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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word element on line two of claim 1 is misspelled “elemebt”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knappenberger et al. (20180007738; ids 8/6/24) in view of Sykes (20140161952).
Knappenberger teaches with respect to Independent claim 1, an electric grill comprising:
a firebox (par. 0042 line 6 housing and lid; fig. 1b area defined by cavity) divided into a plurality of element boxes, i.e. zones (par. 0043, fig. 1b ref. 103, 104) wherein each element box includes:
an electric heating element (par. 0052) and
a temperature probe (par. 0044 ref. 121, 122 thermocouples)
a controller (par. 0043 ref. 113 microprocessor) having operative control to detect temperatures using the temperature probe (par. 0044) and adjust power to the electric heating element for each of the plurality of zones (par. 0043 operating mode; par. 0056; alternatively par. 0064 relative raising temperature and steady state; different power).
With respect to Independent claim 17, a method of operating an electric grill comprising: providing a firebox (par. 0042 line 6 housing and lid; fig. 1b area defined by cavity) with at least first and second heating zones (par. 0043, fig. 1b ref. 103, 104) in a first and second element boxes (i.e. area of each individual zone defined by separated heating elements) each containing first and second heating elements (par. 0052), respectively;
providing a controller having operative control to power, and adjust power, to the first and second heating elements from a power supply (par. 0043 operating mode; par. 0056; alternatively par. 0064 relative raising temperature and steady state; different power)
providing first and second temperature probes in the first and second heating zones (par. 0044 ref. 121, 122 thermocouples), respectively, each being communicatively coupled to the controller (par. 0044); and
using the controller maintain a predetermined first and second temperature in each zone (par. 0043 operating mode; par. 0056; alternatively par. 0064 relative raising temperature and steady state; different power).
With respect to Independent claims 1 and 17, Knappenberger teaches zonal heating control of electric heating elements and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of multi-zone cooking which allows user to operate each zone independently of each other as taught by Sykes (par. 0015).
Sykes further teaches the ability to operate adjacent zones at different temperatures is possible because each of plates are thermally isolated from one another, and there is no heat loss between them (par. 0016).
Thus since both teach a same art recognized each of plates have a heater and temperature controller associated therewith (par. 0016), since Knappenberger teaches a cooking surface or grate (par. 0043 fig. 1b ref. 512) and since Sykes teaches the advantage of providing a divider between at least two of the plurality of zones interposing adjacent ones of the electric heating elements to demarcate adjacent ones of the plurality of element boxes (fig. 6; where it is noted the divider wall extends to the floor separating the heating elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a divider between adjacent zones as taught by Sykes thus achieving the art recognized purpose of Knappenberger of individual cooking areas for foods and thus further achieving the advantage of precluding co-mingling of different food products due to the divider of Sykes which demarcate adjacent ones of the plurality of element boxes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the divider between adjacent zones to demarcate adjacent ones of the plurality of element boxes (fig. 6) as taught by Sykes thus further achieving its art recognized advantage of eliminate the need to waste energy by operating heaters in adjacent plates to minimize heat transfer, even when a food product is not being cooked in those adjacent zones. All of this takes place without compromising food safety or consistency of product cooked in the heated zone as taught by Sykes (par. 0015) and the ability to operate adjacent zones at different temperatures is possible because each of plates are thermally isolated from one another, and there is no heat loss between them as further taught by Sykes (par. 0016). Thus providing cooking surfaces which are not affected by the heating of the other due to a common cooking surface and achieving the desired first and second heat zones as taught at individual and/or different cooking temperatures.
In addition with respect to Independent claim 17, since Sykes teaches the divider being insulated (par. 0015, 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the divider between adjacent zones being insulated as taught by Sykes thus further achieving its art recognized advantage of eliminate the need to waste energy by operating heaters in adjacent plates to minimize heat transfer, even when a food product is not being cooked in those adjacent zones. All of this takes place without compromising food safety or consistency of product cooked in the heated zone as taught by Sykes (par. 0015) and the ability to operate adjacent zones at different temperatures is possible because each of plates are thermally isolated from one another, and there is no heat loss between them as further taught by Sykes (par. 0016). Thus providing cooking surfaces which are not affected by the heating of the other due to a common cooking surface and achieving the desired first and second heat zones as taught at individual and/or different cooking temperatures.
With respect to claim 2, Knappenberger teaches the controller operates each of the plurality of zones dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044).
Thus since the controller is capable and intended for individual heating of each zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the controller to operate the zones in a synchronized cycle wherein each of the plurality of zones is maintained at the same temperature, such as in the instant case with respect to the taught High, Medium and Low (par. 0065) and achieving its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controller controlled cooking dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044).
Claim 3, since the controller is capable and intended for individual heating of each zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the controller to operate each of the plurality of zones in a desynchronized cycle wherein each of the plurality of zones is assigned maintained at its own temperature, such as in the instant case with respect to the taught High, Medium and Low (par. 0065) and achieving its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controller controlled cooking dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044).
Claim 4, since the controller is capable and intended for individual heating of each zone and since the individual zones in the same cavity would provide heat to an adjacent zone in a same cavity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the controller to operate the plurality of zones in an indirect cycle wherein at least one of the plurality of heating elements is operated to maintain a temperature in another one of the plurality of element boxes that that in which the at least one of the plurality of heating elements is situated and achieving its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controller controlled cooking dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044) and as taught by Sykes combination cooking such that the entire interior of the chamber is a single chamber as opposed to multiple individual chambers (par. 0006).
Knappenberger teaches a microprocessor to set the operating mode of one or more of the heating elements (par. 0043) since the operation of the heating elements are capable of being programmed and independently (par. 0056). Thus since the first and second heating elements for heating are within a common area and since the heat of one element would further influence the temperature of the overall area comprising the second heating zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one of the plurality of programs utilizes the first heating element to maintain a predetermined temperature in the second heating zone thus providing a single cooking area which is not limited to the first cooking zone and as taught by Sykes combination cooking such that the entire interior of the chamber is a single chamber as opposed to multiple individual chambers (par. 0006).
Claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional temperature probe in the firebox separate from the element box temperature probes and communicatively coupled to the controller since Knappenberger specifically teaches one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize various numbers of temperature sensors may be used (par. 0044 last 3 lines) achieving its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controller controlled cooking dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044).
With respect to Independent claim 8, an electric grill comprising:
a firebox (par. 0042 line 6 housing and lid; fig. 1b area defined by cavity) having at least first and second heating zones (par. 0043, fig. 1b ref. 103, 104) containing first and second heating elements (par. 0052), respectively;
a cooking surfaces (par. 0043 ref. 512 fig. 1b) above the first and second heating elements (par. 0043 fig. 1b), respectively;
first and second temperature probes (par. 0044 ref. 121, 122 thermocouples), in the first and second heating zones, respectively;
an electric power supply (par. 0042 AC wall outlet)
a controller (par. 0043 ref. 113 microprocessor) having operative control to adjust electric power (par. 0052) from the electrical power supply to the first and second heating elements (par. 0043 operating mode; par. 0056; alternatively par. 0064 relative raising temperature and steady state; different power) and
first and second temperature probes situated to measure a temperature associated with the first and second heating zones (par. 0044), respectively, each being communicatively coupled to the controller to provide temperature information thereto (par. 0044)
wherein the controller executes a plurality of programs (par. 0065, par. 0067) to control the first and second heating elements (par. 0064; par. 0065).
Knappenberger teaches a microprocessor to set the operating mode of one or more of the heating elements (par. 0043) since the operation of the heating elements are capable of being programmed and independently (par. 0056). Thus since the first and second heating elements for heating are within a common area and since the heat of one element would further influence the temperature of the overall area comprising the second heating zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one of the plurality of programs utilizes the first heating element to maintain a predetermined temperature in the second heating zone thus providing a single cooking area which is not limited to the first cooking zone and as taught by Sykes combination cooking such that the entire interior of the chamber is a single chamber as opposed to multiple individual chambers (par. 0006)
Since the controller is capable and intended for individual heating of each zone and since the individual zones in the same cavity would provide heat to an adjacent zone in a same cavity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the controller provide one of the plurality of programs utilizes the first heating element to maintain a predetermined temperature in the second heating zone thus providing a single cooking area which is not limited to the first cooking zone and achieving its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controller controlled cooking dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044) and as taught by Sykes combination cooking such that the entire interior of the chamber is a single chamber as opposed to multiple individual chambers (par. 0006)
Knappenberger teaches zonal heating control of electric heating elements and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of multi-zone cooking which allows user to operate each zone independently of each other as taught by Sykes (par. 0015).
Sykes further teaches multi-zone arrangement allows a user to operate one cooking zone independently of others, without the disadvantage of heat loss to adjacent plates (par. 0015) due to providing a first and second cooking surface (fig. 2).
Thus since Knappenberger provides for individual first and second cooking area defined by the first and second heating elements (par. 0043 fig. 1b ref. 512), since both teach a same art recognized each of plates have a heater and temperature controller associated therewith (par. 0016), since Knappenberger teaches a cooking surface or grate (par. 0043 fig. 1b ref. 512) and since Sykes teaches the advantage of providing a first and second cooking surface relative the plurality of zones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first and second cooking surface as taught by Sykes thus achieving the art recognized purpose of Knappenberger of individual cooking areas for foods and further achieving its art recognized advantage of eliminating wasting energy by minimizing heat transfer when a food product is not being cooked in those adjacent zones due to the first and second cooking surfaces being isolated from one another, and there is no heat loss between them as further taught by Sykes (par. 0016). Thus providing cooking surfaces which are not affected by the heating of the other due to a common cooking surface and achieving the desired first and second heat zones as taught at individual and/or different cooking temperatures.
With respect to claim 9, Knappenberger teaches the controller operates each of the plurality of zones dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044).
