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 Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, line 5 and claim 8, line 1, “the hopper” should read “the fuel hopper” (emphasis added) to be consistent with the terminology used to introduce the structure in base claim 1.
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim depends from itself. It’s unclear how a claim can depend from itself.
Claims 5-7 are rejected by their dependency from claim 4.
For the purpose of examination, examiner presumes Applicant meant to have claim 4 depend from claim 3, as this avoids lack of antecedent basis issues with ‘wedge shaped sidewalls’.
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mercer et al. (WO 2022060803 A1, hereafter Mercer).
Regarding claim 1, Mercer discloses a cooking grill (Abstract, grill) comprising:
a cooking chamber (Fig. 10, cooking chamber 20) containing a cooking grate (Figs. 10-11, cooking rack 36);
a solid fuel fire pit beneath the cooking chamber (Fig. 12, fire box 80 and Par. 0041, “The fire box 80 has a fuel grate 84 that supports burning charcoal (or other solid fuel) during the cooking or smoking process”);
a fire chimney interposing the fire pit and the cooking chamber (Fig. 10, upper tower section 77 and Par. 0043, “conducts heated gases and smoke generated by the ignited fuel on the fuel grate 84 into an upper tower section 77”. A fire chimney is a vertical structure that carries off smoke from a fire; therefore, upper tower section 77 is a ‘fire chimney’ because it is a vertical structure that carries off smoke from the ignited fuel);
a fuel hopper (Fig. 12, right utility shelf 68 and Par. 0038, “In the disclosed embodiments, the right utility shelf 68 may include a hinged lid 70 that pivots on hinges 72 to open and close. An opening 88 beneath the lid 70 communicates with the top of an inclined fuel chute 86 so that the user can open the lid 70 and fill the inclined fuel chute 86 with charcoal or another type of solid fuel”. A fuel hopper is designed to feel fuel via a funnel, therefore right utility shelf 68 is a ‘fuel hopper’ because it feeds fuel to fuel chute 86 via funnel-shaped opening 88) attached to a fuel chute (Fig. 10, fuel chute 86) directing solid fuel from the hopper into the firepit by gravity (Par. 0042, “fed charcoal or other solid fuel from the inclined fuel chute 86 through a side opening 90 in the fire box 80…The charcoal or other solid fuel falls out of the inclined fuel chute 86 and onto the fuel grate 84 under the influence of gravity”); and
a fan directing combustion air into the fire pit (Fig. 10, fan 96 and Par. 0045, “The fan 96 provides combustion air to the fire box 80”).
Regarding claim 2, Mercer discloses the cooking grill of claim 1, further comprising a heat baffle (Fig. 10, manifold 102 and Par. 0040, “In these embodiments, the manifold 102 may have an enclosed V-shaped top 103, manifold sides 107, and manifold ends 105. The manifold sides 107 side have manifold openings 104 that are configured to distribute the heated gases and smoke from the fire box 80 more evenly throughout the cooking chamber 20 as compared with alternative embodiments where the manifold 102 is not used to cover the centered opening 78.”. A heat baffle is designed to deflect or regulate heat; therefore manifold 102 is a ‘heat baffle’ because it deflects heat from center opening 78 to more evenly distribute the heat throughout the cooking chamber 20) in the cooking chamber (Fig. 10, cooking chamber 20) interposing the fire chimney (Fig. 10, upper tower section 77) and the cooking grate (Figs. 10-11, cooking rack 36).
Regarding claim 8, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 1, wherein the hopper (Fig. 12, right utility shelf 68) is laterally beside the cooking chamber (Fig. 10, cooking chamber 20) and horizontally offset from the fire pit (Fig. 12, fire box 80).
Regarding claim 15, Mercer discloses a cooking grill (Abstract, grill) comprising:
a cooking chamber (Fig. 10, cooking chamber 20) containing a cooking grate (Figs. 10-11, cooking rack 36);
a hopper external to the cooking chamber (Fig. 12, right utility shelf 68 and Par. 0038, “In the disclosed embodiments, the right utility shelf 68 may include a hinged lid 70 that pivots on hinges 72 to open and close. An opening 88 beneath the lid 70 communicates with the top of an inclined fuel chute 86 so that the user can open the lid 70 and fill the inclined fuel chute 86 with charcoal or another type of solid fuel”. A fuel hopper is designed to feel fuel via a funnel, therefore right utility shelf 68 is a ‘fuel hopper’ because it feeds fuel to fuel chute 86 via funnel-shaped opening 88);
a fire pit below the cooking chamber (Fig. 12, fire box 80 and Par. 0041, “The fire box 80 has a fuel grate 84 that supports burning charcoal (or other solid fuel) during the cooking or smoking process”);
a fuel chute (Fig. 10, fuel chute 86) leading downward from the hopper to the fire pit to direct solid fuel from the hopper to the fire pit under gravity (Fig. 10 and Par. 0042, “fed charcoal or other solid fuel from the inclined fuel chute 86 through a side opening 90 in the fire box 80…The charcoal or other solid fuel falls out of the inclined fuel chute 86 and onto the fuel grate 84 under the influence of gravity”);
a fire chimney leading upward from the fire pit to the cooking chamber and fluidly connecting the fire pit and the cooking chamber (Fig. 10, upper tower section 77 and Par. 0043, “conducts heated gases and smoke generated by the ignited fuel on the fuel grate 84 into an upper tower section 77”. A fire chimney is a vertical structure that carries off smoke from a fire; therefore, upper tower section 77 is a ‘fire chimney’ because it is a vertical structure that carries off smoke from the ignited fuel); and
a fan directing combustion air into the fire pit (Fig. 10, fan 96 and Par. 0045, “The fan 96 provides combustion air to the fire box 80”).
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.
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer et al. (WO 2022060803 A1, hereafter Mercer) in view of Wilcox (US 1649005 A).
Regarding claim 3, Mercer discloses the cooking grill of claim 2, wherein the heat baffle (Fig. 10, manifold 102) comprises a peaked top (Fig. 19, V-shaped top 103) and a pair of spaced apart sidewalls (Fig. 19, manifold sides 107).
However, Mercer does not disclose the sidewalls are downward projecting wedge shapes.
Wilcox discloses an oven (Pg. 1, line 1) similar to the present invention and Wilcox further discloses it is known for a heat baffle (Figs. 1 and 3, plate 58 and strip 61 and Pg. 4, lines 68-72 and lines 91-93. A heat baffle is designed to deflect or regulate heat; therefore manifold plate 58 and strip 61 comprise a ‘heat baffle’ because they deflect heat from the burner to more evenly distribute the heat throughout the baking chamber) to have a pair of spaced apart downward projecting wedge shaped sidewalls (Fig. 1, sides 62. Note sides 62 project downwards at least because the heights of sides 62 increase when following the left side down to the right side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat baffle of Mercer with the sidewalls that are downward projecting wedge shapes as taught by Wilcox and thereby increase the uniformity of the heat distribution in the cooking chamber (As suggested by Pg. 4, lines 108-117: “By having the under face of the strip 61 concave transversely as well as inclined rearwardly, the strip will deflect a greater proportion of the hot gases to the rear instead of to the sides, and thus by varying the concavity and effective inclination, the proper distribution of the hot gases under normal conditions may be obtained, so that a maximum uniformity in the temperature in the oven may be created”).
Regarding claim 4, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 4, wherein a narrow end of the wedge shaped sidewalls (Mercer: Fig. 19, manifold sides 107 as modified by Wilcox: Fig. 1, sides 62) are proximate the fire chimney (Mercer: Fig. 10, upper tower section 77. Given the upper tower section 77 is approximately arranged in the middle of the manifold 102 of Mercer, both ends of the manifold 102 are approximately the same distance from the upper tower section 77. Therefore, when the manifold sides 107 are modified to project downwardly in view of the sides 62 of Wilcox, both the narrow and the wider ends of the manifold sides 107 will be close to the upper tower section 77. Further note that the narrow end of the manifold sides 107 is proximate the fire chimney when compared to the distance between the narrow end of the manifold sides 107 and the wheels 16).
NOTE: See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above for how and why the claim dependencies associated with claim 4 are being interpreted.
Regarding claim 5, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 4, wherein the wedge shaped sidewalls (Mercer: Fig. 19, manifold sides 107 as modified by Wilcox: Fig. 1, sides 62) are perforated (Mercer: Fig. 10, manifold openings 104).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer et al. (WO 2022060803 A1, hereafter Mercer) in view of Wilcox (US 1649005 A) and further in view of Chiasson et al. (US 20210235928 A1, hereafter Chiasson).
Regarding claim 6, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 5.
However, Mercer, as modified above, does not disclose the peaked top of the heat baffle comprises a double walled section.
Chiasson discloses a grill (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Chiasson further discloses it is known for a peaked top of a heat baffle (Fig. 27D, heat spreader 2726D and Par. 0009, “the heat spready may be configured to distribute heat generated by a fuel block in the combustion chamber.”. A heat baffle is designed to deflect or regulate heat; therefore heat spreader 2726D is a ‘heat baffle’ because it deflect heat from the combustion chamber to more evenly distribute the heat throughout the baking chamber) to comprise a double walled section (Fig. 27D and Par. 0203, “In some instances, the spreader may have two angled sheets that provide double-wall insulation to dampen the heat traveling from the fuel block throughout the cooking chamber”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat baffle of Mercer, as modified above, to comprise a double walled section as taught by Chiasson and thereby reduce the amount of heat that flows from the fire chimney, through the top of the heat baffle, and into the cooking chamber (As suggested by Par. 0203 of Chiasson: “In some instances, the spreader may have two angled sheets that provide double-wall insulation to dampen the heat traveling from the fuel block throughout the cooking chamber”) and thereby increase the uniformity of the heat distribution in the cooking chamber and/or increase heating efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 6, wherein the double walled section of the peaked top of the heat baffle (Mercer: Fig. 19, manifold 102 as modified by Chiasson: Fig. 27D, heat spreader 2726D) is situated over the fire chimney (Mercer: Fig. 10, upper tower section 77. Given Chiasson discloses the double-wall extends the entire length of the heat spreader (reference Fig. 26A), the double walled section of the peaked top of the manifold 102 will extend the entire length of the manifold 102 in modified Mercer. As shown in Fig. 10 of Mercer, the manifold 102 is situated over the upper tower section 77, so the double-wall section will extend the entire length of manifold 102, including the portion of manifold 102 over upper tower section 77, of modified Mercer).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer et al. (WO 2022060803 A1, hereafter Mercer).
Regarding claim 9, Mercer discloses the cooking grill of claim 8, wherein the fuel chute (Fig. 10, fuel chute 86) directs solid fuel downward (Par. 0042, “fed charcoal or other solid fuel from the inclined fuel chute 86 through a side opening 90 in the fire box 80…The charcoal or other solid fuel falls out of the inclined fuel chute 86 and onto the fuel grate 84 under the influence of gravity”) into the fire pit (Fig. 12, fire box 80) at a slope (Figs. 10 and 12).
However, Mercer does not disclose wherein the fuel chute directs solid fuel downward into the fire pit at a slope of at least 30 degrees.
However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Mercer discloses the fuel chute directs solid fuel downward into the fire pit at a slope but does not specifically recite a slope of at least 30 degrees as claimed. Achieving a slope of at least 30 degrees is a results-effective variable because Mercer states “The charcoal or other solid fuel falls out of the inclined fuel chute 86 and onto the fuel grate 84 under the influence of gravity, thereby continuously replenishing spent fuel on the fuel grate.” (Par. 0042). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the claimed slope of at least 30 degrees because the selection of the angle of the slope to allow for the conservation of fuel constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Claims 10-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer et al. (WO 2022060803 A1, hereafter Mercer) in view of Sterr (US 20070137538 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mercer discloses the cooking grill of claim 1.
However, Mercer does not disclose the fire pit connects to the fire chimney on a first side and receives air from the fan on a second, opposite side.
Sterr discloses a furnace (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Sterr further discloses it is known for a fire pit (Fig. 5, burn pot 6 and Par. 0033) to connects to a fire chimney (Fig. 5, the chimney is shown to extend vertically from a top portion of the burn pot 6) on a first side (Fig. 5, the first side is shown to be the top side) and receives air from a fan (Fig. 5, blower 84 and Par. 0045) on a second, opposite side (Fig. 5, air is shown to enter burn pot 6 through slots 98, which are located on the bottom side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grill of Mercer to with the airflow path from the fan to the fire pit through the bottom the fire pit as taught by Sterr so the fire pit connects to the fire chimney on a first side and receives air from the fan on a second, opposite side. This modification would advantageously increase efficiency (As suggested by Par. 0046 of Sterr: “By this configuration, air is introduced from the sides, bottom, and center of the burn pot 6. This configuration provides air nearest to the combustion, which increases efficiency.”)
Regarding claim 11, Mercer discloses the cooking grill of claim 10, wherein the fire pit (Fig. 12, fire box 80) comprises a lower grate (Fig. 12, fuel grate 84) sized to allow ashes to pass through but to retain solid fuel (Par. 0043, “As the charcoal or other solid fuel bums on the fuel grate 84, the ashes drop through the fuel grate 84”)
Regarding claim 12, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 10,
However, Mercer, as modified above, does not disclose the fire pit further comprises a fire pit core nested in an air diverter, the air diverter directing air from the fan into the fire pit core as primary air from a first direction toward the fan, and directing air from the fan into the fire pit core as secondary air from a direction spaced apart from the fan.
Sterr further discloses it is known for the fire pit (Fig. 5, burn pot 6 and Par. 0033) to comprise a fire pit core (Fig. 5, center or core of burn pot 6) nested in an air diverter (Fig. 5, air duct 86, air inducing donut 88, slots 98 and Pars. 0045-0046), the air diverter directing air from the fan (Fig. 5, blower 84 and Par. 0045) into the fire pit core as primary air from a first direction (Fig. 5 and Par. 0045, air is directed into the burn pot from horizontal directions all around the pit, therefore this direction is the primary air) toward the fan, and directing air from the fan into the fire pit core as secondary air from a direction spaced apart from the fan (Fig. 5, air is also directed into the burn pot 6 from one vertical direction (i.e., the bottom of burn pot 6) via slots 98, therefore this direction is the secondary air. Note this vertical direction is laterally spaced apart from the blower 84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire pit of Mercer, as modified above, with the air diverter as taught by Sterr in order to have the fire pit further comprise a fire pit core nested in an air diverter, the air diverter directing air from the fan into the fire pit core as primary air from a first direction toward the fan, and directing air from the fan into the fire pit core as secondary air from a direction spaced apart from the fan. This modification would advantageously increase efficiency (As suggested by Par. 0046 of Sterr: “By this configuration, air is introduced from the sides, bottom, and center of the burn pot 6. This configuration provides air nearest to the combustion, which increases efficiency.”)
Regarding claim 13, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 10.
However, Mercer, as modified above, does not disclose a damper interposing the fire pit and the fan.
Sterr further discloses it is known to have a damper (Fig. 5, safety door 100 and Par. 0047) interposing the fire pit (Fig. 5, burn pot 6 and Par. 0033) and the fan (Fig. 5, blower 84 and Par. 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grill of Mercer, as modified above, with the damper as taught by Sterr and thereby increase user safety (As suggested by Par. 0047 of Sterr: “A safety door 100 stops air flow in event of system malfunction”).
Regarding claim 16, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 12 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 17, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 16, wherein the first direction (Sterr: Fig. 5 and Par. 0045, air is directed into the burn pot from horizontal directions all around the pit, therefore this direction is the primary air) is a direction of the fan (Mercer: Fig. 10, fan 96) relative to the fire pit core (Sterr: center or core of burn pot 6. Note the first direction is shown to be from the direction of the blower 84 relative to the center or core of burn pot 6. Given the blower 84 of Sterr and the fan 96 of Mercer are both located on the right side of their respective devices, this must necessarily be true in modified Mercer as well).
Regarding claim 18, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 10 above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 10 above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer et al. (WO 2022060803 A1, hereafter Mercer) in view of Sterr (US 20070137538 A1) and further in view of Bogazzi (US20170370592A1).
Regarding claim 14, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 10.
However, Mercer, as modified above, does not disclose a damper proximate a top of the fire chimney.
Bogazzi discloses a grill (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Bogazzi further discloses it is known to have a damper (Fig. 2, control member 104 and Par. 0050, “the control member 104 to be pivotally configured relative to the base member 102, as desired by a user, to cause the chimney vent cap 100 to minimally, maximally, or partially block and control the flow of the exhaust gases attempting to pass through and exit the chimney vent cap 100”) proximate a top of a fire chimney (Fig. 2, base member 102. A fire chimney is a vertical structure that carries off smoke from a fire; therefore, base member 102 is a ‘fire chimney’ because it is a vertical structure that carries off smoke from the ignited fuel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have suitably modified the grill of Mercer, as modified above, with the damper as taught by Bogazzi in order to have a damper proximate a top of the fire chimney and thereby give the user more control over the cooking temperature (As suggested by Par. 0050 of Bogazzi: “minimally, maximally, or partially block and control the flow of the exhaust gases attempting to pass through and exit the chimney vent cap 100, and to at least partially control the temperature inside the cooking device with which the chimney vent cap 100 is used”). This is advantageous because it enables the user to better cook to their preferences and/or cook a wider variety of recipes.
Given the cross-section of the fire chimney of Mercer is rectangular while the damper of Bogazzi is circular, the shape of the damper would need to be modified. The court has held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the shape of the damper. One could have expected the damper to perform substantially equally well, whether shaped like a rectangle or in its original shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the damper to be rectangular.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer et al. (WO 2022060803 A1, hereafter Mercer) in view of Sterr (US 20070137538 A1) and further in view of Lieber (US 1724209 A).
Regarding claim 19, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 18.
However, Mercer, as modified above, does not disclose a shutter damper interposing the fire pit core and the fan.
Lieber discloses a furnace (Pg. 1, lines 2-3) similar to the present invention and Fisher further discloses it is known to have a shutter damper (Figs. 1-3, shutters 25) interposing the fire pit core (Fig. 1, hot air chamber 10. Note fuel is supplied to the hot air chamber 10 via door 13, therefore the hot air chamber 10 must necessarily have a fire when the fuel is ignited) and the fan (Figs. 1-3, fan 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grill of Mercer, as modified above, to have the damper as taught by Lieber in order to have a shutter damper interposing the fire pit core and the fan and thereby give the user more control over the cooking temperature which enables the user to better cook to their preferences and/or cook a wider variety of recipes.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer et al. (WO 2022060803 A1, hereafter Mercer) in view of Sterr (US 20070137538 A1) and Lieber (US 1724209 A) and further in view of Bogazzi (US20170370592A1).
Regarding claim 20, Mercer, as modified above, discloses the cooking grill of claim 19.
However, Mercer, as modified above, does not disclose a manually operable damper proximate a top of the fire chimney to selectively impede flow of gases from the chimney.
Bogazzi discloses a grill (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Bogazzi further discloses it is known to have a manually operable damper (Fig. 2, control member 104 and Par. 0050, “The grip member 106 is connected to the control member 104 and may be grasped by a user to impart a force to the grip member 106 and control member 104 (by virtue of the grip members' connection to control member 104) causing the control member 104 to pivot relative to the base member 102 and place the chimney vent cap 100 in a fully-closed, first configuration (see FIG. 1), in a fully-open, second configuration (see FIG. 2), or in one of a plurality of intermediate, partially-open, third configurations (see FIG. 3) in which the control member 104 is positioned at an angular location between the control member's angular location in the fully-closed, first configuration and the fully-open, second configuration. In the fully-closed, first configuration, the chimney vent cap 100 maximally (or entirely) blocks the flow of exhaust gases and prevents the entire flow of exhaust gases from passing through and exiting the chimney vent cap 100 into the surrounding environment”) proximate a top of a fire chimney (Fig. 2, base member 102. A fire chimney is a vertical structure that carries off smoke from a fire; therefore, base member 102 is a ‘fire chimney’ because it is a vertical structure that carries off smoke from the ignited fuel) to selectively impede flow of gases from the chimney (Par. 0050, as quoted above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have suitably modified the grill of Mercer, as modified above, with the damper as taught by Bogazzi in order to have a damper proximate a top of the fire chimney and thereby give the user more control over the cooking temperature (As suggested by Par. 0050 of Bogazzi: “minimally, maximally, or partially block and control the flow of the exhaust gases attempting to pass through and exit the chimney vent cap 100, and to at least partially control the temperature inside the cooking device with which the chimney vent cap 100 is used”). This is advantageous because it enables the user to better cook to their preferences and/or cook a wider variety of recipes.
Given the cross-section of the fire chimney of Mercer is rectangular while the damper of Bogazzi is circular, the shape of the damper would need to be modified. The court has held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the shape of the damper. One could have expected the damper to perform substantially equally well, whether shaped like a rectangle or in its original shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the damper to be rectangular.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kashimura (WO 2019093162 A1) discloses a cooking appliance (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Kashimura further discloses it is known to have a shutter damper (Fig. 3, shutter 25 and Par. 0020, “In the case of a shutter 25 that opens and closes with airflow, when the blower 20 is started, it opens due to the pressure of the airflow, and when the blower 20 stops and the airflow disappears, the shutter 25 closes due to its own weight”).
Buckner (US 6223737 B1) discloses a gravity-fed pellet fuel grill.
Vandyke et al. (US 20220279970 A1) discloses a heat baffle with downward projecting wedge shaped sidewalls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights