DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a kettle-styled charcoal grill" in line 4. Claim 1 in the preamble also states “a kettle-styled charcoal grill" and it is unclear if the they are the same or different grills. Further, the preamble states that the claim is directed to a air control system for use with the “kettle-styled charcoal grill", while the body of the claim recites that the claimed structure is mounted to a “kettle-styled charcoal grill". It is unclear if the claims require “a kettle-styled charcoal grill" as part of the structure or if it is merely intended for use in a “kettle-styled charcoal grill". If the latter is desired it is recommended to amend claim 1 to remove the term “mounted” and replace with functional language such as “mountable”.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennington (US Pat# 8800542 B1) in view of Cosgrove (PGPub# US2009/0056695 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kennington teaches an air control system for use with a kettle-styled charcoal grill (figure 1 and abstract), the system comprising: a plenum 9 and an air control unit (18 and 19), wherein: the plenum, and air control unit are communicatively coupled together and mounted to a kettle-styled charcoal grill (figure 1 and 2); the plenum surrounds an aperture in the base of a lower kettle of the kettle-styled charcoal grill (col. 7, lines 40-45: Mounted to existing aperture/air intake hole of cooker.); the air control unit comprises a fan/blower 19 and an electronic controller 18, and is operable to supply a forced air flow through the aperture and into the lower kettle of the kettle-styled charcoal grill (abstract).
Kennington does not explicitly teach an ash receptacle and that ash generated by combusting fuel in the lower kettle of the kettle-styled charcoal grill falls gravitationally through the aperture and plenum such that it is collected by the ash receptacle.
However, Cosgrove teaches a similar charcoal grill apparatus. (figure 1 and abstract) Cosgrove teaches a fan/blower system 34 used to provide air to a plenum 4 and into bottom aperture of grill 2. Cosgrove further teaches an ash container 6 supplied below the plenum to catch ash the gravitationally falls through aperture and plenum. Cosgrove teaches that the ash container is used below the plenum in order to allow for storage of ash for removal such that ash does not build up in system and impact the efficiency of the grill. (par. 84-92 and figures 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the ash container/receptacle of Cosgrove, to below the plenum of Kennington, in order to allow for storage of ash for removal such that ash does not build up in system and impact the efficiency of the grill as taught by Cosgrove.
Regarding claim 2, Kennington teaches a temperature sensor 5 in electrical communication with the electronic controller, wherein the electronic controller is configured to vary speed of the fan based on a signal input from the temperature sensor. (col. 9, lines 52-65 and figure 12 and corresponding paragraphs)
Regarding claim 3, Kennington teaches wherein the electronic controller varies speed of the fan according to a proportional-integral-derivative control algorithm. (figure 12 and corresponding paragraphs.)
Regarding claim 4, Kennington teaches wherein the electronic controller is configured to wirelessly communicate with a remote user device. (col. 8, lines 28-35)
Regarding claim 5, Kennington teaches wherein the electronic controller comprises a graphical user interface. (col. 7, lines 9-15)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11852346. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both provide claims to an air control system with similar claims directed to a plenum, ash receptacle, and air control unit claimed to operate and couple to a grill in the similar manner as claimed in current application.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11644197. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both provide claims to an air control system with similar claims directed to a plenum, ash receptacle, and air control unit claimed to operate and couple to a grill in the similar manner as claimed in current application.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11125438. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both provide claims to an air control system with similar claims directed to a plenum, ash receptacle, and air control unit claimed to operate and couple to a grill in the similar manner as claimed in current application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights