DETAILED ACTION
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
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7, line 2, change “the kettle-styled grilling system” to -- the kettle --
In Claim 14, change “comprising including” to -- comprising --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“means for defining a series of vents in a side portion of a lower body of a kettle-styled grill” (Claim 16)
“means for positioning a fuel grate within the combustion chamber and substantially on plane with the series of vents” (Claim 16)
“means for positioning a damper system exterior to the lower body and in front of the series of vents” (Claim 16)
“means for defining a tortuous airflow path” (Claim 16)
“means for rotating relative to the lower body in order to control the volume of airflow introduced into the combustion chamber through the series of vents” (Claim 18)
“means for including an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment” (Claim 19)
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.
Regarding “means for defining a series of vents in a side portion of a lower body of a kettle-styled grill” (from Claim 16): It is unclear if “means for defining a series of vents” is referring to the “vents” themselves or to some means “for defining” the vents. Note that the specification fails to provide any structure for the claimed “means for defining”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “means for” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function which warrants a 112(b) rejection for Claim 16 (as is presented below in this Office Action). For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “means for” in the context claimed (from Claim 16) will be interpreted as structural vents and/or any means that can perform or contribute to performing the function of defining vents, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “means for positioning a fuel grate within the combustion chamber and substantially on plane with the series of vents” (from Claim 16): It is unclear if “means for positioning a fuel grate within the combustion chamber and substantially on plane with the series of vents” is referring to the “fuel grate” itself or to some means “for positioning” the fuel grate. Note that the specification fails to provide any structure for the claimed “means for positioning”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “means for” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function which warrants a 112(b) rejection for Claim 16 (as is presented below in this Office Action). For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “means for” in the context claimed (from Claim 16) will be interpreted as a structural fuel grate within the combustion chamber and substantially on plane with the series of vents and/or any means that can perform or contribute to performing the function of positioning a fuel grate, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “means for positioning a damper system exterior to the lower body and in front of the series of vents” (from Claim 16): It is unclear if “means for positioning a damper system exterior to the lower body and in front of the series of vents” is referring to the “damper system” itself or to some means “for positioning” the damper system. Note that the specification fails to provide any structure for the claimed “means for positioning”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “means for” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function which warrants a 112(b) rejection for Claim 16 (as is presented below in this Office Action). For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “means for” in the context claimed (from Claim 16) will be interpreted as a structural damper system exterior to the lower body and in front of the series of vents and/or any means that can perform or contribute to performing the function of positioning a damper system, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “means for defining a tortuous airflow path” (from Claim 16): It is unclear if “means for defining a tortuous airflow path” is referring to the “tortuous airflow path” itself or to some means “for defining a tortuous airflow path”. Note that the specification fails to provide any structure for the claimed “means for defining”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “means for” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function which warrants a 112(b) rejection for Claim 16 (as is presented below in this Office Action). For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “means for” in the context claimed (from Claim 16) will be interpreted as a structural tortuous airflow path and/or any means that can perform or contribute to performing the function of defining a tortuous airflow path, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “means for rotating relative to the lower body in order to control the volume of airflow introduced into the combustion chamber through the series of vents” (from Claim 18): The specification fails to provide any structure for the claimed “means for rotating”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “means for” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function which warrants a 112(b) rejection for Claim 18 (as is presented below in this Office Action). For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “means for rotating” in the context claimed (from Claim 18) will be interpreted as any structural component(s) that can perform or contribute to performing the function of rotating relative to the lower body in order to control the volume of airflow introduced into the combustion chamber through the series of vents, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “means for including an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment” (from Claim 19): It is unclear if “means for including an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment” is referring to the “ash bowl component” itself or to some means “for including an ash bowl component”. Note that the specification fails to provide any structure for the claimed “means for including”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “means for” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function which warrants a 112(b) rejection for Claim 19 (as is presented below in this Office Action). For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “means for” in the context claimed (from Claim 19) will be interpreted as a structural ash bowl component and/or any means that can perform or contribute to performing the function of including an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites four distinct instances of “means for”. As is presented above in the 112(f) invocation section of this Office Action, the specification fails to provide any structure for any of the claimed “means for” limitations. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “means for” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function in each instance which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Furthermore, it is unclear if (for example) “means for including an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment” is referring to the “ash bowl component” itself or to some means “for including an ash bowl component” (note that the same ambiguity is present in each instance). Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 16 are unclear.
Claims 17-20 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18: Claim 18 recites the limitation “means for rotating relative to the lower body in order to control the volume of airflow introduced into the combustion chamber through the series of vents”. As is presented above in the 112(f) invocation section of this Office Action, the specification fails to provide any structure for any of this claimed “means for” limitation. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “means for” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “means for rotating” in the context claimed (from Claim 18) will be interpreted as any structural component(s) that can perform or contribute to performing the function of rotating relative to the lower body in order to control the volume of airflow introduced into the combustion chamber through the series of vents, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding Claim 19: Claim 19 recites the limitation “means for including an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment”. It is unclear if “means for including an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment” is referring to the “ash bowl component” itself or to some means “for including an ash bowl component”. Note that the specification fails to provide any structure for the claimed “means for including”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “means for” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “means for” in the context claimed (from Claim 19) will be interpreted as a structural ash bowl component and/or any means that can perform or contribute to performing the function of including an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 6, 11-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahmed (US 2014/0165993 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ahmed teaches of a katabatic kettle-styled grilling system (400) (see Figs. 4, 8) comprising:
a kettle (the “kettle-type” structure comprising element (402) in Fig. 8 that is shown as element (102) in Fig. 4) having an upper body (upper body that supports hood element (112) as shown in Fig. 4 that is also present in Fig. 8) and a lower body (lower body comprising element 415), wherein the lower body defines a combustion chamber (chamber that contains fuel grate (409) as shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0036], [0053] and Figs. 4, 8);
a fuel grate (409) mounted within the combustion chamber (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8);
a series of vents located along a circumference of the lower body (series of vents formed at (416) as shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8); and
a damper system (system comprising element (408)) positioned outside of the lower body and in front of the series of vents (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8);
wherein, when a horizontal airflow exterior to the lower body is introduced to an upper edge of the damper system (via openings (406)), the airflow is directed in a downward direction toward the series of vents to enter the combustion chamber (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8); and
wherein, when the airflow enters the combustion chamber, it is split into parallel flows directed over and under the fuel grate (Note that in light of the specification, the limitation of “when the airflow enters the combustion chamber, it is split into parallel flows directed over and under the fuel grate” is being interpreted as a configuration that enables the airflow, upon entering the combustion chamber, to be split into two separate paths in parallel (vs. one single path in series) wherein one portion of the airflow flows above the fuel grate while the other portion of the airflow flows below the grate wherein both paths do not need to be physically parallel with one another but rather merely divided between areas above and below the fuel grate (Note that the divided flow paths shown in Fig. 1B of the instant application are not physically parallel with one another, but rather simply divided between areas above and below the fuel grate). In the instant case, when the airflow enters the combustion chamber from the vents formed at (416) as taught by Ahmed, it is split into parallel flows wherein one portion of the airflow flows above the fuel grate while the other portion of the airflow flows below the grate as is shown via the flow arrows in Fig. 8 (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8). The system taught by Ahmed accordingly meets this limitation as claimed.).
Regarding Claim 2, Ahmed also teaches that the airflow is split into parallel flows by an edge of the fuel grate (as can be observed in Fig. 8, the edge of fuel grate (409) splits the airflow into parallel flows wherein one flow passes above the grate while the other flow passes beneath the grate) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 6, Ahmed also teaches of a lid (112) with an adjustable damper (120) (see at least [0036] and Figs. 4, 8), wherein adjustment of the lid damper provides for a controlled release of thermal energy and smoke from a cooking chamber (see at least [0036] and Figs. 4, 8 and note that the lid (112)/damper (120) that are shown in Fig. 4 are also a part of the embodiment of the system of Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Ahmed teaches of a method for introducing a combustion-promoting airflow into a combustion chamber (chamber that contains fuel grate (409) as shown in Fig. 8) of a kettle-styled grill (400) (see at least [0036], [0053] and Figs. 4, 8), the method comprising:
defining a series of vents in a side portion of a lower body of a kettle-styled grill body (series of vents formed at (416) as shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8), wherein the series of vents are positioned circumferentially around the lower body (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8);
positioning a fuel grate (409) within the combustion chamber and substantially on plane with the series of vents (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8);
positioning a damper system (system comprising element (408)) exterior to the lower body and in front of the series of vents (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8), wherein the damper system defines a tortuous airflow path from an upper edge of the damper system that is positioned above the series of vents down to a lower edge of the damper system that is adjacent to the lower body and the series of vents (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8);
wherein when an airflow in an ambient environment to the kettle-styled grill contacts the upper edge of the damper system (via openings (406)), the airflow is encouraged down and through at least a portion of the series of vents to enter the combustion chamber (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8); and
wherein upon entering the combustion chamber, the airflow is divided into parallel airflows such that a first of the parallel airflows is directed over the fuel grate and a second of the parallel airflows is directed beneath the fuel grate (Note that in light of the specification, the limitation of “wherein upon entering the combustion chamber, the airflow is divided into parallel airflows such that a first of the parallel airflows is directed over the fuel grate and a second of the parallel airflows is directed beneath the fuel grate” is being interpreted as a configuration that enables the airflow, upon entering the combustion chamber, to be split into two separate paths in parallel (vs. one single path in series) wherein one portion of the airflow flows above the fuel grate while the other portion of the airflow flows below the grate wherein both paths do not need to be physically parallel with one another but rather merely divided between areas above and below the fuel grate (Note that the divided flow paths shown in Fig. 1B of the instant application are not physically parallel with one another, but rather simply divided between areas above and below the fuel grate). In the instant case, when the airflow enters the combustion chamber from the vents formed at (416) as taught by Ahmed, it is split into parallel flows wherein one portion of the airflow flows above the fuel grate while the other portion of the airflow flows below the grate as is shown via the flow arrows in Fig. 8 (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8). The method/system taught by Ahmed accordingly meets this limitation as claimed.).
Regarding Claim 12, Ahmed also teaches that the airflow is split into parallel flows by an edge of the fuel grate (as can be observed in Fig. 8, the edge of fuel grate (409) splits the airflow into parallel flows wherein one flow passes above the grate while the other flow passes beneath the grate) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 16, to the extent that Claim 16 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Ahmed teaches of a system (Fig. 8) for introducing a combustion-promoting airflow into a combustion chamber (chamber that contains fuel grate (409) as shown in Fig. 8) of a kettle-styled grill (the “kettle-type” structure comprising element (402) in Fig. 8 that is shown as element (102) in Fig. 4) (see at least [0036], [0053] and Figs. 4, 8), the system comprising:
means for defining a series of vents in a side portion of a lower body of a kettle-styled grill (series of vents formed at (416) as shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8), wherein the series of vents are positioned circumferentially around the lower body (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8);
means for positioning a fuel grate (409) within the combustion chamber and substantially on plane with the series of vents (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8);
means for positioning a damper system (system comprising element (408)) exterior to the lower body and in front of the series of vents (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8), wherein the damper system comprises means for defining a tortuous airflow path from an upper edge of the damper system that is positioned above the series of vents down to a lower edge of the damper system that is adjacent to the lower body and the series of vents (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8);
wherein when an airflow in an ambient environment to the kettle-styled grill contacts the upper edge of the damper system, the airflow is encouraged down and through at least a portion of the series of vents to enter the combustion chamber (as is shown in Fig. 8) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8); and
wherein upon entering the combustion chamber, the airflow is divided into parallel airflows such that a first of the parallel airflows is directed over the fuel grate and a second of the parallel airflows is directed beneath the fuel grate (Note that in light of the specification, the limitation of “wherein upon entering the combustion chamber, the airflow is divided into parallel airflows such that a first of the parallel airflows is directed over the fuel grate and a second of the parallel airflows is directed beneath the fuel grate” is being interpreted as a configuration that enables the airflow, upon entering the combustion chamber, to be split into two separate paths in parallel (vs. one single path in series) wherein one portion of the airflow flows above the fuel grate while the other portion of the airflow flows below the grate wherein both paths do not need to be physically parallel with one another but rather merely divided between areas above and below the fuel grate (Note that the divided flow paths shown in Fig. 1B of the instant application are not physically parallel with one another, but rather simply divided between areas above and below the fuel grate). In the instant case, when the airflow enters the combustion chamber from the vents formed at (416) as taught by Ahmed, it is split into parallel flows wherein one portion of the airflow flows above the fuel grate while the other portion of the airflow flows below the grate as is shown via the flow arrows in Fig. 8 (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8). The system taught by Ahmed accordingly meets this limitation as claimed.).
Regarding Claim 17, Ahmed also teaches that the airflow is split into parallel flows by an edge of the fuel grate (as can be observed in Fig. 8, the edge of fuel grate (409) splits the airflow into parallel flows wherein one flow passes above the grate while the other flow passes beneath the grate) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4-5, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed.
Regarding Claim 4, Ahmed teaches the katabatic kettle-styled grilling system of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fails to explicitly teach that the relied upon Fig. 8 embodiment further comprises an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment.
However, Ahmed discloses another similar embodiment (that of Fig. 5A) that does further comprise an ash bowl component (the “inner lining wall” 124 which can “operate as a removable ash pan”) mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment (see at least [0041] and Fig. 5A). Ahmed teaches that element (124) can “operate as a removable ash pan” which provides the advantage of enabling easy ash removal as desired (see at least [0041] and Fig. 5A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Fig. 8 taught by Ahmed to include an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment as is taught by Ahmed in the Fig. 5A embodiment. Doing so would have enabled easy ash removal as desired. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Ahmed also teaches that the ash bowl component further comprises one or more handles (the top bent portion(s) of element (124) as shown in Fig. 5A that can be grasped for removal/insertion constitute “one or more handles” as claimed) (see at least [0041], Figs. 5A, 8 and the rejection for Claim 4 above) (Furthermore, note that Ahmed also teaches of an embodiment wherein the ashpan may have one or more elongated handles (210) to facilitate easy removal/insertion (see at least [0050] and Fig. 6) and that using the same would have also been obvious to ascertain easy removal/insertion.). Ahmed accordingly meets the limitations of Claim 5 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Ahmed teaches the katabatic kettle-styled grilling system of Claim 11 (see the rejection for Claim 11) but fails to explicitly teach that the relied upon Fig. 8 embodiment further comprises an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment.
However, Ahmed discloses another similar embodiment (that of Fig. 5A) that does further comprise an ash bowl component (the “inner lining wall” 124 which can “operate as a removable ash pan”) mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment (see at least [0041] and Fig. 5A). Ahmed teaches that element (124) can “operate as a removable ash pan” which provides the advantage of enabling easy ash removal as desired (see at least [0041] and Fig. 5A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Fig. 8 taught by Ahmed to include an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment as is taught by Ahmed in the Fig. 5A embodiment. Doing so would have enabled easy ash removal as desired. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Ahmed also teaches that the ash bowl component further comprises one or more handles (the top bent portion(s) of element (124) as shown in Fig. 5A that can be grasped for removal/insertion constitute “one or more handles” as claimed) (see at least [0041], Figs. 5A, 8 and the rejection for Claim 14 above) (Furthermore, note that Ahmed also teaches of an embodiment wherein the ashpan may have one or more elongated handles (210) to facilitate easy removal/insertion (see at least [0050] and Fig. 6) and that using the same would have also been obvious to ascertain easy removal/insertion.). Ahmed accordingly meets the limitations of Claim 15 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 19, Ahmed teaches the system of Claim 16 (see the rejection for Claim 16) but fails to explicitly teach that the relied upon Fig. 8 embodiment further comprises an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment.
However, Ahmed discloses another similar embodiment (that of Fig. 5A) that does further comprise an ash bowl component (the “inner lining wall” 124 which can “operate as a removable ash pan”) mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment (see at least [0041] and Fig. 5A). Ahmed teaches that element (124) can “operate as a removable ash pan” which provides the advantage of enabling easy ash removal as desired (see at least [0041] and Fig. 5A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Fig. 8 taught by Ahmed to include an ash bowl component mated to the lower body and configured for removal and reattachment as is taught by Ahmed in the Fig. 5A embodiment. Doing so would have enabled easy ash removal as desired. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 20, Ahmed also teaches that the ash bowl component further comprises one or more handles (the top bent portion(s) of element (124) as shown in Fig. 5A that can be grasped for removal/insertion constitute “one or more handles” as claimed) (see at least [0041], Figs. 5A, 8 and the rejection for Claim 19 above) (Furthermore, note that Ahmed also teaches of an embodiment wherein the ashpan may have one or more elongated handles (210) to facilitate easy removal/insertion (see at least [0050] and Fig. 6) and that using the same would have also been obvious to ascertain easy removal/insertion.). Ahmed accordingly meets the limitations of Claim 20 as claimed.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of Cothern (US 2015/0021448 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Ahmed teaches the katabatic kettle-styled grilling system of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fails to explicitly teach of a collapsible support frame configured to support the kettle and transition between a collapsed state and a deployed state.
Cothern discloses a relatable grilling system (Fig. 1) that comprises a kettle-style grill (12) in addition to a collapsible support frame (support frame comprising elements (100) and (50)) (see at least [0042]-[0046] and Figs. 1-5, 8) configured to support the kettle-style grill (12) (as is shown in Figs. 1-5, 8) and transition between a collapsed state (collapsed state shown in Fig. 8) and a deployed state (deployed state shown in Figs. 1 and/or 3). Cothern teaches that such arrangement, inter alia, enables the kettle-style grill (12) to be easily transported in a vehicle (or otherwise) and set up for use as desired (see at least Abstract and Figs. 1-7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Ahmed by configuring the system to include a collapsible support frame that is configured to support the existing kettle and transition between a collapsed state and a deployed state as is taught by Cothern. Doing so would have enabled the existing kettle to be easily transported and set up for use as desired (see at least Abstract and Figs. 1-7). Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, Cothern also teaches that the support frame that would be used in the combined system further comprises a handle (52), a pair of wheels (64, 66), and one or more support feet (122) configured to support the system in a vertical position when in the collapsed state (as is shown in Figs. 1-4, 8) (see at least [0048], [0055] and Figs. 1-4, 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Cothern also teaches that the support frame that would be used in the combined system further comprises a body component (50) configured to define one or more storage capacities (storage capacity for, at least, different sized “cookers”) (see at least [0052] and Figs. 1-4, 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Cothern also teaches that the support frame that would be used in the combined system further comprises one or more removable work surfaces (the one or more surfaces of element (50), on which work may be performed, that are removable from at least element (100)) (see at least [0042]-[0044] and Figs. 1-4, 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Dependent Claims 3 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent Claim 3: Claim 3 specifies that “the damper system is operable to rotate relative to the lower body in order to control the volume of airflow introduced into the combustion chamber through the series of vents”. This limitation, in combination with the other limitations of the claim, is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by any known prior art including that of Ahmed. As is evident from at least [0053] and Figs. 4, 8 of Ahmed, the damper system (system comprising element (408)) is fixed to the lower body and accordingly not “operable to rotate relative to the lower body in order to control the volume of airflow introduced into the combustion chamber through the series of vents”. Thus, Claim 3 is not anticipated by Ahmed. Furthermore, Ahmed teaches that the damper system (system comprising element (408)) is designed to be fixed to the lower body to thereby, inter alia, support the grates disposed therein in a fixed arrangement (see at least [0053] and Figs. 4, 8). Thus, no motivation would have existed to have complicated the working arrangement already taught by Ahmed (or that of any other known prior art) to be “operable to rotate relative to the lower body in order to control the volume of airflow introduced into the combustion chamber through the series of vents” as claimed. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 3 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, Claim 3 is objected to (as is presented above) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Regarding dependent Claim 13: Claim 13 comprises subject matter similar to that of Claim 3 and is consequently also considered to be allowable over the known prior art for at least the same reasons as Claim 3 (as are presented above). However, Claim 13 is objected to (as is presented above) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Regarding dependent Claim 18: To the extent that Claim 18 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Claim 18 comprises subject matter similar to that of Claim 3 and is consequently also considered to be allowable over the known prior art for at least the same reasons as Claim 3 (as are presented above). However, Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (as is presented above) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Clark (US 4,879,990)
Combs et al. (US 5,752,497)
Ilagan (US 5,996,572)
Harrington et al. (US 2021/0048188 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 2/13/2026
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762