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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 are currently pending where claim 22 is newly added. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome each and every 112(a) rejection previously set forth.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5076257 (Raymer hereinafter) in view of US 2006/0070613 (Cummings hereinafter) and further in view of US 2018/0035857 (Fry hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Raymer teaches a grill (Figures 1 and 14) that discloses a housing defining a cooking chamber (Figure 1 with chamber formed by 38/40); an accessory rail assembly (Assembly rail of 36/132 for rack 50 to mount to in Figures 1 and 14), the accessory rail assembly comprising: at least one accessory rail (Rail formed of 36/132 for 134 to engage as seen in Figures 16), the at least one accessory rail comprising: an upper flange (Upper flange at the top of 132); and a plurality of brackets connecting the at least one accessory rail to a cooking portion assembly of the grill device (Brackets 136 of rack 50 as seen in Figures 1, 14, and 16).
Raymer is silent with respect to the accessory rail extending from the housing and the at least one accessory rail connects directly to the housing defining the cooking chamber of the frill device.
However, Cummings teaches a grill (Figures 1-4) that discloses an accessory rail extending from the housing and the at least one accessory rail connects directly to the housing defining the cooking chamber of the frill device (Figures 1-3 show the accessory rail connected to the edge of the equivalent housing to Raymer at the interface between a housing base and a movable lid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the accessory rail of Raymer with the location taught by Cummings to place the accessories closer to the user when operating the grill.
Raymer is silent with respect that the at least one accessory rail comprising: an upper flange; a lower flange; a web extending between and connected to the upper flange and the lower flange; the web, the upper flange, and the lower flange each positioned in a same vertical plane.
However, Fry teaches a modular rail mounting system that discloses an accessory rail (Figures 1-6, rail 12) and that the at least one accessory rail comprising: an upper flange (Figures 2 and 5 with upper flange 42 of 12); a lower flange (Flange 46 of 12 in Figure 5); a web extending between and connected to the upper flange and the lower flange (Web 36 in Figure 5 and ¶ 31); the web, the upper flange, and the lower flange each positioned in a same vertical plane (Figures 2 and 5 show the equivalent structure as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the instant application per the interpretation of the new limitation in the 112(a) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the side rail mounting of Raymer with the linear front rail system of Fry to allow increased mounting space while adding modularity to the attachable components.
Regarding claim 2, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Raymer, Cummings, and Fry would further disclose that the accessory rail assembly extends along substantially an entire perimeter of a first end (Figures 1 and 2 of Raymer, “left side” accessory shelf 48 as to be modified by the Fry rail system and the location of Cummings), a front (Raymer’s Rack 50’s mounting as modified by Fry/Cummings), and a second end of the cooking portion assembly of the grill device (Figures 1 and 2 of Raymer, “right side” accessory shelf 48 as to be modified by the Fry rail system and location of Cummings).
Regarding claim 3, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Raymer, Cummings, and Fry would further disclose that the cooking portion assembly of the grill device comprises a cooking chamber (Cooking chamber within 40 of Raymer), a fuel chamber (Figure 11 of Raymer, fuel chamber with tank 42), and a fixed shelf (Inherent shelf/mount for the tank 42 of Raymer to reside).
Regarding claim 4, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Raymer, Cummings, and Fry would further disclose that the upper flange and lower flange of the at least one accessory rail are comprised of a single tubular structure (Rail 12 and flanges 42/46 as seen in Figures 1 and 2 of Fry).
Regarding claim 7, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Raymer, Cummings, and Fry would further disclose that the at least one accessory rail assembly comprises at least one accessory rail having a first portion extending along at least a portion of a front of the grill device (Evident for the rack 50 of Raymer to stay on the front with the rail of Fry) and a second portion extending along at least a portion of one of a first side and a second side of the grill device (Figures 1 and 2 of Raymer, both accessory shelves 48 of Raymer as modified by the Fry rail system will have rails on the left and right side of the grill).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5076257 (Raymer) in view of US 2006/0070613 (Cummings) in view of US 2018/0035857 (Fry) and further in view of US 2010/0300999 (Schwartzkopf hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the web is comprised of a metal plate.
However, Schwartzkopf teaches a rail mounting system that discloses the use of metal (¶ 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the rail system of Raymer/Fry with the metal material of Schwartzkopf to increase the strength and damage resistance from the elements.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5076257 (Raymer) in view of US 2006/0070613 (Cummings) in view of US 2018/0035857 (Fry) in view of US 2010/0300999 (Schwartzkopf) and further in view of US 2022/0000265 (Thrush hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the web comprises at least one horizontal stiffening rib. Fry in Figure 2 shows appear to show some sort of stiffening ribs along the web 36.
However, Thrush teaches a mounting rail system that discloses a web comprises at least one horizontal stiffening rib (Figures 2a-d with middle portion of 202 along the web between the equivalent upper flange side 206 and lower flange side 204).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the web of Raymer/Fry with the stiffening rid of Thrush to prevent failure of the rail.
Claims 21, 8, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5076257 (Raymer) in view of US 2018/0035857 (Fry) and further in view of US 4572329 (Kleveborn hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, Raymer teaches a grill (Figures 1 and 14) that discloses an accessory rail assembly (Assembly rail of 36/132 for rack 50 to mount to in Figures 1 and 14), the accessory rail assembly comprising: at least one accessory rail (Rail formed of 36/132 for 134 to engage as seen in Figures 16), the at least one accessory rail comprising: an upper flange (Upper flange at the top of 132); and a plurality of brackets connecting the at least one accessory rail to a cooking portion assembly of the grill device (Brackets 136 of rack 50 as seen in Figures 1, 14, and 16); an accessory for the grill device (Rack 50 itself), the accessory comprising at least one attachment structure configured to interface with the accessory rail assembly (Mounting of 50 to the rail as described and shown in Figures 1, 14, and 16).
Raymer is silent with respect that the at least one accessory rail comprising: an upper flange, the upper flange comprising a first portion of a tubular structure in a first vertical position; a lower flange, the lower flange comprising a second portion of the tubular structure in a second vertical position; a web extending between and connected to the upper flange and the lower flange, a third portion of the tubular structure extending through a portion of the web connecting the upper flange to the lower flange.
However, Fry teaches a modular rail mounting system that discloses an accessory rail (Figures 1 and 2, rail 12) and that the at least one accessory rail comprising: an upper flange (Upper flange 42 in Figures 1 and 5), the upper flange comprising a first portion of a tubular structure in a first vertical position (The upper flange is shown as tubular in Figures 1 and 2 and will have a first portion in a first vertical position as seen in Figures 5/6); a lower flange, the lower flange comprising a second portion of the tubular structure in a second vertical position (Lower flange 46 in Figures 1, 2, and 5 is shown also as tubular and will have a second portion in a second vertical position as seen in Figures 5/6); a web extending between and connected to the upper flange and the lower flange (Web 36 in Figures 5 and 6 with ¶ 31), a third portion of the tubular structure extending through a portion of the web connecting the upper flange to the lower flange (Connecting edges between the upper and lower flanges that passes through the edges of web 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the side rail mounting of Raymer with the linear front rail system of Fry to allow increased mounting space while adding modularity to the attachable components.
Raymer, per Fry, is silent with respect that the web comprises at least one elongated stiffening rib extending parallel to the upper flange and the lower flange. Fry in Figure 2 shows appear to show some sort of stiffening ribs along the web 36.
However, Kleveborn teaches a rail system that discloses an upper flange (Equivalent left flange 3 in Figure 2), a lower flange (Opposing flange 3 on the right side of Figure 2), and a web that comprises at least one elongated stiffening rib extending parallel to the upper flange and the lower flange (Web 2/4 with stiffening ribs 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the web of Raymer/Fry with the stiffening ribs of Kleveborn to strengthen the accessory rail and prevent failure.
Regarding claim 8, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 21 where the combination of Raymer, Fry, and Kleveborn would further disclose that at least one attachment structure comprising: an upper feature sized and shaped to wrap around and conform to a portion of a surface of an upper flange of the accessory rail assembly of the grill device (Modification of the mounting of 50 of Raymer to be the shape of 32 in Fry Figures 2-6 where the outside of 32 wraps around an internal face of the upper flange 42); and a lower feature sized and shaped to wrap around and conform to a portion of a surface of a lower flange of the accessory rail assembly (Modification of the mounting of 50 of Raymer to be the shape of 32 in Fry Figures 2-6 where the outside of 32 wraps around an internal face of the lower flange 46).
Regarding claim 13, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Raymer, Fry, and Kleveborn would further disclose that the accessory further comprises a basket (Basket 50 of Raymer), the basket comprising a sidewall and a floor, the sidewall attached to the at least one attachment structure (Figures 1 and 14 of Raymer shows the claimed structure of the basket).
Regarding claim 14, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 13 where the combination of Raymer, Fry, and Kleveborn would further disclose at least one opening between the floor and the sidewall of the basket (Figures 1 and 14 of Raymer).
Regarding claim 15, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Raymer, Fry, and Kleveborn would further disclose that the floor of the basket is perforated (Figures 1 and 14 of Raymer).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5076257 (Raymer) in view of US 2018/0035857 (Fry) in view of US 4572329 (Kleveborn) and further in view of US 6069596 (Marvin hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 but are silent with respect that the at least one attachment structure further comprises a tab extending below a protrusion on the lower feature, the tab configured to facilitate the removal of the at least one attachment structure from the accessory rail assembly.
However, Marvin teaches a modular rail assembly that discloses the use of a key to assist in releasing the module from the rail system (Figures 2 and 3 with Column 3 Lines 41-45). The resultant combination would be such that the at least one attachment structure further comprises a tab extending below a protrusion on the lower feature, the tab configured to facilitate the removal of the at least one attachment structure from the accessory rail assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modular rail and accessory of Raymer/Fry/Kleveborn with the removal key of Marvin to minimize the chance of accidental removal of the accessory from the railing.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5076257 (Raymer) in view of US 2018/0035857 (Fry) in view of US 4572329 (Kleveborn) and further in view of 2013/0112802 (Griggs hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 but are silent with respect that the at least one attachment structure comprises a first attachment structure and a second attachment structure; and wherein the accessory further comprises: a first roll end holder coupled to the first attachment structure; and a second roll end holder coupled to the second attachment structure.
However, Griggs teaches a grill unit (Figure 1) that discloses a paper towel holder (Figure 4 with ¶ 43) featuring a first roll end holder coupled to the first attachment structure (Figure 4, “left” side at 38/44/10); and a second roll end holder coupled to the second attachment structure (Figure 4, “right” side at 38/44/10). The resultant combination would take the two part paper towel holder of Griggs and mount it to the rail of Raymer/Fry/Kleveborn such that the at least one attachment structure comprises a first attachment structure and a second attachment structure; and wherein the accessory further comprises: a first roll end holder coupled to the first attachment structure; and a second roll end holder coupled to the second attachment structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grill of Raymer/Fry/Kleveborn with a paper towel holder for easy access to cleaning materials when grilling.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5076257 (Raymer) in view of US 2018/0035857 (Fry) in view of US 4572329 (Kleveborn) and further in view of D296861 (Fielding hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 but are silent with respect to a cooking tool having a handle, the handle attached to the at least one attachment structure.
However, Fielding teaches a grill unit and accessory mounting that discloses a cooking tool having a handle, the handle attached to the at least one attachment structure (Figure 1, “dashed out” cooking tool adapted for mounting to the equivalent accessory via a hook).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the tool mounting feature of Fielding to the grill unit and accessory for Raymer/Fry/Kleveborn to allow for easy access to multiple tools for the user without the need to take up flat space.
Regarding claim 12, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 but are silent with respect that the accessory further comprises a hook extending from the at least one attachment structure.
However Fielding teaches a grill unit and accessory mounting that discloses an accessory comprising a hook extending from the at least one attachment structure (Figure 1 shows a plurality of hooks for grilling utensils).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the tool mounting feature of Fielding to the grill unit and accessory for Raymer/Fry/Kleveborn to allow for easy access to multiple tools for the user without the need to take up flat space.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5076257 (Raymer) in view of US 2006/0070613 (Cummings) in view of US 2018/0035857 (Fry) and further in view of US 2021/0145213 (Bogazzi hereinafter).
Regarding claim 22, Raymer’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the web, the upper flange, and the lower flange are bent along a curve such that a first end of the accessory rail is oriented perpendicular to a second end of the accessory rail.
However, Bogazzi teaches a grill with a fully surrounding accessory mounting system (Figures 1 and 2 with the equivalent accessory rail 12 for the accessory 14 with mounts 18). The resultant combination would extend the rail of Raymer/Fry that includes the web, the upper flange, and the lower flange around the grill such that the rail is bent along a curve such that a first end of the accessory rail is oriented perpendicular to a second end of the accessory rail.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the length/location of the accessory rail of Raymer/Fry/Cummings with the peripheral coverage of Bogazzi to allow for a user to place accessories at any/many different locations around the grill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15, 21, and 22 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762