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 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)(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.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knappenberger et al. (20180007738; ids 8/6/24).
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 zones (par. 0043, fig. 1b ref. 103, 104) wherein each zone 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) 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).
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 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knappenberger et al. (20180007738).
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 at the time the invention was filed 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 at the time the invention was filed 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 at the time the invention was filed to program the controller operates the plurality of zones in an indirect cycle wherein at least one of the plurality of zones is operated to utilize its electric heating element to maintain a temperature in another one of the plurality of zones 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 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an additional temperature probe in the firebox separate from the zone 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).
Claims 5-6 and 8-16 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).
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. 0067) to control the first and second heating elements (par. 0064; par. 0065).
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 at the time the invention was filed 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 5, 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the divider between adjacent zones 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 6, since Sykes teaches the divider being insulated (par. 0015, 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed 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 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 at the time the invention was filed 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 at the time the invention was filed 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 11, 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 at the time the invention was filed to program the controller operates the plurality of zones in an indirect cycle wherein at least one of the plurality of zones is operated to utilize its electric heating element to maintain a temperature in another one of the plurality of zones 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 at the time the invention was filed 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 at the time the invention was filed 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 at the time the invention was filed 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20220163212 directed to electric oven grilling, 20180360267 directed to electric grill comprising multiple cooking areas, 20110088682 directed to grill comprising multiple cooking areas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 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) 270-3475. 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