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 .
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 1-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spaced flame openings" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the plurality of flame openings”. Claim 1 line 5 has the same problem.
The term “the order of” in claims 4, 9 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the order of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since the specification doesn’t provide a range of the temperature to be considered to be “the order of 350C”, it’s not clear what temperature range is required to meet this limitation.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the spaced flame openings" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the plurality of flame openings”. Claim 6 line 6 has the same problem
Claim 6 preamble recites “for cooking a food product disposed on a substrate”, and this is an intended use for the cooking appliance. However claim 6 limitation recites “a gas burner disposed below the substrate”, and this limitation requires that the gas burner to be disposed below the substrate. Therefore it is unclear if the substrate is part of the cooking appliance. Examiner interprets that the substrate is not part of the cooking appliance, and it’s merely a tool (such as pot, pan, any food support) that can be used with the cooking appliance. Therefore in claim 6 line 3, the limitation is interpreted to be “a gas burner configured to be disposed below the substrate…”
Claim 12 recites “the gas burner is positioned such that the generally horizontally oriented flame is directed” in line 4. However claim 12 says that the horizontally directed flame openings are formed in the second gas burner. Therefore it is not clear if generally horizontally oriented flame is actually generated by the gas burner or the second gas burner. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the second gas burner is positioned such that the generally horizontally oriented flame is directed”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-12, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayberry (US 20170030585).
Regarding claim 1, Mayberry teaches a gas burner “for a food cooking appliance, the food cooking appliance adapted to cook an underside of a food product” (this is intended use), the burner (burner system 10, fig 7) comprising:
a plurality of circumferentially spaced flame openings (openings for flame 62 to come out in fig 7);
a radiant (240, fig 7) disposed above and proximate to the plurality of spaced flame openings;
wherein “heat generated by flames emanating from the plurality of spaced flame openings heats the radiant, causing the radiant to radiate heat, to increase the overall heat generated by the burner” (This is intended function and system 10 can perform this function).
Regarding claim 5, Mayberry teaches “the food product is a hamburger patty”. (This is intended use and food product isn’t party of the burner).
Regarding claim 6, Mayberry teaches a food cooking appliance “for cooking a food product disposed on a substrate” (This is intended use), the food cooking appliance comprising:
a gas burner (burner system 10, fig 7) “configured to be disposed below the substrate” (burner system can be placed below a substrate such as a cooking plate), the gas burner including a plurality of circumferentially spaced flame openings (openings for flame 62 to come out in fig 7) and a radiant (240, fig 7) disposed above and proximate to the plurality of spaced flame openings;
wherein “heat generated by flames emanating from the plurality of spaced flame openings heats the radiant, causing the radiant to radiate heat, to increase the overall heat transferred to the substrate by the burner to cook the underside of the food product” (This is intended function and system 10 can perform this function).
Regarding claim 9, Mayberry teaches the burner generates heat of the order of 350C (Since the spec doesn’t define the range for the meaning of “order of 350C”, examiner interprets that any temperature produced by a burner of order of 350C. Therefore the burner system of Mayberry meets this limitation.)
Regarding claim 10, Mayberry teaches “the food product is a hamburger patty”. (This is intended use and food product isn’t party of the burner).
Regarding claim 11, Mayberry teaches “the substrate is a rotary plate” (The substrate is intended use and can be a rotary plate.)
Regarding claim 12, Mayberry teaches a second gas burner (28, fig 1) “adapted to cook a topside of the food product” (This is intended function), the second gas burner comprising a plurality of generally horizontally directed flame openings (126, fig 9) adapted to generate a generally horizontally oriented flame, wherein “the second gas burner is positioned such that the generally horizontally oriented flame is directed across the topside of the food product disposed on the substrate” (This is intended function. The substrate isn’t positively recited to be part of appliance.).
Regarding claim 15, Mayberry teaches the burner generates heat of the order of 350C (Since the spec doesn’t define the range for the meaning of “order of 350C”, examiner interprets that any temperature produced by a burner of order of 350C. Therefore the burner system of Mayberry meets this limitation.)
Regarding claim 16, Mayberry teaches “the food product is a hamburger patty”. (This is intended use and food product isn’t party of the burner).
Regarding claim 17, Mayberry teaches “the substrate is a rotary plate” (The substrate is intended use and can be a rotary plate.)
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.
Claims 2-4, 7-8, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayberry (US 20170030585) in view of Cellissen (US 20080199820).
Regarding claim 2, Mayberry teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the radiant (which is part of a combustion heating system) is made of cast iron.
Cellissen teaches a combustion heating system made of cast iron ([0004] “hot blast stove… support assembly, usually comprising a supporting grid consisting substantially of a grey cast iron grid which is strengthened by girders, supported by grey cast iron columns.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mayberry as taught by Cellissen by using cast iron as material for the radiant in order to provide a more heat resistant and durable radiant for the burner system.
Regarding claim 3, Mayberry in view of Cellissen teaches GG18 grade cast iron (“grey cast iron” See https://www.steel-grades.com/metals/85/218472/DIN-GG-18.html Grey cast iron is GG-18 cast iron.)
Regarding claim 4, Mayberry in view of Cellissen teaches the burner generates heat of the order of 350C (Since the spec doesn’t define the range for the meaning of “order of 350C”, examiner interprets that any temperature produced by a burner of order of 350C. Therefore the burner system of Mayberry meets this limitation.)
Regarding claim 7, Mayberry teaches all the limitations of claim 6, but fails to teach the radiant (which is part of a combustion heating system) is made of cast iron.
Cellissen teaches a combustion heating system made of cast iron ([0004] “hot blast stove… support assembly, usually comprising a supporting grid consisting substantially of a grey cast iron grid which is strengthened by girders, supported by grey cast iron columns.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mayberry as taught by Cellissen by using cast iron as material for the radiant in order to provide a more heat resistant and durable radiant for the burner system.
Regarding claim 8, Mayberry in view of Cellissen teaches GG18 grade cast iron (“grey cast iron” See https://www.steel-grades.com/metals/85/218472/DIN-GG-18.html Grey cast iron is GG-18 cast iron.)
Regarding claim 13, Mayberry teaches all the limitations of claim 11, but fails to teach the radiant (which is part of a combustion heating system) is made of cast iron.
Cellissen teaches a combustion heating system made of cast iron ([0004] “hot blast stove… support assembly, usually comprising a supporting grid consisting substantially of a grey cast iron grid which is strengthened by girders, supported by grey cast iron columns.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mayberry as taught by Cellissen by using cast iron as material for the radiant in order to provide a more heat resistant and durable radiant for the burner system.
Regarding claim 14, Mayberry teaches all the limitations of claim 12, but fails to teach the radiant (which is part of a combustion heating system) is made of GG18 grade cast iron.
Cellissen teaches a combustion heating system made of cast iron ([0004] “hot blast stove… support assembly, usually comprising a supporting grid consisting substantially of a grey cast iron grid which is strengthened by girders, supported by grey cast iron columns.” See https://www.steel-grades.com/metals/85/218472/DIN-GG-18.html Grey cast iron is GG-18 cast iron).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mayberry as taught by Cellissen by using cast iron as material for the radiant in order to provide a more heat resistant and durable radiant for the burner system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571)272-6785. 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762