wherein two elongated holding plates (Modified Figure 6) are respectively on inner sides of the two wings (Modified Figure 5), wherein the grill bracket (22) is placed upon the two elongated holding plates (Modified Figure 6).
Regarding claim 17, (See Modified Figure 2 above) wherein a first inner surface of the first folding plate (7) and a second inner surface of the second folding plate (8) are used for shielding oil dropped on the first inner surface and the second inner surface. Examiner note: the first inner surface of the first folding plate (7) and the second inner surface of the second folding plate (8) are depicted as being uniform sheets that are not foraminous and heat-resistant, thus they would be capable of shielding oil dropped on their respective surfaces.
Regarding claim 20, (See Modified Figure 3 above) wherein in the close mode (Modified Figure 3), the first folding plate (7) and the second folding plate (8) are stacked one another.
Konishi does not teach:
Regarding claim 1, and a first heater placed in the first middle part to emit heat toward the grill bracket.
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a second heater placed in the second middle part to emit heat toward the grill bracket.
Regarding claim 3, wherein a first mesh is placed upon the first heater and a second mesh is placed upon the second heater for heat of the first heater and the second heater to emit heat passing through the first mesh and the second mesh toward the grill bracket.
Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 teaches:
Regarding claim 1, (See Modified Figure 7 and Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 above) a first heater (25) placed in the first middle part (Modified Figure 7) to emit heat toward the grill bracket (30 in Figure 11).
Regarding claim 2, (See Modified Figure 7 and Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 above) further comprising a second heater (25) placed in the second middle part (Modified Figure 7) to emit heat toward the grill bracket (30 in Figure 11).
Regarding claim 3, (See Modified Figure 7 and Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 above) wherein a first mesh (33 and Figure 7) is placed upon the first heater (25) and a second mesh (33) is placed upon the second heater (25) for heat of the first heater (25) and the second heater (25) to emit heat passing through the first mesh (33 and Figure 7) and the second mesh (33) toward the grill bracket (30 in Figure 11).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Konishi to incorporate the teachings of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 to have a first heater placed in the first middle part to emit heat toward the grill bracket. Doing so limits the user’s ability to come into contact with the first heater, which prevents severe burns from occurring. The location of the first heater is perpendicular and in the first folding plate, which is away from the main points of user interface, such as the grill bracket and grill lever, where the food is placed.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Konishi to incorporate the teachings of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 to have a second heater placed in the second middle part to emit heat towards the grill bracket. Doing so allows for symmetry of the heaters. The symmetry of the heaters is desirable because it allows for even heating of the food being cooked by the apparatus. Even heating of food is desirable to ensure the user does not become ill from consuming raw food.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Konishi to incorporate the teachings of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 to have a first mesh and second placed on the first heater and second heater, respectively, to allow heat to pass through towards the grill bracket. Doing so helps to prevent users getting severe burns by preventing direct contact with the heaters, while still allowing for the flow of the heat from the heater to pass through towards the food.
PNG
media_image10.png
530
431
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 15 (Scherer)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 above, and further in view of Scherer’s Figure 15 (U.S. Patent Document No. 3358585).
Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 teaches:
Regarding claim 4, (See Modified Figure 7 and Figures 1 and 11 above) wherein the first heater (25) and the second heater (25) burn a combustible material or substance. “The construction of the heating units 25 is such that each functions to provide an individual heating chamber in which to confine and burn a combustible material or substance, such as charcoal, wood chips or other like combustible material, suitable for providing a source of heat for cooking purposes” (Pg. 6, Col. 5, Lines 16-21, Scherer).
Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 does not teach:
Regarding claim 4, wherein the first heater and the second heater receives electrical power to generate heat.
Scherer’s Figure 15 teaches:
Regarding claim 4, (See Figure 15 above) wherein the first heater (50) and the second heater (50) receives electrical power to generate heat. “In the foregoing embodiment, the heating units 25 are particularly designed to accommodate charcoal, wood chips and similar combustible materials for the generation of the heat used in the cooking and heating of various food items on the grill assembly. By contrast, a modified form of the heating units is shown and represented by the electric heating unit 50” (Pg. 7, Col. 7, Lines 23-29).
