DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 2 and 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 recites “a frame” in both line 2 and line 4 of the claim. It is unclear if the second instance of “a frame” is referring to the initial recitation of “a frame” or a separate and distinct frame thereby causing the claim to be indefinite. In the interest of advancing prosecution the second instance of “a frame” is interpreted as if amended to recite “[[a]] the frame”.
Claims 16 recites “a frame” in both line 2 and line 4 of the claim. It is unclear if the second instance of “a frame” is referring to the initial recitation of “a frame” or a separate and distinct frame thereby causing the claim to be indefinite. In the interest of advancing prosecution the second instance of “a frame” is interpreted as if amended to recite “[[a]] the frame”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 1,600,699 A (hereinafter “PARKE”).
Regarding Claim 1, PARKE discloses a grill rack system, comprising: at least one grill rack (10); and a left-hand grill bracket (see 18, 19) and a right-hand grill bracket (see again 18, 19) each including only one set bolt (see 28).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1748257 A2 (hereinafter “DALVANDER”).
Regarding Claim 9, DALVANDER discloses a grill rack system, comprising: at least one grill rack (19); and a left-hand grill bracket (see Figs. 9 & 10) and a right-hand grill bracket (see Figs. 9 & 10) each including at least one rack track guide (see 1) each defining a rack track guide opening (see the opening shown in Figs. 9 & 10).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2,033,792 A (hereinafter “SYWERT”).
Regarding Claim 15, SYWERT discloses a grill rack system, comprising: at least one grill rack (see 15-23) with opposite sides (see 18) and having at least one rear crossmember alignment tab (see 23) extending from at least one of the opposite sides; a left-hand grill bracket (see 7) and a right-hand grill bracket (also 7) each including at least one rack track guide (see the space or volume between elements 10 and grill bracket 7) each defining a rack track guide opening (the open space between elements 10) and each including the at least one alignment tab (see again 23) disposed in the at least one rack track guide.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARKE in view of GB 2193626 A (hereinafter “FLATLEY”) and EP 2708129 A1 (hereinafter “TINGLEY”).
Regarding Claim 2, PARKE does not disclose wherein the at least one grill rack comprises: a frame with cut corners and cut openings for grate installation; an embedded expanded steel grating surrounded by the frame; and a frame with a raised edge on one side of the rack that increases the depth between the top of the frame and the grating.
FLATLEY teaches at least one grill rack which comprises: a frame (see 10) with cut corners (see at least Fig. 1) and cut openings (see 20) for grate installation; an embedded expanded steel grating (22; FLATLEY teaches that “Traditionally such trays are made of steel.”) surrounded by the frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify PARKE wherein the at least one grill rack comprises: a frame with cut corners and cut openings for grate installation; an embedded expanded steel grating surrounded by the frame as taught and/or suggested by FLATLEY, since both references teach a grill rack, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one grill rack for the other to achieve the predictable result of supporting food for, inter alia, cooking purposes.
TINGLEY teaches at least one grill rack which comprises: a frame (120) with a raised edge (126, 136) on one side of the rack that increases the depth between the top of the frame and the grating (150).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify PARKE in view of FLATLEY wherein the frame further comprises a raised edge on one side of the rack that increases the depth between the top of the frame and the grating as taught and/or suggested by TINGLEY, since TINGLEY states “The baking trays of the present invention are also intended to be stackable, and protrusions 126 and 136 and indentations 128 and 138 are included on frame 120 to provide this feature. The indentations on the bottom of a tray receive the protrusions on the top of another tray and together these structures allow the baking trays of this invention to be securely stacked on top of one another.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DALVANDER in view of FLATLEY and TINGLEY.
Regarding Claim 10, DALVANDER does not disclose wherein the at least one grill rack comprises: a frame with cut corners and cut openings for grate installation; an embedded expanded steel grating surrounded by the frame; and the frame having a raised edge on one side of the rack that increases the depth between the top of the frame and the grating allowing for a recessed grilling surface when the grill rack is reversed.
FLATLEY teaches at least one grill rack which comprises: a frame (see 10) with cut corners (see at least Fig. 1) and cut openings (see 20) for grate installation; an embedded expanded steel grating (22; FLATLEY teaches that “Traditionally such trays are made of steel.”) surrounded by the frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify DALVANDER wherein the at least one grill rack comprises: a frame with cut corners and cut openings for grate installation; an embedded expanded steel grating surrounded by the frame as taught and/or suggested by FLATLEY, since both references teach a grill rack, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one grill rack for the other to achieve the predictable result of supporting food for, inter alia, cooking purposes.
TINGLEY teaches at least one grill rack which comprises: a frame (120) with a raised edge (126, 136) on one side of the rack that increases the depth between the top of the frame and the grating (150).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify DALVANDER in view of FLATLEY wherein the frame has a raised edge on one side of the rack that increases the depth between the top of the frame and the grating allowing for a recessed grilling surface when the grill rack is reversed as taught and/or suggested by TINGLEY, since TINGLEY states “The baking trays of the present invention are also intended to be stackable, and protrusions 126 and 136 and indentations 128 and 138 are included on frame 120 to provide this feature. The indentations on the bottom of a tray receive the protrusions on the top of another tray and together these structures allow the baking trays of this invention to be securely stacked on top of one another.”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SYWERT in view of FLATLEY and TINGLEY.
Regarding Claim 16, SYWERT does not disclose wherein the at least one grill rack comprises: a frame with cut corners and cut openings for grate installation; an embedded expanded steel grating surrounded by the frame; and a frame with a raised edge on one side of the rack that increases the depth between the top of the frame and the grating.
FLATLEY teaches at least one grill rack which comprises: a frame (see 10) with cut corners (see at least Fig. 1) and cut openings (see 20) for grate installation; an embedded expanded steel grating (22; FLATLEY teaches that “Traditionally such trays are made of steel.”) surrounded by the frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify SYWERT wherein the at least one grill rack comprises: a frame with cut corners and cut openings for grate installation; an embedded expanded steel grating surrounded by the frame as taught and/or suggested by FLATLEY, since both references teach a grill rack, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one grill rack for the other to achieve the predictable result of supporting food for, inter alia, cooking purposes.
TINGLEY teaches at least one grill rack which comprises: a frame (120) with a raised edge (126, 136) on one side of the rack that increases the depth between the top of the frame and the grating (150).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify SYWERT in view of FLATLEY wherein the frame further comprises a raised edge on one side of the rack that increases the depth between the top of the frame and the grating as taught and/or suggested by TINGLEY, since TINGLEY states “The baking trays of the present invention are also intended to be stackable, and protrusions 126 and 136 and indentations 128 and 138 are included on frame 120 to provide this feature. The indentations on the bottom of a tray receive the protrusions on the top of another tray and together these structures allow the baking trays of this invention to be securely stacked on top of one another.”
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARKE in view of WO 2011120698 A1 (hereinafter “WITTMANN ”).
Regarding Claim 5, PARKE discloses wherein each of the right-hand grill bracket and the left-hand grill bracket comprises: a bracket frame (17) including a plurality of braces (see 18, 19) and a plurality of shelves (see 16, 20, 21), each transverse to each of the braces; at least one fine-tuning adjustment screw (see 28 attached to brace 19) attached to the grill bracket that can be expanded or retracted; and a bottom one of the shelves having raised legs (23).
PARKE does not disclose wherein said plurality of shelves each have a rack track guide.
WITTMANN teaches a grill rack system, wherein a plurality of shelves (34) each have a rack track guide (32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify PARKE wherein said plurality of shelves each have a rack track guide as taught and/or suggested by WITTMANN, since such a modification would provide additional stability to said at least one grill rack against tilting when a part of said at least one grill rack is extracted from the grill rack system (see WITTMANN: “Each of the guiding devices includes an upper horizontal bar 32 and a lower horizontal bar 34. The lower horizontal bar 34 is provided for supporting the corresponding lateral boundary bar 20 of the foodstuff support grid 10. The upper horizontal bar 32 prevents a tilting of the foodstuff support grid 10, when a part of said foodstuff support grid 10 has been extracted from the oven cavity.”).
Regarding Claim 6, PARKE further discloses wherein the set bolt (28) attaches to the bottom-most point of one of the braces (18) that can be loosened or tightened.
PARKE does not disclose wherein the set bolt (28) attaches to the top-most point of only one of the braces (18) that can be loosened or tightened; in other words, the difference between PARKE and the limitations of Claim 6 is the attachment location of said set bolt on only one of said braces. However, PARKE discloses an attachment mechanism (see 24, 25, 26 and 27) of said set bolt, wherein said attachment mechanism can be relocated and/or removed. Furthermore, PARKE would be operable with only one set bolt attached to the top-most point of only one of the braces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify PARKE in view of WITTMANN wherein the set bolt attaches to the top-most point of only one of the braces as taught and/or suggested by the attachment mechanism employed in PARKE, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). See also Rearrangement of Parts: MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARKE in view of WITTMANN as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 3,100,435 A (hereinafter “MOBLEY”).
Regarding Claim 7, PARKE in view of WITTMANN does not disclose wherein one of the right-hand grill bracket and the left-hand grill bracket includes a rotisserie bracket attached to one of the shelves having a central recess to receive and rest an end of a skewer.
MOBLEY teaches a grill rack system wherein one of the right-hand grill bracket and the left-hand grill bracket (see 19-24) includes a rotisserie bracket (25) attached to one of the shelves (see 20) having a central recess (37) to receive and rest an end of a skewer (38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify PARKE in view of WITTMANN wherein one of the right-hand grill bracket and the left-hand grill bracket includes a rotisserie bracket attached to one of the shelves having a central recess to receive and rest an end of a skewer as taught and/or suggested by MOBLEY, since MOBLEY states “One of the features of this invention is to provide an improved food supporting apparatus such as a rotisserie which can be partially withdrawn from a cooking space such as a stove broiler for inserting the uncooked food or removing the cooked food so as to alleviate the danger of accidental injury to the operator and which when in position provides means for moving the rotatable food engaging member such as the rotisserie spit into, driving engagement with a driving means.” See MOBLEY, Col. 1, Lns. 17-25.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARKE in view of WITTMANN.
Regarding Claim 13, PARKE discloses wherein each of the right-hand grill bracket and the left-hand grill bracket comprises: a bracket frame (17) including a plurality of braces (18, 19) and a plurality of shelves (16, 20, 21), each transverse to each of the braces; a set bolt (see 28) attached to the bottom-most point of only one of the braces (18) that can be loosened or tightened; a set of fine-tuning adjustment screws (see again 28) attached to the plurality of braces (19) that can be expanded or retracted; and a bottom one of the shelves having raised legs (23).
PARKE does not disclose said plurality of shelves including the rack track guide; wherein the set bolt attaches to the top-most point of only one of the braces.
WITTMANN teaches a grill rack system, wherein a plurality of shelves (34) each have a rack track guide (32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify PARKE wherein said plurality of shelves each have a rack track guide as taught and/or suggested by WITTMANN, since such a modification would provide additional stability to said at least one grill rack against tilting when a part of said at least one grill rack is extracted from the grill rack system (see WITTMANN: “Each of the guiding devices includes an upper horizontal bar 32 and a lower horizontal bar 34. The lower horizontal bar 34 is provided for supporting the corresponding lateral boundary bar 20 of the foodstuff support grid 10. The upper horizontal bar 32 prevents a tilting of the foodstuff support grid 10, when a part of said foodstuff support grid 10 has been extracted from the oven cavity.”).
PARKE does not disclose wherein the set bolt (28) attaches to the top-most point of only one of the braces (18) that can be loosened or tightened; in other words, the difference between PARKE in view of WITTMAN and the limitations of Claim 13 is the attachment location of said set bolt on only one of said braces. However, PARKE discloses an attachment mechanism (see 24, 25, 26 and 27) of said set bolt, wherein said attachment mechanism can be relocated and/or removed. Furthermore, PARKE would be operable with only one set bolt attached to the top-most point of only one of the braces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify PARKE in view of WITTMANN wherein the set bolt attaches to the top-most point of only one of the braces as taught and/or suggested by the attachment mechanism employed in PARKE, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). See also Rearrangement of Parts: MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SYWERT in view of PARKE.
Regarding Claim 19, SYWERT does not disclose wherein each of the right-hand grill bracket and the left-hand grill bracket comprises: a bracket frame including a plurality of braces and a plurality of shelves, each transverse to each of the braces; a set bolt attached to the top-most point of only one of the braces that can be loosened or tightened; at least one fine-tuning adjustment screw attached to the grill bracket that can be expanded or retracted; and a bottom one of the shelves having raised legs.
PARKE teaches a grill rack system wherein each of the right-hand grill bracket and the left-hand grill bracket comprises: a bracket frame (17) including a plurality of braces (18, 19) and a plurality of shelves (16, 20, 21), each transverse to each of the braces; a set bolt (see 28) attached to the bottom-most point of only one of the braces (18) that can be loosened or tightened; at least one fine-tuning adjustment screw (see again 28) attached to the grill bracket (19) that can be expanded or retracted; and a bottom one of the shelves having raised legs (23).
PARKE does not disclose wherein the set bolt (28) attaches to the top-most point of only one of the braces (18) that can be loosened or tightened; in other words, the difference between SYWERT in view of PARKE and the limitations of Claim 19 is the attachment location of said set bolt on only one of said braces. However, PARKE discloses an attachment mechanism (see 24, 25, 26 and 27) of said set bolt, wherein said attachment mechanism can be relocated and/or removed. Furthermore, PARKE would be operable with only one set bolt attached to the top-most point of only one of the braces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify SYWERT in view of PARKE wherein each of the right-hand grill bracket and the left-hand grill bracket comprises: a bracket frame including a plurality of braces and a plurality of shelves, each transverse to each of the braces; a set bolt attached to the top-most point of only one of the braces that can be loosened or tightened; at least one fine-tuning adjustment screw attached to the grill bracket that can be expanded or retracted; and a bottom one of the shelves having raised legs as taught and/or suggested by PARKE, since such a modification would provide an easily removable grill rack system thus facilitating maintenance, repair or replacement; and, with regard to said set bolt attached to the top-most point of only one of the braces, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). See also Rearrangement of Parts: MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SYWERT in view of US 9,901,211 B2 (hereinafter “BALCERZAK”).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, SYWERT does not disclose wherein the at least one grill rack is an accessory rack with a food holder integrated with the grill rack and configured to be used with at least one of a closed-track grill rack shelf and an open-track grill rack shelf; wherein the accessory rack is one of a jalapeno holder accessory rack, a rib holder accessory rack, a beer can accessory rack, and a drumstick holder accessory rack.
BALCERZAK teaches a grill rack system wherein the at least one grill rack is an accessory rack (see at least 158) with a food holder integrated with the grill rack and configured to be used with at least one of a closed-track grill rack shelf and an open-track grill rack shelf (see 24); wherein the accessory rack is one of a jalapeno holder accessory rack, a rib holder accessory rack, a beer can accessory rack, and a drumstick holder accessory rack (see Col. 8, Lns. 29-34: “Optional food retention accessories or elements which are supported at one end may include a warming rack 158 that may also be used to hold chicken drumsticks and the like, a basket frame 170 that may support a cooking basket 171, as well as elongated skewers 22.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify SYWERT wherein the at least one grill rack is an accessory rack with a food holder integrated with the grill rack and configured to be used with at least one of a closed-track grill rack shelf and an open-track grill rack shelf; wherein the accessory rack is one of a jalapeno holder accessory rack, a rib holder accessory rack, a beer can accessory rack, and a drumstick holder accessory rack as taught and/or suggested by BALCERZAK, since BALCERZAK states, at Col. 8, Lns. 34-37, “One of the advantages of the inventions is that a user may select and use a number of combination of accessories depending upon their grilling needs, as well as vertically expanding the grill's cooking area.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights