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 because the number 235 in fig. 3, number 265 in fig. 7, and numbers 217 and 305 in fig. 11A cross or mingle with the lines of the drawings (MPEP 608.02).
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently uses language with a sentence that can be implied: “A deployable apparatus and grilling module. The apparatus can include a grilling module.” These sentences are redundant. Several sample abstracts are provided in MPEP 608.01.b.I.e.
Recommend also eliminating the word “can” from the abstract. Currently, the patent abstract is a statement about what could be the technical disclosure of the patent. Instead, the patent abstract should be a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
In paragraph 0087, the use of the terms “PERL” and “JAVA,” which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6, 10, 12, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…memory, configured to…” (line 3).
In claim 4, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…system configured to…” (line 4).
In claim 5, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…memory, configured to…” (line 3).
In claim 6, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…memory, configured to…” (line 3).
In claim 10, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…module, configured to…” (line 2).
In claim 12, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…module, configured to…” (line 2).
In claim 14, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…by the at least one rail…” (line 7).
In claim 20, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…shuttle, configured to…” (line 6) and “…shuttle, configured to…” (line 9).
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) are the following:
“grilling module” in claims 1, 13, and 19
The generic placeholder is “module” and the functional limitation is “grilling.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “resistive element.”
“locking mechanism” in claims 2, 14, and 20
The generic placeholder is “mechanism” and the functional limitations are “locking” and “configured to lock the grilling module” (only in claims 2 and 20, not present in claim 14).
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “latch, a switch, a lever, a slide, a clasp, a bolt, a bar, a clip or a lock”
“a data processing system” in claim 3
The generic placeholder is “system” and the functional limitation is “to: detect a position of the cooking surface.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “motion sensor.”
“data processing system” in claim 4
The generic placeholder is “system” and the functional limitation is “to: prevent … current from being provided to the cooking surface.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “circuit.”
“rotation device” in claims 10 and 18
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “rotation” and rotating “the grilling module from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position and the second position are different by at least 90 degrees.”
“lift device” in claim 12
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “lift” and “to: lift the grilling module from a first height to a second height.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “a motor, piston, or hydraulic”
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 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 10 and 18 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.
Claims 10 and 18 recite a “rotation device” that rotates “the grilling module from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position and the second position are different by at least 90 degrees.” Although the Specification discloses hinges 510, 615, and 1205, these hinges are for rotating compartments, shelves, and a gear tunnel door, and not for the grilling module. Additionally, the rotation device 265 in the drawings appears to be a leg for the grill, which is not disclosed as being able to rotate. Therefore, the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what “rotation device” is or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
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.
In claims 10 and 18, the limitation “rotation device” 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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.
Claims 2 and 8 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 2 recites: “The apparatus of claim 1, comprising: … at least one rail, coupled with the shuttle, to: stow the shuttle in a first position within a gear tunnel of a vehicle; and deploy the shuttle to a second position external to the gear tunnel of the vehicle.” The scope of the claimed “apparatus” is unclear. Specifically, it is not clear if the claimed “apparatus” must include a “vehicle.” Recommend positively reciting a “vehicle” as part of the “apparatus,” e.g., “The apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a vehicle…” For the purpose of the examination, the claimed “apparatus” will be interpreted as including a vehicle.
Claim 8 recites: “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the grilling module is stowed in a first position within a gear tunnel of a vehicle and the grilling module is deployed to a second position external to the gear tunnel of the vehicle.” The scope of the claimed “apparatus” is unclear. Specifically, it is not clear if the claimed “apparatus” must include a “vehicle.” Recommend positively reciting a “vehicle” as part of the “apparatus.” For the purpose of the examination, the claimed “apparatus” will be interpreted as including a vehicle.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (US-20200361360-A1) in view of Reischmann et al. (US-20220408969-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Parker teaches an apparatus (fig. 1), comprising: a grilling module (kitchen module 1500, fig. 15) having a cooking surface (rangetop 1565, fig. 15) electrically coupled with a power source (“battery module,” para 0053); and the grilling module coupled with a shuttle (shuttle system 1510, fig. 15) configured to stow the grilling module and deploy the grilling module (“for storage in storage compartment 1592 or after shuttle system 1510 is extended out,” para 0057).
Parker, figs. 1 and 15
PNG
media_image1.png
757
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1082
985
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Parker does not explicitly disclose a grilling module (although Parker discloses “one or more ohmic heating elements,” Parker does not explicitly disclose using these ohmic heating elements for grilling).
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Reischmann teaches a grilling module (“resistance heat element,” para 0035; grill in fig. 4).