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11’s combustible heater (see Scherer’s Figure 1 and 11 and Modified Figure 7 (25)) with the Scherer’s Figure 15 electric powered heater (50) because the substitution of one known heater for another would have yielded predictable results of being able to heat the barbeque grill apparatus and the food that is desired to be cooked.
PNG
media_image11.png
353
402
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 8 (Cai)
PNG
media_image12.png
246
450
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 9 (Cai)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 above, and further in view of Cai (C.N. Patent Document No. 207821698).
Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 teaches:
Regarding claim 5, (See Modified Figure 7 and Scherer’s Figure 1 and 11 above) wherein reflecting material is applied on inner side of the first folding plate (Modified Figure 7) and the second folding plate (Modified Figure 7). “The interior side wall side 35 of the back section 32 possesses or is otherwise provided with a reflective heat-resistant surface finish or coating” (Pg. 6, Col. 6, Lines 20-22, Scherer).
Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 does not teach:
Regarding claim 5, wherein far-infrared reflecting material is applied on inner side of the first folding plate and the second folding plate.
Cai teaches:
Regarding claim 5, (See Modified Figures 8 and 9 above) wherein far-infrared reflecting material is applied on inner side of the plates (1, 2, and 3) “The heat reflector is made of silver aluminum alloy. The heat reflector reflects the received heat away. The heat is refracted to the grill by far-infrared rays 1 to 3 times” (Pg. 2, Paragraph 11, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 to incorporate the teachings of Cai to have far-infrared reflecting material applied on the inner sides of the first and second folding plates. Doing so allows for any far-infrared heat being emitted to reflect to the food being cooked without a large amount of far-infrared getting lost.
PNG
media_image13.png
403
539
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 10 (Gim)
PNG
media_image14.png
377
701
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 11 (Gim)
PNG
media_image15.png
539
545
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 12 (Gim)
PNG
media_image16.png
280
294
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 13 (Gim)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 above, and further in view of Gim (K.R. Patent Document No. 101832620).
Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 teaches:
Regarding claim 11, (See Modified Figure 5 above) wherein the base part (16 and 17) of the bottom plate (Modified Figure 5) is a net-like frame.
Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 does not teach:
Regarding claim 11, wherein the base part of the bottom plate is a water tray for holding water.
Gim teaches:
Regarding claim 11, (See Modified Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13 above) wherein the base part (60) of the bottom plate (Modified Figure 10) is a water tray for holding water. Examiner note: the base part (60) has containing plates (Modified Figure 10) around the perimeter of the base part (60) and the base part (60) is depicted as being a uniform sheet that is not foraminous, thus the base part (60) is capable of holding water and being a water tray.
Regarding claim 11, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 to incorporate the teachings of Gim to have a base part that is water tray capable of holding water. Doing so allows for any meats being grilled to stay moist and soft while being cooked. Having moisture in a grilled meat is considered more palatable than dry and tough meat.
PNG
media_image17.png
680
547
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 14 (Ming-Tang)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 above, and further in view of Chen, Ming-Tang (U.S. Patent Document No. 5007403), hereinafter Ming-Tang.
Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 teaches:
Regarding claim 14, (See Konishi’s Modified Figures 1, 2, and 4) there are two wind shielding plates (6a, 7a, 8a and 6b, 7a, 8a).
Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 does not teach:
Regarding claim 14, wherein there are two cavities respectively on top side of the two wind shielding plates for disposing a grill lever.
Ming-Tang teaches:
Regarding claim 14, (See Modified Figure 14 above) wherein there are two cavities (Modified Figure 14) respectively on top side of the two wind shielding plates (11 and 12) for disposing a grill lever (Modified Figure 14).
Regarding claim 14, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 to incorporate the teachings of Ming-Tang to have two cavities respectively on top side of the two wind shielding plates for disposing a grill lever. Doing so allows the user of the apparatus to make a wider variety of foods popular in grilling, such as kabobs or a rotisserie chicken.
PNG
media_image18.png
427
430
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 15 (Xu)
PNG
media_image19.png
302
469
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 16 (Xu)
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (C.N. Patent Document No. 113116175), hereinafter Xu.
Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 teaches:
Regarding claim 18, the first folding plate (Modified Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, the first heater (Modified Figure 7).
Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 does not teach:
Regarding claim 18, wherein a temperature sensor is disposed on the first folding plate to detect a grill temperature.
Regarding claim 19, wherein when a detected temperature of the temperature sensor is larger than a first threshold, the first heater is stopped to be heated.
Xu teaches:
Regarding claim 18, (See Modified Figures 15 and 16 above) wherein a temperature sensor (128) is disposed on the first folding plate (120) to detect a grill temperature.
Regarding claim 19, (See Modified Figures 15 and 16 above) wherein when a detected temperature of the temperature sensor (128) is larger than a first threshold, the first heater (132) is stopped to be heated. “In one possible technical solution, when the second temperature detection value reaches the second preset temperature value, the coil assembly stops heating to avoid potential hazards caused by excessive temperature and improve the safety of the heating device” (Pg. 9, Paragraph 51, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 18, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 to incorporate the teachings of Xu to have a temperature sensor disposed on the first folding plate. Doing so ensures the system operates within a desired range; this prevents potential damage to the grilling apparatus when it’s being used.
Regarding claim 19, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Konishi in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 to incorporate the teachings of Xu to have the first heater stopped being heated when a detected temperature is larger than a first threshold. Doing so prevents further increases in the temperature reducing the risk that the food being cooked becomes burnt or over-cooked. Additionally, this feature helps to reduce the risk of a fire starting.
PNG
media_image20.png
485
746
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 17 (Zhang)
PNG
media_image21.png
810
889
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 18 (Zhang)
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (C.N. Patent Document No. 112806868) in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 (U.S. Patent Document No. 3358585).
Zhang teaches:
Regarding claim 1, (See Modified Figures 17 and 18 above) A barbecue grill apparatus (Modified Figure 17), comprising: a first folding plate (Modified Figure 17) with a first top part (Modified Figure 17), a first middle part (Modified Figure 17) and a first bottom part (Modified Figure 17); a second folding plate (Modified Figure 17) with a second top part (Modified Figure 17), a second middle part (Modified Figure 17) and a second bottom part (Modified Figure 17); a rotating connector (Modified Figure 17) for connecting the first bottom part (Modified Figure 17) and the second bottom part (Modified Figure 17) for the first folding plate (Modified Figure 17) and the second folding plate (Modified Figure 17) to rotate along the rotating connector (Modified Figure 17) to spread with a first angle (Modified Figure 18) to be an open mode (Modified Figure 18) and to rotate along the rotating connector (Modified Figure 17) to collapse with a second angle to a close mode “When the first box and the second box need to be locked, the push block is pushed towards the second box to drive the slider and the rotating rod to rotate in the same direction. The auxiliary spring deforms, rotating the first box and the second box so that they abut against each other” (Pg. 4, Paragraph 3, lines 1-4), wherein in the open mode (Modified Figure 18), a grill bracket (5) is placed between the first folding plate (Modified Figure 17) and the second folding plate (Modified Figure 17);
Regarding claim 6, (See Modified Figures 17 and 18 above) further comprising a first bottom support (Modified Figure 18) and a second bottom support (Modified Figure 18) respectively disposed on outer side of the first bottom part (Modified Figure 17) of the first folding plate (Modified Figure 17) and the second bottom part (Modified Figure 17) of the second folding plate (Modified Figure 17), wherein the first bottom support (Modified Figure 18) and the second bottom support (Modified Figure 18) are extended to stand on a bottom surface (Modified Figure 18) to keep a folding space defined by the first folding plate (Modified Figure 17) and the second folding plate (Modified Figure 17) in the open mode (Modified Figure 18) with an opening facing upwardly (Modified Figure 18).
Regarding claim 7, (See Modified Figures 17 and 18 above) wherein the first bottom support (Modified Figure 18) and the second bottom support (Modified Figure 18) are rotated with respect to the first folding plate (Modified Figure 17) and the second folding plate (Modified Figure 17) to spread for standing on the bottom surface (Modified Figure 18).
Zhang does not teach:
Regarding claim 1, a first heater placed in the first middle part to emit heat toward the grill bracket.
Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 teaches:
Regarding claim 1, (See Modified Figure 7 and Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 above) a first heater (25) placed in the first middle part (Modified Figure 7) to emit heat toward the grill bracket (30 in Figure 11).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 to have a first heater placed in the first middle part to emit heat toward the grill bracket. Doing so limits the user’s ability to come into contact with the first heater, which prevents severe burns from occurring. The location of the first heater is perpendicular and in the first folding plate, which is away from the main points of user interface, such as the grill bracket and grill lever, where the food is placed.
PNG
media_image22.png
355
510
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 19 (Shi)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (C.N. Patent Document No. 112806868) in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 as applied to claims 1, 6, and 7 above, and further in view of Shi (T.W. Patent Document No. M350327).
Zhang in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 teaches:
Regarding claim 8, (See Zhang’s Modified Figures 17 and 18 above) wherein the first bottom support (Modified Figure 18) is rotatable and is located at the first bottom part (Modified Figure 17) of the first folding plate (Modified Figure 17) in the close mode, wherein the second bottom support (Modified Figure 18) is routable and is located at the second bottom part (Modified Figure 17) of the second folding plate (Modified Figure 17) in the close mode.
Zhang in view of Scherer’s Figures 1 and 11 does not teach:
Regarding claim 8, wherein the first bottom support is rotatable to be collected in a first exterior container of the first bottom part of the first folding plate in the close mode, wherein the second bottom support is routable to be collected in a second exterior container of the second bottom part of the second folding plate in the close mode.
Shi teaches:
Regarding claim 8, (See Modified Figure 19) wherein the first bottom support (12) is rotatable to be collected in a first exterior container (Modified Figure 19) of the first bottom part of the first folding plate in the close mode, wherein the second bottom support (12) is routable to be collected in a second exterior container (Modified Figure 19) of the second bottom part of the second folding plate in the close mode. Examiner note: In Zhang (See Modified Figures 17 and 18 above) the first bottom support (Modified Figure 18) is located at the first bottom part (Modified Figure 17) of the first folding plate (Modified Figure 17) and the second bottom support (Modified Figure 18) is located at the second bottom part (Modified Figure 17) of the second folding plate (Modified Figure 17), thus the first exterior container (Shi’s Modified Figure 19) and second exterior container (Shi’s Modified Figure 19) would also be located at the first bottom part (Modified Figure 17) of the first folding plate (Modified Figure 17) and at the second bottom part (Modified Figure 17) of the second folding plate (Modified Figure 17) respectively.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Shi to have to have the first bottom support extend outwardly from the exterior surface of the first folding plate and have the second bottom support extend outwardly from the exterior surface of the second folding plate, and have one first exterior container of the first bottom part of the first folding plate to collect one first bottom support and have one second exterior container of the second bottom part of the second folding plate to collect one second bottom support. Doing so allows for a more compact structure that is easily collapsible, thus making transport of the barbecue apparatus less costly and more convenient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 20110192392).
Hu (C.N. Patent Document No. 209186435).
Wang (C.N. Patent Document No. 106724925).
Ye (C.N. Patent Document No. 205379215).
Bo (C.N. Patent Document No. 204889720).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/EMMA E ULATOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 02/04/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761