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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner thanks the applicant for pointing out the incorrect reference number given for Stephens and notes that the applicant’s assumption regarding the number was correct. The action has been updated to reflect the correct reference number.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the cited Carter reference does not itself qualify as prior art, the examiner disagrees. As the applicant notes, Carter claims priority to a provisional application which is before the applicant’s effective filing date. AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application ("U.S. patent document") is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1) ), or the filing date of a prior application to which there is a priority or benefit claim (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)). For prior art determinations under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, a reference patent document need only meet the "ministerial requirements" of 35 U.S.C. 119 and 120, and the provisional or other earlier application(s) to which the reference patent document claims a right of priority or benefit must "describe the subject matter" relied upon in the reference patent document as prior art. Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., 2023 USPQ2d 292, IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) (precedential as to section II.E.3). The provisional application of Carter describes the subject matter relied upon in the patent application publication Carter.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that element 27 of Skarsten is not a metal sheet, the examiner disagrees. A sheet may be “A broad, thin, usually rectangular mass or piece of material, such as paper, metal, glass, or plywood” (wordnik.com). This definition describes element 27 of Skarsten.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the foil of Skarsten does not include the grill cover supporting portion, the examiner points out that the claim recites an adapter comprising a grill cover supporting portion and a grill cover obstructing portion. The adapter of Skarsten comprises the grill cover supporting portion (27) and the grill cover obstructing portion (foil) which together adapt the grill to serve the purpose of heating a space.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that “the inside of a Kamado grill cover is a deep, concave dome with smooth outer edges, and lining or covering the underside of a grill cover with aluminum foil would be clumsy and apt to fail” and “Derian-Toth’s cited Fig. 10 panels would interfere with and prevent Skarsten’s wire grid 27 from being used to prop up a grill cover” the examiner points out that “a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In this case, shapes and interactions may be taken into account along with inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Derian-Toth’s reflector is to increase the temperature of and ensure a gaseous state for compressed combustible gas, the examiner points out that Derian-Toth is relied upon to modify the reflector of Skarsten. Furthermore, Derian-Toth does state “the infrared light incident upon it is directed into the general area of any object suitable for warming” (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Copland’s cover is for storage under cold conditions, the examiner points out that Copland is relied to teach “the grill cover obstructing portion shields all of the grill cover gasket, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a circular periphery.” When applying an adapter as taught by Skarsten or Derian-Toth to a Kamado style grill as disclosed by Carter a person of ordinary skill must resolve which portions of the cover must the cover obstructing portions obstruct. Copland offers obstructing the entire lower opening of the cover to include a gasket common to a Kamado style grill.
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, 5, 9-12, 14, 16, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (US 20220087474 A1), hereinafter Carter, in view of Skarsten (US 3395691 A), hereinafter Skarsten, in view of Derian-Toth (US 20220146116 A1), hereinafter Derian-Toth, and further in view of Copland (US 20220265089 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 9-12, Carter discloses a grill cover of a hinged covered kamado-style grill having a grill base and the grill cover joined by a hinge (“a top shell 110 and bottom (base) shell 120 connected by a hinge 115” paragraph [0042]), a grill cover handle and a grill front opposite the hinge (“A user may lift the top shell 110 of the kamado-style grill and smoker using a handle 112” paragraph [0042]), a wire cooking grid (“at least one cooking rack 130” paragraph [0044]), and a grill cover gasket defining a gasketed grill cover periphery and a grill cover opening area (“A high-temperature gasket material 183 may be placed around the periphery of the top of the bottom shell 120 and/or around the periphery of the bottom of the top shell 110” paragraph [0043]).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Carter does not disclose a removable outdoor warming adapter device, the adapter device comprising a rigid metal sheet, and being sized and shaped to temporarily and detachably hold in a partially opened position the grill cover, wherein the adapter device includes:
a) a grill cover supporting portion that holds the grill cover and grill base apart in a partially opened position when the adapter device is inserted between the grill cover and grill base, and the grill cover is rotated towards the grill base, and
b) a combustion heat-resistant rigid metal grill cover obstructing portion that shields all of the grill cover gasket and grill cover opening area from combustion heat rising from a heat source in the grill base, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion includes specularly reflective or diffusive surface treatment, coloration, dimpling or other surface modification, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a planar fire side major surface and a continuous or nearly continuous circular periphery, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion includes an insulation layer, reflective layer or both on the grill cover obstructing portion backside or fire side; and
wherein when the adapter device is so inserted and the grill cover and base are in such partially opened position, the grill cover obstructing portion is inclined to reflect the rising combustion heat in a generally horizontal direction away from the hinge and towards the grill front.
However, Skarsten teaches a removable outdoor warming adapter device, the device comprising a metal sheet, and being sized and shaped to temporarily and detachably hold in a partially opened position the grill cover (“It is a fairly simple matter to use the portable barbecue as a space heater by the simple expedient of wedging the lid partially open by means of the grill, thereby reflecting into the space before the box the heat from the interior of the box. This use may be preferably enhanced by including foil along the inner reflecting surface of the cover” column 1, line 57), wherein the adapter device includes:
a) a grill cover supporting portion (27) that holds the grill cover and grill base apart in a partially opened position when the adapter device is inserted between the grill cover and grill base, and the grill cover is rotated towards the grill base (Figure 6), and
b) a combustion heat-resistant metal grill cover obstructing portion that shields all of the grill cover opening area from combustion heat rising from a heat source in the grill base, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a planar fire side major surface and a continuous or nearly continuous periphery (“the inside surface of cover 33 is preferably lined with aluminum foil or other reflecting surface” column 4, line 29), and
wherein when the adapter device is so inserted and the grill cover and base are in such partially opened position, the grill cover obstructing portion is inclined to reflect the rising combustion heat in a generally horizontal direction away from the hinge and towards the grill front (“grill 27 is placed in the position shown in FIG. 6 and the barbecue reflects heat forward” column 4, line 29” column 4, line 31).
PNG
media_image2.png
477
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
438
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Skarsten’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a device to support the grill cover and reflect rising combustion heat in a generally horizontal direction towards the grill front as is taught in Skarsten, in the apparatus disclosed by Carter because Skarsten states “It is also an object of the invention to provide a portable barbecue… which is readily adapted to other purposes, including space heating” (column 2, line 41). Therefore, including the features of Skarsten will adapt the grill of Carter to the additional useful purpose of heating a space.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, does not disclose a rigid metal grill cover obstructing portion that shields all of the grill cover gasket, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion includes specularly reflective or diffusive surface treatment, coloration, dimpling or other surface modification, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a circular periphery, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion includes an insulation layer, reflective layer or both on the grill cover obstructing portion backside or fire side.
However, Derian-Toth teaches a rigid metal grill cover obstructing portion, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion includes specularly reflective or diffusive surface treatment, coloration, dimpling or other surface modification, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion includes an insulation layer, reflective layer or both on the grill cover obstructing portion backside or fire side (“the reflective structure 12 may also be dimpled, or may be perfectly flat and have the dimpled layer of reflective material 10 affixed to it” paragraph [0039] and “reflective structure 12 may be made… aluminum, iron, copper, and even manganese” paragraph [0042]).
PNG
media_image4.png
573
481
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Skarsten does not teach the claimed reflective material. Derian-Toth teaches the claimed reflective material. The substitution of one known element (the “aluminum foil or other reflecting surface” of Skarsten) for another (the reflecting surface of Derian-Toth) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the dimpled rigid metal taught in Derian-Toth would have yielded predictable results, namely, reflecting “such that the infrared light incident upon it is directed into the general area of any object suitable for warming” paragraph [0031] Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Carter, as modified by Skarsten and Derian-Toth, does not disclose the grill cover obstructing portion shields all of the grill cover gasket, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a circular periphery.
However, Copland teaches the grill cover obstructing portion shields all of the grill cover gasket, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a circular periphery (“the cover 10 could be removably applied about the lid at the opening thereof to include covering the lid gasket 30” paragraph [0017]).
In view of Copland’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the grill cover obstructing portion shields all of the grill cover gasket, wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a circular periphery as is taught in Copland, in the device as presently modified because the court has held that mere scaling establish patentability in a claim In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, the teachings of Skarsten must be scaled to the proportions of base reference Carter which is a Kamado grill with a gasket typical of grills of this style. A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, a person adapting a grill cover obstructing portion to the grill of Carter would follow the example of Copland which teaches applying the grill cover obstructing portion to the entire circular lower end of the cover including the gasket.
Regarding claim 14, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not explicitly disclose wherein the grill cover obstruction portion has a diameter of about 28 cm (11 inches) to about 81 cm (31 inches). The examiner notes that Copland teaches a device that is sized and shaped to conform to a kamado style grill which is of the type envisioned by the applicant. The court has held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the diameter. On the contrary, the applicant states “The dimensions and overall shape of the disclosed adapters may be altered as need be to accommodate various grill models and sizes” (paragraph [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape and diameter of the adapter device.
Regarding claim 16, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not explicitly disclose wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a thickness of about 1 mm (0.04 inches) to about 2.5 cm (1 inch). However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Copland teaches “It is of selectable thickness. The material chosen to make the cover 10 is selected to maintain its structural integrity” (paragraph [0016]), but does not specifically recite the claimed thickness range. Achieving a thickness of about 1 mm (0.04 inches) to about 2.5 cm (1 inch) is a results-effective variable because if too thin it would lack structural integrity, and if too thick would be unnecessarily costly and/or heavy. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the thickness, because the selection of thickness to achieve desired structural integrity while minimizing cost/weight constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1 wherein the grill cover supporting portion has grill cover-contacting and grill base-contacting surfaces that hold the grill cover and grill base apart in the partially opened position (Figure 6, element 27 of Skarsten has base and cover contacting portions).
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland,does not explicitly disclose an angle of about 30 to about 50 degrees. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Skarsten teaches an angle, but does not specifically recite the claimed angular range. Achieving an angle of about 30 to about 50 degrees is a results-effective variable because too small or great an angle would not achieve the desired forward reflection of heat. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the angle, because the selection of angle to achieve the appropriate reflection constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 26, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1 wherein the adapter device comprises aluminum (Both Skarsten and Derian-Toth teach aluminum).
Regarding claim 27, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses adapter device according to claim 1 wherein the grill is a generally egg-shaped kamado grill having a ceramic base and ceramic cover (“The top and bottom shells preferably comprise relatively thick walls of ceramic or other refractory materials” paragraph [0043]) and a charcoal or wood pellet heat source (“The firebox 135 is configured to hold the charcoal, wood, and/or other fuel” paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 29, Carter discloses a hinged, covered kamado-style grill having a grill base and a grill cover joined by a hinge (“a top shell 110 and bottom (base) shell 120 connected by a hinge 115” paragraph [0042]), a grill cover handle and a grill front opposite the hinge (“A user may lift the top shell 110 of the kamado-style grill and smoker using a handle 112” paragraph [0042]), a wire cooking grid (“at least one cooking rack 130” paragraph [0044]), and a grill cover gasket defining a gasketed grill cover periphery and a grill cover opening area (“A high-temperature gasket material 183 may be placed around the periphery of the top of the bottom shell 120 and/or around the periphery of the bottom of the top shell 110” paragraph [0043]).
Carter does not disclose:
a removable outdoor warming adapter device temporarily and detachably inserted between the grill cover and grill base, wherein the adapter device includes:
a) a grill cover supporting portion that holds the grill cover and grill base apart in a partially opened position when the adapter device is so inserted, and the grill cover is rotated towards the grill base, and
b) a combustion heat-resistant rigid metal grill cover obstructing portion that shields the majority of the grill cover gasket and grill cover opening area from combustion heat rising from a charcoal or wood pellet heat source in the grill base
wherein when the adapter device is so inserted and the grill cover and base are in such partially opened position, the grill cover obstructing portion is inclined to reflect such rising combustion heat in a generally horizontal direction away from the hinge and towards the grill front.
However, Skarsten teaches:
a removable outdoor warming adapter device temporarily and detachably inserted between the grill cover and grill base (“It is a fairly simple matter to use the portable barbecue as a space heater by the simple expedient of wedging the lid partially open by means of the grill, thereby reflecting into the space before the box the heat from the interior of the box. This use may be preferably enhanced by including foil along the inner reflecting surface of the cover” column 1, line 57), wherein the adapter device includes:
a) a grill cover supporting portion (27) that holds the grill cover and grill base apart in a partially opened position when the adapter device is so inserted, and the grill cover is rotated towards the grill base (Figure 6), and
b) a combustion heat-resistant metal grill cover obstructing portion that shields the majority of the grill cover opening area from combustion heat rising from a charcoal or wood pellet heat source in the grill base (“the inside surface of cover 33 is preferably lined with aluminum foil or other reflecting surface” column 4, line 29)
wherein when the adapter device is so inserted and the grill cover and base are in such partially opened position, the grill cover obstructing portion is inclined to reflect such rising combustion heat in a generally horizontal direction away from the hinge and towards the grill front (“grill 27 is placed in the position shown in FIG. 6 and the barbecue reflects heat forward” column 4, line 29” column 4, line 31).
In view of Skarsten’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a device to support the grill cover and reflect rising combustion heat in a generally horizontal direction towards the grill front as is taught in Skarsten, in the apparatus disclosed by Carter because Skarsten states “It is also an object of the invention to provide a portable barbecue… which is readily adapted to other purposes, including space heating” (column 2, line 41). Therefore, including the features of Skarsten will adapt the grill of Carter to the additional useful purpose of heating a space.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten does not disclose a rigid metal grill cover obstructing portion that shields the majority of the grill cover gasket.
However, Derian-Toth teaches a rigid metal grill cover obstructing portion (Figure 10 and “the reflective structure 12 may also be dimpled, or may be perfectly flat and have the dimpled layer of reflective material 10 affixed to it” paragraph [0039] and “reflective structure 12 may be made… aluminum, iron, copper, and even manganese” paragraph [0042])
Skarsten does not teach the claimed reflective material. Derian-Toth teaches the claimed reflective material. The substitution of one known element (the “aluminum foil or other reflecting surface” of Skarsten) for another (the reflecting surface of Derian-Toth) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the dimpled rigid metal taught in Derian-Toth would have yielded predictable results, namely, reflecting “such that the infrared light incident upon it is directed into the general area of any object suitable for warming” paragraph [0031] Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Carter, as modified by Skarsten and Derian-Toth, does not disclose the grill cover obstructing portion shields the majority of the grill cover gasket.
However, Copland teaches the grill cover obstructing portion shields the majority of the grill cover gasket (“the cover 10 could be removably applied about the lid at the opening thereof to include covering the lid gasket 30” paragraph [0017]).
In view of Copland’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the grill cover obstructing portion shields the majority of the grill cover gasket as is taught in Copland, in the device as presently modified because the court has held that mere scaling establish patentability in a claim In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, the teachings of Skarsten must be scaled to the proportions of base reference Carter which is a Kamado grill with a gasket typical of grills of this style. A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, a person adapting a grill cover obstructing portion to the grill of Carter would follow the example of Copland which teaches applying the grill cover obstructing portion to the entire circular lower end of the cover including the gasket.
Regarding claim 30, Carter discloses a method for outdoor warming, comprising in either order the steps of
a) building a fire from combustible charcoal or wood pellet material (“The bottom surface of the firebox 135 preferably includes a fuel grate 140 on which the user may place the charcoal, wood, and/or other fuel or starter materials” paragraph [0046] and “the charcoal, wood, or other fuel is ignited on the grate 140” paragraph [0053]) in a base of a hinged, covered kamado-style grill having a grill base and a grill cover joined by a hinge (“a top shell 110 and bottom (base) shell 120 connected by a hinge 115” paragraph [0042]), a grill cover handle and a grill front opposite the hinge (“A user may lift the top shell 110 of the kamado-style grill and smoker using a handle 112” paragraph [0042]), a wire cooking grid (“at least one cooking rack 130” paragraph [0044]), and a grill cover gasket defining a gasketed grill cover periphery and a grill cover opening area (“A high-temperature gasket material 183 may be placed around the periphery of the top of the bottom shell 120 and/or around the periphery of the bottom of the top shell 110” paragraph [0043]), and
b) opening the grill cover (“users often open the top dome of the kamado-style grill to check on the food products being cooked or smoked in the cooking chamber” paragraph [0009]).
Carter does not disclose:
b) temporarily and detachably installing in the grill a removable outdoor warming adapter device that is sized and shaped to hold the grill cover in a partially opened position when the grill cover is rotated towards the grill base, and partially closing the grill cover to trap the adapter device between the grill cover and grill base with the grill cover in such partially opened position, wherein the adapter device includes:
i) a grill cover supporting portion that holds the grill cover and grill base apart in such partially opened position when the adapter device is inserted between the grill cover and grill base, and the grill cover is rotated towards the grill base, and
ii) a combustion heat-resistant rigid metal grill cover obstructing portion that shields the majority of the grill cover gasket and grill cover opening area from combustion heat rising from the fire and is inclined to reflect such rising combustion heat in a generally horizontal direction away from the hinge and towards the grill front.
