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
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, 21-24, 30-35, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks (US 20170119209 A1), hereinafter Jenks, in view of Chambon (FR 1539748 A), hereinafter Chambon.
Regarding claim 1, Jenks discloses a rotisserie device comprising a support ring (“a support ring 1” paragraph [0025]) for use in a partially opened hinged covered ceramic or metal grill (“Kamado-type cookers are fashioned after these circular clay cooking vessels. Modern versions are made from ceramic or metal for durability” paragraph [0002]) having a base (10) and cover (11) joined by the hinge and a cover handle opposite the hinge (Figure 7 for example), or for use in a partially opened unhinged covered metal kettle charcoal grill having a front-mounted cover handle, the grill having a joinder seam defined by mating surfaces of the grill base and cover when the cover is fully closed and in full normal contact with the base (8 and 9), the device when installed in such a grill having a generally wedge-shaped or trapezoidally-shaped external side profile that tapers from a maximum ring height at a ring location nearest the handle to a minimum ring height at a ring location furthest from the handle and which holds the cover and base apart in a partially-opened position while inhibiting airflow into and out of the grill (“the support ring 1 has a wedge shape designed to fit between the lid and base portions of a cooker that are connected by a hinged connection, e.g., as shown in the example embodiments shown in the figures” paragraph [0031]); the device comprising at least one motor mounted outside the ring that drives a removable, rotatable rotisserie spit that transects the ring on an axis (“rotisserie motor 6 and skewer 7” paragraph [0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
590
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
676
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
528
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jenks does not disclose a rotisserie spit that transects the ring on an axis closer to the handle than to the ring location opposite the handle, and wherein the spit has a greater swing radius and greater height with respect to the joinder seam and a lesser span across the ring compared to a spit that bisects the ring on an axis parallel to the handle.
However, Chambon teaches a rotisserie spit that transects the support on an axis closer to the handle than to the support location opposite the handle, and wherein the spit has a greater swing radius and greater height with respect to the joinder seam (“the lower tray has an oblique upper edge plane equipped with pairs of notches in which can be placed any supports such as rods or skewers carrying, for example, a single food such as poultry, or a large number of small pieces of various foods” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference. Specifically, notches 7 and/or 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
382
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
346
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
474
490
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
422
436
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Chambon’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 rotisserie spit that transects the support on an axis closer to the handle than to the support location opposite the handle, and wherein the spit has a greater swing radius and greater height with respect to the joinder seam as is taught in Chambon, in the rotisserie device disclosed by Jenks because Chambon states “The device can therefore easily and very flexibly receive food of all sizes and in all positions.” Therefore, including the arrangement taught by Chambon will enable a user to cook foods of all sizes and at a plurality of locations in Jenks. The examiner notes that Chambon is relied upon to modify Jenks which comprises a ring. The modification would result in a lesser span across the ring compared to a spit that bisects the ring on an axis parallel to the handle.
Regarding claims 21-24, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the rotisserie device according to claim 1, wherein the spit has a swing radius with respect to the joinder seam that enables the device to be used for rotisserie grilling of meats having a diameter (Jenks as modified has a swing radius [i.e. a radius of a food for which the spit may rotate freely]) while the device is located above a heat deflector, drip pan, wire cooking grid or other accessory installed at the top of the grill base and outside the swing radius (Figure 7 shows a cooking grid or accessory).
Jenks, as modified by Chambon, does not disclose a swing radius of at least about 5 inches (at least about 125 mm). 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, Chambon teaches accommodating food of any size, but does not specifically recite a swing radius of at least about 5 inches. Achieving a swing radius of at least about 5 inches is a results-effective variable because the swing radius is related to the size of food which may be accommodated. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the swing radius, because the selection of swing radius to achieve greater variety in food size constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 30, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the rotisserie device according to claim 1, wherein during use of the device the grill cover is partially opened by at least about 15 degrees and up to about 60 degrees of upward cover rotation with respect to the joinder seam (“The flanges 2 and 3 may be arranged such that when the rotisserie support unit 20 is located in place between the lid and base portions of the cooking unit, with the lid resting on the upper flange, the lid is held open from the base portion by an angle of between 2-30 degrees” paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 31, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the rotisserie device according to claim 1, wherein during use of the device the grill cover is partially opened by at least about 20 degrees of upward cover rotation with respect to the joinder seam (“The flanges 2 and 3 may be arranged such that when the rotisserie support unit 20 is located in place between the lid and base portions of the cooking unit, with the lid resting on the upper flange, the lid is held open from the base portion by an angle of between 2-30 degrees” paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 32, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the rotisserie device according to claim 1, wherein during use of the device the grill cover is partially opened by at least about 25 degrees of upward cover rotation with respect to the joinder seam (“The flanges 2 and 3 may be arranged such that when the rotisserie support unit 20 is located in place between the lid and base portions of the cooking unit, with the lid resting on the upper flange, the lid is held open from the base portion by an angle of between 2-30 degrees” paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 33, Jenks discloses a hinged covered ceramic or metal kamado grill, or an unhinged covered metal kettle charcoal grill (“Kamado-type cookers are fashioned after these circular clay cooking vessels. Modern versions are made from ceramic or metal for durability” paragraph [0002]), the grill comprising a front-mounted cover handle (Figure 7) and a joinder seam defined by mating surfaces of the grill base and cover when the cover is fully closed and in full normal contact with the base (8 and 9), and further comprising:
a) a rotisserie device comprising a support ring for use in such grill, the device when installed in such grill having a generally wedge-shaped or trapezoidally-shaped external side profile that tapers from a maximum ring height at a ring location nearest the handle to a minimum ring height at a ring location furthest from the handle and which holds the cover and base apart in a partially-opened position while inhibiting airflow into and out of the grill (“the support ring 1 has a wedge shape designed to fit between the lid and base portions of a cooker that are connected by a hinged connection, e.g., as shown in the example embodiments shown in the figures” paragraph [0031]); the device comprising at least one motor mounted outside the ring that drives a removable, rotatable rotisserie spit that transects the ring on an axis (“rotisserie motor 6 and skewer 7” paragraph [0033]), and
b) a heat deflector, drip pan, wire cooking grid or other accessory for installation at the top of the grill base below the disclosed device and outside the swing radius (Figure 7 shows a cooking grid or accessory).
Jenks does not disclose a rotisserie spit that transects the ring on an axis closer to the handle than to the ring location opposite the handle, and wherein the spit has a greater swing radius and greater height with respect to the joinder seam and a lesser span across the ring compared to a spit that bisects the ring on an axis parallel to the handle.
However, Chambon teaches a rotisserie spit that transects the support on an axis closer to the handle than to the support location opposite the handle, and wherein the spit has a greater swing radius and greater height with respect to the joinder seam (“the lower tray has an oblique upper edge plane equipped with pairs of notches in which can be placed any supports such as rods or skewers carrying, for example, a single food such as poultry, or a large number of small pieces of various foods” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference. Specifically, notches 7 and/or 8).
In view of Chambon’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 rotisserie spit that transects the support on an axis closer to the handle than to the support location opposite the handle, and wherein the spit has a greater swing radius and greater height with respect to the joinder seam as is taught in Chambon, in the grill disclosed by Jenks because Chambon states “The device can therefore easily and very flexibly receive food of all sizes and in all positions.” Therefore, including the arrangement taught by Chambon will enable a user to cook foods of all sizes and at a plurality of locations in Jenks. The examiner notes that Chambon is relied upon to modify Jenks which comprises a ring. The modification would result in a lesser span across the ring compared to a spit that bisects the ring on an axis parallel to the handle.
Regarding claim 34, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the grill according to claim 33, wherein the grill is a hinged covered ceramic kamado grill (“Kamado-type cookers are fashioned after these circular clay cooking vessels. Modern versions are made from ceramic or metal for durability” paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 35, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the grill according to claim 33, wherein the grill is a hinged covered metal kamado grill (“Kamado-type cookers are fashioned after these circular clay cooking vessels. Modern versions are made from ceramic or metal for durability” paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 39, Jenks discloses a method for outdoor grilling, comprising the steps of:
a) building a fire from combustible material (“Rotisserie-style cooking is where the food (usually meat) is placed on a skewer called a spit, and rotates over a fire” paragraph [0004] implies the building of a fire) in the base of a hinged covered ceramic or metal kamado grill, or in the base of an unhinged covered metal kettle charcoal grill (“Kamado-type cookers are fashioned after these circular clay cooking vessels. Modern versions are made from ceramic or metal for durability” paragraph [0002]), the grill comprising a front-mounted cover handle and a joinder seam defined by mating surfaces of the grill base and cover when the cover is fully closed and in full normal contact with the base (8 and 9),
b) opening the cover and installing in the grill a rotisserie device (“FIG. 7 shows an example embodiment of the rotisserie assembly 30 being inserted onto a cooker 10, where the lower flange 2 will rest on the base of the cookers top rim 8” paragraph [0036]) comprising a support ring for use in such grill, the device when installed in such grill having a generally wedge-shaped or trapezoidally-shaped external side profile that tapers from a maximum ring height at a ring location nearest the handle to a minimum ring height at a ring location furthest from the handle and which holds the cover and base apart in a partially-opened position while inhibiting airflow into and out of the grill (“the support ring 1 has a wedge shape designed to fit between the lid and base portions of a cooker that are connected by a hinged connection, e.g., as shown in the example embodiments shown in the figures” paragraph [0031]); the device comprising at least one motor mounted outside the ring that drives a removable, rotatable rotisserie spit that transects the ring on an axis (“rotisserie motor 6 and skewer 7” paragraph [0033]), and
c) reinstalling the cover to trap the device between the cover and base with the cover in a partially opened position (“Once inserted, the lid of the cooker 11 will then close on the rotisserie support unit 20 where the bottom rim of the lid 9 will rest on the upper flange 2” paragraph [0036]).
Jenks does not disclose a rotisserie spit that transects the ring on an axis closer to the handle than to the ring location opposite the handle; and wherein the spit has a greater swing radius and greater height with respect to the joinder seam and a lesser span across the ring compared to a spit that bisects the ring on an axis parallel to the handle.
However, Chambon teaches a rotisserie spit that transects the support on an axis closer to the handle than to the support location opposite the handle, and wherein the spit has a greater swing radius and greater height with respect to the joinder seam (“the lower tray has an oblique upper edge plane equipped with pairs of notches in which can be placed any supports such as rods or skewers carrying, for example, a single food such as poultry, or a large number of small pieces of various foods” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference. Specifically, notches 7 and/or 8).
In view of Chambon’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 rotisserie spit that transects the support on an axis closer to the handle than to the support location opposite the handle, and wherein the spit has a greater swing radius and greater height with respect to the joinder seam as is taught in Chambon, in the method disclosed by Jenks because Chambon states “The device can therefore easily and very flexibly receive food of all sizes and in all positions.” Therefore, including the arrangement taught by Chambon will enable a user to cook foods of all sizes and at a plurality of locations in Jenks. The examiner notes that Chambon is relied upon to modify Jenks which comprises a ring. The modification would result in a lesser span across the ring compared to a spit that bisects the ring on an axis parallel to the handle.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks, in view of Chambon, and further in view of Kunz (US 20220053974 A1), hereinafter Kunz.
Regarding claim 25, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the rotisserie device according to claim 1, wherein the device includes a plurality of spits, with a spit nearest the handle having a greater height with respect to the joinder seam and a spit furthest from the handle having a lesser height with respect to the joinder seam and with at least one of such spits transects the ring on an axis closer to the handle than to the ring location opposite the handle (As modified by Chambon).
Jenks, as modified by Chambon, does not disclose wherein the device includes a plurality of motors each driving the plurality of spits.
However, Kunz teaches wherein the device includes a plurality of motors each driving the plurality of spits (“The inventive rotisserie cooking system operates by allowing a user variable control over the cooking mechanism to allow for greater utilization of the cooking system. It does this by incorporating a plurality of independent motors to turn skewers with the possibility of different rates of speed or to shut off rotation completely” paragraph [0038]).
In view of the teachings of Kunz, 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 device includes a plurality of motors each driving the plurality of spits as is taught in Kunz, in the rotisserie device as modified because Kunz states that variable control allows for greater utilization of the cooking system. Therefore, including a plurality of motors as taught by Kunz will improve utilization of the rotisserie as modified.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks, in view of Chambon, and further in view of Lu (US 6508167 B1), hereinafter Lu.
