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 § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fuchs (US 2005/0258168A1).
Fuchs discloses in reference to claim:
An outdoor cooking grill comprising: a cooking surface; at least one induction coil below the cooking surface; and a power supply providing current to the at least one induction coil heating the cooking surface.
Fuchs discloses an outdoor (table top) cooking grill (Fig 1, 2, 3, 5; abstract) (it is noted the disclosed induction cooking grill is suitable for the Intended use in a location such as outdoors; comprising: a cooking surface (7. 27); at least one induction coil (30) below the cooking surface (para [0034]- roasting/grilling device according to the invention is shown in FIG. 1. An insulation layer 28, a measurement coil unit 29 consisting of two measurement coils and an induction coil 30 are located below the inductively heatable roasting/grilling plate 27); and a power supply (para [0038]- an energy supply (not shown), e.g. generator, for the induction means) providing current to the at least one induction coil heating the cooking surface (para [0051]- induction coil 50 which in the condition in which current flows through it produces a homogeneous magnetic field and produces a homogeneous induction field essentially over the whole extension of a rectangular roasting/grilling surface arranged adjacent to the induction coil).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. The grill of claim 1, wherein the at least one induction coil comprises a plurality of induction coils arranged below the cooking surface.
Regarding claim 2, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 1. HEO discloses, wherein the at least one induction coil comprises a plurality of induction coils arranged below the cooking surface (para [0047]- energy supplies for the two essentially square induction coils).
3. The grill of claim 2, wherein the plurality of induction coils correspond to a plurality of separately controllable cooking zones on the cooking surface.
Regarding claim 3, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 2. HEO discloses, wherein the plurality of induction coils correspond to a plurality of separately controllable cooking zones on the cooking surface (Fig 3; para [0045]- double device has a continuous roasting/grilling plate 17 with two regions 18 a, 18 b which are drawn dashed, which lie next to one another, in each case are roughly square, may be heated individually and whose temperatures may be individually measured and set. The dot-dash lines indicate the measurement coil units 19 a, 19 b, consisting of in each case two rectangular measurement coils, wherein the measurement coil unit is allocated to each induction coil).
7. The grill of claim 1, further comprising a shielding layer interposing the cooking surface and the at least one induction coil.
Regarding claim 7, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 1. HEO discloses, further comprising a shielding layer (28) interposing the cooking surface and the at least one induction coil (Fig 1; para [0036]- insulation layer 28 of the multi-layer plate e.g. a highly-insulating ceramic fibre layer insulates the measurement coils and the induction coil and any occurring regulation and control units located in the vicinity from the hot roasting/grilling plate 27. The insulation layer may also have yet further properties, e.g. a moisture Insulation.).
9. The grill of claim 1, further comprising a microcontroller controlling operation of the at least one induction coil.
Regarding claim 9, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 1. HEO discloses, further comprising a microcontroller controlling operation of the at least one induction coil (para [0038]- a regulation and control unit, e.g. a computer chip or microprocessor which is connected to the measurement coil unit and to an energy supply (not shown), e.g. generator, for the induction means, which is likewise located in, the table- top device).
11. The grill of claim 1, further comprising a controller determining a cooking surface temperature by pulse induction using the at least one induction coil.
Regarding claim 11, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 1, further comprising a controller (para [0038]- a regulation and control unit, e.g. a computer chip or microprocessor which is connected to the measurement coil unit and to an energy supply (not shown), e.g. generator, for the induction means, which is likewise located in the table-top device) determining a cooking surface temperature by pulse induction using the at least one induction coil (para [0021]- induction coil Itself may serve as a measurement coil. In this case a temperature measurement is preferably carried out when the induction power is briefly switched off... the temperature measurement may be carried out in time intervals which are larger, the smaller Is the difference between two successive temperature measurements; para [0041]- temperature measurement is for example carried out several times per minute).
14. An outdoor cooking grill comprising: an electrically powered induction coil 40; a cooking surface 37 (preferably a non-stick surface) in the interior of an outdoor cooking chamber (32nt see figure 4); a ferrous material proximate the (non-stick surface) cooking surface that generates heat in response to induced magnetic fields from the induction coil.