Reischmann, fig. 4
PNG
media_image3.png
820
844
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Reischmann, by using a DC-powered grill, as taught by Reischmann, instead of a rangetop, as taught by Parker, in order to use a grill that can be powered by high-voltage DC batteries, because although electric cooking appliances in homes typically use AC power, in certain environments such as battery-powered electric vehicles, AC power is not available and DC power must be used instead (Reischmann, paras 0002-0007 and 0010) and because this amounts to a simple substitution of one cooking device known in the art for another with predictable results (using a grill to apply direct heat to food instead of a rangetop to apply indirect heat to food through a pan or pot will not change the operation of the cooking device but will continue to allow the food to be heated).
Regarding claim 2, Parker teaches comprising: a heating element (“one or more ohmic heating elements,” para 0055) configured to heat the cooking surface (“rangetop,” para 0055); a locking mechanism (mechanism 1573, fig. 15; construed as a latch) configured to lock the grilling module (para 0058); a compartment (drawers 220 and 221, fig. 2) configured to store one or more components (“components,” para 0033); at least one rail (“rail system,” para 0057), coupled with the shuttle (para 0057), to: stow the shuttle in a first position within a gear tunnel (within storage compartment 1592, fig. 15) of a vehicle (vehicle 100, fig. 1); and deploy the shuttle to a second position (position shown in fig. 15) external to the gear tunnel of the vehicle (para 0057); and at least one leg (leg 1570, fig. 15), coupled with the shuttle (shuttle system 1510, fig. 15), to support the shuttle in the second position.
Parker does not explicitly disclose a lid configured to cover the cooking surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Reischmann teaches a lid (lid 50, fig. 4) configured to cover the cooking surface (grate 18, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Reischmann, by using a lid that covers a DC-powered grill, as taught by Reischmann, instead of a rangetop, as taught by Parker, in order to use a lid that covers the grill grate, which allows for opening and closing of the grill as well as retaining heat inside the grill during grilling (Reischmann, para 0043).
Regarding claim 5, Parker teaches comprising: a data processing system (“on-board computer,” para 0054), the data processing system comprising at least one processor, coupled with memory (a computer is construed as comprising a processor and memory), to: receive, via a graphical user interface (“smartphone,” para 0054; “touchscreen,” para 0063), a first indication to stow the grilling module in a first position; stow, responsive to the first indication, the grilling module in the first position (“to cause an actuator to retract … the rail system or shuttle system,” para 0063); receive, via the graphical user interface, a second indication to deploy the grilling module to a second position; and deploy, responsive to the second indication, the grilling module to the second position (“to actuate the rail system and extend kitchen module 1400 from the storage compartment,” para 0054; para 0063).
Regarding claim 6, Parker teaches comprising: a data processing system (“on-board computer,” para 0054), the data processing system comprising at least one processor, coupled with memory (a computer is construed as comprising a processor and memory).
Parker does not explicitly disclose a data processing system to: receive, via a graphical user interface, an indication to adjust a temperature of the cooking surface; and adjust, responsive to the indication, the temperature of the cooking surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Reischmann teaches a data processing system (circuit board 26, fig. 3) to: receive, via a graphical user interface (control pad 40, fig. 3), an indication to adjust a temperature of the cooking surface (“user can set a temperature,” para 0041); and adjust, responsive to the indication, the temperature of the cooking surface (“the controller will maintain the cooking surface at that temperature based on the readings from the RTD,” para 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Reischmann, by using a temperature sensor to maintain a temperature provided by a user through a control pad, as taught by Reischmann, in the kitchen module, as taught by Parker, in order to use a feedback loop to control the heating, for the advantage of maintaining the temperature of the grill within a range of +/−10° F relative to the desired temperature (Reischmann, paras 0034 and 0044).
Regarding claim 7, Parker teaches wherein the power source is a battery of an electric vehicle (para 0053).
Regarding claim 8, Parker teaches wherein the grilling module (kitchen module 1500, fig. 15) is stowed in a first position within a gear tunnel (within storage compartment 1592, fig. 15; para 0057) of a vehicle (vehicle 100, fig. 1) and the grilling module is deployed to a second position (position shown in fig. 15) external to the gear tunnel of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Parker in view of Reischmann as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Reischmann teaches wherein the cooking surface (grate 18, fig. 4) includes at least one of an electric cooking surface (“voltages,” para 0043; construed as electric), a coil cooking surface (“DC heating coil,” para 0048), and a cast iron cooking surface (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 11, Parker teaches comprising: the power source (“battery module,” para 0053) coupled with the grilling module (kitchen module 1500, fig. 15) in a first position (within storage compartment 1592, fig. 15; “coupled to at least one of an actuator of the rail system,” para 0006) and a second position (position shown in fig. 15; “rangetop,” para 0006).
Regarding claim 13, Parker teaches a method, comprising: providing an apparatus (fig. 1), the apparatus comprising: a grilling module (kitchen module 1500, fig. 15) having a cooking surface (rangetop 1565, fig. 15) electrically coupled with a power source (“battery module,” para 0053); the grilling module coupled with a shuttle (shuttle system 1510, fig. 15); stowing, by the shuttle, the grilling module; and deploying, by the shuttle, the grilling module (“for storage in storage compartment 1592 or after shuttle system 1510 is extended out,” para 0057).
Parker does not explicitly disclose a grilling module (although Parker discloses “one or more ohmic heating elements,” Parker does not explicitly disclose using these ohmic heating elements for grilling).
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Reischmann teaches a grilling module (“resistance heat element,” para 0035; grill in fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Reischmann, by using a DC-powered grill, as taught by Reischmann, instead of a rangetop, as taught by Parker, in order to use a grill that can be powered by high-voltage DC batteries, because although electric cooking appliances in homes typically use AC power, in certain environments such as battery-powered electric vehicles, AC power is not available and DC power must be used instead (Reischmann, paras 0002-0007 and 0010) and because this amounts to a simple substitution of one cooking device known in the art for another with predictable results (using a grill to apply direct heat to food instead of a rangetop to apply indirect heat to food through a pan or pot will not change the operation of the cooking device but will continue to allow the food to be heated).
Regarding claim 14, Parker teaches comprising: heating, by a heating element (“one or more ohmic heating elements,” para 0055), the cooking surface (“cooking heat provided by a rangetop,” para 0055); locking, by a locking mechanism (mechanism 1573, fig. 15; construed as a latch), the grilling module (para 0058); storing, by a compartment (drawers 220 and 221, fig. 2), one or more components (“components,” para 0033); stowing (para 0057), by at least one rail (“rail system,” para 0057), the shuttle in a first position within a gear tunnel (within storage compartment 1592, fig. 15) of a vehicle (vehicle 100, fig. 1); deploying (para 0057), by the rail, the shuttle to a second position external to the gear tunnel of the vehicle (position shown in fig. 15); and supporting, by at least one leg (leg 1570, fig. 15), the shuttle (shuttle system 1510, fig. 15) in the second position.
Parker does not explicitly disclose covering, by a lid, the cooking surface (grate 18, fig. 4).
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Reischmann covering, by a lid (lid 50, fig. 4), the cooking surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Reischmann, by using a lid that covers a DC-powered grill, as taught by Reischmann, instead of a rangetop, as taught by Parker, in order to use a lid that covers the grill grate, which allows for opening and closing of the grill as well as retaining heat inside the grill during grilling (Reischmann, para 0043).
Regarding claim 16, Parker teaches wherein the power source is a battery of an electric vehicle (para 0053).
Regarding claim 17, Parker teaches wherein the grilling module (kitchen module 1500, fig. 15) is stowed in a first position within a gear tunnel (within storage compartment 1592, fig. 15; para 0057) of a vehicle (vehicle 100, fig. 1) and the grilling module is deployed to a second position (position shown in fig. 15) external to the gear tunnel of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, Parker teaches an electric vehicle (fig. 1), comprising: a gear tunnel (storage compartment 150, fig. 1); an apparatus (kitchen module 1500, fig. 15) comprising: a grilling module (submodule 1502, fig. 15) having a cooking surface (rangetop 1565, fig. 15) electrically coupled with a battery (“battery module,” para 0053); and the grilling module coupled with a shuttle (shuttle system 1510, fig. 15) configured to stow the grilling module and deploy the grilling module (“for storage in storage compartment 1592 or after shuttle system 1510 is extended out,” para 0057).
Parker does not explicitly disclose a grilling module (although Parker discloses “one or more ohmic heating elements,” Parker does not explicitly disclose using these ohmic heating elements for grilling).
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Reischmann teaches a grilling module (“resistance heat element,” para 0035; grill in fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Reischmann, by using a DC-powered grill, as taught by Reischmann, instead of a rangetop, as taught by Parker, in order to use a grill that can be powered by high-voltage DC batteries, because although electric cooking appliances in homes typically use AC power, in certain environments such as battery-powered electric vehicles, AC power is not available and DC power must be used instead (Reischmann, paras 0002-0007 and 0010) and because this amounts to a simple substitution of one cooking device known in the art for another with predictable results (using a grill to apply direct heat to food instead of a rangetop to apply indirect heat to food through a pan or pot will not change the operation of the cooking device but will continue to allow the food to be heated).
Regarding claim 20, Parker teaches the apparatus (kitchen module 1500, fig. 15) comprising: a heating element (“one or more ohmic heating elements,” para 0055) configured to heat the cooking surface (“rangetop,” para 0055); a locking mechanism (mechanism 1573, fig. 15; construed as a latch) configured to lock the grilling module (para 0058); a compartment (drawers 220 and 221, fig. 2) configured to store one or more components (“components,” para 0033); at least one rail (“rail system,” para 0057), coupled with the shuttle (para 0057), to: stow the shuttle in a first position within the gear tunnel (within storage compartment 1592, fig. 15); and deploy the shuttle to a second position external to the gear tunnel (position shown in fig. 15; para 0057); and at least one leg (leg 1570, fig. 15), coupled with the shuttle (shuttle system 1510, fig. 15), to support the shuttle in the second position.
Parker does not explicitly disclose a lid configured to cover the cooking surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Reischmann teaches a lid (lid 50, fig. 4) configured to cover the cooking surface (grate 18, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Reischmann, by using a lid that covers a DC-powered grill, as taught by Reischmann, instead of a rangetop, as taught by Parker, in order to use a lid that covers the grill grate, which allows for opening and closing of the grill as well as retaining heat inside the grill during grilling (Reischmann, para 0043).
Claims 3, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (US-20200361360-A1) in view of Reischmann et al. (US-20220408969-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above and further in view of Raso (US-20240042941-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Parker teaches a data processing system (“on-board computer,” para 0054), the data processing system comprising at least one processor, coupled with memory (a computer is construed as comprising a processor and memory). Parker does not explicitly disclose the data processing system to: detect a position of the cooking surface; compare the position of the cooking surface to a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range indicates one or more cooking positions; determine that the position of the cooking surface is within the predetermined range; and present, by a graphical user interface, an indication that the cooking surface is within the predetermined range.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Raso teaches the data processing system (PCB board 58 and accelerometer 52, fig. 6B) to: detect a position of the cooking surface (“senses an inclination (or orientation or tilt angle) in a surface of the housing,” para 0210; construed as an angular position); compare (fig. 6B) the position of the cooking surface to a predetermined range (“Desired angle,” fig. 6B; “level or horizontal orientation,” para 0209; construed as range with a value where the angle is zero or flat), wherein the predetermined range indicates one or more cooking positions (“pre-sets,” fig. 6A); determine that the position of the cooking surface is within the predetermined range (“automatically adjust” until the housing is level, para 0213); present, by a graphical user interface (“control pad,” para 0215), an indication that the cooking surface is within the predetermined range (“the user may enter an instruction to auto level the camping unit,” para 0215).
Raso, figs. 6A-B
PNG
media_image4.png
774
551
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
794
589
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Raso, by using a control pad that allows a user to enter an auto-level setting, which is based on a feedback circuit for an accelerometer, as taught by Raso, so as to auto-level the kitchen module by adjusting the height of the leg 1570, as taught by Parker, in order to auto-level the working counter surface of the kitchen module, for the advantage of obtaining convenient horizontal surfaces irrespective of the orientation or slope of the vehicle or the terrain on which the leg of the kitchen module is placed (Raso, para 0234).
Regarding claim 12, Parker teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose comprising: a lift device, coupled with the grilling module, to: lift the grilling module from a first height to a second height.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Raso teaches comprising: a lift device (linear actuator 24, fig. 6; construed as a motor), coupled with the grilling module (camping unit 10, fig. 1; couples to the legs 20), to: lift the grilling module from a first height to a second height (“lengthening or shortening of the leg 20,” para 0207).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Raso, by using a retractable support leg, as taught by Raso, so as to auto-level the kitchen module by adjusting the height of the telescoping leg 1570, as taught by Parker, in order to auto-level the working counter surface of the kitchen module, for the advantage of obtaining convenient horizontal surfaces irrespective of the orientation or slope of the vehicle or the terrain on which the leg of the kitchen module is placed (Raso, para 0234).
Regarding claim 15, Parker teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose comprising: detecting, by a processing circuit, a position of the cooking surface; comparing, by the processing circuit, the position of the cooking surface to a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range indicates one or more cooking positions; determining, by the processing circuit, that the position of the cooking surface is within the predetermined range; and presenting, by a graphical user interface, an indication that the cooking surface is within the predetermined range.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Raso teaches comprising: detecting, by a processing circuit (PCB board 58 and accelerometer 52, fig. 6B), a position of the cooking surface (“senses an inclination (or orientation or tilt angle) in a surface of the housing,” para 0210; construed as an angular position); comparing, by the processing circuit, (fig. 6B) the position of the cooking surface to a predetermined range (“Desired angle,” fig. 6B; “level or horizontal orientation,” para 0209; construed as range with a value where the angle is zero or flat), wherein the predetermined range indicates one or more cooking positions (“pre-sets,” fig. 6A); determining, by the processing circuit, that the position of the cooking surface is within the predetermined range (“automatically adjust” until the housing is level, para 0213); and presenting, by a graphical user interface (“control pad,” para 0215), an indication that the cooking surface is within the predetermined range (“the user may enter an instruction to auto level the camping unit,” para 0215).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Raso, by using a control pad that allows a user to enter an auto-level setting, which is based on a feedback circuit for an accelerometer, as taught by Raso, so as to auto-level the kitchen module by adjusting the height of the leg 1570, as taught by Parker, in order to auto-level the working counter surface of the kitchen module, for the advantage of obtaining convenient horizontal surfaces irrespective of the orientation or slope of the vehicle or the terrain on which the leg of the kitchen module is placed (Raso, para 0234).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (US-20200361360-A1) in view of Reischmann et al. (US-20220408969-A1) and Raso (US-20240042941-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above and further in view of Wallace (US-20170036872-A1).
Parker teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose comprising: the data processing system to: prevent, responsive to the cooking surface being outside of the predetermined ranged, current from being provided to the cooking surface; and present, via the graphical user interface, a notice that the cooking surface is outside of the predetermined range.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating deployable vehicle accessories, Wallace teaches comprising: the data processing system (controller 50, fig. 2) to: prevent, responsive to the cooking surface being outside of the predetermined ranged, current from being provided to the cooking surface (“inhibit operation,” para 0039; construed as stopping the power or current); and present, via the graphical user interface (user interface 70, fig. 2), a notice that the cooking surface is outside of the predetermined range (“a warning indicative of a vehicle slope or a vehicle inclination greater than a threshold vehicle slope or vehicle inclination,” para 0039).
Wallace, fig. 2
PNG
media_image6.png
1001
743
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker/Raso, in view of the teachings of Wallace, by inhibiting operation and notifying a user when the vehicle slope is greater than a threshold, as taught by Wallace, for the actual angle that is detected by the accelerometer, as taught by Raso, that is used to measure the inclination of the kitchen module, as taught by Parker, in order to notify the user that the vehicle or terrain slope is too steep, so that the user can find a more level surface (Wallace, para 0039).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (US-20200361360-A1) in view of Reischmann et al. (US-20220408969-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above and further in view of Jones (US-5263467-A).
Regarding claim 10, Parker teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose comprising: a rotation device, coupled with the grilling module, to rotate the grilling module from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position and the second position are different by at least 90 degrees.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Jones teaches comprising: a rotation device (post 19, fig. 4), coupled with the grilling module (grill 10, fig. 4), to rotate the grilling module from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position and the second position are different by at least 90 degrees (“allowed to rotate nearly 180 degrees in either direction,” column 3, lines 64-65; construed as 360 degrees).
Jones, fig. 4
PNG
media_image7.png
426
682
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Jones, by using arms and a post 19, as taught by Jones, that permits rotation of the kitchen module, as taught by Parker, in order to be able to rotate the grill in 180 degrees in either direction, so that the grill can be readily positioned to accommodate outdoor conditions such as wind direction (Jones, column 3, lines 60-70).
Regarding claim 18, Parker teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose comprising: rotating, by a rotation device, the grilling module from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position and the second position are different by at least 90 degrees.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Jones teaches comprising: rotating, by a rotation device (post 19, fig. 4), the grilling module from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position and the second position are different by at least 90 degrees (“allowed to rotate nearly 180 degrees in either direction,” column 3, lines 64-65; construed as 360 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Parker, in view of the teachings of Jones, by using arms and a post 19, as taught by Jones, that permits rotation of the kitchen module, as taught by Parker, in order to be able to rotate the grill in 180 degrees in either direction, so that the grill can be readily positioned to accommodate outdoor conditions such as wind direction (Jones, column 3, lines 60-70).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rohloff et al. (US-6196114-B1) teach a tilt sensor for a grill.
Merryman et al. (US-10800341-B2) teach a leveling device for a grill.
Jewkes et al. (US-20230015825-A1) teach different types of sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/16/2026