Regarding claim 26, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the rotisserie device according to claim 1.
Jenks, as modified by Chambon, does not disclose wherein the spit is equipped with two or more adjustable inward-facing forks.
However, Lu teaches wherein the spit is equipped with two or more adjustable inward-facing forks (“When carrying out broiling, food to be broiled is pricked on the spit 5 and has its opposite sides stabilized by the auxiliary tines 53” column 3, line 64).
PNG
media_image8.png
734
442
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In view of Lu’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 spit is equipped with two or more adjustable inward-facing forks as is taught in Lu, in the rotisserie device disclosed by Jenks because Lu states that the forks stabilize the food. Therefore, providing the forks taught by Lu will stabilize the food of Jenks.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks, in view of Chambon, and further in view of Pruitt (US 20210315418 A1), hereinafter Pruitt.
Regarding claim 27, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the rotisserie device according to claim 1.
Jenks, as modified by Chambon, does not disclose wherein the spit is equipped with a basket.
However, Pruitt teaches wherein the spit is equipped with a basket (“The system 101 may comprise a grill 105, and two baskets 102a, 102b positioned above a heat source (not shown) for the grill 105” paragraph [0039]).
PNG
media_image9.png
388
456
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In view of Pruitt’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 spit is equipped with a basket as is taught in Pruitt, in the rotisserie device disclosed by Jenks because Pruitt states “Some rotisserie systems may use baskets in combination with a spit to support a foodstuff over the heat source, especially a delicate foodstuff” (paragraph [0006]). Therefore, including a basket will enable cooking of delicate foodstuffs in Jenks.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks, in view of Chambon, and further in view of Minnich (US 20170014000 A1), hereinafter Minnich.
Regarding claim 28, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the rotisserie device according to claim 1, wherein the support ring is made from aluminum (“Each of the components of the rotisserie support unit 20, can be formed in any suitable manner and from any suitable material, for example, metal, aluminium, stainless steel, etc.” paragraph [0035]).
Jenks, as modified by Chambon, does not explicitly disclose cast aluminum.
However, Minnich teaches cast aluminum (“According to some embodiments, the grill accessory 100 may be constructed of a heat-resistant material such as for example, but not limited to, aluminum, steel, cast iron, ceramic, certain fibers and plastics/resins or other materials resistant up to, for example, a temperature of 1200° F. These materials may be welded, bent, cast, pressed, or assembled into a shape configured to mate with a grill as described herein” paragraph [0030]).
PNG
media_image10.png
664
456
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Jenks does not explicitly disclose cast aluminum. However, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this regard, it is noted that Minnich teaches cast aluminum is a suitable construction material for a grill insert. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to construct the grill insert of Jenks from cast aluminum.
Regarding claim 29, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the rotisserie device according to claim 1.
Jenks, as modified by Chambon, does not disclose wherein the device includes a high temperature-resistant gasket or seal that reduces air or smoke leakage between mating surfaces of the device and the grill base, cover or other adjacent accessories.
However, Minnich teaches wherein the device includes a high temperature-resistant gasket or seal that reduces air or smoke leakage between mating surfaces of the device and the grill base, cover or other adjacent accessories (“when engaged with the upper rim of the lower portion of the grill, the bottom surface 124 may substantially create a seal with the upper rim of a lower portion of a grill to prevent air from flowing out of the grill between the grill accessory and the bottom portion of the grill… the top surface may be configured to substantially provide a seal with the rim of the hinged lid when engaged with the rim of the hinged lid, to prevent (or substantially reduce) heat or air from escaping the grill” paragraph [0033]).
In view of Minnich’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 device includes a high temperature-resistant gasket or seal that reduces air or smoke leakage between mating surfaces of the device and the grill base, cover or other adjacent accessories as is taught in Minnich, in the rotisserie device disclosed by Jenks because Minnich states that the seal prevents heat from escaping the grill. Therefore, providing the seal taught by Minnich will improve efficiency in the grill of Jenks.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks, in view of Chambon, and further in view of Contarino (US 20110214662 A1), hereinafter Contarino.
Regarding claim 36, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the grill according to claim 33.
Jenks, as modified by Chambon does not wherein the grill is an unhinged covered metal kettle charcoal grill.
However, Contarino teaches wherein the grill is an unhinged covered metal kettle charcoal grill (“An exemplary kettle style grill 10 is shown in FIG. 1. An exemplary kamado style grill 20 is shown in FIG. 2. The cooking chambers 11, 21, respectively, of both of these styles of grill, respectively, (i.e., the enclosed portion containing the heating fuel and the cooking surface) are generally ovoid in shape with a circular or oval horizontal cross-section. They comprise a bottom or base portion 12, 22, respectively, and a top or cover portion 13, 23, respectively. They usually are heated by charcoal or wood placed in the bottom of the cooking chamber, although kettle and kamado grills heated by electricity or liquid fuel, such as propane, are known. Kettle style grills are often made of metal, such as steel. Kamado style grills usually are made of ceramic or other earthen materials that retain heat well. Most kettle style grills have a removable top 13, whereas kamado style grills usually have a hinged top 23 because the ceramic top is very heavy and would be difficult to handle if it were not attached” paragraph [0006]).
PNG
media_image11.png
482
454
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Jenks does not disclose the claimed grill type. Contarino teaches the claimed grill type. The substitution of one known element (the kamado type grill of Jenks) for another (the kettle type grill of Contarino) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the kettle type grill taught in Contarino would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for containing a heat source and supporting an accessory Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks, in view of Chambon, and further in view of Brennan (US 20210068590 A1), hereinafter Brennan.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, Jenks, as modified by Chambon, discloses the grill according to claim 33.
Jenks, as modified by Chambon, does not disclose wherein the accessory is a smoke deflector, wherein the smoke deflector promotes a cyclonic airflow pattern and increased smoke particle exposure for food cooked above deflector.
However, Brennan teaches wherein the accessory is a smoke deflector, wherein the smoke deflector promotes a cyclonic airflow pattern and increased smoke particle exposure for food cooked above deflector (“The geometry of insert assembly 116 induces a build-up of air and smoke vortices in the area above the deflector plate 122 and surrounding the cooking surface or food platform 108” paragraph [0025]).
PNG
media_image12.png
574
426
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In view of Brennan’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 accessory is a smoke deflector, wherein the smoke deflector promotes a cyclonic airflow pattern and increased smoke particle exposure for food cooked above deflector as is taught in Brennan, in the grill disclosed by Jenks because Brennan states “The insert improves the function of the existing cooking apparatus (e.g. grill/smoker/low temperature cooker, etc.) by providing more even heat around the cooking surface, by increasing the air residence time around the cooking surface, by promoting formation of ‘smoke spirals’ or cyclonic airflow around the cooking surface, and by directing grease and other cooking fluids to the fuel combustion chamber of the device” (paragraph [0037]). Therefore, including the structure of Brennan will improve function of Jenks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kidder (US 3191519 A) “This invention relates to a novel and useful barbecue rotary grill which is provided with means for rotatably mounting a spit grill or basket over a fire pan by means of a supporting frame”
PNG
media_image13.png
508
396
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Bourlier (US 20140021314 A1) “It will also be understood that the lower first surface 52 of the support ring 50 can rest in mateable engagement with the lip 20 of the open distal portion 18 of the base 14 with the heat sealing strip 32 disposed between the lower first surface 52 and the lip 20. Likewise, the upper second surface 54 of the support ring 50 can support the lip 22 of the lid 16 in mateable relation with the heat sealing strip 34 disposed between the upper second surface 54 and the lip 22”
PNG
media_image14.png
466
678
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Skrodzki (US 20160113441 A1)
PNG
media_image15.png
290
306
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
346
318
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Bhavthankar (US 20200352392 A1) “each spit rod 46 may be configured to be independently operable. In such examples, the drive system 142 may include a plurality of motors 166 to correspond to the spit rods 46. In other words, each spit rod 46 may be coupled to a motor 166. The speed of all the spit rods 46 and/or some of the spit rods 46 may be adjustable. Accordingly, each spit rod 46 may be operated at a different speed of rotation”
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