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 § 112
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11-20 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.
The terms “grilling conditions” and “broiling conditions” in claims 4, 5, 9, and 11 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. These terms are 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. For examination purposes, these terms will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and will be understood as providing for cooking.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 (claims 4, 5, 11, 14, 18, and 20 as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shen (US 2021/0235925), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Shen shows:
1. An outdoor cooking system, comprising: a housing assembly having a plurality of cooking zones 36,50 and at least one gaseous fuel burner 34 therein, wherein the at least one gaseous fuel burner is located between a pair of the cooking zones (fig. 2).
2. The outdoor cooking system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one gaseous fuel burner creates a flame envelope plume that comprises an adjustable temperature (para. 0023).
4. The outdoor cooking system of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the cooking zones creates broiling conditions (conditions for cooking as understood).
5. The outdoor cooking system of Claim 1, wherein at least one of cooking zones 36 creates grilling conditions (conditions for cooking as understood).
6. The outdoor cooking system of Claim 1, wherein the housing assembly provides four cooking zones (fig. 2 – 3 grilling zones, 1 side burner, 1 air fryer).
11. A cooking system, comprising: a housing assembly having a first cooking zone and a second cooking zone; and a gaseous fuel energy assembly disposed within the housing assembly, wherein the gaseous fuel energy assembly is configured to permit broiling conditions in the first zone, and wherein the gaseous fuel energy assembly is configured to permit grilling conditions in the second zone (see previous claims).
14. The cooking system of Claim 11, wherein the thermal energy assembly includes vented shroud for cooling the housing assembly (fig. 2,3).
18. The cooking system of Claim 11, wherein the first zone is located intermediate the second zone and the base (fig. 2,3).
20. The cooking system of Claim 11, wherein the gaseous fuel energy assembly creates a flame envelope plume comprising infrared heat (inherent).
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 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 3, 8, and 9 (claim 9 as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (US 2021/0235925), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Shen teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the claimed temperature range.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shen, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values or ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Swain, 156 F.2d 239. See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Claims 7, 10, and 19 (claims 7 and 19 as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (US 2021/0235925), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Shen teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the height-adjustable grilling zone.
Official Notice is given that a height-adjustable grilling zone is old and well known in the art.
Such an arrangement has the clear and obvious benefit of providing for convenience in cooking.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate height-adjustable grilling zone into the invention disclosed by Shen, so as to provide for convenience in cooking.
Claim 12 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (US 2021/0235925), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Shen teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the claimed materials.
Nevertheless, the particular material used is simply a matter dependent on availability, cost, and consumer demand/preference.
The claimed materials are well within the knowledge and ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, applicant has failed to particularly point out any criticality that would require this material over other such materials also well known for use as claimed other than the evident manufacturing considerations of availability and cost.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the claimed material into the invention disclosed by Shen, so as to satisfy considerations of availability, cost, and consumer demand.
Claims 13, 15, and 17 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (US 2021/0235925), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Shen teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the circular cross-section shape.
The claimed shape is an obvious modification based on design choice, and depends on spatial considerations such as availability of space and arrangement of other components, as well as manufacturing considerations based on consumer preference of esthetics.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed shape into the invention disclosed by Shen, so as to provide for spatial and manufacturing considerations.
Claim 16 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (US 2021/0235925), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Shen teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the use of a pan.
Official Notice is given that the use of a pan in cooking is old and well known in the art.
Such an arrangement has the clear and obvious benefit of providing for convenience in cooking.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate height-adjustable grilling zone into the invention disclosed by Shen, so as to provide for convenience in cooking.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
September 25, 2025
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762