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. Claim s 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck ( US 20050126083 A1 ), hereinafter Rebeck , in view of Rachels ( US 4416251 A ), hereinafter Rachels . Regarding claim 1, Rebeck discloses a grill housing for enclosing a barbeque grill during storage and use thereof, comprising: a base panel (“ platform 48 ” paragraph [0028]), a back panel (“ rear wall 24 ” paragraph [0028]) , left and right side panels (“ side walls 26 and 28 ” paragraph [0028) , and a roof panel (“ roof member 30 ” paragraph [0027]) each respectively formed from a non-combustible material (“ grille shelter 20 may alternatively be constructed of other materials such as masonry, steel or plastic ” paragraph [0021] emphasis added ) and being cooperatively configured and arranged in assembled relation to receive, support and surround a barbeque grill (“ The present invention generally relates to a grille shelter and particularly to a grille shelter capable of moving from a closed position for use in storing a grille to an open position that allows a user to use the grille for cooking while the grille remains positioned inside the grille shelter ” paragraph [0002]). Rebeck does not disclose at least one spacing bracket extending rearwardly from said back panel to provide a gap between said grill housing and an adjacent structure. However, Rachels teaches at least one spacing bracket extending rearwardly from said back panel to provide a gap between said stove housing and an adjacent structure (“ upper-offset bracket/wall attachment means, as at 33, for: (a) establishing and maintaining an optimum spaced distance between the uppermost portion of the sub-assembly 19 and the wall 15 which is being shielded therewith ” column 3, line 48 and/or “ a pair of lower-offset bracket means, as at 49, for establishing and maintaining an optimum spaced distance between the lowermost portion of the sub-assembly 19 and the wall 15 which is being shielded therewith ” column 4, line 45). In view of the teachings of Rachels , it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include at least one spacing bracket extending rearwardly from said back panel to provide a gap between said stove housing and an adjacent structure as is taught in Rachels , in the grill housing assembly disclosed by Rebeck because Rachels states “ support structure for supporting the sub-assembly in place between the heating appliance and the wall to be protected ” (abstract). Therefore, including the spacing bracket of Rachels will protect an adjacent wall . Regarding claim 9, Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, discloses the grill housing of claim 1 further comprising a front panel assembly including at least one hinged door, and wherein the base panel, back panel, left panel, right panel, roof panel and front panel assembly being cooperatively configured and arranged in assembled relation to receive, support and enclose a barbeque grill (“ A first pivoting panel 34 and a second pivoting panel 36 may be pivotally or hingedly attached to first and second side walls 26 and 28 respectively with first hinged attachment 27 as shown in FIG. 1. If a relatively small grille is to be sheltered, a single pivoting panel may suffice. First and second pivoting panels 34 and 36 may include a first section 38 and second section 40 configured to enclose the front corners of grille shelter 20 ” paragraph [0023]) . Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, and further in view of Boesvert ( US 5245801 A ), hereinafter Boesvert . Regarding claim 2 , Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, discloses the grill housing assembly of claim 1 . Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, does not disclose wherein said base panel includes leveling feet in each corner thereof. However, Boesvert teaches wherein said base includes leveling feet in each corner thereof (“ Caster rollers 19 each having an adjuster rod 20 threadedly directed through a lower frame rail ” column 3, line 36). In view of Boesvert’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 said base includes leveling feet in each corner thereof as is taught in Boesvert , in the grill housing disclosed by Rebeck because the court has held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance In re Stevens , 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) . In the present case, Boesvert shows that adjustability is desirable. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, and further in view of Nakamura ( US 4583518 A ), hereinafter Nakamura . Regarding claim 3 , Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, discloses the grill housing of claim 1 wherein said at least one spacing bracket comprises spaced mounting brackets extending a long the back panel (By the modification of Rachels) . Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, does not disclose C-shaped mounting brackets extending horizontally across the panel. However, Nakamura teaches a C-shaped mounting bracket extending horizontally across the panel (“ The spacer 20 comprises a spacer body 22 formed of a rigid material such as a metallic or plastic wire or elongated strip into a substantially U-shape ” column 3, line 35). Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, does not disclose the claimed shape. However, the court has held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the shape of the bracket. On the contrary, the applicant states “ to the extent that linear or circular dimensions are used in the description of the disclosed systems, devices, and methods, such dimensions are not intended to limit the types of shapes that can be used in conjunction with such systems, devices, and methods. A person skilled in the art will recognize that an equivalent to such linear and circular dimensions can easily be determined for any geometric shape .” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the bracket to be C-shaped. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, in view of Boesvert , and further in view of Nakamura . Regarding claim 4, Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Boesvert , discloses the grill housing of claim 2 wherein said at least one spacing bracket comprises spaced mounting brackets extending along the back panel (By the modification of Rachels). Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Boesvert , does not disclose C-shaped mounting brackets extending horizontally across the panel. However, Nakamura teaches a C-shaped mounting bracket extending horizontally across the panel (“ The spacer 20 comprises a spacer body 22 formed of a rigid material such as a metallic or plastic wire or elongated strip into a substantially U-shape ” column 3, line 35). Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Boesvert , does not disclose the claimed shape. However, the court has held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the shape of the bracket. On the contrary, the applicant states “ to the extent that linear or circular dimensions are used in the description of the disclosed systems, devices, and methods, such dimensions are not intended to limit the types of shapes that can be used in conjunction with such systems, devices, and methods. A person skilled in the art will recognize that an equivalent to such linear and circular dimensions can easily be determined for any geometric shape .” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the bracket to be C-shaped. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, and further in view of Townsend ( CA 2235505 A1 ), hereinafter Townsend . Regarding claim 5, Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, discloses th e grille housing of claim 1 Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, does not disclose wherein said roof panel is angled upwardly and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base panel. However, Townsend teaches wherein said roof panel is angled upwardly (“ this angle may be more or less than 90° to give the canopy 24 a slope in either the forward or rearward direction ” page 7, line 23) and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base (Figure 6B) . In view of Townsend’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 said roof panel is angled upwardly and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base as is taught in Townsend, in the grill housing disclosed by Rebeck , because Townsend states “ The provision of a canopy to provide shade from the sun and shelter from the rain would be desirable ” (page 1, line 9). Therefore, extending the roof panel as in Townsend will provide additional protection from sun and rain. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, in view of Boesvert , and further in view of Townsend . Regarding claim 6, Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Boesvert , discloses the grille housing of claim 2 . Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Boesvert , does not disclose wherein said roof panel is angled upwardly and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base panel. However, Townsend teaches wherein said roof panel is angled upwardly (“this angle may be more or less than 90° to give the canopy 24 a slope in either the forward or rearward direction” page 7, line 23) and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base (Figure 6B). In view of Townsend’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 said roof panel is angled upwardly and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base as is taught in Townsend, in the grill housing disclosed by Rebeck , because Townsend states “ The provision of a canopy to provide shade from the sun and shelter from the rain would be desirable ” (page 1, line 9). Therefore, extending the roof panel as in Townsend will provide additional protection from sun and rain. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, in view of Nakamura , and further in view of Townsend . Regarding claim 7, Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Nakamura, discloses the grille housing of claim 3 . Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Nakamura , does not disclose wherein said roof panel is angled upwardly and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base panel. However, Townsend teaches wherein said roof panel is angled upwardly (“this angle may be more or less than 90° to give the canopy 24 a slope in either the forward or rearward direction” page 7, line 23) and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base (Figure 6B). In view of Townsend’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 said roof panel is angled upwardly and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base as is taught in Townsend, in the grill housing disclosed by Rebeck , because Townsend states “ The provision of a canopy to provide shade from the sun and shelter from the rain would be desirable ” (page 1, line 9). Therefore, extending the roof panel as in Townsend will provide additional protection from sun and rain. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, in view of Boesvert , in view of Nakamura , and further in view of Townsend . Regarding claim 8, Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, Boesvert , and Nakamura, discloses the grille housing of claim 4 . Rebeck , as modified by Rachels , Boesvert , and Nakamura, does not disclose wherein said roof panel is angled upwardly and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base panel. However, Townsend teaches wherein said roof panel is angled upwardly (“this angle may be more or less than 90° to give the canopy 24 a slope in either the forward or rearward direction” page 7, line 23) and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base (Figure 6B). In view of Townsend’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 said roof panel is angled upwardly and a front edge thereof extends forward of the base as is taught in Townsend, in the grill housing disclosed by Rebeck , because Townsend states “ The provision of a canopy to provide shade from the sun and shelter from the rain would be desirable ” (page 1, line 9). Therefore, extending the roof panel as in Townsend will provide additional protection from sun and rain. Claim s 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, and further in view of Lagrou ( US 5876086 A ), hereinafter Lagrou . Regarding claim s 10 and 11 , Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, discloses the grill housing of claim 9 wherein said front panel assembly includes lower left and right door portions, said lower left and right door portions hinged along respective left and right side edges thereof to said left and right side panels (“ A first pivoting panel 34 and a second pivoting panel 36 may be pivotally or hingedly attached to first and second side walls 26 and 28 respectively with first hinged attachment 27 as shown in FIG. 1. If a relatively small grille is to be sheltered, a single pivoting panel may suffice. First and second pivoting panels 34 and 36 may include a first section 38 and second section 40 configured to enclose the front corners of grille shelter 20 ” paragraph [0023]) . Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, does not disclose: wherein said front panel assembly includes an upper panel portion, said upper panel proportion hinged along a top edge thereof to a forward edge of said roof panel; at least one gas-assisted spring piston connected between the upper panel portion of the front panel assembly and the roof panel such that the upper panel portion of the front panel assembly is operatively assisted to move between a closed position when retracted and an open position when extended However, Lagrou teaches : wherein said front panel assembly includes an upper panel portion and lower left and right door portions, said upper panel proportion hinged along a top edge thereof to a forward edge of said roof panel, said lower left and right door portions hinged along respective left and right side edges thereof to said left and right side panels (“ first door 16 is a first vertical door member 34 having a first vertical pivot axis 36 ” column 3, line 40 and “ second door 18 is a second vertical door member 64 having a second vertical pivot axis 66 ” column 4, line 4 and “ third door 20 is a horizontal door member 90 having a horizontal pivot axis 92 ” column 4, line 32) ; at least one gas-assisted spring piston connected between the upper panel portion of the front panel assembly and the roof panel such that the upper panel portion of the front panel assembly is operatively assisted to move between a closed position when retracted and an open position when extended (“ in order to assist in opening horizontal door member 90, strut members 98 are pivotally attached ” column 4, line 47). In view of Lagrou’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 the door configuration as is taught in Lagrou , in the grill housing disclosed by Rebeck because the upper panel extends substantially more outward than the configuration in Rebeck . Thus, the configuration taught by Lagrou will provide greater protection from the sun and rain. Claim s 1 2 , 14, 16, and 1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, and further in view of Williams ( US 3884307 A ), hereinafter Williams . Regarding claims 12, 14, 16, and 18, Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, discloses the grill housing assembly of claim 9. Rebeck , as modified by Rachels, does not disclose a fire extinguishing ball , wherein said fire extinguishing ball comprises a dry chemical flame activated exploding ball which is mounted in an upper portion of said housing . However, Williams teaches a fire extinguishing ball, wherein said fire extinguishing ball comprises a dry chemical flame activated exploding ball (“ rupturable segments forced outward to form openings through the bottom end to allow its fire extinguishing powder to fall out for fire extinguishing purposes ” column 2, line 48) which is mounted in an upper portion of said housing (Figure 1) . In view of the teachings of Williams, 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 fire extinguishing ball, wherein said fire extinguishing ball comprises a dry chemical flame activated exploding ball as is taught in Williams, in the grill housing assembly disclosed by Rebeck because Williams states “ It is an object of the present invention to provide an arrangement for effectively opening the wall of a fire extinguisher container in the presence of undesired temperatures to allow a fire extinguishing substance to pass out of the container ” (column 1, line 37). Therefore, including the ball of Williams will improve safety in Rebeck by preventing the presence of undesired temperatures. Claim s 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, in view of Nakamura, and further in view of Williams . Regarding claims 13 and 17, Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Nakamura, disclose the grill housing assembly of claim 3. Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Nakamura , does not disclose a fire extinguishing ball, wherein said fire extinguishing ball comprises a dry chemical flame activated exploding ball which is mounted in an upper portion of said housing. However, Williams teaches a fire extinguishing ball, wherein said fire extinguishing ball comprises a dry chemical flame activated exploding ball (“ rupturable segments forced outward to form openings through the bottom end to allow its fire extinguishing powder to fall out for fire extinguishing purposes ” column 2, line 48) which is mounted in an upper portion of said housing (Figure 1). In view of the teachings of Williams, 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 fire extinguishing ball, wherein said fire extinguishing ball comprises a dry chemical flame activated exploding ball as is taught in Williams, in the grill housing assembly disclosed by Rebeck because Williams states “ It is an object of the present invention to provide an arrangement for effectively opening the wall of a fire extinguisher container in the presence of undesired temperatures to allow a fire extinguishing substance to pass out of the container ” (column 1, line 37). Therefore, including the ball of Williams will improve safety in Rebeck by preventing the presence of undesired temperatures. Claim s 1 5 and 1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeck , in view of Rachels, in view of Lagrou , and further in view of Williams . Regarding claims 15 and 19, Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Lagrou , disclose the grill housing assembly of claim 10. Rebeck , as modified by Rachels and Lagrou , does not disclose a fire extinguishing ball, wherein said fire extinguishing ball comprises a dry chemical flame activated exploding ball which is mounted in an upper portion of said housing. However, Williams teaches a fire extinguishing ball, wherein said fire extinguishing ball comprises a dry chemical flame activated exploding ball (“ rupturable segments forced outward to form openings through the bottom end to allow its fire extinguishing powder to fall out for fire extinguishing purposes ” column 2, line 48) which is mounted in an upper portion of said housing (Figure 1). In view of the teachings of Williams, 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 fire extinguishing ball, wherein said fire extinguishing ball comprises a dry chemical flame activated exploding ball as is taught in Williams, in the grill housing assembly disclosed by Rebeck because Williams states “ It is an object of the present invention to provide an arrangement for effectively opening the wall of a fire extinguisher container in the presence of undesired temperatures to allow a fire extinguishing substance to pass out of the container ” (column 1, line 37). Therefore, including the ball of Williams will improve safety in Rebeck by preventing the presence of undesired temperatures. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Walrath ( US 0750416 A ) Nordan ( US 1970054 A ) Knutson ( US 5165384 A ) Howes ( GB 2351433 A ) Lopes De Araujo ( US 11680714 B2 ) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4309 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Hoang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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