Regarding claim 14, The roasting/grilling plate is typically a plate containing ferromagnetic material, e.g. a plate of treated stainless steel, chromium steel or chromium plates or a multi-layer plate with at least one ferromagnetic or inductively heatable layer. The surface of the roasting/grilling plate is preferably designed in a manner such that food to be roasted/grilled sticks thereto as little as possible and/or the roasting/grilling plate is simple to clean, in particular is also scratch-resistant.
15. The outdoor cooking grill of claim 14, wherein the ferrous material 37 is contained in the cooking surface.
Regarding claim 15, The roasting/grilling plate is typically a plate containing ferromagnetic material, e.g. a plate of treated stainless steel, chromium steel or chromium plates or a multi-layer plate with at least one ferromagnetic or inductively heatable layer. The surface of the roasting/grilling plate is preferably designed in a manner such that food to be roasted/grilled sticks thereto as little as possible and/or the roasting/grilling plate is simple to clean, in particular is also scratch-resistant. he plate surface furthermore has a radiation temperature which is as low as possible so that a comfortable operating climate is created. Values for a radiation temperature lie below 70.degree. C., typically at 40-60.degree. C., e.g. 45.degree. C. at 2 cm above the plate with a plate temperature of 200.degree. C. The radiation temperature here is that (air) temperature which for example is measured above the surface for example by way of conventional thermometer with surrounding conditions, e.g. of 25.degree. C. and approx. 60% air humidity. In comparison to the specified low radiation temperatures, with comparable plate temperature and distance values of known electric roasting/grilling device, with regard to this the radiation temperature is approx. 90.degree. or larger. No tiring heat waves at the workplace arise with low radiation temperatures, and an expensive ventilation technology is not required, which in turn leads to an increased economics of the device. The listed properties of the roasting/grilling plate surface may be achieved by a special treatment of the plate surface, e.g. by way of micro-polishing or by way of a suitable coating of the plate, e.g. anti-stick coating. The treatment of the surface of the roasting/grilling plate or of an uppermost layer of a multi-layer plate, said layer serving as a roasting/grilling surface, according to a method indicated here an HPCR-Inox method has been proven to be favourable. The HPCR-Inox method is a finely matched combination of mechanical, chemical and electrolytic treatments of the steel surface, which individual treatments are known per se. This method results in several, at least two successive thin layers, also called sandwich layer in the technical language, on the surface of the stainless steel. Thin layers are generally layers in a region of typically a few nanometres to a few micrometers, e.g. 20 nm-400 .mu.m or 50 nm-250 .mu.m. The two or more thin layers in total and in contrast to untreated stainless steel have a high chromium and high phosphor constituent. The fine matching of the HPCR-Inox method for treating stainless steel for roasting/grilling plates results in a phosphor constituent of approx. 10-16%, typically of 12-15%, e.g. 14% or 15% in the sandwich layer. The layer which is deposited last in the coating method is a pure chromium layer. Due to the heating of the roasting/grilling plate, part of the chromium diffuses into the steel or into the lower layers, or nickel from the lower layers mixes with the chromium so that the sandwich layer has a chromium constituent in a region of 10-40%, typically in a region of 15-30%, e.g. 20%. A cover layer, i.e. the uppermost and that thin layer which essentially serves as the roasting/grilling surface thus comprises an exemplary chromium content of approx. 20%-100%, e.g. 30%-80%.
16. The outdoor cooking grill of claim 14, wherein an infrared emitter comprises the ferrous material.
Regarding claim 16, The roasting/grilling plate is typically a plate containing ferromagnetic material, e.g. a plate of treated stainless steel, chromium steel or chromium plates or a multi-layer plate with at least one ferromagnetic or inductively heatable layer. The surface of the roasting/grilling plate is preferably designed in a manner such that food to be roasted/grilled sticks thereto as little as possible and/or the roasting/grilling plate is simple to clean, in particular is also scratch-resistant. he plate surface furthermore has a radiation temperature which is as low as possible so that a comfortable operating climate is created. Values for a radiation temperature lie below 70.degree. C., typically at 40-60.degree. C., e.g. 45.degree. C. at 2 cm above the plate with a plate temperature of 200.degree. C. The radiation temperature here is that (air) temperature which for example is measured above the surface for example by way of conventional thermometer with surrounding conditions, e.g. of 25.degree. C. and approx. 60% air humidity. In comparison to the specified low radiation temperatures, with comparable plate temperature and distance values of known electric roasting/grilling device, with regard to this the radiation temperature is approx. 90.degree. or larger. No tiring heat waves at the workplace arise with low radiation temperatures, and an expensive ventilation technology is not required, which in turn leads to an increased economics of the device. The listed properties of the roasting/grilling plate surface may be achieved by a special treatment of the plate surface, e.g. by way of micro-polishing or by way of a suitable coating of the plate, e.g. anti-stick coating. The treatment of the surface of the roasting/grilling plate or of an uppermost layer of a multi-layer plate, said layer serving as a roasting/grilling surface, according to a method indicated here an HPCR-Inox method has been proven to be favourable. The HPCR-Inox method is a finely matched combination of mechanical, chemical and electrolytic treatments of the steel surface, which individual treatments are known per se. This method results in several, at least two successive thin layers, also called sandwich layer in the technical language, on the surface of the stainless steel. Thin layers are generally layers in a region of typically a few nanometres to a few micrometers, e.g. 20 nm-400 .mu.m or 50 nm-250 .mu.m. The two or more thin layers in total and in contrast to untreated stainless steel have a high chromium and high phosphor constituent. The fine matching of the HPCR-Inox method for treating stainless steel for roasting/grilling plates results in a phosphor constituent of approx. 10-16%, typically of 12-15%, e.g. 14% or 15% in the sandwich layer. The layer which is deposited last in the coating method is a pure chromium layer. Due to the heating of the roasting/grilling plate, part of the chromium diffuses into the steel or into the lower layers, or nickel from the lower layers mixes with the chromium so that the sandwich layer has a chromium constituent in a region of 10-40%, typically in a region of 15-30%, e.g. 20%. A cover layer, i.e. the uppermost and that thin layer which essentially serves as the roasting/grilling surface thus comprises an exemplary chromium content of approx. 20%-100%, e.g. 30%-80%.
17. The outdoor cooking grill of claim 14, further comprising an air plenum containing a fan moving air into the outdoor cooking chamber from the electrically powered induction coil.
Regarding claim 17, Fuchs discloses the roasting/grilling device preferably has a ventilation, e.g. a fan, wherein the housing 1 for example is provided with ventilations slots.
PNG
media_image2.png
621
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
18. An outdoor cooking grill 34 comprising: a cooking chamber (defined by the outdoor space above the insulator 38 ; a ferrous cooking grate 37 at the bottom of the cooking chamber; a firebox 32 containing a plurality of induction coils 40; and a controller 33 operative to energize the plurality of induction coils in response to user activation, the induction coils causing a heating of the ferrous cooking grate.
19. The outdoor cooking grill of claim 18, further comprising a shielding layer 39 interposing the ferrous cooking grate and the plurality of induction coils.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (US 2005/0258168A1) in view of Bosch (EP 2034799 A1).
Fuchs discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
4. The grill of claim 3, further comprising a capacitive food sensor detecting a location of food on the cooking grate.
Regarding claim 4, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 3, but fails to disclose, further comprising a capacitive food sensor detecting a location of food on a cooking grate. Bosch drawn to an inductive cooking apparatus (abstract) discloses comprising a capacitive sensor detecting a location of food on a cooking grate (para [0014]- sensor elements, for example capacitive sensors, are used, it is advantageous if, after detecting the position and size of the cookware element, it is determined in a further detection step by checking a loss angle and/or an inductance of the induction heating elements the detected cookware element can be heated by the Induction heating elements). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill In the art combine the capacitive location sensor of Bosch with the grill of Fuchs to detect the location of the food (whether in the cooking vessel or directly on the cooking surface) wherein the cooking surface is configured as a grate, thus providing flexibly definable heating zones (see Bosch, para [0013]).
Claims 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (US 2005/0258168A1) in view of Heo et al. (US 2017/0223780 A1)
Fuchs discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
5. The grill of claim 1, wherein the power supply comprises a direct current power source.
Regarding claim 5, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the power supply comprises a direct current power source. HEO discloses, wherein the power supply comprises a direct current power source (para [0058]- The first converter 310 and the second converter 312 receive and convert voltages from a commercial AC power source 305 into DC voltages, respectively; para [0066]- The smoothed DC voltages of the first and second dc ends are applied to the first converter 310 and the second converter 312, respectively). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art combine the direct current power of HEO with the grill of Fuchs to provide power for operation of the coils and controller.
6. The grill of claim 1, wherein the power supply comprises an alternating current power source.
Regarding claim 6, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the power supply comprises an alternating current power source. HEO discloses, wherein the power supply comprises an alternating current power source (para [0027]- When AC current, more particularly, high-frequency AC current, flows In the second induction heating coil Lr2 in a state in which the cooking vessel 195 Is placed on the first heater 130, more particularly, the second induction heating coil Lr2, a magnetic field is generated in the second induction heating coil Lr2 by resonance). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art combine the direct current power of HEO with the grill of Fuchs to provide power for operation of the coils and controller.
Claims 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (US 2005/0258168A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2015/0114953 A1)
Fuchs discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
8. The grill of claim 1, further comprising a fan delivering air from at least one of the cooking surface, the at least one induction coil, and the shielding layer to an interior of a cooking chamber containing the cooking surface.
Regarding claim 8, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 1, but falls to disclose, further comprising a fan delivering air from at least one of the cooking surface, the at least one induction coil, and the shielding layer to an interior of a cooking chamber containing the cooking surface. Suzuki, drawn to inductive cooking surfaces, discloses, further comprising a fan delivering air from at least one of the cooking surface, the at least one induction coil, and the shielding layer to an interior of a cooking chamber containing the cooking surface (para [0084]- Inside the framework 21, there are housed the heating coll unit 25, a circuit substrate 26 on which a drive control circuit (including a power supply circuit) for performing the induction heating is installed, and a fan 27 that cools the circuit substrate 26 and the like). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art combine the fan of Suzuki with the grill of Fuchs to improve the reliability of the circuitry (see Suzuki, para [0160]- A heating component by the power supply circuit and the like in the circuit substrate 26 is cooled by cooling air transmitted by a cooling mechanism including a fan 96 that is provided inside the framework 21).
10. The grill of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the cooking surface is removable for placement of an induction compatible cooking implement.
Regarding claim 10, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 1, but fails to disclose, wherein at least a portion of the cooking surface is removable for placement of an induction compatible cooking implement. Suzuki, drawn to inductive cooking surfaces, discloses, wherein at least a portion of the cooking surface is removable for placement of an induction compatible cooking implement (para [0030]- FIG. 3 is a perspective view looked at from below of the state that the top plate unit is detached in the induction heating cooking device according to the first embodiment). it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art combine the removable surface of Suzuki with the grill of Fuchs to improve the reliability of the circuitry (see Suzuki, para [0160]- A heating component by the power supply circuit and the like in the circuit substrate 26 is cooled by cooling air transmitted by a cooling mechanism including a fan 96 that is provided inside the framework 21).
Claims 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (US 2005/0258168A1) in view of Jenkins et al. (US 2019/0125120 A1)
Fuchs discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
12. The grill of claim 1, further comprising a controller determining a food location on the cooking surface by pulse induction using the at least one induction coil.
Regarding claim 12, Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 1, but fails to disclose, further comprising a controller determining a food location on the cooking surface by pulse induction using the at least one induction coil. Jenkins, drawn to cooktops, discloses, further comprising a controller (para [0040]- - Processor 22 may be a programmable logic device, a microcontroller, a microprocessor, any suitable processing device, or any combination of the preceding) determining a food location on the cooking surface by pulse induction using the at least one induction coil (para [0286]- As a further example, the determination of the current position of the cooking device system 82 on a particular heat source 50 may be detected based on signaling. For example, power pulses may be applied in a timed sequence to each heat source 50. In such an example, the rise and fall of temperatures measured by a cooking device system 82 (e.g., measurements sensors 90) may be used to identify the location of the heat source 50 on which the cooking device system 82 is positioned In an induction range, radiant heat range, or an electric resistance coil range, the power or energy modulation in such waves or pulses is entirely electric. The energy pulse may need to be sufficient to produce a measurable change in temperature during a reasonable time frame; para [0290]- As another example, the cooking device system 82 may include one or more temperature sensors that detect a temperature associated with a food item). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the food location determinations of Jenkins with the grill of Fuchs to improve the accuracy of cooking times and heating (see Jenkins, para [0228]- This tracking of the cooking device system 82 may allow the food in the cooking device system 82 to be cooked at a more accurate temperature).
13. The grill of claim 12, wherein the controller activates one of a plurality of induction coils to heat the cooking surface at the food location.
Claim 13, Fuchs in view of Jenkins disclose the grill of claim 12. Jenkins further discloses, wherein the controller activates one of a plurality of induction coils to heat the cooking surface at the food location (para [0228]- This tracking of the cooking device system 82 may allow the food in the cooking device system 82 to be cooked at a more accurate temperature. As another example, the tracking of the cooking device system 82 may allow the cooking system 400 to detect when the cooking device system 82 is moved (e.g., slid to another heat source 50). This may allow the cooking system 400 to automatically cause a new heat source 50 to provide heat at the same temperature as the previous heat source 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the food location activations of Jenkins with the grill of Fuchs to improve the accuracy of cooking times and heating (see Jenkins, para [0228]- This tracking of the cooking device system 82 may allow the food in the cooking device system 82 to be cooked at a more accurate temperature).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (US 2005/0258168A1) in view of Jenkins et al. (US 2019/0125120 A1) and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2008/0173632A1)
Fuchs discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
20. The outdoor cooking grill of claim 18, further comprising a capacitive sensor used by the controller to determine a location of a food item on the cooking grate, the controller activating a subset of the plurality of induction coils to heat the ferrous cooking grate below the food item.
Fuchs discloses the grill of claim 1, but fails to disclose, further comprising a controller determining a food location on the cooking surface by pulse induction using the at least one induction coil. Jenkins, drawn to cooktops, discloses, further comprising a controller (para [0040]- - Processor 22 may be a programmable logic device, a microcontroller, a microprocessor, any suitable processing device, or any combination of the preceding) determining a food location on the cooking surface by pulse induction using the at least one induction coil (para [0286]- As a further example, the determination of the current position of the cooking device system 82 on a particular heat source 50 may be detected based on signaling. For example, power pulses may be applied in a timed sequence to each heat source 50. In such an example, the rise and fall of temperatures measured by a cooking device system 82 (e.g., measurements sensors 90) may be used to identify the location of the heat source 50 on which the cooking device system 82 is positioned In an induction range, radiant heat range, or an electric resistance coil range, the power or energy modulation in such waves or pulses is entirely electric. The energy pulse may need to be sufficient to produce a measurable change in temperature during a reasonable time frame; para [0290]- As another example, the cooking device system 82 may include one or more temperature sensors that detect a temperature associated with a food item). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the food location determinations of Jenkins with the grill of Fuchs to improve the accuracy of cooking times and heating (see Jenkins, para [0228]- This tracking of the cooking device system 82 may allow the food in the cooking device system 82 to be cooked at a more accurate temperature).
Jang discloses the use of a capacitive sensor to sense the position of the pan on the cooking surface. The pan sensor 320 is a capacitive sensor for transmitting a signal in reaction with the cooking pan 34 having an electrostatic capacitance to detect whether the cooking pan 34 is mounted on the top plate 32. The pan sensor 320 is a switching device for sensing change between the high-level and low-level signals through contact with the cooking pan 34.
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the sensor as taught by Fuchs and Jenkins to be a capacitive sensor as taught by Jang since it was known in the art to use such capacitive sensors –See KSR Rationale C above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc
Prosecution Insights