Thus since the controller is capable and intended for individual heating of each zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the controller to operate the zones in a synchronized cycle wherein each of the plurality of zones is maintained at the same temperature, such as in the instant case with respect to the taught High, Medium and Low (par. 0065) and achieving its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controller controlled cooking dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044).
Claim 10, since the controller is capable and intended for individual heating of each zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the controller to operate each of the plurality of zones in a desynchronized cycle wherein each of the plurality of zones is assigned maintained at its own temperature, such as in the instant case with respect to the taught High, Medium and Low (par. 0065) and achieving its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controller controlled cooking dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044).
With respect to claim 12, since Sykes teaches the divider being insulated (par. 0015, 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the divider between adjacent zones being insulated as taught by Sykes thus further achieving its art recognized advantage of eliminate the need to waste energy by operating heaters in adjacent plates to minimize heat transfer, even when a food product is not being cooked in those adjacent zones. All of this takes place without compromising food safety or consistency of product cooked in the heated zone as taught by Sykes (par. 0015) and the ability to operate adjacent zones at different temperatures is possible because each of plates are thermally isolated from one another, and there is no heat loss between them as further taught by Sykes (par. 0016). Thus providing cooking surfaces which are not affected by the heating of the other due to a common cooking surface and achieving the desired first and second heat zones as taught at individual and/or different cooking temperatures.
Claim 13, further comprising at least one user control on the grill (par. 0044) that is communicatively coupled to the controller to input which of the plurality of programs the controller executes (par. 0044).
Claim 14, wherein the at least one user control communicates to the controller a target temperature for at least one of the first and second heating zones (par. 0044 desired temp. setting).
With respect to claim 15, Knappenberger teaches wherein the first and second temperature probes proximally positioned to the respective heating elements (par. 0044), i.e. positioned to measure air temperature. Though silent to being calibrated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the sensors calibrated to measure air temperature for its art recognized and notorious purpose of providing accurate temperature measurements due to calibration and subsequent accurate temperature control.
With respect to claim 16, Sykes teaches the temperature controller associated with each of the cooking surfaces (par. 0016). Thus since both teach control of temperature to achieve a predetermined temperature. Though silent to being calibrated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the sensors calibrated to measure surface temperature of the first and second cooking surfaces, respectively for its art recognized and notorious purpose of providing accurate temperature measurements due to calibration and subsequent accurate temperature control.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging Sykes is silent to the divider interpose the heating elements. Applicant is urged to fig. 6 where it is noted the divider wall extends to the floor separating the heating elements.
With respect to claim 4. Since the controller is capable and intended for individual heating of each zone and since the individual zones in the same cavity would provide heat to an adjacent zone in a same cavity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the controller to operate the plurality of zones in an indirect cycle wherein at least one of the plurality of heating elements is operated to maintain a temperature in another one of the plurality of element boxes that that in which the at least one of the plurality of heating elements is situated and achieving its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controller controlled cooking dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044) and as taught by Sykes combination cooking such that the entire interior of the chamber is a single chamber as opposed to multiple individual chambers (par. 0006).
Knappenberger teaches a microprocessor to set the operating mode of one or more of the heating elements (par. 0043) since the operation of the heating elements are capable of being programmed and independently (par. 0056). Thus since the first and second heating elements for heating are within a common area and since the heat of one element would further influence the temperature of the overall area comprising the second heating zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one of the plurality of programs utilizes the first heating element to maintain a predetermined temperature in the second heating zone thus providing a single cooking area which is not limited to the first cooking zone and as taught by Sykes combination cooking such that the entire interior of the chamber is a single chamber as opposed to multiple individual chambers (par. 0006).
Applicants urging directed to claim 17 are taken as above. Where Sykes teaches the divider being insulated.
With respect to claim 8, Since the controller is capable and intended for individual heating of each zone and since the individual zones in the same cavity would provide heat to an adjacent zone in a same cavity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the controller to operate the plurality of zones in an indirect cycle wherein at least one of the plurality of heating elements is operated to maintain a temperature in another one of the plurality of element boxes that that in which the at least one of the plurality of heating elements is situated and achieving its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controller controlled cooking dependent on user selection such that an operating mode for one or both of the heating elements includes a desired temperature setting (par. 0044) and as taught by Sykes combination cooking such that the entire interior of the chamber is a single chamber as opposed to multiple individual chambers (par. 0006).
Knappenberger teaches a microprocessor to set the operating mode of one or more of the heating elements (par. 0043) since the operation of the heating elements are capable of being programmed and independently (par. 0056). Thus since the first and second heating elements for heating are within a common area and since the heat of one element would further influence the temperature of the overall area comprising the second heating zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one of the plurality of programs utilizes the first heating element to maintain a predetermined temperature in the second heating zone thus providing a single cooking area which is not limited to the first cooking zone and as taught by Sykes combination cooking such that the entire interior of the chamber is a single chamber as opposed to multiple individual chambers (par. 0006).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20170223772, 9301646 Cooking with multiple independent heating elements
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
