DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species, Group I: Claims 1-8 are drawn to a grill plate with projection members configured to abut a support element, specifically featuring a reversible configuration with symmetrical support (as illustrated in Figs. 1-2); Group II: Claims 9-16 are drawn to a grill plate with a plurality of leg members located specifically at a rear side of the cooking surface projecting downwardly (as illustrated in Figs. 3-4). The species are independent or distinct because the species of Group I requires symmetrical projection members and wall member that allow the plate to be reversible (claim 8), which requires a specific geometry where both the top and bottom of the leg members are functional for mating with a rack. In contrast, Group II requires leg members located specifically at the rear side to provide pitch, which does not require symmetrical and reversible structure of Group I. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, Claims 17-20 are generic to both Group I and Group II.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The search for Group I would focus on reversible cookware and symmetrical support interfaces for oven racks. The search for Group II would focus on non-reversible, inclined cooking surfaces and rear-propped support legs. A search for one would not necessarily encompass the other; therefore, the inventions require a separate search and place an undue burden on the Examiner.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Meyers Dill on 1/14/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8 and 17-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
The present application claims priority to Provisional Application 63/363,218, filed on April 19, 2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the one or more projection members each preferably include a recess…” The use of word “preferably” in the claim creates ambiguity as to the actual scope of the claim. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation are, because by using “preferably” in the claims render the claim scope vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the “recess” is a mandatory structural limitation or merely an optional feature that may or may not be present. For the purpose of expediting compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the claim without “preferably” and suggests the Applicant to delete the word “preferably” to make the recess a mandatory limitation of the structural requirement.
Claim 8 recites “substantially reversible.” The term “substantially” is a word of degree. While words of degree are not per se indefinite, they are only permissible if the specification provides an objective standard for measuring that degree. In the present case, it is unclear what substantially reversible means in a functional or structural context. Does it mean the top and bottom surfaces are 100% identical or does it mean they are functional equivalent but visually different? Does it mean the leg members are symmetrical across a horizontal axis? Without a clear standard or numerical range provided in the specification to define the boundaries of substantially, it is unclear to the person of ordinary skill in the art would not know when a grill plate ceases to be substantially reversible and becomes non-reversible. The Examiner will interpret the claim limitation without “substantially.”
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lequy (US 20060289452 A1, hereinafter, “Lequy”) in view of Jacques (FR 2744617, translation is provided, hereinafter, “Jacques”).
Claim 1, Lequy discloses a grill plate configured for use (Abstract: “reversible cooking grill (1) with a heated cooking plate (2)”), the grill plate comprising:
a cooking surface (Abstract: “first and second cooking surfaces (3, 4)”); and
one or more projection members projecting outwardly from the cooking surface (para. [0049] and [0068] plate bearing means (6, 7) which projecting members extending from the plate, see Fig. 3),
wherein when the one or more projection members abut the support element, the cooking surface slopes downwardly from a rear side toward a front side of the cooking surface (para. [0014]-[0016] disclosing the projection members provide a tilt or tile angle).
However, Lequy fails to expressly teach, within an oven,
the one or more projection members configured to abut a support element within the oven
Nonetheless, Jacques is in the similar field of grilling plate, which specifically teaches, the one or more projection members configured to abut a support element within the oven (claim 14, discloses a grill plate with supports configured to abut an “oven rack (14)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the sloped grill plate of Lequy for use in an oven as taught by Jacques for the motivation to provide a versatile grilling surface that utilizes gravity-fed drainage to prevent grease pooling. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar grill plate field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same grill plate related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Jacques, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 3, the combination of Lequy and Jacques make obvious of the grill plate of claim 1. Lequy further discloses, wherein the cooking surface slopes downwardly at an angle of less than 10 degrees (Lequy para. [0016], a tilt of 3 degree, which is within the claimed range).
Claim 6, the combination of Lequy and Jacques make obvious of the grill plate of claim 1. Lequy further discloses, wherein the one or more projection members are aligned along a center of the grill plate (Lequy para. [0024] discloses tilt axis which allows the plate to be selectively turned. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to move the supports to along a center of the grill plate to facilitate the reversibility taught by Lequy so when the grill plate if flipped, the drainage pitch remains consistent on both sides).
Claim 7, the combination of Lequy and Jacques make obvious of the grill plate of claim 1. Jacques further teaches, wherein the one or more projection members are located at the rear side of the grill plate (Jacques claim 2 teaches the plate is inclined from rear to front and page 2 describes a rear support device which is representative of projection members located at the rear side of the grill plate. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to locate the projection members at the rear side of the grill plate as taught by Jacques for the goal of providing a downward slope toward the front for drainage to achieve the functional goal of gravity led drainage).
Claim 8, the combination of Lequy and Jacques make obvious of the grill plate of claim 1. Lequy further discloses, wherein the grill plate is substantially reversible (Lequy Abstract: reversible cooking grill).
Claim 17, Lequy discloses a grill plate configured for use (Abstract: “reversible cooking grill (1) with a heated cooking plate (2)”), the grill plate comprising:
a cooking surface (Abstract: “first and second cooking surfaces (3, 4)”); and
a plurality of projection members configured to provide a slope to the cooking surface (para. [0049] and [0068] plate bearing means (6, 7) which projecting members extending from the plate, see Fig. 3).
However, Lequy does not expressly teach the environment of within an oven.
Nonetheless, Jacques is in the similar field of grilling plate, which specifically teaches, within the oven (claim 14, discloses a grill plate with supports configured to abut an “oven rack (14)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the sloped grill plate of Lequy for use in an oven as taught by Jacques for the motivation to provide a versatile grilling surface that utilizes gravity-fed drainage to prevent grease pooling. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar grill plate field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same grill plate related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Jacques, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 18, the combination of Lequy and Jacques make obvious of the grill plate of claim 17. Jacques further teaches, wherein the plurality of projection members are configured to abut a support element within the oven (claim 14, discloses a grill plate with supports configured to abut an “oven rack (14)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the sloped grill plate of Lequy for use in an oven as taught by Jacques for the motivation to provide a versatile grilling surface that utilizes gravity-fed drainage to prevent grease pooling. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar grill plate field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same grill plate related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Jacques, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 19, the combination of Lequy and Jacques make obvious of the grill plate of claim 17. Lequy further discloses, wherein the slope is at an angle of less than 10 degrees (Lequy para. [0016], a tilt of 3 degree, which is within the claimed range).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lequy (US 20060289452 A1, hereinafter, “Lequy”) in view of Jacques (FR 2744617) and further in view of Stone (US 20150313408 A1, hereinafter, “Stone”).
Claim 2, the combination of Lequy and Jacques make obvious of the grill plate of claim 1.
The combination fails to expressly teach, wherein the one or more projection members each preferably include a recess configured to mate with the support element.
Stone is in the similar field of cooking griddle placed on any heating source, specifically teaches, wherein the one or more projection members each preferably include a recess configured to mate with the support element (para. [0036]-[0037] and claim 7 teaching an indent (i.e., recess) configured to lock the heating surface securely to a grill and specifically indicates, indent 604 is also larger and longer to fit a larger variety of prior art heating sources to prevent the griddle 102 from sliding off the heat source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of grill plate of Lequy to incorporate the semi-circular indent (recess) of Mojoe into the bearing means of Lequy for the motivation of locking the grill plate and preventing the plate from sliding, which ensuring the grill plate remains in a stable and safe position during use.
Claims 4, 5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lequy (US 20060289452 A1, hereinafter, “Lequy”) in view of Jacques (FR 2744617) and further in view of Jones et al (US 20120097046 A1, hereinafter, “Jones”).
Claims 4 and 20, the combination of Lequy and Jacques make obvious of the grill plate of claims 1 and 17.
The combination fails to expressly teach, further comprising a plurality of drain holes located adjacent to the front side of the cooking surface,
Jones is in the similar field of grill plate, specifically teaches, further comprising a plurality of drain holes located adjacent to the front side of the cooking surface (Jones para. [0023] teaching a hole 33 which allows food drippings to exit the grill plate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to incorporate the drain holes of Jones into the sloped plate of Lequy for the predictable application of gravity fed drainage principle for the motivation of allowing food drippings to exit the grill plate.
Claim 5, the combination of Lequy, Jacques, and Jones make obvious of the grill plate of claim 4. Stone further teaches,
wherein the plurality of drain holes are positioned and located above a drain pan such that cooking byproducts from foodstuffs that pass through the plurality of drain holes may be collected in the drain pan (Para. [0023] and Fig. 2 teaches a grease cup 34 located immediately below grill plate hole 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to incorporate the drain holes of Jones into the sloped plate of Lequy for the predictable application of gravity fed drainage principle for the motivation of allowing food drippings to exit the grill plate on a cup for collection for the predictable result of mess free byproduct collection.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Pickering et al. (US 20020043529 A1)
Boniotti (US 20200297162 A1)
Cornfield (US 20040211406 A1)
Leavens et al. (US 20090071465 A1)
Gwack (KR20190078796A)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626