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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/09/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 6640695B2) in view of Parks et al. (US 8499944B2).
Stark discloses in reference to claim:
1. A rack assembly 10 that is mountable within an oven cavity of a cooking appliance (barbeque grill 27), the rack assembly comprising: a cooking stone 16; an insulating mat 18 defining a recess 12 configured to accommodate the cooking stone 16; and a rack 25 configured to support the insulating mat 18.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
709
912
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Stark does not explicitly show wherein a superficial area of the insulating mat is at least 70% of a superficial area of the rack.
Parks discloses a similar baking stone device for an oven cavity wherein the superficial area of the baking stone is at least 70% of a superficial area of the rack. Since a change in size is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill of an artisan, the artisan would have found it obvious to modify the device of Stark in light of the teachings of Parks, to provide the superficial area of the insulating mat is at least 70% of a superficial area of the rack.
2. The rack assembly according to claim 1, wherein the insulating mat 18 inhibits lateral movement of the cooking stone when accommodated within the recess.
3. The rack assembly according to claim 1, wherein: the rack 25 comprises a plurality of wires that extend within a primary plane, and the insulating mat 18 includes a bottom wall 54 configured to support the cooking stone when accommodated within the recess, wherein a distance between the bottom wall and the primary plane is 1 to 6 inches.
Stark discloses the total preferred distance of the cooking surface 37 from the grill 25 is approximately three inches.
4. The rack assembly according to claim 1, wherein the rack 25 inhibits (at least by friction) lateral movement of the insulating mat and the cooking stone in first and second opposing directions relative to the rack.
5. The rack assembly according to claim 1, wherein: the insulating mat 18 comprises a receiving portion that defines the recess (see figures), and the rack defines a well configured to accommodate the receiving portion when the insulating mat rests on the rack, the well having dimensions complementary to dimensions of the recess portion of said insulating mat.
Note that Parks teaches the use of a rack having a well configured to accommodate the baking stone. One of skill in the art would have found it obvious, in light of Parks to modify the rack of Stark to include a rack defining a well configured to accommodate the receiving portion when the insulating mat rests on the rack, the well having dimensions complementary to dimensions of the recess portion of said insulating mat.
6. The rack assembly according to claim 1, wherein the insulating mat comprises a single metal sheet 54 that defines the recess.
21. (New) The rack assembly according to claim 1, wherein said recess 12 is partially defined by opposite first and second side walls (see fig. 1), and a rear wall 23, wherein when said cooking stone is accommodated within said recess 12, said rear wall 23 extends vertically beyond a rear edge of said cooking stone.
PNG
media_image3.png
362
815
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 6640695B2) in view of Parks et al. (US 8499944B2) and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 11972997B2).
Stark in view of Parks discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
7. The rack assembly according to claim 1, wherein the cooking stone comprises a solid body and a temperature sensor affixed to or embedded within the solid body.
Johnson discloses a cooking stone 166 received in a recess in an oven chamber wherein the cooking stone comprises a solid body and a temperature sensor 176 affixed to or embedded within the solid body.
As it is a common desire of the artisan in cooking endeavors to provide the greatest temperature control and sensing to the user, one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the Stark device to include a temperature sensor within the stone body at taught by Johnson such that the temperature of the stone could be accurately sensed or monitored for best results.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc
Prosecution Insights