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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 07/20/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 are pending:
Claims 6 are canceled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to drawing objections have been fully considered.
Non-shown claimed subject matter
Claim 1, the grill with the installation holes as claim is still not shown. Objection maintained.
Claim 9, amendment to Fig1 overcomes the instant objection, however the amendment introduces a new issue of new matter. Drawing objection withdrawn, please see New Matter section below for further details.
Claim 10, the grill with the installation holes as claim is still not shown. Objection maintained.
Fig1
Reference character 1000 is still underlined, change to pointed arrow. See MPEP 1.84 for guidance. Objection maintained.
Fig2
Objection withdrawn per applicant’s assertion page 9.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to Examination Note - Claim Scope of Claim 2 have been fully considered.
The instant section was provided for clarity of the record and does not require any particular amendment by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 112f have been fully considered.
A claim interpretation under 35 USC 112f is not an objection nor a rejection, but is merely a claim interpretation. There is no required issue to overcome.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered.
Objections directed towards line indentation is overcome. Instant objection is withdrawn.
Objection to Claim 3 based on missing oxford comma is maintained due to lack of amendment.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 103 art rejections by Graham (US 2022/0338673), Zhang (CN 214 284 567), Leikam (US 2010/0050884), Lion (WO 2016/203176), and Glynn (US 8,955,426) have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 12, that Graham fails to disclose the first/second rods as claimed in amended claim 1 (old claim 1+6), as Graham fails to “disclose two first reinforcing rods with a plurality of second reinforcing rods extending therebetween” as claimed.
The office respectfully disagrees. Graham discloses two first rods (rib 376 and rib 378 for a total of two first rods) and a plurality of second reinforcing rods extending between and connecting the two first rods (second diagonal reinforcements 398 and 400 for a total of two diagonal rods, and each of diagonal rods 398/400 can be separated into a further plurality of sub-component sections).
Applicant asserts, page 12-13, repeats assertion from above that the art of the rejection of record fails to disclose the amended features of Claim 1 (the limitations of old claim 6).
The office respectfully disagrees and respectfully repeats the response from above. The office notes that Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Examination Note
The office notes that the office is available for an interview if applicant feels that such an interaction would benefit prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1, “for a grill, wherein the grill has a plurality of installing holes provided at intervals”, grill with the claimed installing holes is not shown
Claim 10, “a grill provided with a plurality of installing holes arranged at intervals.”, grill with the claimed installing holes is not shown
[Withdrawn, but recited for clarity of the record pending conclusion of the new matter objection – see section below] Claim 9, “wherein a plurality of etched grooves are evenly provided on a side of the main body facing the recess, and an inner concave surface of each of the etched grooves is provided with non-stick coating”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig1
Improper application of lead lines / underlining of reference characters. See MPEP 1.84 (q) and/or (p)(3)
Reference character 1000
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation – Claim Scope of Claim 2
The office would like to note the claim scope of Claim 2. As per at least Para15/39, when the griddle is on a slope the adjustment piece 22 is rotated in order to counter the tilt for the griddle. This adjustment, physically, requires that at least one of the adjustment threaded sleeves cannot be abutting both the bottom of the main body and the top of the adjustment nut, due implicitly to how threaded parts move along a threaded bolt in order to adjust a spacing dimension along the axis of the threaded bolt. Thus, the claim scope of instant claim 2 is directed to how the arrangement would be positioned/assembled when not tilted, as informed by the specification. As soon as the griddle is adjusted to account for a tilted arrangement, as informed the specification, physically the arrangement would no longer read on the scope of the claim language of Claim 2. The instant discussion is not a rejection or an objection, but is merely indicating the scope of the claim language as presented.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“adjusting piece” in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Adjusting nut 221 and threaded sleeve 222, as informed by Para28 and Fig1
Or equivalents
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Amendment New Matter
The amendment filed 07/20/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Fig1
While applicant is in possession of “a plurality of etched grooves are evenly provide on a side of the main body 1 facing the recess 11” per Para37; applicant is not in possession of the particular location of the newly shown etched grooves of amended Fig1. The particularly shown species location of the etched grooves is new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3
L3, add oxford comma between “a second baffle” and “and”
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham (US 2022/0338673) in view of Zhang (CN 214 284 567)
Claim 1
Graham discloses:
“A griddle (Fig19-28, griddle 350; Fig1-13, griddle 12) for a grill (functional limitation – intended working environment. best seen Fig1-2, grill 13 with griddle 12), wherein the grill has a plurality of installing holes provided at intervals (functional limitation – intended working environment. best seen Fig2/18, holes 160 corresponding to griddle legs 158/366), the griddle comprises:
a main body (Fig19, body of griddle 350) provided with a recess (cooking surface 354) for containing foods (functional limitation. cooking surface 354), and
a plurality of height-adjusting assemblies (Fig19-28/18, legs 366, base portion 368, end portion 370, gap height 324 between griddle and grill adjusted based on base 368 height 372), wherein each of the height-adjusting assemblies comprises an adjusting … (central post of leg 366) and an adjusting piece (abutting surface 374 of base portion 368), and …;
a plurality of the adjusting … are provided at intervals on a side of the main body away from an opening of the recess (Fig19-28, plurality of legs 366 are provided at intervals on the underside of griddle 350 away from the cooking surface 354), and the plurality of the adjusting … are configured for being engaged with the plurality of installing holes in a plugging manner (functional limitation. Best seen Fig1-2/18, legs of griddle engage and plunge into holes 160 of the grill 13);
the adjusting piece is configured for being abutted against the installing hole and adjusting a distance between the main body and the grill (functional limitation. Fig1-2/18/19-28, legs have lower abutting surface 374 to abut hole 160 of grill 13, which implicitly adjusts gap between the griddle and the grill);
wherein the griddle (Graham: Fig19-28, griddle 350) further comprises a reinforcing assembly (Graham: Fig19-28, reinforcement structure on bottom of griddle 350 as best seen in Fig20/21/24/25 in particular), the reinforcing assembly comprises two first reinforcing rods (Graham: Fig19-28, ribs 376/378) and a plurality of second reinforcing rods (Graham: Fig19-28, diagonal reinforcements 398/400) provided on a side of the main body away from the recess (Graham: Fig19-28, reinforcement structure on bottom of griddle 350 away from cooking surface 354), and the two first reinforcing rods are arranged at intervals along a length direction of the main body (Graham: Fig19-28, ribs 376/378 are arranged at locations along the length of the griddle, ie left-to-right of Fig21); the plurality of second reinforcing rods are provided between and connected to the two first reinforcing rods (Graham: Fig19-28, best seen Fig21, diagonal reinforcements 398/400 are provided between and connected to ribs 376/378).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
Graham is silent to the adjustment assembly having a threaded arrangement.
Zhang teaches (best seen Fig2, screw 60, regulating nut 61; SpecQuote below; Claim 3 “the screw rod (60) is screwed with a regulating nut (61) for adjusting the frying pan (20) height.”) that it is known in the art to form a griddle-to-grill attachment using a threaded adjustment post to form and adjust the gap between the griddle and the grill body. Zhang states that the gap height adjustment arrangement is “a further improvement” of the grill arrangement.
SpecQuote: “The frying pan 20 is placed on the oven main body 10 so that the locating ring groove 21 is sleeved on the locating rod further optimization, preferably the locating rod on the oven main body 10 surface of the screw 60, the screw 60 is screwed with a regulating nut 61 for adjusting the height of the frying plate 20, the outer end face of the locating ring groove 21 is propped against the adjusting nut 61, by adjusting the height of the adjusting nut 61; so as to adjust the frying pan 20 the height of the oven main body 10.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the static height griddle leg arrangement of Graham to use a threaded interface with a movable nut between the leg/support components as taught by Zhang, as Zhang teaches that the flexibility of being able to adjust the gap height between the grill body and the griddle is advantageous and that the application of a threaded support is a known in the art alternative griddle leg/support arrangement, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Graham with adjustable threaded legs with a threaded nut as taught by Zhang to be a working and known in the art leg structure arrangement.
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang discloses:
“The griddle according to claim 1, wherein
the adjusting piece comprises an adjusting nut (threaded nut 61 as taught in by Zhang) and a threaded sleeve (Graham: base 368 of leg 366 threaded as modified in Claim 1),
the adjusting nut and the adjusting bolt are in threaded connection (limitation is within the scope of the modification discussed in Claim 1. Zhang: threaded leg arrangement),
the adjusting nut (threaded nut 61 as taught in by Zhang) is provided with an abutting portion (faces of nut 61 abut on contact), and
the abutting portion is provided at a bottom of the adjusting nut and sleeved on the adjusting bolt (Graham: Fig19-28/18, abutting surface 374 on bottom of leg arrangement, thus that is where taught threaded nut 61 as taught in by Zhang would be located); and
the threaded sleeve (Graham: base portion 368 threaded as taught in Claim 1) is sleeved on and in threaded connection to the adjusting bolt (Graham: Fig19-28, base portion is around central post of leg 366, each are threaded as taught in Claim 1),
one end of the threaded sleeve is abutted against the main body (Graham: Fig19-28/18, base portion 368 abuts bottom surface of griddle 350), and
the other end of the threaded sleeve is abutted against one end of the adjusting nut away from the abutting portion (Graham: Fig19-28/18, base portion 368 extends from bottom surface of griddle 350 down towards lower abutting surface 374 on bottom of leg arrangement, that is where taught threaded nut 61 as taught in by Zhang is be located).”
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang discloses:
“The griddle according to claim 1, wherein;
the griddle further comprises a baffle assembly (Graham: Fig19-28, guard 460 surrounding cooking surface 354), and the baffle assembly comprises a first baffle (Graham: best seen Fig19, back wall near drain 472), a second baffle (Graham: best seen Fig19, front short wall) and two third baffles (Graham: best seen Fig19, left/right side walls);
the two third baffles are provided opposite to each other (Graham: best seen Fig19, left/right side walls are opposite each other), and the first baffle and the second baffle are provided opposite to each other (Graham: best seen Fig19, back wall is opposite front short wall);
the first baffle and the second baffle and the two third baffles are provided along a peripheral direction of the main body (Graham: best seen Fig19, walls of guard 460 are along the peripheral of the griddle 350), and are configured to enclose the main body to form the recess (Graham: best seen Fig19, guard 460 encloses the cooking surface 354);
a height of the first baffle is H1, a height of the second baffle is H2, and H1>H2 (Graham: best seen Fig19, back wall is taller vertically than the front short wall);
the third baffle is provided with a transitional portion (Graham: best seen Fig19, left/right walls height transition down to meet the front short wall), one end of the transitional portion is connected to the third baffle (Graham: best seen Fig19, left/right walls height transition merges out of the left/right walls), and the other end of the transitional portion is connected to an end part of the second baffle (Graham: best seen Fig19, left/right walls height transition down to meet the front short wall); and
a sectional area of the transitional portion decreases gradually along a direction close to the second baffle (Graham: best seen Fig19, left/right walls height transition section area gradually decreases as it lowers down to meet the front short wall).”
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang discloses: “The griddle according to claim 3, wherein the griddle (Graham: griddle 350) further comprises an oil trough provided at an end of a bottom wall of the recess close to the first baffle and communicating with the recess (Graham: Para97/Fig19-28, angled trough at bottom of back wall of guard 460 that communicates with rear opening 472 for food biproduct and grease); a wall of the oil trough close to the recess is configured to be sloped (Graham: Fig19-28, wall/surface of angled trough is close to the cooking surface 354 and is sloped into the rear opening 472).”
Claim 5
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang discloses: “The griddle according to claim 4, wherein an oil drainage hole is provided on the oil trough (Graham: Fig19-28, rear opening 472 is provided on the angled trough from the cooking surface 354), and a wall of the oil drainage hole is extended in a height direction of the main body (Graham: Fig19-28, angled surface of angled trough extends in the vertical direction away from the cooking surface 254) and is protruded from and provided on a side of the oil trough away from an opening of the oil trough (Graham: Fig19-28, angled trough surface protrudes from and is located on the side of the back wall and extends away from rear opening 472).”
Claim 7
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang discloses: “The griddle according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing assembly (Graham: Fig19-28, reinforcement structure on bottom of griddle 350 as best seen in Fig20/21/24/25 in particular) further comprises a plurality of third reinforcing rods (Graham: Fig19-28, third reinforcements 420/424/426/422) provided on the side of the main body away from the recess (Graham: Fig19-28, reinforcement structure on bottom of griddle 350 as best seen in Fig20/21/24/25 in particular), the plurality of third reinforcing rods are arranged at intervals along a width direction of the main body (Graham: Fig19-28, third reinforcements 420/424/426/422 are arranged at locations along the width of the griddle, ie top-to-bottom of Fig21), and the plurality of third reinforcing rods are provided between and connected to the two first reinforcing rods (Graham: Fig19-28, third reinforcements 420/424/426/422 are located between ribs 376/378 and are connected to rbis 376/378 at least through the main body of the griddle 350 and/or via diagonal reinforcements 398/400).”
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang discloses:
“A cookware set for frying, comprising:
the griddle according to claim 1 (see claim 1), and
a grill (Graham: best seen Fig1-2, grill 13 with griddle 12) provided with a plurality of installing holes arranged at intervals (Graham: best seen Fig2/18, holes 160 corresponding to griddle legs 158/366).”
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham (US 2022/0338673) in view of Zhang (CN 214 284 567), and in further view of Leikam (US 2010/0050884) and Lion (WO 2016/203176)
Claim 8
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang discloses: “The griddle according to claim 1, wherein the material of the main body is … by … stainless steel, aluminum and … stainless steel (Graham: Para100, discloses that the griddle is formed of metallic materials and identifies stainless steel and aluminum as known and appropriate material selections for the main body of the griddle).”
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang is silent to the griddle being formed of stacked layers as claimed, and to the particular versions of 304 and 430 stainless steel.
Leikam teaches (Fig2, cooking body layers 13/14/15; Claim 21; Para3/27) that it is known to arrange a grilling plate in three layers where the middle layer 14 is formed out of aluminum, while the top and bottom layers are formed out of stainless steel. Leikam further teaches (Para3) that this sandwich layer arrangement provides the advantage of evenly distributing temperature across the grilling plate to facilitate the cooking process due to the application of the middle aluminum heat conducting layer across the bottom/top layers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang to incorporate the sandwiching layer grill plate teachings of Leikam to have a central aluminum layer between a top and bottom layer of stainless steel, as Leikam teaches that a sandwich layer arrangement provides the advantage of evenly distributing temperature across the grilling plate to facilitate the cooking process due to the application of the middle aluminum heat conducting layer across the bottom/top layers, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the griddle of the modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang with improved heat distribution due to the sandwiching layer arrangement as taught by Leikam.
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang and Leikam is silent to the griddle using the particular versions of 304 and 430 stainless steel as claimed.
Lion teaches (Fig1/2; SpecQuote) that it is known to form a cooking plate with a top surface that contacts food with 304 stainless steel layer, and to from the bottom heated layer with 430 stainless steel, as such an arrangement of materials provides the advantage of making the cooking plate compatible with gas, electric radiation/conduction/induction heat sources.
SpecQuote: “The upper layer 31 is here obtained by stamping a sheet of steel, for example stainless steel with about 18% of chromium and 8 to 10% of nickel such as steel 304 according to the AISI or 1.4301 according to the European standard. Alternatively, an aluminum foil is used. The lower layer 33 is made of ferromagnetic material, for example stainless steel of the ferritic family, for example stainless steel with about 18% chromium, such as steel 430 according to the AISI standard or 1.4016 according to the European norm. Thus, the cooking utensil 1 is compatible with an induction heating hob while also being compatible with gas or electric hobs with radiation and conduction.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select particular version of stainless steel for the modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang and Leikam, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a material selection in order to practice the disclosure of the modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang and Leikam, and Lion teaches that it is known in the art to select 304 stainless steel for the top cooking surface layer and to select 430 stainless steel for the bottom heated layer, as such an arrangement of materials provides the advantage of making the cooking plate compatible with gas, electric radiation/conduction/induction heat sources, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the griddle of the modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang and Leikam with a known and working material selection for the top and bottom layers formed of stainless steel as taught by Lion.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham (US 2022/0338673) in view of Zhang (CN 214 284 567), and in further view of Glynn (US 8,955,426)
Claim 9
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang discloses the arrangement of claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang is silent to the application of grooves on the cooking surface and is silent to the application of a non-stick coating as claimed.
Glynn teaches (C4L25-42, C1L17-19; best seen Fig1/3-4, slots 9/13/35/55/57, concave recesses 17/19/21/41) that it is known to form a grilling cook surface with an evenly provided series of slots to the cooking surface in order to provide the advantage of permitting food fats/grease a path to drip away from the food being cooked. Glynn further teaches (C3L19-21; Claim 7) that the preferred embodiment of Glynn has “a non-stick coating on its surfaces”, which would provide the well-known advantage of reducing food sticking on such coated surfaces.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang by adding an evenly provided series of slots to the cooking surface and to cover the cooking surfaces with a non-stick coating as taught by Glynn, as Glynn teaches that the application of the cooking surface slots provides the advantage of permitting food fats/grease a path to drip away from the food being cooked and that a non-stick coating provides the well-known advantage of reducing food sticking on such coated surfaces, and the resulting arrangement has reasonable expectation of successfully providing modified arrangement of Graham by the teachings of Zhang with an improved cooking surface due to the added evenly provided slots and non-stick coating as taught by Glynn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12,642,389 to Graham: US Patent version of Graham above
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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights