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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because for using phrases 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).
Drawings
Drawings are objected to because:
Figures 6A-6D are:
photographs which are not permitted (37CFR1.82(b)) since they can be drawn via line drawings.
includes characters not in black ink. Characters must be black ink (37CFR1.82(l))
includes information that is not of sufficient clarity to be printable in greyscale as the shading reduces legibility (37CFR1.82(m))
Figures except for Figure 1 utilize both underlines and reference lines for reference characters. For example, 600-608 in Figure 6 should not be underlined and only have reference lines because they are not sitting on the body they are representing. See MPEP § 608.02, subsection IX;
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a heat source capable of moving a gas or a combination of materials as required by claim 4 and a camera as required by claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-4 and 8, 9, 14, and 15-19 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.
Regarding claim 2, a conduit by itself cannot provide materials, it just allows for materials to be provided from the container to the burn pot. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will treat "provides" as "allows for materials to move from the container to the burn pot."
Regarding claim 3 it is rejected because it is dependent on claim 2 and therefore claims the indefinite language of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4 is unclear how the heating material of the grill can either be wood pellets, charcoal, propane or natural gas or can also be a combination of wood pellets, charcoal, propane or natural gas. Specifically, the type of material fundamentally changes the structure required of the heat source and it is unclear how the structure identified in the specification, which is for exclusively solid material, could meet the different embodiments allowed for in claim 4. i.e. the gases and the combination of gases and solids.
Regarding claim 8 and claim 9 each use of the phrase "is to be coupled". Apparatus claims pertain to a final product and as such it is unclear whether "a sensor" in either claim is part of the grill or if the grill just needs to be capable of having a sensor attached to it. For the purposes of examination we will treat it as "is coupled".
Regarding claims 15-19, the claims appear to be method steps within an apparatus claim. Further, the claims are directed to the application on the mobile device which is not part of the grill. See additional discussion of the 112(d) rejection.
Further regarding claim 18, "may be" is optional language and therefore it is unclear if the limitation is or is not required. As such the scope of the claim is unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 14, the device is directed to a grill and not a system comprising the grill and a mobile device. Claim 13 already sets forth the structure necessary to interact with a mobile device. Claim 14 is exclusively directed to the graphical user interface of the mobile device which does not further limit the grill’s ability to receive wireless control signals. Therefore claim 14 further fails to limit the grill of claim 13.
Claims 15-19 are similarly rejected as claim 14 since the application is part of the mobile device which is not part of the grill and does not further limit the structure of the grill.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer(US Patent No. 20220079383) in view of Sells (US 7867534).
Regarding claim 1 Mercer teaches, a grill comprising a heat source (68) to provide heat to a cooking surface (10); the cooking surface (48) to receive the heat generated by the heat source (68) and to place food to be cooked; a liquid pan (54) coupled to the heat source, wherein the pan is below the cooking surface and above the heat source (68) and receives liquid to be heated by the heat source and source to produce steam to cook the food; a waste collector (108) to collect wastes produced from cooking the food; an enclosure (32 and 38) to enclose the heat source, the cooking surface; and the waste collector; a control panel (104), the control panel (104) to receive commands wirelessly (Para. 16) to control how the food is to be cooked (102) and a power source to provide electricity to the control panel (inherent in the requirement of using an electronic control panel).
While Mercer teaches being able to steam food within the grill via the liquid pan, Mercer's pan cannot be considered a liquid box as required by claim 1.
Sells teaches (Figures 2 and 3) it is known in cooking devices (10) that utilize steam to help cook the food to utilize a liquid box (22) capable of being controlled (23) in order to allow a user to control the output of steam depending on a desired cooking cycle (Col. 4, lines 4-19). Similar to Mercer, Sells teaches the heat of the cooking device itself heats the liquid within the liquid box (Col. 3, lines 35-39).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mercer to incorporate the teachings of Sells to replace the liquid pan with the controllable liquid box. The device of Mercer already includes a controller to allow for cooking customization and adding the controllable liquid box of Mercer would allow a user even more control via the controller of the cooking process by ensuring the correct amount of steam is delivered to the food being cooked based on the desired cooking cycle.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mercer and Sells set forth in the rejection of claim 1 teaches control of steam via the liquid box via the control panel of Mercer and therefore the combination teaches the flow rate of steam being adjustable.
Regarding claim 13, Mercer teaches the grill having the commands received wirelessly [Paragraph 102 Line 3] to control how the food is cooked are from an application operable in a mobile device (Paragraph 97).
Regarding claims 14-19, the grill of Mercer is capable of communicating wirelessly as required by claim 13. Therefore, Mercer meets all structural and functional limitations of the grill as required by claims 14-19. Additional Mercer reaches it works with an application on user device (Para. 102) and therefore, Mercer is capable of receiving information from a graphical user’s interface.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mercer teaches a liquid box capable of storing liquid and therefore teaches it is capable of storing any combination of the liquids identified in claim 20 as none of the liquids presented require the liquid box to have any specific structure to be stored.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US Patent No. 20220079383) in view of Sells (US 7867534), and in further view of Vandyke (US 20220279962).
Regarding claim 2, Mercer teaches the grill wherein the heat source (68) comprises a burn pot to burn heating materials to provide the heat to cook the cooking surface.
The combination of Mercer and Sells does not teach a container to store the heating materials; and a conduit to provide the heating materials to the burn pot.
Vandyke teaches (Figure 3A) it is well known in the art of smokers/grills for the smoker/grill (10) to include a container (80; paragraph 94) designed to store heating materials, and connecting the container (80) to a burn pot (130) via a conduit (120 and 122).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mercer in view of Sells to incorporate the teachings of Vandyke to add a container and conduit that attached to the burn pot of Mercer. Doing this would allow a user to cook/smoke food within the device without having to open the door(s) of the device to refill the burn pot with fuel, thereby allowing the temperature within the grill to be consistently maintained which produces better food products.
Regarding claim 4, Mercer teaches the grill that can be utilized with various heating materials including wood pellets (paragraph 42) and charcoal (paragraph 50).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer(US Patent No. 20220079383) in view of Sells (US 7867534) and Vandyke (US 20220279962 and in further view of Baker (US 20220170638).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mercer, Sells, and Vandyke teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above but does not teach a sensor coupled to the container that is used to determine the sufficiency of the heating materials to cook the food.
Baker teaches a container comprises a sensor coupled to the container, which can measure the amount of wood chips and maintain a desired amount of wood chips (Para. 68).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine to have modified Mercer in view of Sells to incorporate the teachings of Vandyke in view of Baker to add Baker’s sensor to the container in order to estimate and monitor the amount of wood chips to ensure the food being cooked can be cooked entirely.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer(US Patent No. 20220079383) in view of Sells (US 7867534) and in further view of Parris (US 5768677)
Regarding claim 5, the combination Mercer and Sells teaches a grill but does not teach an air flow vent to adjust heat level or direction, the air flow vent being above the heat source and the liquid box, and below the cooking surface.
Parris teaches (Col. 2 Line 35-65) a door (17) that can function as the vent as claimed that is above the water supply pan (14) and heat source and is below the cooking surface (12).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mercer in view of Sells to incorporate the teachings of Parris to add a smaller door, capable of functioning as an adjustable vent, to allow for adjustment of items within the grill without having to open the larger doors of Mercer thereby reducing the amount of heat loss.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer(US Patent No. 20220079383) in view of Sells (US 7867534) and Parris (US 5768677) and in further view of Baker (US 20220170638).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mercer, Sells, and Parris teaches the grill but does not teach the heat level or direction is adjustable by the control panel.
Baker teaches (Para. 64) a smoke control system that allows a user to control the level of smoke. a smoke sensor can be mounted in the grill (210), to determine an amount or density of smoke in the grill chamber. Information about the smoke can be provided to the control unit (256), which can moderate operation of the damper (269B) to maintain the smoke levels at a desired amount.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the grill Mercer in view of Sells to incorporate the teachings of Baker to add a function to the control panel that allows for control over the smoke level of the grill in order to have precise smoke/flavor management in the grill and have the opportunity to use advanced grilling techniques that different food item would require.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US Patent No. 20220079383) in view of Sells (US 7867534) and in further view of Jeon (US 20080163757).
Regarding claim 8, Mercer in view of Sells as applied to claim 1 teaches the cooking device having the liquid box. Mercer teaches the grill wherein a sensor is to be coupled to the liquid box, data collected from which is provided to determine sufficiency of liquid in the liquid box to cook the food.
However, the combination of Mercer and Sells does not teach a sensor is to be coupled to the liquid box, data collected from which is provided to determine sufficiency of liquid in the liquid box to cook the food.
Jeon teaches (70) it is well known in the art of cooking appliances to add a sensor to be coupled to the liquid box (Para. 47), data collected from which is provided to determine sufficiency of liquid in the liquid box to cook the food (Para. 59 – Para. 60) for the purpose of warning the user if there is insufficient water for cooking.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mercer in view of Sells to incorporate the teachings of Jeon to add a water level sensor. Doing so would allow the controller (110) to send an error message "No Water" to warn the user of the need for additional water before power is shut off to protect the steam heater.
Claim(s) 9 s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US Patent No. 20220079383) in view of Sells (US 7867534) and in further view of Sakane (US 20120017770).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mercer and Sells teaches the grill wherein a sensor is to be coupled to the liquid box, data collected from which is provided to determine temperature of liquid in the liquid box to cook the food.
However, the combination of Mercer and Sells does not teach a sensor is to be coupled to the liquid box, data collected from which is provided to determine temperature of liquid in the liquid box to cook the food.
Sakane teaches (Para. 71 and 78) it is well known in the art of cooking appliances to add a steam sensor (47) within a liquid box that is then used by a controller to compare with an interior temp cooking sensor (76) to modify steam generation.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mercer in view of Sells to incorporate the teachings of Sakane to add a temperature sensor attached to the liquid box of Sell. Adding the additional steam sensor with the temperature sensor already found in Mercer would allow the control unit to compare the outputs of both sensors to modify the steam output thereby allowing for increased consistency during cooking.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer(US Patent No. 20220079383) in view of Sells (US 7867534) and Pointon (US 2205576)
Regarding claim 10, Mercer in view of Sells teaches the liquid box, the liquid box having a vent (inherent as the steam needs to be outlet from the box) and teaches the adjustment of steam out of the box. However, Mercer in view of Sells fails to teach the vent itself being able to adjust the level or direction of the steam generated.
Pointon teaches (pg 1, line 16-27) it is well known in the art that it is important to be able to adjust the level of steam in a cooking device in order to properly cook food.
Based on the teachings of Pointon it would have been obvious to have modified Mercer in view of Sells to allow for the adjustment of the amount of steam delivered via the vent of the liquid box to ensure the proper amount of steam at any particular time to ensure the proper cooking of the product being cooked.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer(US Patent No. 20220079383) in view of Sells (US 7867534) and in further view of Pothetes (US 20150004297).
Regarding claim 11, Mercer and Sells teaches the grill, however the combination of Mercer and Sells does not teach a set of retractable side handles to be used to move and store the grill when retracted, and to provide flat surfaces to a user of the grill when extended.
Pothetes teaches (Fig. 1) it is well known in the art of smokers/grills for the smoker/grill (10) to include a set of retractable side handles (60) to be used to move and store the grill when retracted, and to provide flat surfaces to a user of the grill when extended (Para. 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the grill Mercer in view of Moon to add retractable handles. Doing so would allow a user to create a staging area for raw meat, finished dishes, or tools.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US Patent No. 20220079383) in view of Sells (US 7867534) and in further view of Longoria (US Patent No. 20220354308).
Regarding claim 12, Mercer teaches the grill inherently requires some form of power source due to the electronic controller being present,
Mercer in view of Sells does not teach the power source is coupled to a solar panel, from which direct current (DC) power is obtained.
Longoria teaches (Para. 49) it is well known in the art of cooking appliances (102) the power source is coupled to a solar panel, from which direct current (DC) power is obtained (Paragraph 49).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the power source for the control panel of Mercer to incorporate the teachings of Longoria to replace the power source with a solar panel. This would allow for a cleaner, more sustainable option for outdoor cooking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARGI MANSINGH whose telephone number is (571)357-5448. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:00pm M-Th.
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.
/GARGI MANSINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights