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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legal terminology, specifically, “means”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim contains a typo: “said posts, one module” instead of “said posts[] [of] one module”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3, 6, & 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the term “said lower surface” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering this term to refer to the same component(s) as the “lower pan” recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the term “standard shipping pallet” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standard shipping pallet” is not defined by the claim; and the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term or ascertaining the requisite degree. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Regarding claim 6, the preamble of the claim(s) recites “An outdoor kitchen modular assembly”, but the body of the claim(s) recites “said plurality of components fit on a standard shipping pallet” (emphasis added). Hence, it is unclear whether the applicant is claiming a outdoor kitchen modular assembly alone, or a combination comprising an outdoor kitchen modular assembly and a shipping pallet. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is considering the outdoor kitchen modular assembly as the claimed invention, with the recitation of “a standard shipping pallet” denoting intended use.
Regarding claim 8, the term “standard pallet” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standard pallet” is not defined by the claim; and the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term or ascertaining the requisite degree. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michael (EP3440959).
Regarding claim 8, Michael teaches a grill base assembly for use with an outdoor modular kitchen assembly (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a first grill base portion (3, 9, 10) forming one half of the grill base assembly and a second grill base portion (3, 9’, 10’) forming the other half of the grill base assembly, each grill base half portion including components (3, 9, 9’, 10, 10’) which can be flat-packed on a standard pallet (i.e., if disassembled); each grill base half portion (3, 9, 10; 3, 9’, 10’) being assembled from said flat-packed components (Figs. 1-2); the assembled grill base half portions being interconnected to form said grill base assembly for insertable accommodation of a grill (8).
Claim(s) 1 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goelst (20180360210).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Goelst teaches an outdoor kitchen modular assembly including: a plurality of kitchen modules (12) being interconnectable (via 114 - see Figs. 13-14 & par. 84), said assembly including: each said module being formed of a plurality of components (40, 90, 92, 94, 114) capable of being flat- packed having: a generally planar pan (A in Fig. 19 Annotated) serving as a base; structural components (40, 94, 114) supporting the planar pan; wherein the structural components include means (64, 114) to interconnect said module to an adjacent module (Figs. 13-14 & par. 84).
Regarding claim 7, Goelst teaches side pans (94) forming (Figs. 8-9) the structural components (40, 94, 114).
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goelst (20180360210) in view of Stackhouse (3328102).
PNG
media_image2.png
223
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Goelst teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a pair of generally planar members (90, 92 - see Fig. 8) forming an upper pan (90) and a spaced apart lower pan (92); four elongate corner posts (40) forming the structural components each extending from the upper pan to the lower pan; each post and each corner of the upper pan and the lower pan including connecting means (100 & B-C in Fig. 9 Annotated) to secure the posts to the pans (Fig. 9); two posts of one of said modules being interconnected to two posts of another said module of said plurality to place said modules in a side-by-side adjacent array (via 114 - see Figs. 12-14); and a plurality of generally planar side pans (94, 110); one said side pan (110) being attached to said post of said modules not interconnected to said adjacent modules (Fig. 12). Goelst fail(s) to teach tabs & slots. However, Stackhouse teaches connecting means (68, 70, 72) comprising bendable tabs (68, 70) and tab receiving slots (44, 72) for receiving said bendable tabs to secure posts (20, 22) to parts (26) (see Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 15-16; col. 4, lines 38-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute connecting means, as taught by Stackhouse, for the connecting means of Goelst, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to selectively connect the pans to the corner posts; and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known connecting means for another. Hence, Goelst as modified would teach each corner of an upper pan (90 of Goelst) and a lower pan (92 of Goelst) including a bendable tab (68, 70 of Stackhouse) and each post (40 of Goelst) including tab receiving slots (44, 72 of Stackhouse) for receiving said bendable tabs to secure the posts to the pans (as in Fig. 1 of Stackhouse).
Regarding claim 3, Goelst as modified teaches posts (40 of Goelst) of one module having said tab receiving slots (44, 72 of Stackhouse) at opposite ends of said post (implied by Fig. 8 of Goelst) and wherein said upper pan (90 of Goelst) forms a top pan (Fig. 8 of Goelst) and said lower pan (92 of Goelst) forms a bottom pan (Fig. 8 of Goelst).
Regarding claim 4, Goelst as modified teaches posts (40 of Goelst) of one module having side tab receiving slots (44, 72 of Stackhouse) at an intermediate location along the length of said posts (as in Fig. 8 of Goelst, showing screw holes (C of Goelst) positioned at intermediate locations along the lengths of said posts) and to support a platform (as in Fig. 1 of Stackhouse).
Regarding claim 5, Goelst teaches corner posts (40) that serve as support legs (Figs. 8 & 12) for each said module.
Regarding claim 6, Goelst teaches a plurality of components (40, 90, 92, 94, 114) fit on a standard shipping pallet (note that each of these components is obviously capable of fitting on an appropriately-sized pallet).
Conclusion
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