DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/03/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4-5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,930,967 in view of Jones (US 2012/0097046 A1).
Instant application
Reference patent
Claim 1. A food heater, comprising:
a base;
a drive unit mounted to the base,
wherein the drive unit is pivotable between a first position relative to the base and a second position relative to the base
a plurality of rollers rotatably coupled to the drive unit,
wherein individual ones of the rollers extend along a longitudinal axis, wherein the longitudinal axes of the rollers are parallel to one another,
wherein the drive unit is configured to rotate the rollers about the corresponding longitudinal axes when the rollers are in the first position, and
wherein the rollers are configured to be manually removable from the drive unit when the rollers are in the second position; and
a control panel mounted to the drive unit and positioned to face in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axes.
Claim 1. A food heater, comprising:
a base;
a drive unit pivotally coupled to the base,
the drive unit including a motor operably coupled to a drive member;
a plurality of heaters coupled to the drive unit and projecting outwardly therefrom;
a plurality of rollers configured to be individually positioned over corresponding ones of the heaters such that each of the heaters is positioned within a corresponding roller; and….
wherein the motor is configured to rotate the drive member to thereby rotate the rollers, and
wherein the drive unit is rotatable from a first position in which the rollers extend generally parallel to the base to a second position in which the rollers extend at an angle to the base.
Claim 2. The food heater of claim 1 wherein the rollers are configured to be manually removable from over the corresponding ones of the heaters without the use of tools when the drive unit is in the second position.
The reference claims does not explicitly disclose the roller’s longitudinal axes. However the longitudinal axes of the plurality of parallel rollers are inherent.
The reference claims does not disclose a control panel mounted to the drive unit and positioned to face in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axes.
Jones discloses a heating device with rollers (Fig. 2) which can be used for hot dogs (par. 29) wherein the user control panel faces a direction parallel to the longitudinal axes of the rollers (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified reference claims to incorporate the teachings of Jones and provide the control panel to face a direction parallel to the longitudinal axes of the rollers. Jones demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of placing the control panel in any particular direction based on design constraints and specifications.
Claim 4Claim 5
Claims 12 and 13 reads on the limitation
Claims 12-14 reads on the limitation
Claims 9 and 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,930,967 in view of Hunot (US 20050061161 A1).
Instant application
Reference patent
Claim 9. A food heater, comprising:
a base;
a drive unit mounted to the base,
wherein the drive unit is pivotable between a first position relative to the base and a second position relative to the base;
a plurality of rollers coupled to the drive unit, wherein individual ones of the rollers extend along a longitudinal axis,
wherein the longitudinal axes of the rollers are parallel to one another,
wherein the drive unit is configured to rotate the rollers about the longitudinal axes when the rollers are in the first position, and
wherein the rollers are configured to be manually removed from the drive unit when the rollers are in the second position;
a support structure positioned over the configured to support the rollers in the first position.
a drip tray configured to be positioned between the base and the plurality of rollers; and
a support structure positioned over the drip tray and configured to support the rollers in the first position.
Claim 1. A food heater, comprising:
a base;
a drive unit pivotally coupled to the base,
the drive unit including a motor operably coupled to a drive member;
a plurality of heaters coupled to the drive unit and projecting outwardly therefrom;
a plurality of rollers configured to be individually positioned over corresponding ones of the heaters such that each of the heaters is positioned within a corresponding roller; and….
wherein the motor is configured to rotate the drive member to thereby rotate the rollers, and
wherein the drive unit is rotatable from a first position in which the rollers extend generally parallel to the base to a second position in which the rollers extend at an angle to the base.
Claim 2. The food heater of claim 1 wherein the rollers are configured to be manually removable from over the corresponding ones of the heaters without the use of tools when the drive unit is in the second position.
Claim 6. …. wherein the food heater further includes a support structure coupled to the base and configured to support the second end portions of the heaters and the second end portions of the rollers in the first position.
The reference claims does not explicitly disclose the roller’s longitudinal axes. However the longitudinal axes of the plurality of parallel rollers are inherent.
The reference claims does not disclose a drip tray configured to be positioned between the base and the plurality of rollers; and
the support structure positioned over the drip tray and configured to support the rollers in the first position.
Hunot discloses a roller grill assembly, Fig. 1, wherein a grease drip tray 78 rest beneath the roller tubes to catch grease (par. 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference claims to incorporate the teachings of Hunot and provide a grease tray. Doing so would have the benefit of catching the grease drippings from the hot dog (par. 57, Hunot).
The combination results in a grease tray resting on the base of reference claims’ roller grill with the support structure positioned over the drip tray at the end of the grill to hold up the rollers.
Claim 11
Claim 7 reads on the limitation
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 3, 6, 8, and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the plurality of heaters” which lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "generally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites “wherein the rollers are concentrically aligned with the corresponding ones of the longitudinal axes.” This is indefinite because the rollers are already aligned with their corresponding axes.
Claim 12 recites “the heaters” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretors (US 11,930,967 B2) in view of Jones (US 2012/0097046 A1).
Claim 1. Cretors discloses a food heater (100, Fig. 1A), comprising:
a base (104, Fig. 1B);
a drive unit mounted to the base (drive unit 106 is attached to the base, Fig. 1B),
wherein the drive unit is pivotable between a first position relative to the base and a second position relative to the base (106 rotates between the first position and second position, Fig. 1C and 1D);
a plurality of rollers rotatably coupled to the drive unit (rollers 110, Fig. 1B),
wherein individual ones of the rollers extend along a longitudinal axis, wherein the longitudinal axes of the rollers are parallel to one another (roller extend along an axis and are parallel to each other, Fig. 1B),
wherein the drive unit is configured to rotate the rollers about the corresponding longitudinal axes when the rollers are in the first position (rollers are rotated by the drive unit in the first position, claim 1), and
wherein the rollers are configured to be manually removable from the drive unit when the rollers are in the second position (claim 2); and
a control panel mounted to the drive unit and positioned to face in a
Cretors does not disclose that the control panel faces a direction parallel to the longitudinal axes.
Jones discloses a heating device with rollers (Fig. 2) which can be used for hot dogs (par. 29) wherein the user control panel faces a direction parallel to the longitudinal axes of the rollers (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cretors to incorporate the teachings of Jones and provide the control panel to face a direction parallel to the longitudinal axes of the rollers. Jones demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of placing the control panel in any particular direction based on design constraints and specifications.
Claim 4. Cretors in view of Jones discloses the food heater of claim 1 wherein the base is configured to be positioned on a counter and has a user-facing portion and a rear portion opposite the user-facing portion (base is capable of being placed on a counter, wherein a portion faces a user and the rear is opposite of the user facing portion, col 7, lines 30),
wherein the drive unit is mounted to the rear portion of the base (drive unit is at the rear portion of the base, Fig. 1B),
wherein the rollers are accessible by a user at the user- facing portion, and
wherein the longitudinal axes of the rollers extend from the drive unit at the rear portion toward the user-facing portion (device can be placed such that the longitudinal axes of the roller extend towards the user facing portion, Fig. 1A).
Claim 5. Cretors in view of Jones discloses the food heater of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of sprockets configured to be coupled to corresponding ones of the rollers (sprockets coupled to rollers, claim 1),
wherein the drive unit includes a motor operably coupled to a worm drive member, wherein the worm drive member is configured to engage the sprockets (worm drive engages the sprockets, claim 13), and
wherein the motor is configured to drive the worm drive member to rotate the sprockets to thereby rotate the rollers about the longitudinal axes (motor drives the worm drive, claim 13).
Claim 6. Cretors in view of Jones discloses the food heater of claim 5 wherein rotation of the worm drive member is configured to pull the sprockets toward the drive unit (claim 14), and wherein
(a) the rollers each have generally the same dimensions as one another (claim 15) and
(b) the sprockets each have generally the same dimensions as one another such that each of the rollers rotates at generally the same rate (claim 15).
Claim 8. Cretors in view of Jones discloses the food heater of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of heating elements mounted to the drive unit (Fig. 1), wherein individual ones of the heating elements extend inside corresponding ones of the rollers (heaters 108 extend inside the rollers, Fig. 4), and wherein the rollers are concentrically aligned with the corresponding ones of the longitudinal axes (col 4, lines 60-65).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretors in view of Jones as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hill (US 7472645 B2).
Claim 2. Cretors in view of Jones discloses the food heater of claim 1, further comprising an actuation latch operably coupled to the drive unit,
wherein the actuation latch is configured to be actuated to pivot the drive unit between the first and second positions, and
wherein the control panel is positioned to face the actuation latch.
Hill discloses a grill wherein a handle at the front of the grill can be grabbed by an operator to pivot an upper platen (Fig. 1, col 2, lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cretors in view of Jones to incorporate the teachings of Hill and provide a handle with a lift/latch mechanism at the front of the rollers for lifting the rollers. Doing so would have the benefit of lifting the rollers between a first and second position.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [ 2 ] as applied to io
Claim 3. The food heater of claim 1, further comprising
Hunot discloses a roller grill assembly, Fig. 1, wherein a grease drip tray 78 rest beneath the roller tubes to catch grease (par. 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cretors to incorporate the teachings of Hunot and provide a grease tray. Doing so would have the benefit of catching the grease drippings from the hot dog (par. 57, Hunot).
Cretors in view of Hunot does not disclose that the drip tray is integrated with the support structure.
However, applicants have not provided why making the drip tray and support structure an integrated element solves any stated problem. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cretors to have the drip tray be integrated with the support structure since it has been held that the mere integration of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). MPEP 2144.V.B.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [ 2 ] as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kafentzsi (US 6,756,068 B1)
Claim 12. The food heater of claim 9, further comprising a plurality of end caps configured to seal corresponding ones of the rollers, wherein the support structure is configured to contact the end caps when supporting the heaters and the rollers in the first position.
Kafentzsi discloses a hot dog rolling food heater wherein the rollers have end caps that seal the rollers and contact a support structure (Fig. 5, par. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified REF to incorporate the teachings of Kafentzsi and provide end caps to the rollers. Doing so would have the benefit of sealing the ends of the roller to prevent liquid or grease from getting into it.
Claim(s) 9-11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretors in view of Hunot (US 20050061161 A1)
Claim 9. Cretors discloses a food heater (100, Fig. 1A), comprising:
a base (104, Fig. 1B);
a drive unit mounted to the base (drive unit 106 is attached to the base, Fig. 1B),
wherein the drive unit is pivotable between a first position relative to the base and a second position relative to the base (106 rotates between the first position and second position, Fig. 1C and 1D);
a plurality of rollers coupled to the drive unit, wherein individual ones of the rollers extend along a longitudinal axis (rollers 110, Fig. 1B),
wherein the longitudinal axes of the rollers are parallel to one another (rollers are parallel to a longitudinal axes, Fig. 1B),
wherein the drive unit is configured to rotate the rollers about the longitudinal axes when the rollers are in the first position (rollers are rotated by the drive unit in the first position, claim 1), and wherein the rollers are configured to be manually removed from the drive unit when the rollers are in the second position (claim 2);
a support structure positioned
Cretors does not disclose a drip tray configured to be positioned between the base and the plurality of rollers; and
the support structure positioned over the drip tray.
Hunot discloses a roller grill assembly, Fig. 1, wherein a grease drip tray 78 rest beneath the roller tubes to catch grease (par. 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cretors to incorporate the teachings of Hunot and provide a grease tray. Doing so would have the benefit of catching the grease drippings from the hot dog (par. 57, Hunot).
The combination results in a grease tray resting on the base of Cretors’ roller grill with the support structure positioned over the drip tray at the end of the grill to hold up the rollers.
Claim 10. Cretors in view of Hunot discloses the food heater of claim 9 wherein the support structure includes a plurality of grooves configured to support corresponding ones of the rollers in the first position (grooves holding up the ends of the roller, Fig. 8A-B).
Claim 11. Cretors in view of Hunot discloses the food heater of claim 9 wherein the support structure is configured to rotatably support distal end portions of the rollers (claim 7).
Claim 13. Cretors in view of Hunot does not disclose the food heater of claim 9 wherein the drip tray and the support structure form an integrated structure.
However, applicants have not provided why making the drip tray and support structure an integrated element solves any stated problem. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cretors to have the drip tray be integrated with the support structure since it has been held that the mere integration of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). MPEP 2144.V.B.
Claim 15. Cretors discloses the food heater of claim 9, further comprising a plurality of heating elements mounted to the drive unit (Fig. 1), wherein individual ones of the heating elements extend inside corresponding ones of the rollers (heaters 108 extend inside the rollers, Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose wherein the induction AC current only runs in one direction under each roller.
Cretors (US 2010/0163548 A1) discloses a hot dog roller wherein the AC current runs in multiple different directions under each roller (Fig. 3A). However, Cretors does not disclose that the direction of the AC current is only in one direction under the rollers.
The prior art does not disclose nor suggest that the direction of the AC current should flow in only one direction under each roller.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights