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 .
Response to Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 05/26/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-22 are currently pending where claims 16-20 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
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 and 7 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 defining a distance between the upper flange and the lower flange such that the upper flange and the lower flange are positioned and configured to receive an accessory hook that is configured to clamp around the upper flange and the lower flange by resiliently deforming and returning to an original clamped position.
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 defining a distance between the upper flange and the lower flange (Gap between the upper flange 42 and lower flange 46 in Figure 5) such that the upper flange and the lower flange are positioned and configured to receive an accessory hook that is configured to clamp around the upper flange and the lower flange by resiliently deforming and returning to an original clamped position (Figures 5 and 6 with ¶ 32 showing the deformation of 52 around the web upper flange).
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 housing 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 housing 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 (Schwarzkopf 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, Schwarzkopf 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 Schwarzkopf 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.
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 filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 and the Fry reference failing to disclose the newly required deformation has been reviewed but is not found to be persuasive. The Fry reference (US 2018/0035857) shows the deformation of the accessory component at 52 in Figures 5 and 6 as well as being described in ¶ 32. Applicant is welcome to further modify the relative structure to attempt to overcome the rejection of record as currently set forth however at this time the proposed arguments regarding the claim amendments is not found to be persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case:
Claim 1 would have the mounting web of Fry as a more modular and easier to mount system for accessories for a grill as opposed to the ledge style hanger for a holder for loose grill accessories. The ability to directly mount the accessories around the grill in an adaptable manner shown in Fry would allow for the user to easily store grill accessories.
Claim 5 is reliant on the addition of the Schwartzkopf reference (US 2010/0300999) that teaches making a modular rail out of a metal. This teaching would increase the resiliency of the modular rail in numerous outdoor environments which would therefore increase the life of the grill components.
Claim 6 is reliant on the addition of the Thrush reference (US 2022/0000265) that teaches a horizontal stiffening rib for a modular hanging system. The addition of this stiffening rib would exactly what the name states and increase the stiffness of the modular rail and prevent damage from heavier grilling accessories being mounted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15, 21, and 22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant has amended independent claim 21 to recite “t least one accessory rail, 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 comprising an open area defined between the upper flange and the lower flange, at least one elongated horizontal stiffening rib extending parallel to the upper flange and the lower flange through the open area, the 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 open area of the web connecting the upper flange to the lower flange”. The further clarification of the web and the relative tubular structure would require further modifications that would be reliant on modifying already modifying references and would therefore been seen as non-obvious by the Examiner. For at least this reason, independent claim 21 and dependent claims 8-15 are found to be allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights