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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui (GB2505709) in view of Bossman (DE202016004437).
Regarding claim 1, Lui teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a table comprising: a generally flat table top (10) comprising at least one aperture (11), wherein a peripheral portion of the table adjacent to the at least one aperture is configured to receive and stably hold at least one cooking tray comprising an outer pan configured to contain a liquid and a perforated inner tray disposed in the outer pan and configured to support food above the liquid for steaming (implied by Figs. 1 & 5 - note that, if Lui’s aperture (1) can hold the cover (40) in Fig. 1 and the fray (60) in Fig. 5, said aperture would obviously be capable of receiving & stably holding the outer pan & perforated inner tray of a cooking tray); a support system comprising at least two vertical, or substantially vertical, support members (20) for stably positioning the generally flat table top in a horizontal, or substantially horizontal, position at an elevated height (Fig. 4); and at least one cooking system (50) comprising heating means (50) positioned underneath the at least one aperture for providing heat through the at least one aperture and to the at least one cooking tray (Figs. 4-5); wherein the heating means is at least partially shielded with a heat shroud (30) configured to provide a heat-insulative air barrier for reducing or preventing heat radiation to structural areas of the table (implied by p. 5, lines 3-8). Lui fail(s) to teach an adjustable gas burner heat source. However, Bossman teaches heating means (3, 30, 67a) comprising a gas burner heat source (30 - see par. 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute heating means, as taught by Bossman, for the heating means of Lui, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide heat for cooking (as suggested by par. 55 of Bossman). Additionally, making a component adjustable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the gas burner heat source of Lui as modified adjustable, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow users to vary the amount of heat supplied by the burner, thereby increasing the variety of cooking tasks in which the burner can be used.
Regarding claim 1, Lui as modified teaches a heat shroud (30 of Lui) configured to provide an insulative air barrier (as in Fig. 8a of Bossman) of unspecified width. Additionally, altering the size of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the table of Lui as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by resizing the heat shroud to provide a 1” wide insulative air barrier, in order to protect users of the table from heat injury, and depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the table (e.g., intended use of the table, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 1, Lui as modified teaches a mounting arrangement (3 & 31 of Bossman) in which the adjustable gas burner (30 of Bossman, as modified) is supported by at least one bracket (3 & 31 of Bossman) attached to the heat shroud (30 of Lui). brackets that are attached to the heat shroud for holding the at least one adjustable gas burner heat source.
Regarding claim 2, Lui teaches an aperture (11) capable of receiving & stably holding a cooking tray that is a chafing dish comprising a perforated inner tray (implied by Figs. 1 & 5).
Claim 3-4 & 7-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui (GB2505709) & Bossman (DE202016004437) in view of Evans (3367291).
Regarding claims 3 & 7, Lui teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a heat shroud (30 of Lui) is made from an unspecified material; but fail(s) to teach a noncombustible material. However, Evans teaches making a container from a noncombustible material (i.e., 16-gauge steel - see col. 3, lines 23-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the heat shroud of Lui as modified from a noncombustible material, as taught by Evans, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the strength & durability of the heat shroud.
Regarding claim 4, Lui as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a frame structure (20, 121, & A-B in Fig. 4 Annotated) comprising a plurality of vertical, or substantially vertical, support members (20 of Lui) for stably positioning the generally flat table top in a horizontal, or substantially horizontal, position at an elevated height (Fig. 4 of Lui) and a plurality of horizontal, or substantially horizontal, beam members (121 of Lui), wherein the beam members are made from an unspecified material. Lui as modified fail(s) to teach making beam members from a noncombustible material. However, Evans further teaches making beam members (12) from a noncombustible material (i.e., steel - see col. 2, lines 48-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the beam members of Lui as modified from steel, as taught by Evans, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase their strength & durability.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Lui as modified teaches a heat shroud (30 of Lui) that defines heat shielding or heat breaks in the form of a 16-gauge steel (see above) apron (30 of Lui) placed around the perimeter of a recessed well (i.e., space within 11 of Lui) in the aperture (11 of Lui) of the generally flat table top (10 of Lui), the recessed well being configured to receive the cooking tray, pot, pan, or dish (implied by Figs. 1-2 & 4-5 of Lui).
Regarding claim 8, Lui as modified teaches brackets (3 & 31 of Bossman) that are attached to the heat shroud (30 of Lui) for holding the at least one adjustable gas burner heat source (30 of Bossman, as modified).
Regarding claims 9-10, Lui as modified teaches a recessed well (i.e., space within 11 of Lui) that is capable of receiving at least one chafing pan (implied by Figs. 1-2 & 4-5 of Lui) that rests on or is cantilevered or suspended by (as with 40 & 60 of Lui, both of which are cantilevered or suspended on the perimeter portion (34 of Lui) of the heat shroud (30 of Lui) - see Figs. 1-2 & 4-5) the heat shroud (30 of Lui).
Regarding claim 11, for the reasons stated in par. 5 above, the structure of Lui as modified would read upon the limitations of this claim.
Regarding claim 12, Lui as modified teaches a cooking system (30 of Bossman) capable of providing an unspecified number of BTUs. Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the maximum heat output of the cooking system of Lui as modified 200,000 BTUs, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the variety of cooking tasks in which the cooking system may be used.
Regarding claim 13, Lui teaches an aperture (11) capable of receiving & stably holding a cooking tray that is a chafing dish comprising a perforated inner tray (implied by Figs. 1 & 5).
Regarding claim 14, Lui as modified teaches a heat shroud (30 of Lui) that is made from a noncombustible material (i.e., 16 gauge steel, as in col. 3, lines 23-24 of Evans).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui (GB2505709), Bossman (DE202016004437), & Evans (3367291) in view of Smyers (20030107246). Lui as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a frame structure (20, 121, & A-B of Lui) that comprises an outer frame structure (20 & A-B of Lui) comprising beam members (A-B of Lui) and support legs (20 of Lui) and an inner frame structure (121 of Lui) comprising milled1 steel beam members (121 of Lui, as modified). Lui as modified fail(s) to teach legs & outer frame beam members made from pressure-treated wood. However, Smyers teaches making beams (9-12) & legs (3-6) from pressure-treated wood (par. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the legs & outer frame beam members of Lui as modified from pressure-treated wood, as taught by Smyers, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to preserve those components against decay, thereby increasing the durability of the table.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui (GB2505709), Bossman (DE202016004437), & Evans (3367291) in view of Schaller (DE102018002674). Lui as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a generally flat table top (10) made of an unspecified material; but fail(s) to teach making a tabletop from concrete fibrous board material. However, Schaller teaches planar components (3-6) of a furniture body (2) from concrete fibrous board material (par. 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the table top of Lui from concrete fibrous board material, as taught by Schaller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the strength and durability of the tabletop.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Lui does not teach “the claimed nested outer-pan/liquid and perforated-inner-tray/food-above-liquid steaming configuration” (Remarks at 7). However, claims 1 & 4, and the claims depending therefrom, do not positively recite such a configuration. Rather, the recitations in these claims concerning the cooking tray & its configuration denote intended use, not positively-claimed structure. Applicant’s argument regarding Lui therefore amounts to reliance upon a feature that is not claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant also contends that resizing Lui’s heat shroud to provide a 1” wide heat insulative air barrier (as in par. 5 above), and make the maximum heat output of the cooking system of Lui as modified 200,000 BTUs (as in par. 15 above) is nonobvious absent evidence that both the size of a heat insulative air barrier, and the heat output of a cooking system, were recognized in the art as a result-effective variable for achieving the claimed function in the claimed context (Remarks at 9-10). However, when the teaching of the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such a teaching supports a presumption that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable by routine experimentation supports a conclusion of obviousness, and shifts the burden to Appellant to show either that the prior art teaches away, that the result achieved was unexpected, or that the variable was not understood to be result-effective. In this instance, the structure of Lui as modified discloses the general conditions of both a heat insulative air barrier (as in Fig. 8a of Bossman) of unspecified width, and a cooking system (30 of Bossman) capable of providing an unspecified number of BTUs (note that some level of heat output is inherent to the gas burner heat source (30) of Bossman (and hence of Lui as modified)). The burden is therefore upon applicant to show that the variables in question were not result-effective. Applicant has made no such showing. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
1 It is noted that the steel beam members do not depend on the process of making them; and the product-by-process limitation “milled” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the steel beam members. Therefore, the claimed steel beam members are not a different and unobvious structure from the steel beam members of Lui as modified.