However, Skarsten teaches:
b) temporarily and detachably installing in the grill a removable outdoor warming adapter device that is sized and shaped to hold the grill cover in a partially opened position when the grill cover is rotated towards the grill base, and partially closing the grill cover to trap the adapter device between the grill cover and grill base with the grill cover in such partially opened position (“It is a fairly simple matter to use the portable barbecue as a space heater by the simple expedient of wedging the lid partially open by means of the grill, thereby reflecting into the space before the box the heat from the interior of the box. This use may be preferably enhanced by including foil along the inner reflecting surface of the cover” column 1, line 57), wherein the adapter device includes:
i) a grill cover supporting portion (27) that holds the grill cover and grill base apart in such partially opened position when the adapter device is inserted between the grill cover and grill base, and the grill cover is rotated towards the grill base (Figure 6), and
ii) a combustion heat-resistant metal grill cover obstructing portion that shields the majority of the grill cover opening area from combustion heat rising from the fire (“the inside surface of cover 33 is preferably lined with aluminum foil or other reflecting surface” column 4, line 29) and is inclined to reflect such rising combustion heat in a generally horizontal direction away from the hinge and towards the grill front (“grill 27 is placed in the position shown in FIG. 6 and the barbecue reflects heat forward” column 4, line 29” column 4, line 31).
In view of Skarsten’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a device to support the grill cover and reflect rising combustion heat in a generally horizontal direction towards the grill front as is taught in Skarsten, in the Method disclosed by Carter because Skarsten states “It is also an object of the invention to provide a portable barbecue… which is readily adapted to other purposes, including space heating” (column 2, line 41). Therefore, including the features of Skarsten will adapt the grill of Carter to the additional useful purpose of heating a space.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, does not disclose a rigid metal grill cover obstructing portion that shields the majority of the grill cover gasket.
However, Derian-Toth teaches a rigid metal grill cover obstructing portion (Figure 10 and “the reflective structure 12 may also be dimpled, or may be perfectly flat and have the dimpled layer of reflective material 10 affixed to it” paragraph [0039] and “reflective structure 12 may be made… aluminum, iron, copper, and even manganese” paragraph [0042])
Skarsten does not teach the claimed reflective material. Derian-Toth teaches the claimed reflective material. The substitution of one known element (the “aluminum foil or other reflecting surface” of Skarsten) for another (the reflecting surface of Derian-Toth) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the dimpled rigid metal taught in Derian-Toth would have yielded predictable results, namely, reflecting “such that the infrared light incident upon it is directed into the general area of any object suitable for warming” paragraph [0031] Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Carter, as modified by Skarsten and Derian-Toth, does not disclose the grill cover obstructing portion shields the majority of the grill cover gasket.
However, Copland teaches the grill cover obstructing portion shields the majority of the grill cover gasket (“the cover 10 could be removably applied about the lid at the opening thereof to include covering the lid gasket 30” paragraph [0017]).
In view of Copland’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the grill cover obstructing portion shields the majority of the grill cover gasket as is taught in Copland, in the method as presently modified because the court has held that mere scaling establish patentability in a claim In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, the teachings of Skarsten must be scaled to the proportions of base reference Carter which is a Kamado grill with a gasket typical of grills of this style. A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, a person adapting a grill cover obstructing portion to the grill of Carter would follow the example of Copland which teaches applying the grill cover obstructing portion to the entire circular lower end of the cover including the gasket.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, in view of Skarsten, in view of Derian-Toth, in view of Copland, and further in view of Wade (US 20080210214 A1), hereinafter Wade.
Regarding claim 4, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose wherein the adapter device further comprises a grill cover attaching portion that temporarily and detachably fastens the adapter device to the grill handle.
However, Wade teaches wherein the adapter device further comprises a grill cover attaching portion that temporarily and detachably fastens the adapter device to the grill handle (“cover 60 includes a strap 72 that a hook-and-loop material or other fastener so that strap 72 can be attached to handle 20 to help retain cover 60 in place on the grill hood 13a, particularly at times when the grill hood is raised” paragraph [0071]).
PNG
media_image5.png
370
482
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Wade’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a grill cover attaching portion that temporarily and detachably fastens the adapter device to the grill handle as is taught in Wade, in the device as presently modified because Wade states that the portion helps retain the cover. Therefore, including the portion will help retain the device as presently modified.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, in view of Skarsten, in view of Darian-Toth, in view of Copland, and further in view of Witcher (US 3021830 A), hereinafter Witcher.
Regarding claims 6-8, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose:
wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a fire side major surface that is curved in two directions;
wherein the grill cover obstructing portion curves outwards from covers on which the adapter device is installed and presents convexity with respect to the rising combustion heat to reflect the rising combustion heat across a broadened angular range and over a larger frontal area.
However, Witcher teaches:
wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a fire side major surface that is curved in two directions (“the heat rising from the embers in the fire pan 11 in striking the annular upswept surface 36 of the member 30 will be reflected radially and outwardly from the center of the brazier. The heat thus radiating from the hot coals will warm a zone of some 200 square feet surrounding the brazier” column 2, line 62);
wherein the grill obstructing portion curves outwards and presents convexity with respect to the rising combustion heat to reflect the rising combustion heat across a broadened angular range and over a larger frontal area (“the accessory 30 provides an annular upswept reflecting surface 36 on its external side thereof” column 2, line 19).
PNG
media_image6.png
616
456
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
265
479
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Witcher’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include:
wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a fire side major surface that is curved in two directions;
wherein the grill obstructing portion curves outwards and presents convexity with respect to the rising combustion heat to reflect the rising combustion heat across a broadened angular range and over a larger frontal area in the adapter device as presently modified because Witcher states that heat is reflected radially which will heat a wider area thus improving the distribution of heat.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, in view of Skarsten, in view of Darian-Toth, in view of Copland, and further in view of Zernich (US 8047197 B1), hereinafter Zernich.
Regarding claim 13, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose wherein the grill cover obstructing portion has a larger diameter than the grill cover and projects outside the grill cover gasket.
However, Zernich teaches wherein the obstructing portion has a larger diameter than the cover (20) and projects outside the cover (“A pair of panels 52 is provided. Each of the first 34 and second 36 lateral edges has one of the panels 52 attached thereto. The panels 52 may be integrally coupled to the plate 24 and the plate 24 and panels 52 each comprising a metallic material. The panels 52 are angled away from the first side 26 and form an angle with the second side 28 between 90 degrees and 160 degrees. In use, the plate 24 is attached to the perimeter edge 22 of the cover 20 to help direct heat from the heat emitter 18 toward a particular direction. This will better provide heat where needed and make the heater more efficient” column 2, line 25).
PNG
media_image8.png
339
451
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
344
363
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In view of Zernich’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the obstructing portion has a larger diameter than the cover and projects outside the cover as is taught in Zernich, in the adapter device as presently modified because Zernich states “This will better provide heat where needed and make the heater more efficient.” Therefore, including a larger reflective portion will improve heating efficiency.
Claims 15, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, in view of Skarsten, in view of Derian-Toth, in view of Copland, and further in view of Southward (US 0239873 A), hereinafter Southward.
Regarding claim 15, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose wherein the cover obstructing portion includes one or more apertures that permit smoke from the heat source to exit.
However, Southward teaches wherein the obstructing portion includes one or more apertures that permit smoke from the heat source to exit (“The plate B is provided with an opening, h, to allow the smoke and gases to escape up the chimney” line 38).
PNG
media_image10.png
613
667
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
268
457
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In view of Southward’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the obstructing portion includes one or more apertures that permit smoke from the heat source to exit as is taught in Southward, in the adapter device as presently modified because including an aperture will prevent smoke from being directed toward the heated space and the occupants thereof.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose wherein the grill cover supporting portion has a wedge-shaped side profile, or wherein the grill cover supporting portion is triangular in cross-section (The cover supporting portion taught by Southward has a triangular cross-section).
However, Southward teaches wherein the cover supporting portion has a wedge-shaped side profile, and wherein the cover supporting portion is triangular in cross-section (The cover supporting portion G of Southward is wedge-shaped with a triangular cross-section).
Skarsten does not teach the claimed supporting portion shape. Southward teaches the claimed supporting portion shape. The substitution of one known element (the supporting portion of Skarsten) for another (the supporting portion of Southward) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the supporting portion taught in Southward would have yielded predictable results, namely, a portion for supporting the cover Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, in view of Skarsten, in view of Derian-Toth, in view of Copland, and further in view of Offerhaus (US 20210102706 A1), hereinafter Offerhaus.
Regarding claim 17, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose wherein the grill cover obstructing portion includes one or more hinged portions that permit the adapter device to be folded upon itself for more compact storage.
However, Offerhaus teaches wherein the obstructing portion includes one or more hinged portions that permit the adapter device to be folded upon itself for more compact storage (“Each hinge allows the connected panel to move between a collapsed position facing the other adjacent panel, see FIG. 2, and an open position, see FIG. 3, in relation with the other adjacent panel. The collapsed position can be utilized when the apparatus 10 is not in use, such as during storage or in travel. The open position can be utilized when the apparatus 10 is in use” paragraph [0024]).
PNG
media_image12.png
498
190
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
517
504
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Offerhaus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the obstructing portion includes one or more hinged portions that permit the adapter device to be folded upon itself for more compact storage as is taught in Offerhaus, in the adapter device as presently modified because Offerhaus states that the hinges assist in storage and travel. Therefore, including the hinges will improve storability and transportability.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, in view of Skarsten, in view of Derian-Toth, in view of Copland, and further in view of Stephens (US 8360049 B2), hereinafter Stephens.
Regarding claim 18, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose wherein the grill cover obstructing portion includes a backside handle or hook to facilitate carrying or storing the adapter device.
However, Stephens teaches disclose wherein the obstructing portion (“the first side 50 may be constructed from a fireproof material or a heat reflective material capable of reflecting heat away from the first side 50” column 2, line 49) includes a backside handle or hook to facilitate carrying or storing the adapter device (“One or more handles 70 may be connected to or positioned along the second side 60 to allow the wind screen 10 to be carried or otherwise repositioned” column 2, line 66).
PNG
media_image14.png
486
471
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
317
417
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
320
376
media_image16.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Stephens, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the obstructing portion includes a backside handle or hook to facilitate carrying or storing the adapter device as is taught in Stephens, in the adapter device as presently modified because Stephen states that the handle facilitates carrying the device.
Regarding claim 20, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose wherein the adapter device includes one or more reinforcing bars, flanges, corrugations or other stiffening members or shapes that strengthen the adapter device and improve its structural integrity if subjected to sudden temperature changes, accidental droppage or other stresses or impacts.
However, Stephens teaches wherein the adapter device includes one or more reinforcing bars, flanges, corrugations or other stiffening members or shapes that strengthen the adapter device and improve its structural integrity if subjected to sudden temperature changes, accidental droppage or other stresses or impacts (“ribs 145 may be provided for increased stability” column 5, line 3).
In view of the teachings of Stephens, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adapter device includes one or more reinforcing bars, flanges, corrugations or other stiffening members or shapes that strengthen the adapter device and improve its structural integrity if subjected to sudden temperature changes, accidental droppage or other stresses or impacts as is taught in Stephens, in the adapter device as presently modified because Stephen states that ribs increase stability. Therefore, including the ribs taught by Stephens will increase stability in the adapter device as modified.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, in view of Skarsten, in view of Derian-Toth, in view of Copland, and further in view of Campbell (US 2083145 A), hereinafter Campbell.
Regarding claim 19, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose wherein the adapter device includes a blower motor and fan to facilitate the delivery of warmed air to an outdoor area in front of the grill.
However, Campbell teaches wherein the adapter device includes a blower motor and fan to facilitate the delivery of warmed air to an outdoor area in front of the cooker (“an ordinary electric fan assembly 20, of pedestal type, positioned on the open oven door 12 to force air into the greater compartment of the insert assembly” page 2, column 1, line 49).
PNG
media_image17.png
448
671
media_image17.png
Greyscale
In view of Campbell’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adapter device includes a blower motor and fan to facilitate the delivery of warmed air to an outdoor area in front of the cooker as is taught in Campbell, in the adapter device as presently modified because Campbell states the fan will “force air into the greater compartment of the insert assembly.” Therefore, including the fan will force a greater volume of air to be heated.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, in view of Skarsten, in view of Derian-Toth, in view of Copland, and further in view of Thomas (US 20080163863 A1), hereinafter Thomas.
Regarding claim 25, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1.
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose wherein the adapter device comprises folded sheet steel.
However, Thomas teaches wherein the adapter device comprises folded (“Three fold or three single panel of EFF. This will maximize the heat and the flames to its full capacity” paragraph [0033]) sheet steel (“Constructed from mirrored stainless steel” paragraph [0026]).
PNG
media_image18.png
568
471
media_image18.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Thomas, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adapter device comprises folded sheet steel as is taught in Thomas, in the adapter device as presently modified because Thomas states that this will maximize heat to its full capacity. Therefore, including the features taught by Thomas will improve the reflection of heat.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, in view of Skarsten, in view of Derian-Toth, in view of Copland, and further in view of Simms (US 20100258106 A1), hereinafter Simms.
Regarding claim 28, Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, discloses the adapter device according to claim 1, wherein the grill has a charcoal or wood pellet heat source (“The firebox 135 is configured to hold the charcoal, wood, and/or other fuel” paragraph [0045]).
Carter, as modified by Skarsten, Derian-Toth, and Copland, does not disclose wherein the grill has a metal insulated base and metal insulated cover.
However, Simms teaches wherein the grill has a metal insulated base and metal insulated cover (“Preferably, the cooker includes a double-walled kettle 11, with an inner wall spaced and insulated from an outer wall by an insulating layer” paragraph [0019] and “the domed lid 12 preferably has the same form of construction (double-walled sheet metal, insulated) as that of the kettle 11” paragraph [0030]).
PNG
media_image19.png
726
417
media_image19.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Simms, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the grill is a generally egg-shaped kamado grill having a ceramic base and ceramic cover as is taught in Simms, in the adapter device as presently modified because Simms states “By spacing the inner wall from the outer wall, heat transfer from the fire box to the outside of the cooker is greatly slowed. The insulating layer further retards heat transfer to the outer wall, allowing the cooker to cook with less fuel consumption” (paragraph [0006]). Therefore, using the construction taught by Simms will reduce fuel consumption.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ries (US 20190254478 A1)
PNG
media_image20.png
538
477
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Dickey (US 6705306 B1)
PNG
media_image21.png
376
344
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Herring (US 20040094141 A1)
PNG
media_image22.png
506
625
media_image22.png
Greyscale
McElveen (US 1318216 A)
PNG
media_image23.png
511
468
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Greenslade (GB 155426 A) “A device made in accordance with this invention comprises a reflector with one or more surfaces placed at an angle to the hearth in front of the grate, disposed in front of and above the surface of the fuel. The reflector may be supported or suspended” page 1, line 51
PNG
media_image24.png
774
486
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Schillinger (US 2088280 A)
PNG
media_image25.png
452
378
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Bauer (US 3935809 A) “When the grilling apparatus, after grilling is finished, is to be used as a space heater, the front wall is completely removed and the hood is swingably moved into a desired position. The heat produced by the vertical heating plane is now being projected directly to the front of the grilling apparatus on the one hand; on the other hand, the inside of the hood serves as a reflector plane which also reflects the heat towards the front. There is thus provided a heating apparatus that makes it possible to remain on a terrace or balcony, for example, after the completion of the grilling, even in cool weather” column 1, line 57
PNG
media_image26.png
353
368
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Clark (US 3227149 A) “A radiant reflective strip 46, having a polished surface, such as an aluminum strip, is removably mounted in a horizontal arc along the back and side walls of the upper section by engagement with clips 47” column 3, line 38
PNG
media_image27.png
422
226
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Rogant (US 2553278 A)
PNG
media_image28.png
616
496
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Suttles (US 2646787 A)
PNG
media_image29.png
597
410
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Christensen (US 3320942 A)
PNG
media_image30.png
330
336
media_image30.png
Greyscale
Korngold (US 3513822 A)
PNG
media_image31.png
472
657
media_image31.png
Greyscale
Curran (GB 2437913 A) Tilting Barbeque Patio Heater
PNG
media_image32.png
760
415
media_image32.png
Greyscale
Thompson (GB 2527560 A) “A Combined Barbeque And Heater”
Mushnick (US 20170102151 A1)
PNG
media_image33.png
460
402
media_image33.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image34.png
383
456
media_image34.png
Greyscale
Spalding (US 20180156466 A1)
PNG
media_image35.png
389
715
media_image35.png
Greyscale
REALES BERTOMEO (US 20190335948 A1) “If the grill device 1 according to the present invention is used as a patio heater, it is preferable to use an insert between the two edges 56, 58 in the state shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, which holds the edges 56, 58 spaced from each other. The insert comprises a plurality of through holes, or is formed overall lattice-shaped. Thus, when the grill device 1 is operated in the state shown in FIG. 6 with the insert, warm air can escape through the insert and heat a patio environment” paragraph [0057]
PNG
media_image36.png
319
353
media_image36.png
Greyscale
Widelitz (US 20210063018 A1) “FIREPIT HEAT DIRECTOR”
PNG
media_image37.png
520
729
media_image37.png
Greyscale
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762