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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “24” has been used to designate both “lower housing” and “lid” (Par. 29; Fig. 1 and 3-4). 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. 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 4 and 13 is 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.
Claims 4 and 13 recites the limitation "the flavor-infusion chamber”" in line 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 3-11 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bogdon (US Pub. 2014/0360387).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Bogdon discloses a cool temperature smoker, comprising: a lower housing (52) including a cooking surface (food rack 68); a lid (62) overlying and space from the cooking surface (68) to define a cooking cavity (Fig. 3; cooking chamber 14); a heating element (112, Fig. 3 and 7) positioned to heat the cooking surface; a power source (inherently must have power source to power the heating elements 112; Par. 60, “heating elements 112 can preferably be electrical resistance heating elements”); and a flavor-infusion module (smoke generating assembly 12; Fig. 1) attached to the lower housing (52), the flavor-infusion module comprising: a smoke generation chamber (28, Fig. 3); and a flavor-infusion conduit (smoke plenum 38, Fig. 6) fluidly connected between the smoke generation chamber (28) and the cooking cavity (14; Par 46) (Fig. 1-3and 7-8).
Regarding claim 2, Bogdon discloses the flavor-infusion module (12) comprises a fan (92) in fluid communication with the smoke generation chamber (28) and the flavor-infusion conduit (38, Fig. 5) (Fig. 3-5 and 7).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Bogdon discloses the flavor-infusion module (12, Fig. 1) further comprises a cover (34, Fig. 1), the cover (34) being movable between an access position, in which a user has access to the flavor-infusion chamber (28), and an operating position, in which the user has no access to the flavor-infusion chamber (28) (Fig. 1-3; Par. 44).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 14-15, Bogdon discloses an infusion rack (68, Fig. 3) within the cooking cavity (14, Fig. 3) being configured to take a raised position in which food resting on the infusion rack (68) is located above and not in contact with the food cooking surface during infusion.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 16-17, Bogdon discloses a selection device (control panel 18 with timer 116 controller and temperature controller 118, Fig. 1) operatively connected with the heating element (112, Fig. 3) for controlling heat emanated by the heating element (112) (Fig. 3; Par. 61 and 67-68).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 18-19, Bogdon discloses a temperature sensor (thermocouple, Par. 73) configured and positioned to detect a temperature of at least one of the cooking cavity (14, Fig. 3) and the cooking surface (Par. 61, 67-68 and 72-75).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogdon (US Pub. 2014/0360387) in view of Martin et al. (US Pub. 2023/0309746).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Bogdon discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the flavor-infusion module (12, Fig. 1) except the flavor-infusion module further comprises a filter between the smoke generation chamber and the flavor-infusion conduit. Martin et al. discloses the flavor-infusion module (smoke assembly 50), Fig. 1) further comprises a filter (mesh 64, Fig. 2A) between the smoke generation chamber (54, Fig. 2C) and the flavor-infusion conduit (82) (Fig. 1 and 2A; Par. 71-72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Bogdon, the flavor-infusion module further comprises a filter between the smoke generation chamber and the flavor-infusion conduit, as taught by Martin et al., for the purpose of preventing ashes into the cooking chamber.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US Pub. 2023/0309746) in view of Bretagna (US Pat. 9,668,614).
Regarding claim 20, Martin et al. discloses a grill system with smoke assembly, comprising: a lower housing (lower base portion 16, Fig. 1A-1B) including a cooking surface (grill surface 26, Fig. 1B), the cooking surface (26) having a plurality of upwardly-extending ribs (1E-1G); a lid (upper lid portion 18, Fig. 1A-1B) overlying and spaced from the cooking surface (26) to define a cooking cavity (14, Fig. 1D; Par. 59); a heating element (upper heating element 38 and lower heating element 28; Par. 61 and 68) positioned to heat the cooking surface (26); a power source (inherently must have power source to power the heating elements 28, 38 and the fan 30) operatively connected with the heating element (28, 38); a flavor-infusion module (smoke assembly 50, Fig. 1A; Par. 67) attached to the lid (18), the flavor-infusion module comprising: a smoke generation chamber (interior cavity 54, Fig. 2C); and a flavor-infusion conduit (tunnel baffle 82, Fig. 2A and 2C; Par. 76 and 78) fluidly connected between the smoke generation chamber (54) and the cooking cavity (14) (Fig. 1D). Martin et al. does not disclose an infusion rack positioned within the cooking cavity, the infusion rack being configured to take a raised position above the ribs of the cooking surface so that food resting on the infusion rack is located above and not in contact with the cooking surface during infusion, the infusion rack being further configured to move to a lowered position in the cooking cavity, such that food positioned above the infusion rack is in contact with the ribs of the cooking surface and not in contact with the infusion rack. Bretagna discloses a rack (14) with a V shaped bends (44) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Martin et al., an infusion rack positioned within the cooking cavity, the infusion rack being configured to take a raised position above the ribs of the cooking surface so that food resting on the infusion rack is located above and not in contact with the cooking surface during infusion, the infusion rack being further configured to move to a lowered position in the cooking cavity, such that food positioned above the infusion rack is in contact with the ribs of the cooking surface and not in contact with the infusion rack, as taught by Bretagna, for the purpose of suitable to the user application to select the position of the rack by placing the V-shaped bends 44 on top of the ribs or at the bottom of the rib of the cooking surface 26 of Martin (Note: this limitations is an intended use of the rack).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights