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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 14 recites “wherein said rotisserie cooking apparatus comprises an external heating means which is powered by the grill”
Claim Objections
Claim 17 recites “said plurality of sensors consisting of at last one of the following” which should be - said plurality of sensors consisting of at least one of the following-.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diekmann (US 20200352394 A1), hereinafter Diekmann.
Regarding claim 17, Diekmann discloses a control system for a grill comprising a plurality of sensors that control a heating element of said grill; said plurality of sensors consisting of at last one of the following: a temperature sensor, a flame sensor, and a pressure sensor (“The fan 580 can include a fan speed sensor 585 (e.g., position sensor, angular displacement sensor, tachometer, air displacement sensor, air speed sensor, air pressure sensor, or the like). The fan speed sensor 585 can be coupled to the fan 580, and can measure the speed of the fan 580, or the amount of air displaced by the fan 580. The fan speed sensor 585 can provide an electrical signal that is indicative of the speed of the fan 580, or the amount of air displaced by the fan 580” paragraph [0046] and “The combustion chamber 310 can include a flame sensor 680. For example, the flame sensor 680 can be located in the burn pot 320, and the flame sensor 680 can detect the presence of a flame within the burn pot 320. For instance, the flame sensor 680 can be in communication with a control circuit (e.g., the control circuit 702 shown in FIG. 7), and the ignition sensor 650 can provide an electrical signal (or modulate an electrical signal) to the control circuit. The flame sensor 680 can provide an electrical signal indicative of whether a flame is present, or if a flame is not present, for instance to determine if a flame within the combustion chamber 320 has been extinguished. The control circuit can control the ignitor 640 to reignite the flame if the flame sensor indicates that the flame has been extinguished” paragraph [0054] and “the control circuit 702 can increase the amount of fuel discharged from the fuel feeder 704 if signal provided by the temperature sensor 220 is below a temperature threshold. For example, the control circuit 702 can operate the auger 400 (shown in FIG. 4) if the temperature in the cooking area 200 (shown in FIG. 2) is lower than a desired temperature threshold selected by a user of the apparatus 100 (for example, through user interface 730, described below). The control circuit 702 can maintain the temperature within the cooking area 200 (shown in FIG. 2) by modulating the electrical signal transmitted to the fan 704, and/or by modulating the electrical signal transmitted to the fuel feeder 706. The control circuit 702 can maintain the temperature within the cooking area 200 within a desired range of temperatures” paragraph [0068] all emphasis added).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanagan (US 5163358 A), hereinafter Hanagan, in view of Kim (KR 20090013041 U), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Hanagan discloses a grill comprising:
a. a hood connected to a cooking chamber (“When lid 28 is closed to mate with the lower containment casting, the lower containment casting and lid define a substantially enclosed oven space” column 2, line 61) and at least one grilling grate located at the top of said cooking chamber (“Barbecue grill 20 further comprises left and right grill members 44 and 46 which define cooking surfaces upon which food may be placed” column 3, line 13);
b. at least two fuel feed portions located on opposing sides of said cooking chamber and in connection with at least one fuel source (91L and 91R);
c. at least two burner portions (“left and right sides of burner assembly 90” column 5, line 7);
wherein said at least one fuel source is fed to each of said at least two burner portions by said at least fuel feed portions (“The left and right sides of burner assembly 90 are separately supplied with fuel by left and right feed conduits (shown diagrammatically as 91L and 91R)” column 5, line 7);
a diverter plate connected to the top of said burner portions (“Disposed above burner assembly 90 is a heat distribution plate 96” column 5, line 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
446
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
370
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hanagan does not disclose a pellet grill comprising:
b. at least two augers located on opposing sides of said cooking chamber and in connection with at least one hopper;
c. at least two fans located on opposing sides of said cooking chamber such that said at least two fans provide ambient air to at least two fire pots;
wherein said at least one hopper receives pellets which are fed to each of said at least two fire pots by said at least two augers;
at least two diverter plates, one connected to the top of each said at least two fire pots, wherein said diverter plates are angled upwards to form an upside down v-shape over each said at least two fire pots.
However, Kim teaches a pellet grill comprising:
b. at least two (“the oven apparatus 400 may be varied the number to be installed according to the size of the cooking chamber 231, it is preferred that two or three… provided in accordance with the number of the ignition switch doemeun 222 and the thermal power control switch 223” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference. Figure 2 shows two units 400) augers located on opposing sides of said cooking chamber (“conveyance screw provided in the inside of the transfer pipe (510) 520”) and in connection with at least one hopper (“a hopper (250) is installed and functional corn grains or wood pellets”);
c. at least two fans located on opposing sides of said cooking chamber such that said at least two fans provide ambient air to at least two fire pots (“blower 440”);
wherein said at least one hopper receives pellets which are fed to each of said at least two fire pots by said at least two augers (“the feed screw drive motor 530 is operated rotational speed is controlled by the thermal power control switch 223”);
at least two diverter plates, one connected to the top of each said at least two fire pots, wherein said diverter plates are angled upwards to form an upside down v-shape over each said at least two fire pots (“a cover (450)”).
PNG
media_image4.png
536
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
454
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
458
396
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
380
434
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Kim’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 pellet fuel arrangement as is taught in Kim, in the grill disclosed by Hanagan because Kim states “The intended uses of corn grains (wheat) and functional wood pellets (Wood-Pellet) to the heat source should reduce your energy bills, of course, is easy to use and on stand-alone guyigi using eco-friendly heat source to enhance the flavor of grilled object.” Therefore, including the pellet fuel arrangement of Kim will enhance flavor and reduce cost in Hanagan.
Regarding claim 4, Hanagan, as modified by Kim, discloses the pellet grill of claim 1.
Hanagan, as modified by Kim, does not disclose wherein said cooking chamber is between 32 and 40 inches long. However, the court has held that limitations relating to the size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and mere scaling up of prior art capable of being scaled up does not establish patentability In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). Therefore, changing the size of the cooking chamber is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over Hanagan as modified by Kim.
Regarding claim 5, Hanagan, as modified by Kim, discloses the pellet grill of claim 1 further comprising a rotisserie cooking apparatus (“The two-in-one barbecue grill is also capable of being used with a rotisserie. In this regard, FIG. 7 illustrates rotisserie 106 with spit rod 108” column 5, line 51).
Regarding claim 12, Hanagan, as modified by Kim, discloses the pellet grill of claim 1 further comprising a divide that separates said cooking chamber into two sections with one set of said auger, fire pot, and fan on each side of said divide (“The two-in-one barbecue grill includes a heat shield 40 which is removably carried in the lower containment casting in a generally vertical orientation” column 3, line 1. Hanagan is modified by Kim to include augers, fire pots and fans).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanagan, in view of Kim, and further in view of Colston (US 20210196078 A1), hereinafter Colston.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hanagan, as modified by Kim, discloses the pellet grill of claim 1 further comprising an on-grill control that adjusts the temperature of the grill based on user inputs (“By adjusting valves 92 and 94 the amount of heat produced by the left and right sides of burner assembly 90 can be independently regulated” column 5, line 11. Kim also teaches “thermal power control switch 223”).
Hanagan, as modified by Kim, does not disclose an on-grill control that automatically adjust the temperature and smoke production of the grill based on user inputs, wherein said on-grill control is electronically connected to a personal user device with an app.
However, Colston teaches an on-grill control that automatically adjust the temperature and smoke production of the grill based on user inputs (“the controller 106 may adjust the fuel feed rate in an effort to maintain and/or achieve a cooking characteristic (e.g., an internal temperature, a change in internal temperature, a smoke density, a smoke clarity, a smoke amount, etc.) of the grill device 100” paragraph [0118]), wherein said on-grill control is electronically connected to a personal user device with an app (“the remote device 103 includes an application 109 installed thereon. In one or more embodiments, the application 109 can be associated with the grill device 100. For example, the application 109 enables the remote device 103 to directly interface with the grill device 100 or indirectly interface with the grill device 100 via the cloud computing platform 107” paragraph [0061] and “Both the remote device 103 and the controller 106 can represent various types of computing devices with which users can interact. For example, the remote device 103 can be a mobile device (e.g., a cell phone, a smartphone, a PDA, a tablet, a laptop, a smartwatch, a wearable device, a smart speaker, etc.)” paragraph [0062]).
In view of Colston’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 an on-grill control that automatically adjust the temperature and smoke production of the grill based on user inputs, wherein said on-grill control is electronically connected to a personal user device with an app as is taught in Colston, in the pellet grill as presently modified because including controls for the smoke density and amount will provide expand the usefulness of the grill. Furthermore, the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In this case, Hanagan and Kim disclose manual controls for the temperature. In Kim’s case the controls will be related to the smoke production. The claimed automatic means for controlling temperature and smoke production (taught by Colston) are not sufficient to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanagan, in view of Kim, and further in view of Maurin (US 7900553 B1), hereinafter Maurin.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hanagan, as modified by Kim, discloses the pellet grill of claim 1.
Hanagan, as modified by Kim, does not disclose wherein said augers are angled upwards so that pellets are dropped into said fire pots, wherein said augers are angled up towards said at least two fire pots at an angle between 15 and 45 degrees.
However, Maurin teaches wherein said augers are angled upwards so that pellets are dropped into said fire pots, wherein said augers are angled up towards said fire pots at an angle (“the bottom end 64 of the hopper bin 60 is preferably located at an elevation below that of the top end of the feed chute 62 so that the auger 66 extends upwardly at an angle from the bottom end 64 of the hopper bin 60 to the top of feed chute 62. The upward angle of the auger 66 and its surrounding auger conduit 65 prevent combustion gas from the direct cooking zone 10 from flowing into and through the auger conduit 65 and into the hopper bin 60” column 3, line 52).
PNG
media_image8.png
458
662
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In view of Maurin’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 augers are angled upwards so that pellets are dropped into said fire pots, wherein said augers are angled up towards said fire pots at an angle as is taught in Maurin, in the pellet grill as presently modified because Maurin states that the angle prevents the flow of combustion gas to the hopper. Therefore, heated gas will be prevented from reaching the fuel reservoir in the pellet grill as modified, thereby improving safety.
Maurin does not explicitly disclose an angle between 15 and 45 degrees. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Maurin teaches an angle which appears from the figure to be at least close the claimed range, but does not specifically recite 15 and 45 degrees. Achieving 15 to 45 degrees is a results-effective variable because Maurin states that the angle prevents the flow of combustion gas to the hopper. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the angle, because the selection of angle to achieve adequate prevention of backflow constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Hanagan discloses a grill comprising at least two fuel feed lines connected to at least two cooking chambers (“The left and right sides of burner assembly 90 are separately supplied with fuel by left and right feed conduits (shown diagrammatically as 91L and 91R)” column 5, line 7).
Hanagan does not disclose a pellet grill comprising at least two augers wherein said augers are vertical drive augers and angled up towards said cooking chambers, wherein said auger are angled up towards said cooking chambers at an angle between 15 and 45 degrees.
However, Kim teaches a pellet grill comprising at least two augers (“the oven apparatus 400 may be varied the number to be installed according to the size of the cooking chamber 231, it is preferred that two or three… provided in accordance with the number of the ignition switch doemeun 222 and the thermal power control switch 223” Figure 2 shows two units 400 and “conveyance screw provided in the inside of the transfer pipe (510) 520”) and in connection with at least one hopper (“a hopper (250) is installed and functional corn grains or wood pellets”).
In view of Kim’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 pellet fuel arrangement as is taught in Kim, in the grill disclosed by Hanagan because Kim states “The intended uses of corn grains (wheat) and functional wood pellets (Wood-Pellet) to the heat source should reduce your energy bills, of course, is easy to use and on stand-alone guyigi using eco-friendly heat source to enhance the flavor of grilled object.” Therefore, including the pellet fuel arrangement of Kim will enhance flavor and reduce cost in Hanagan.
Hanagan, as modified by Kim, does not disclose wherein said augers are vertical drive augers and angled up towards said cooking chambers, wherein said auger are angled up towards said cooking chambers at an angle between 15 and 45 degrees.
However, Maurin teaches wherein said augers are vertical drive augers and angled up towards said cooking chamber, wherein said auger are angled up towards said cooking chamber at an angle between 15 and 45 degrees (“the bottom end 64 of the hopper bin 60 is preferably located at an elevation below that of the top end of the feed chute 62 so that the auger 66 extends upwardly at an angle from the bottom end 64 of the hopper bin 60 to the top of feed chute 62. The upward angle of the auger 66 and its surrounding auger conduit 65 prevent combustion gas from the direct cooking zone 10 from flowing into and through the auger conduit 65 and into the hopper bin 60” column 3, line 52).
In view of Maurin’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 augers are vertical drive augers and angled up towards said cooking chamber, wherein said auger are angled up towards said cooking chamber at an angle as is taught in Maurin, in the pellet grill as presently modified because Maurin states that the angle prevents the flow of combustion gas to the hopper. Therefore, heated gas will be prevented from reaching the fuel reservoir in the pellet grill as modified, thereby improving safety.
Maurin does not explicitly disclose an angle between 15 and 45 degrees. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Maurin teaches an angle which appears from the figure to be at least close the claimed range, but does not specifically recite 15 and 45 degrees. Achieving 15 to 45 degrees is a results-effective variable because Maurin states that the angle prevents the flow of combustion gas to the hopper. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the angle, because the selection of angle to achieve adequate prevention of backflow constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanagan, in view of Kim, and further in view of Dean (US 20210113016 A1), hereinafter Dean.
Regarding claim 8, Hanagan, as modified by Kim, discloses the pellet grill of claim 1.
Hanagan, as modified by Kim, does not disclose wherein said augers are removably attached to said at least one hopper.
However, Dean teaches wherein said augers are removably attached to said at least one hopper (“The auger assembly is removable from the cooking appliance for cleaning and/or maintenance of the auger assembly and/or the appliance” paragraph [0017]).
PNG
media_image9.png
516
736
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In view of Dean’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 augers are removably attached to said at least one hopper as is taught in Dean, in the pellet grill as presently modified because Dean states that the removable auger simplifies cleaning and maintenance.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanagan, in view of Kim, and further in view of Tyson (US 4638787 A), hereinafter Tyson.
Regarding claim 11, Hanagan, as modified by Kim, discloses the pellet grill of claim 1.
Hanagan, as modified by Kim, does not disclose wherein said fire pots comprise a tab for removal.
However, Tyson teaches wherein said fire pots comprise a tab for removal (“Handle means 20 are provided on either end of charcoal basket 19 so that the same can be readily lifted from the grill means for cleaning or other purposes” column 2, line 62. Handles 20 are substantially tab-like).
PNG
media_image10.png
576
536
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In view of Tyson’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 fire pots comprise a tab for removal as is taught in Tyson, in the pellet grill as presently modified because Tyson states that the feature simplifies cleaning.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanagan, in view of Kim, and further in view of Spiess (US 2661119 A), hereinafter Spiess.
Regarding claim 13, Hanagan, as modified by Kim, discloses the pellet grill of claim 1.
Hanagan, as modified by Kim, does not disclose wherein said hopper comprises a sliding lid.
However, Spiess teaches wherein said hopper comprises a sliding lid (“a cooperating lid and hopper structure wherein the lid is slidably hinged upon the hopper without being permanently secured thereto and in such fashion that the center of gravity of the lid may be easily shifted from either of two positions, in one of which the center of gravity causes the lid to rest in its closed position, and in the other of which its open position. The structure further includes provision for the ready removal of the lid from the hopper in order that it may be cleansed” column 1, line 52).
PNG
media_image11.png
266
500
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
190
290
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
218
252
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Spiess, 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 hopper comprises a sliding lid as is taught in Spiess, in the pellet grill as presently modified because Spiess states the lid arrangement is easily shifted and enables cleaning. Therefore, including the lid of Spiess will simplify loading, covering, and cleaning the hopper.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanagan, in view of Kim, and further in view of Rummel (US 20030140798 A1), hereinafter Rummel.
Regarding claim 14, Hanagan, as modified by Kim, discloses the pellet grill of claim 5.
Hanagan, does not disclose wherein said rotisserie cooking apparatus comprises an external heating means which is powered by the grill.
However, Rummel teaches wherein said rotisserie cooking apparatus comprises an external heating means which is powered by the grill (“In one embodiment, the broiler assembly is mounted in a substantially vertical plane at the rear of the cooking space. The rotisserie rod is preferably positioned such that radiant heat from the broiler assembly will reach a food product disposed on the rod” paragraph [0008]).
PNG
media_image14.png
482
482
media_image14.png
Greyscale
In view of Rummel’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 rotisserie cooking apparatus comprises an external heating means which is powered by the grill as is taught in Rummel, in the pellet grill as presently modified because including an additional heating element will expand the heating capability of the grill. Therefore, including the heating element as taught by Rummel will permit more heating and/or a different type of heating.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekmann, in view of Glanville (US 20130014743 A1), hereinafter Glanville, and further in view of Kono (US 20060068693 A1), hereinafter Kono.
Regarding claim 18, Diekmann discloses the control system of claim 17.
Diekmann does not disclose an altitude compensation system wherein said pressure sensor is used to compensate for change in air pressure at higher altitudes and an oxygen sensor is used to direct said altitude compensation system to provide more oxygen to said grill.
However, Glanville teaches an altitude compensation system used to compensate for change in air pressure at higher altitudes and used to direct said altitude compensation system to provide more oxygen to said grill (“The venting system 16 may be pre-adjusted to different altitude settings to control the amount of oxygen to pass through the cooker 11” paragraph [0017]).
PNG
media_image15.png
700
446
media_image15.png
Greyscale
In view of Glanville’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 an altitude compensation system used to compensate for change in air pressure at higher altitudes and used to direct said altitude compensation system to provide more oxygen to said grill as is taught in Glanville, in the control system disclosed by Diekmann because air is less dense at higher altitudes. Thus, a larger quantity of air is required for the same amount of oxygen as compared to a lower altitude.
Diekmann, as modified by Glanville, does not disclose wherein the pressure sensor or an oxygen sensor are used in the altitude compensation system.
However, Kono teaches wherein the pressure sensor or an oxygen sensor are used in the altitude compensation system (“an oxygen concentration sensor or a carbon dioxide concentration sensor provided in the vehicle cabin” paragraph [0034] and “If the oxygen concentration sensor and the carbon dioxide concentration sensor fail, the altitude of the ground where the vehicle runs is converted to oxygen concentration on the basis of the measurement result of atmospheric pressure sensor or GPS altitude information and it is determined whether or not the supply of oxygen is required. For example, when altitude varies from 1800 m to 3000 m, oxygen concentration varies from 16.8% to 14.4%, so that oxygen concentration can be estimated by the conversion based on this” paragraph [0044]).
In view of Kono’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 the pressure sensor or an oxygen sensor are used in the altitude compensation system as is taught in Kono, in the control system as presently modified because Kono demonstrates that oxygen concentration and pressure are related to altitude. It is noted that there are a finite number of configurations available to one having ordinary skill in the art for determining altitude. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the control system as presently modified with the altitude detection of Kono (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekmann, in view of Garces (US 20190335773 A1), hereinafter Garces.
Regarding claim 19, Diekmann discloses the control system of claim 17.
Diekmann does not disclose a humidity sensor.
However, Garces teaches a humidity sensor (“firebox 150 may include a dedicated temperature sensor 168 and humidity sensor 170 for detecting the temperature and humidity within smoldering chamber 176 for improved smoke generation and regulation” paragraph [0032]).
In view of the teachings of Garces, 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 humidity sensor as is taught in Garces, in the control system of Diekmann because Garces states that the configuration improves regulation. Therefore, including the humidity sensor in Diekmann will improve regulation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hess (US 2387583 A) “in going from sea level to such a high altitude it is necessary to supply a5 combustion supporting air at an increasingly greater volume rate to compensate for decrease in air density, it will be evident that a substantial portion of such compensation can be accomplished by driving the blower with a variable speed electric motor whose speed inherently increases with increase in altitude”
Berger (US 4089258 A)
PNG
media_image16.png
348
354
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Barkhouse (US 7793649 B2)
PNG
media_image17.png
464
492
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Traeger (US 20140326232 A1) “Pellet burner sub-assemblies 202a and 202b may include a shared hopper or separate hoppers (shown in outline as a shared hopper 204) that receives and stores a supply of fuel (e.g., wood) pellets and feeds them through pellet intakes 206a and 206b to augers 208a and 208b in pellet shafts 210a and 210b, respectively”
PNG
media_image18.png
596
438
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (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