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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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: “ignition means” in claims 20 and 21.
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.
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 17-26 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "which pipe" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "which burner" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "which device" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "which device" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 17, 19-22, and 24-26, as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang (KR 20150000117), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Kang shows:
16. (New) A barbecue, cooker, or the like, comprising: an outer shell which serves as a housing 100; a support shell 200 arranged inside the outer shell and being distanced therefrom on all sides; a burner unit 120 located inside the support shell (fig. 2,3); a barbecue grate 500 or container arranged above the burner unit (fig. 2,3); and a gas supply 20 device which generates a fluid flow toward or into the burner unit from below the support shell, wherein: a wood charcoal burner unit 400 or a gas burner unit 120, together with specific attachment elements, can be used as the burner unit, and when the burner unit is used accordingly, a directed air flow can be conducted into or toward the wood charcoal burner unit or flammable gas can be conducted into or toward the gas burner unit via the gas supply device (fig. 2,3).
17. (New) The barbecue according to claim 16, wherein: the burner unit is designed as a wood charcoal burner chamber 400 and comprises a perforated or slitted housing and a perforated floor which is offset inwardly, the housing stands with a lower edge region on or in an ignition shell, the ignition shell is positioned centrally in the support shell, and an air inlet pipe projects centrally through the ignition shell into an ignition and airbox formed between the floor of the wood charcoal burner chamber and the ignition shell, which pipe is supplied with air via an electric ventilator 150 arranged in the floor region of the outer shell (fig. 2,3).
19. (New) The barbecue according to claim 16, wherein burner unit is designed as a gas burner chamber in the sense of a closed unit having a perforated or slitted housing, a floor, and a gas burner arranged centrally on the floor in the housing, from which burner a gas rising pipe extends through the floor to an inner gas attachment device outside the gas burner chamber, which device is fluidly connected to an outer gas attachment device 20 for the direct or indirect attachment of a gas cylinder or the like (fig. 2,3).
20. (New) The barbecue according to claim 19, wherein an opening for introducing an ignition means 130 is configured in the wall of the gas burner chamber, approximately at the level of the gas burner (fig. 2,3).
21. (New) The barbecue according to claim 20, wherein the ignition means is designed as an electrically or mechanically operating ignition means (fig. 2,3).
22. (New) The barbecue according to claim 19, wherein the gas burner chamber sits on a pedestal designed for the secure positioning of the gas burner chamber on the support shell (fig. 2,3 – show structure around the burner that inherently provide secure positioning).
24. (New) The barbecue according to claim 16, wherein: the gas burner unit comprises a gas burner and a circumferential standing base 300 for positioning a container, the gas burner is arranged below the level of the standing base, a gas rising pipe extends through the standing base and the support shell to an inner gas attachment device, which device is fluidly connected to an outer gas attachment device for the direct or indirect attachment of a gas cylinder or the like (fig. 2,3).
25. (New) The barbecue according to claim 24, wherein the container is a pot or a shell (fig. 3).
26. (New) The barbecue according to claim 24, wherein the gas burner unit comprises a support device with which the gas burner unit can be positioned in the support shell in a supporting manner (fig. 2,3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-33 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
August 14, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights