DETAILED ACTION
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 filed 07/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “it would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the as-filed application’s disclosure that the lower platen assembly is in close proximity to the conveyor necessarily includes within its scope the situation where the lower platen assembly is not in contact with the conveyor belt” (Page 9 of applicant’s remarks filed 07/12/2026). However, applicant’s specification only discloses the broader term of “close proximity”. Said term of “close proximity” can be more narrowly interpreted to include interpretations of “in contact” and “not in contact”. However, the term “close proximity” 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, specifically that the “lower grilling plate is in close proximity to but not in contact with the conveyor belt”. For example, applicant’s simple recitation of the term “cooking system” in Paragraph 11 of the applicant’s specification filed 02/22/2023 does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the applicant has possession of every reasonable interpretation, and corresponding structure, of the term “cooking system” without additional disclosure on what specific structure of said cooking system the applicant is in possession of. Similarly, the applicant’s recitation of the term “close proximity” does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the applicant has possession of the specific interpretation of “not in contact” without further disclosure, but merely that the applicant is in ownership of at least one of the reasonable interpretations of the term “close proximity”. Thus the 112a rejection for the term “close proximity” is maintained.
Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art ‘when considering the limitation that "the lower platen assembly is spaced away from the conveyor belt" would readily understand that inherently there is no contact between the lower platen assembly and the conveyor belt and therefore there can be no heat exchange by conduction heat transfer. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that conduction heat transfer between two items requires contact between the two items. See e.g. Wikipedia article for "Thermal Conduction" ("Thermal Conduction is the diffusion of thermal energy (heat within one material or between materials in contact.") July 12, 2026 copy attached at Exhibit A to this Response)’ (Page 9 of applicant’s remarks filed 07/12/2026). However, the applicant’s independent claims 16, 23, and 30 each recite the limitation “when in the cooking position the lower grilling plate is in close proximity to but not in contact with the conveyor belt to allow the lower grilling plate to transfer heat to the prepared product disposed upon the conveyor belt by conduction heat transfer through the conveyor belt”. The applicant’s claims recite that the cooking position for the lower grilling plate is not in contact with the conveyor belt and yet transfers heat to the prepared product through the conveyor belt by conduction heat transfer. Applicant states that “One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that conduction heat transfer between two items requires contact between the two items” (Page 9 of applicant’s remarks filed 07/12/2026). Adopting the applicant’s definition for the term “conduction heat transfer” of requiring contact for heat transfer, the lower grilling plate could not transfer heat to the conveyor by conduction heat transfer as it does not contact the conveyor, and yet the applicant’s claims include said limitations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the structure capable of conduction heat transfer 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. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it reasonable for the applicant to have had possession of structure which operates in a manner contrary to how thermodynamics is understood to operate in the art based on the applicant’s own arguments, definitions, and exhibits. Thus, the 112a rejection for the term “conduction heat transfer” is maintained. Based on the applicant’s arguments, the Office no longer has art which shows conduction heat transfer which occurs without contact, and thus the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejection of claim 16, although the art rejection has been withdrawn as explained above, a response will be provided for the sake of clarity to the applicant. Applicant argues that “nothing in Alden discloses that the lower platen (16) is movable” (Page 11 of applicant’s remarks filed 07/12/2026). However, Alden teaches that the air spring 42 and idler 36, which are reasonably considered as part of the lower platen 16 (as all of said components are part of the lower frame 50), are moved by the piston 52 such as to maintain (in a cooking position) or release tension (in a non-cooking position) within the belt 12. Thus, the lower platen assembly can be interpreted, under broadest reasonable interpretation, as moving between a cooking position and a non-cooking position, as at least part of the lower frame structure is movable between a cooking position and a non-cooking position.
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.
Claims 16-37 are 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the lower grilling plate is in close proximity to but not in contact with the conveyor belt”. However, said limitation is not properly supported by the applicant’s filed specification nor its originally filed claims. The applicant’s specifications filed 02/22/2023 fails to specify that the lower grilling plate or lower platen is not in contact with the conveyor belt. Paragraph 37 of the applicant’s specification teaches that the “upper platen assembly 26 and the lower platen assembly 24 may move between a cooking position (e.g., moved in close proximity to the conveyor belt 70) to a non-cooking position”. Two objects which are touching each other would, under broadest reasonable interpretation, be considered as being in “close proximity” to one another. Nowhere in the applicant’s filed specification, drawings, or originally filed claims is it clearly taught that the applicant had possession of the limitation “the lower grilling plate is in close proximity to but not in contact with the conveyor belt” at the filing date of the application. Independent claims 23 and 30 are rejected upon similar grounds.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “wherein when in the cooking position the lower grilling plate is in close proximity to but not in contact with the conveyor belt to allow the lower grilling plate to transfer heat to the prepared product disposed upon the conveyor belt by conduction heat transfer through the conveyor belt, wherein when the lower platen assembly is in the non-cooking position the lower platen assembly is spaced away from the conveyor belt such that heat is not transferred to the conveyor belt by conduction heat transfer”. However, said limitation is not properly supported by the applicant’s filed specification nor its originally filed claims. Applicant argues that the term “conduction heat transfer” requires contact (Page 9 of applicant’s remarks filed 09/12/2026). Taking on the applicant’s definition, the applicant’s specifications and drawings filed 02/22/2023 fails to sufficiently disclose that the applicant was in possession of a lower platen assembly which can transfer heat to the prepared product disposed upon the conveyor belt by conduction heat transfer without contact. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it reasonable for the applicant to have had possession of structure which operates in a manner contrary to how thermodynamics is understood to operate in the art based on the applicant’s own arguments, definitions, and exhibits. Paragraph 39 of the applicant’s filed specifications teaches that “the heating surface of the lower grilling plate 32 transfers heat to the selected number of raw products 10 through the conveyor belt”. However, the transfer of heat from the lower grilling plate 32 through the conveyor belt is not specified to be performed by means of a conduction heat transfer. The claims also recite that the lower platen assembly is spaced away from the conveyor belt in the non-cooking position, and yet states that heat is not transferred to the conveyor belt by conduction heat transfer. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it reasonable for the applicant to have had possession of a structure which is capable of a conveyor belt conducting conduction heat transfer without contact with a lower platen assembly in one position, while thermally isolating the conveyor belt from the lower platen assembly in a second position. Nowhere in the applicant’s filed specification, drawings, or originally filed claims is it clearly taught that the applicant had possession of the limitation “wherein when in the cooking position the lower grilling plate is in close proximity to but not in contact with the conveyor belt to allow the lower grilling plate to transfer heat to the prepared product disposed upon the conveyor belt by conduction heat transfer through the conveyor belt, wherein when the lower platen assembly is in the non-cooking position the lower platen assembly is spaced away from the conveyor belt such that heat is not transferred to the conveyor belt by conduction heat transfer” at the filing date of the application. Claims 23 and 30 are rejected upon similar grounds.
Claims 17-22, 24-29, and 31-37 are rejected upon being dependent upon at least one of the above claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights