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 / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 12/18/25 response to the Office Action dated 9/30/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 14-16, and 18-20 are amended.
Claims 7 and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-22 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome the previously set forth drawing objection and 112(b) rejections so the objection and rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
On pg. 8 of the Remarks, Applicant disagrees with the interpretation of “support assembly” under 112(f). Applicant remarks the term “support element” would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the specification, to connote sufficient structure. Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner notes the recitation of “support element” in the claims uses a generic placeholder (i.e., “element”) that is coupled with functional language (i.e., “support”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier, which means the limitation meets the three-prong test. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Therefore, because this claim limitation meets the three-prong test, this limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For the reasons above, the claim interpretation of these terms under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to 1) claims 1 and 11 and 2) none of the prior art of record disclosing the projections are L-shaped 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 14, lines 1-2 should read, "first tine and the third tine [or] are substantially parallel” (emphasis added) to fix a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation of “located…near” in claims 6 and 9 does not invoke a rejection under 35 USC 112(b) because although ‘near’ is a relative term which may sometimes cause a claim to be rendered indefinite, ‘near’ as used in claim 6 is defined in Par. 0018 of the Applicant’s as-filed specification, and therefore “near” as used in claim 6 will be interpreted in light of the Applicant’s specification, per guidance set forth in MPEP 2173.05(b), Section I. Terms of Degree.
Para. 0018 specifically says – “near being no more than 20% or no more than 10% of the distance of the length of the plate 25.” (see the objection to the Specification above, it’s presumed “plate 25” was meant to say “plate 1”).
As best understood, the examiner construes this to mean that a projection 25 is positioned, no more than 20% or no more than 10% of the length of the plate 1, from the plate’s end.
Therefore, with regards to claim 6 reciting “located at or near an end of the grill plate,” “near” is construed per the interpretation noted above, and “at” will be interpreted to be on the very-most end, per se.
With regards to near as used in claims 9 and 19, para. 0018 doesn’t set forth a specific interpretation as opposed to claim 6, but does state in the last two lines of paragraph 0018: “at least one projection 25 offset towards the center of plate 1.” Although there isn’t a specific interpretation, it is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, i.e. reasonably understand what it means for two things being near relative to each other; in this case at least one or more projections being “near” a center portion.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12, 14-16, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruin-Slot et al (US 20200088416 A1, hereafter Bruin-Slot) in view of Yates et al (US 20100043650 A1, hereafter Yates).
Regarding claim 1, Bruin-Slot discloses a grill plate (Figs. 13B and 15, powered accessory 28 which includes base pan 48. Par. 45, “The base pan 48 for the powered accessory 28 can be used in conjunction with various accessory inserts. These accessory inserts can include, but are not limited to, a grilling insert”) configured for engagement with a support element (Figs. 5, 13B, and 15 first rack 24, which comprises wire 114. Examiner notes the corresponding structure for ‘support element’ is a wire rack and its equivalents as described in the Claim Interpretation section above) in an oven (Par. 0039, “Referring to FIG. 1, according to the various embodiments, the cooking appliance 10 may be configured as an oven”), the grill plate comprising:
a top cooking surface (Figs. 13B and 15, top surface of bottom wall of powered accessory 28); and
a bottom surface (Figs. 13B and 15, bottom surface of bottom wall of powered accessory 28), the bottom surface including a plurality of projections (Figs. 13B and 15, first base structure 112 and second base structure 116) configured to abut the support element (Figs. 13B and 15. Par. 0057, “As illustrated in FIGS. 13A-14D, the base pan 48 may include a first base structure 112 that is configured to partially encompass at least one wire 114 of the rack 24.” and Par. 0056, “Accordingly, the base pan 48 may be disposed in a substantially consistent lateral position when the first and second base structures 112, 116 are disposed between the adjacently disposed upper surface wires 62”), the plurality of projections comprising a first projection (Fig. 13B, bottom left instance of second base structure 116) and a second projection (Fig. 13B, top right instance of first base structure 112).
However, Bruin-Slot does not disclose the first projection and the second projection each has an L-shape defined by a first arm member and a second arm member,
wherein the first arm member of the first projection is configured to abut the support element in a forward direction and the second arm member of the first projection is configured to abut the support element in a first lateral direction, and
wherein the first arm member of the second projection is configured to abut the support element in a rearward direction opposite the forward direction and the second arm member of the second projection is configured to abut the support element in a second lateral direction opposite the first lateral direction.
Yates discloses an apparatus facilitating the cooking of multiple products (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Yates further discloses it is known for a first projection (Fig. 2, top right instance of downward extending members 20) and a second projection (Fig. 2, bottom left instance of downward extending members 20) to each have an L-shape (Par. 0039, “The downward extending member 20 may be curved, generally L-shaped, generally V-shaped, generally J-shaped, or any other suitable configuration”) defined by a first arm member (Fig. 1, short arm 22) and a second arm member (Fig. 1, long arm 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the projections of Bruin-Slot to have an L-shape as taught by Yates in order to deter the cooking tray from moving or sliding when received by a cooking rack (As suggested by Par. 0007 of Yates: “a cooking tray with at least one downward extending member to deter the cooking tray from moving or sliding when received by a cooking rack” and Par. 0039, “The downward extending member 20 may be curved, generally L-shaped, generally V-shaped, generally J-shaped, or any other suitable configuration.”).
With this modification, the device of modified Bruin-Slot would teach wherein the first arm member of the first projection is configured to abut the support element in a forward direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the first arm member of the first projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the support element of Bruin-Slot such that the first arm member abuts the support element in a forward direction. See annotated Fig. A) and the second arm member of the first projection is configured to abut the support element in a first lateral direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the second arm member of the first projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the support element of Bruin-Slot such that left side of the second arm member abuts the support element in a first lateral direction. See annotated Fig. A), and
wherein the first arm member of the second projection is configured to abut the support element in a rearward direction opposite the forward direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the first arm member of the second projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the support element of Bruin-Slot such that the first arm member abuts the support element in a rearward direction opposite the forward direction. See annotated Fig. A) and the second arm member of the second projection is configured to abut the support element in a second lateral direction opposite the first lateral direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the second arm member of the second projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the support element of Bruin-Slot such that the right side of the second arm member abuts the support element in a second lateral direction opposite the first lateral direction. See annotated Fig. A).
NOTE: Although the embodiment shown in Yates’ figures is the J-shaped embodiment of the downward extending member 20, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the L-shaped embodiment of the downward extending member 20 also has a short arm 22 and a long arm 21 as shown, just with different proportions. Therefore, the figures are referenced for illustrative purposes.
PNG
media_image1.png
777
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 13B from Bruin-Slot showing location of prior art elements from Yates.
Regarding claim 2, Bruin-Slot discloses the grill plate of claim 1, wherein the grill plate includes one or more sidewalls that project upwardly and surround at least a portion of the top cooking surface (Fig. 4, front, back, left and right sidewalls of powered accessory 28 project upwardly and surround the top surface of bottom wall of powered accessory 28).
Regarding claim 4, Bruin-Slot discloses the grill plate of claim 1, wherein the support element is a wire rack (Figs. 5, 13B, and 15 first rack 24), and the plurality of projections (Figs. 13B and 15, first base structure 112 and second base structure 116) is configured to selectively mate with the wire rack (Par. 0057, “As illustrated in FIGS. 13A-14D, the base pan 48 may include a first base structure 112 that is configured to partially encompass at least one wire 114 of the rack 24.” and Par. 0056, “Accordingly, the base pan 48 may be disposed in a substantially consistent lateral position when the first and second base structures 112, 116 are disposed between the adjacently disposed upper surface wires 62” and Par. 0057, “a pair of first and second base structures 112, 116 that cooperate to maintain the base pan 48 in a level position when disposed on a planar surface, such as a countertop”).
Regarding claim 5, Bruin-Slot discloses the grill plate of claim 1, wherein the plurality of projections (Figs. 13B and 15, first base structure 112 and second base structure 116) further includes a third projection (Fig. 13B, bottom right instance of second base structure 116).
Regarding claim 6, Bruin-Slot discloses the grill plate of claim 1, wherein the first projection (Fig. 13B, bottom left instance of second base structure 116) and the second projection (Fig. 13B, top right instance of first base structure 112) are each located at or near a respective end of the grill plate (Figs. 13B and 15, the top right instance of first base structure 112 and bottom left instance of second base structure 116 are located near the top and bottom ends of powered accessory 28, respectively, and looking at Figure 13B, 112 and 116 appear to be positioned no more than 20% or no more than 20% of the length of the grill plate, from the plate’s end).
To the extent the Applicant doesn’t agree, it’s the Examiner’s position that as can be seen from Fig. 13B, first base structure and second base structure 116 are located fairly close to the front and back ends of powered accessory 28, so the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in Bruin-Slot. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have, though routine optimization, found it obvious to select an optimum or workable range for the position of at least one of the one or more projections, e.g. being positioned no more than 20% or no more than 10% of the length of the plate, from the plate’s end. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a positioning of the one or more projections that would effectively maintain the base pan 48 at a level and stable position.
Regarding claim 8, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, discloses the grill plate of claim 1, wherein the second arm member (Fig. 1, long arm 21) of the first projection (Fig. 13B, bottom left instance of second base structure 116) and the second projection (Fig. 13B, top right instance of first base structure 112) is between 10 and 30 mm long (Yates: Par. 0039, “The long arm 21 has a length 25 of about 0.948 inches.” Note that 0.948 inches converts to approximately 24.1 mm, which is within the claimed range).
However, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, does not disclose the first arm member of the first projection and the second projection is between 10 and 30 mm long.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first arm member between 10 and 30 mm long since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (see Bruin-Slot), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II-A) only routine skill in the art with the motivation of effectively engaging the projection with the wire rack. In addition, it is observed that the length of each leg is a results effective variable because maximizing the length of each leg within the constraints of the width between the tines would maximize engagement between the projection and the wire rack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each leg between 10 and 30 mm long, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a results effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 11, Bruin-Slot discloses a grill plate (Figs. 13B and 15, powered accessory 28 which includes base pan 48. Par. 45, “The base pan 48 for the powered accessory 28 can be used in conjunction with various accessory inserts. These accessory inserts can include, but are not limited to, a grilling insert”) configured for selective engagement with a wire rack (Figs. 5, 13B, and 15 first rack 24, which comprises wire 114. Par. 0057, “the base pan 48 may include a first base structure 112 that is configured to partially encompass at least one wire 114 of the rack 24. A second base structure 116 may have a flat top surface. The first and second base structures 112, 116 may each include a pair of first and second base structures 112, 116 that cooperate to maintain the base pan 48 in a level position when disposed on a planar surface, such as a countertop.” Examiner notes base pan 48 engages with the rack 24 or a countertop, therefore it must necessarily be configured for selective engagement with the rack 24) in an oven (Par. 0039, “Referring to FIG. 1, according to the various embodiments, the cooking appliance 10 may be configured as an oven”), the grill plate comprising:
a first surface on which food may be cooked when the grill plate is in the oven (Figs. 4, 13B and 15, top surface of bottom wall of powered accessory 28. Par. 0045, “The base pan 48 for the powered accessory 28 can be used in conjunction with various accessory inserts. These accessory inserts can include, but are not limited to, a grilling insert”); and
a second surface configured to sit on the wire rack when the grill plate is in the oven Figs. 4, 13B and 15, bottom surface of bottom wall of powered accessory 28), the second surface including a plurality of projections that engages the wire rack when the grill plate is placed on the wire rack (Figs. 13B and 15, first base structure 112 and second base structure 116), the plurality of projections including a first projection (Fig. 13B, bottom left instance of second base structure 116) and a second projection (Fig. 13B, top right instance of first base structure 112).
However, Bruin-Slot does not disclose the first projection is L-shaped and configured to abut a first tine of the wire rack in a forward direction and a second tine of the wire rack in a first lateral direction, and
wherein the second projection is L-shaped and configured to abut a third tine of the wire rack in a rearward direction opposite the forward direction and a fourth tine of the wire rack in a second lateral direction opposite the first lateral direction.
Yates discloses an apparatus facilitating the cooking of multiple products (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Yates further discloses it is known for a first projection (Fig. 2, top right instance of downward extending members 20) and a second projection (Fig. 2, bottom left instance of downward extending members 20) to each have an L-shape (Par. 0039, “The downward extending member 20 may be curved, generally L-shaped, generally V-shaped, generally J-shaped, or any other suitable configuration”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the projections of Bruin-Slot to have an L-shape as taught by Yates in order to deter the cooking tray from moving or sliding when received by a cooking rack (As suggested by Par. 0007 of Yates: “a cooking tray with at least one downward extending member to deter the cooking tray from moving or sliding when received by a cooking rack” and Par. 0039, “The downward extending member 20 may be curved, generally L-shaped, generally V-shaped, generally J-shaped, or any other suitable configuration.”).
With this modification, the device of modified Bruin-Slot would teach wherein the first projection is configured to abut a first tine of the wire rack in a forward direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the first projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the wire rack of Bruin-Slot such that the first projection abuts a first tine of the wire rack in a forward direction. See annotated Fig. B) and a second tine of the wire rack in a first lateral direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the first projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the wire rack of Bruin-Slot such that the first projection abuts a second tine of the wire rack in a first lateral direction. See annotated Fig. B), and
the second projection is configured to abut a third tine of the wire rack in a rearward direction opposite the forward direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the second projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the wire rack of Bruin-Slot such that the second projection abuts a third tine of the wire rack in a rearward direction opposite the forward direction. See annotated Fig. B) and a fourth tine of the wire rack in a second lateral direction opposite the first lateral direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the second projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the wire rack of Bruin-Slot such that the second projection abuts a fourth tine of the wire rack in a second lateral direction opposite the first lateral direction. See annotated Fig. B).
NOTE: Although the embodiment shown in Yates’ figures is the J-shaped embodiment of the downward extending member 20, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the L-shaped embodiment of the downward extending member 20 also has a short arm 22 and a long arm 21 as shown, just with different proportions. Therefore, the figures are referenced for illustrative purposes.
PNG
media_image1.png
777
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First tine)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second tine)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Third tine)][AltContent: textbox (Fourth tine)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 13B from Bruin-Slot showing location of prior art elements from Yates.
Regarding claim 12, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, discloses the grill plate of claim 11, wherein the first tine and the third tine or substantially parallel to one another (annotated Fig. B), and wherein the second tine and the fourth tine are substantially parallel to one another and substantially perpendicular to the first tine and the third tine (annotated Fig. B).
Regarding claim 15, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 5 above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 16, Bruin-Slot discloses the grill plate of claim 1, wherein the first projection (Fig. 13B, bottom left instance of second base structure 116) is located at or near a first end of the grill plate (Figs. 13B and 15, bottom end of powered accessory 28, which looking at Figure 13B, 112 and 116, appears to be positioned no more than 20% or no more than 20% of the length of the grill plate, from the plate’s end) and the second projection (Fig. 13B, top right instance of first base structure 112) is located at or near a second end of the grill plate (Figs. 13B and 15, top end of powered accessory 28, which looking at Figure 13B, 112 and 116, appears to be positioned no more than 20% or no more than 20% of the length of the grill plate, from the plate’s end).
To the extent the Applicant doesn’t agree, it’s the Examiner’s position that as can be seen from Fig. 13B, first base structure and second base structure 116 are located fairly close to the front and back ends of powered accessory 28, so the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in Bruin-Slot. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have, though routine optimization, found it obvious to select an optimum or workable range for the position of at least one of the one or more projections, e.g. being positioned no more than 20% or no more than 10% of the length of the plate, from the plate’s end. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a positioning of the one or more projections that would effectively maintain the base pan 48 at a level and stable position.
Regarding claim 18, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, discloses the grill plate of claim 1, wherein the first projection (Fig. 13B, bottom left instance of second base structure 116) and the second projection (Fig. 13B, top right instance of first base structure 112) each has a first arm member (Yate: Fig. 1, short arm 22) and a second arm member (Yates: Fig. 1, long arm 21) and the second arm member is between 10 and 30 mm long (Yates: Par. 0039, “The long arm 21 has a length 25 of about 0.948 inches.” Note that 0.948 inches converts to approximately 24.1 mm, which is within the claimed range).
However, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, does not disclose the first arm member of the first projection and the second projection is between 10 and 30 mm long.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first arm member between 10 and 30 mm long since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (see Bruin-Slot), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II-A) only routine skill in the art with the motivation of effectively engaging the projection with the wire rack. In addition, it is observed that the length of each leg is a results effective variable because maximizing the length of each leg within the constraints of the width between the tines would maximize engagement between the projection and the wire rack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each leg between 10 and 30 mm long, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a results effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 21, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, discloses the grill plate of claim 1, wherein the plurality of projections (Figs. 13B and 15, first base structure 112 and second base structure 116) further includes a third projection (Fig. 13B, bottom right instance of second base structure 116) and a fourth projection (Fig. 13B, top left instance of first base structure 112),
wherein the third projection and the fourth projection each has an L-shape defined by a first arm member (Yates: Fig. 1, short arm 22) and a second arm member (Yeats: Fig. 1, long arm 21),
wherein the first arm member of the third projection is configured to abut the support element in the rearward direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the first arm member of the third projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the support element of Bruin-Slot such that the first arm member abuts the support element in a rearward direction. See annotated Fig. C) and the second arm member of the third projection is configured to abut the support element in the first lateral direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the second arm member of the third projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the support element of Bruin-Slot such that left side of the second arm member abuts the support element in a first lateral direction. See annotated Fig. C), and
wherein the first arm member of the fourth projection is configured to abut the support element in the forward direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the first arm member of the fourth projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the support element of Bruin-Slot such that the first arm member abuts the support element in a forward direction. See annotated Fig. C) and the second arm member of the fourth projection is configured to abut the support element in the second lateral direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the second arm member of the fourth projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the support element of Bruin-Slot such that the right side of the second arm member abuts the support element in a second lateral direction. See annotated Fig. C).
PNG
media_image3.png
777
1011
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 13B from Bruin-Slot showing location of prior art elements from Yates.
Regarding claim 22, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, discloses the grill plate of claim 11, wherein the plurality of projections further includes a third projection (Fig. 13B, bottom right instance of second base structure 116) and a fourth projection (Fig. 13B, top left instance of first base structure 112),
wherein the third projection is L-shaped and configured to abut the third tine of the wire rack in the rearward direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the third projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the wire rack of Bruin-Slot such that the third projection abuts a third tine of the wire rack in a rearward direction. See annotated Fig. D) and the second tine of the wire rack in the first lateral direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the third projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the wire rack of Bruin-Slot such that the third projection abuts a second tine of the wire rack in a first lateral direction. See annotated Fig. D), and
wherein the fourth projection is L-shaped and configured to abut the first tine of the wire rack in the forward direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the fourth projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the wire rack of Bruin-Slot such that the fourth projection abuts a first tine of the wire rack in a forward direction. See annotated Fig. B) and the fourth tine of the wire rack in the second lateral direction (Examiner notes “configured to” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the fourth projection of Yates is capable of being oriented within the wire rack of Bruin-Slot such that the fourth projection abuts a fourth tine of the wire rack in a second lateral direction opposite the first lateral direction. See annotated Fig. B).
PNG
media_image4.png
777
1011
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First tine)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second tine)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Third tine)][AltContent: textbox (Fourth tine)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Fig. 13B from Bruin-Slot showing location of prior art elements from Yates.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruin-Slot et al (US 20200088416 A1, hereafter Bruin-Slot) in view of Yates et al (US 20100043650 A1, hereafter Yates) and further in view of Cloutier et al (US 20160106261 A1, hereafter Cloutier).
Regarding claim 3, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, discloses the grill plate of claim 1. Although Bruin-Slot discloses a grilling insert for the base pan, which implies the presence of ridges, Bruin-Slot does not explicitly disclose the top cooking surface includes raised ridges on which food can cook to create grill-like marks on the food.
Cloutier discloses a grilling frame (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Cloutier further discloses it is known for a top cooking surface (Fig. 39, top surface of bottom wall of grilling panel 294) to have raised ridges (Fig. 39, vertically projecting ridges 297) on which food can cook to create grill-like marks on the food (Examiner notes “to create grill-like marks on the food” is a recitation of functional language, therefore the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the functional limitation, then it meets the claim. The vertically projecting ridges 297 provide a surface that will create lines in the food, similar to the lines cause by a grate during grilling, therefore the vertically projecting ridges 297 read on the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top cooking surface of Bruin-Slot, as modified above, to have the ridges disclosed by Cloutier in order to have a top cooking surface with ridges and thereby decrease unhealthy eating by draining grease from the food during grilling and/or appeal to user preferences by browning smaller areas.
Regarding claim 13, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 3 above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 3 above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruin-Slot et al (US 20200088416 A1, hereafter Bruin-Slot) in view of Yates et al (US 20100043650 A1, hereafter Yates) and further in view of Paik et al (US 4940868 A, hereafter Paik).
Regarding claim 9, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, discloses the grill plate of claim 1, wherein the plurality of projections further includes a third projection (Fig. 13B, bottom right instance of first base structure 112).
However, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, does not disclose the plurality of projections further includes a third projection located at or near a center portion of the grill plate.
Paik discloses a insulation means used on a grid of an oven (Figs. 2-3, grid 1 and insulation means 2 and Col. 1, lines 5-12, “The present invention relates…to an assistant insulation plate which is used on a grid of microwave oven”) similar to the present invention and Paik further discloses it is known for a third projection (Fig. 2, L shaped supporters 2a) to be located at or near a center portion of a grill plate (Fig. 3, L shaped supporters 2a are located at or near a center portion of grid 1. To elaborate, the middle three wires could be considered as the center portion of grid 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have suitably modified the grill plate of Bruin-Slot, as modified above, to include the L shaped supporters 2a as disclosed by Paik in order provide a redundant way to attach the grill plate to the support element and thereby increase reliability by providing a failsafe if one of the other projections fails and provide a way to prevent the grill plate from lifting upwards (As suggested by Paik: “L shaped supporters 2a are positioned below the steel wire 1a as in FIGS. 3 and 4B. It prevents the insulation means 2 from lifting upwards.”). Note the central locations of the projections of Paik prevent interference with the existing projections of modified Bruin-Slot.
Regarding claim 19, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 9 above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 9 above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruin-Slot et al (US 20200088416 A1, hereafter Bruin-Slot) in view of Yates et al (US 20100043650 A1, hereafter Yates and Paik et al (US 4940868 A, hereafter Paik) and further in view of Halek (US 20140126231 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, discloses the grill plate of claim 9.
However, Bruin-Slot, as modified above, does not disclose the third protrusion is T-shaped.
Halek discloses a solution to the problem of how to attach a light to a spoke (Abstract) similar to the problem of how to attach a tray to a tine in the present invention. Halek further discloses at least one of one or more projections is T-shaped (Fig. 1, clip 10 and Abstract, “The clips are generally L- or T-shaped” A projection is a par that juts out, therefore clip 10 is a ‘projection’ because it juts out from spoke 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third protrusion of Bruin-Slot, as modified above, with the clips 10 of Halek in order to engage the protrusion with a tine of the wire rack (As suggested by the engagement between the clip and spoke of Halek: “The clips are three-part clips, each clip having a spoke-clamping base with a screw-receiving bore and a slot that snaps loosely over a spoke”) and thereby make the engagement between the protrusion and the wire rack more secure (As suggested by the engagement between the clip and spoke of Halek: “The resulting illuminated display on the bike wheel is more secure”).
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 10 above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 10 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhou et al. (CN211920678U) discloses four L-shaped projections.
Zhang et al. (CN212447325U) discloses four L-shaped projections.
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 Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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 on (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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762