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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim ends with two periods. 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.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation “wherein the folding support mechanism includes at least one upper cross member that is coupled to the upper folding leg portion of each of the two first legs.” However the “upper folding leg portion” was previously introduced in parent claim 10 as part of the second leg rather than the first leg. It is not clear, then, whether the “upper folding leg portion of each of the two first legs” is introducing a new limitation, or if this is intended to refer to the previously introduced upper folding leg portion of the second leg(s). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification discloses the claimed upper cross member as positioned at the second leg(s) rather than the first legs (Fig 9). For the purposes of this Office Action, and in light of Applicant’s specification, the claim is being interpreted as “The folding support mechanism of claim 10, wherein the at least one second leg includes two second legs, and wherein the folding support mechanism includes at least one upper cross member that is coupled to the upper folding leg portion of each of the two second legs.
The term “substantially” in claims 6, 10, 11, and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear in claim 6 to what degree the product support frame must be rectangular in order to meet the claim limitation. Similarly, in claims 10 and 13, it is not clear how close the parallel the leg must be in order to meet the claim limitation. Claim 10 also requires the leg portion to extend in “substantially the same direction” when unfolded and “substantially opposite” when folded. Claim 11 requires the product support frame to be “orientated substantially horizontally.” These limitations are similarly unclear. For the purposes of this Office Action, claims 6, 10, 11, and 13 will be interpreted without the word “substantially”.
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.
(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 1, 3, 6, 7, 10-13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2009/0320822 by Yeh (hereinafter “Yeh”).
Regarding claim 1, Yeh discloses a folding support mechanism for a portable product (Abstract, Fig 1) comprising:
a product support frame configured for a product module to be mounted on (Fig 1 grill 10);
at least one first leg pivotably connected to the product support frame (Fig 1 secondary leg 22);
at least one second leg pivotably connected to the product support frame (Fig 3 primary leg assembly 21; paragraph [0020]), the at least one second leg pivotably connected to the at least one first leg (Figs 3-4; paragraph [0025]); and
wherein the at least one second leg comprises an upper folding leg portion (Fig 3 pivot pole 23) and a lower folding leg portion (Fig 3 main pole 210), and wherein the upper folding leg portion and the lower folding leg portion are pivotably connected to one another such that the upper folding leg portion may rotate relative to the lower folding leg portion (Figs 3-4; paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Yeh discloses that the upper folding leg portion comprises at least one flange configured to abut the lower folding leg portion to limit rotation of the upper folding leg portion relative to the lower folding leg portion when the folding support mechanism is in an unfolded position (Fig 3 catch 231).
Regarding claim 6, Yeh discloses that the product support frame is formed in a rectangular shape with rounded corners (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 7, Yeh discloses that the folding support mechanism includes a plurality of wheels positioned and located on at least one of the at least one first leg and the at least one second leg, the plurality of wheels configured to assist a user with transporting the folding support mechanism (Fig 1 wheels 222).
Regarding claim 10, Yeh teaches a folding support mechanism for a portable product (Abstract, Fig 1) having a folded position (Fig 4) and an unfolded position (Fig 1), the folding support mechanism comprising:
a product support frame (Fig 1 grill 10);
at least one first leg pivotably connected to the product support frame (Fig 1 secondary leg 22);
at least one second leg (Fig 3 primary leg assembly 21), comprising an upper folding leg portion (Fig 3 pivot pole 23) and a lower folding leg portion (Fig 3 main pole 210), the upper folding leg portion and the lower folding leg portion configured to rotate relative to one another (Figs 3-4; paragraph [0021]);
wherein the upper folding leg portion is pivotably connected to the product support frame (Figs 3-4; paragraph [0020]);
wherein the lower folding leg portion is pivotably connected to the at least one first leg (Figs 3-4; paragraph [0025]);
wherein when the folding support mechanism is in the unfolded position, the upper folding leg portion is oriented parallel to the lower folding leg portion, and the upper folding leg portion extends in a first direction the same as a direction of the lower folding leg portion (Fig 3); and
wherein when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position, the upper folding leg portion is oriented parallel to the lower folding leg portion, and the upper folding leg portion extends in a second direction opposite of a direction of the lower folding leg portion (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 11, Yeh discloses that when the folding support mechanism is in the unfolded position, the product support frame is orientated horizontally (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 12, Yeh discloses that when the folding support mechanism is in the unfolded position, the at least one first leg and the at least one second leg each support the product support frame (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 13, Yeh discloses that when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position, the product support frame and the at least one first leg are oriented parallel to one another (Figs 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 18, Yeah discloses that the folding support mechanism further comprises:
a lower cross member coupled to the at least one second leg (Fig 1 support strut 221 is coupled to first leg 22 and at least indirectly to second leg 21); and
a plurality of wheels coupled to the lower cross member (Fig 1 wheels 222).
Regarding claim 19, Yeh discloses that the at least one second leg includes two second legs (Fig 1 shows two legs 21; paragraph [0019]), and wherein the folding support mechanism includes at least one upper cross member that is coupled to the upper folding leg portion of each of the two second legs (Fig 1 limiting strut 232; paragraph [0024]).
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0215342 by Hunt et al (hereinafter “Hunt”).
Regarding claim 1, Hunt discloses a folding support mechanism for a portable product (Abstract, Fig 1) comprising:
a product support frame configured for a product module to be mounted on (Fig 1 frame 120, also shown in Fig 25);
at least one first leg pivotably connected to the product support frame (Fig 1 second leg unit 158; paragraph [0114]);
at least one second leg pivotably connected to the product support frame (Fig 1 first leg unit 136; paragraph [0100]), the at least one second leg pivotably connected to the at least one first leg (paragraph [0122]); and
wherein the at least one second leg comprises an upper folding leg portion (Fig 3 front leg 140) and a lower folding leg portion (Fig 3 foldable foot 146), and wherein the upper folding leg portion and the lower folding leg portion are pivotably connected to one another such that the upper folding leg portion may rotate relative to the lower folding leg portion (paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 2, Hunt discloses that a handle portion configured to be gripped by a user is positioned and located on the product support frame (Fig 3 handle 184).
Regarding claim 5, Hunt discloses that the product module is a grill module (Fig 1 cookbox 104 with lid 106 of portable grill 100).
Regarding claim 8, Hunt discloses that the at least one first leg is coupled to a foot member, and wherein the foot member is configured as a U-shaped member (Figs 2-3, first leg 158 is coupled to second support bar 174, which is a U-shaped member; see also Fig 19 where 174 is shown functioning as a foot).
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh.
Regarding claim 4, Yeah teaches that the second comprises at least one flange on the upper leg portion and configured to abut the lower folding leg portion to limit rotation of the upper folding leg portion relative to the lower folding leg portion when the folding support mechanism is in an unfolded position (Fig 3 catch 231).
Although Yeh teaches that the flange comprises a portion of the upper folding leg portion which abuts the lower leg portion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the folding support mechanism of Yeh by connecting the flange to the lower folding leg portion such that it abuts the upper folding leg portion instead of connecting the flange to the upper leg portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would not alter the function of the mechanism and would produce a predictable and equally desirable result. It has been held (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70} that rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2004/0112361 by Zelek et al (hereinafter “Zelek”).
Regarding claim 9, Yeh teaches the folding support mechanism of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection to Yeh above). Yeh does not explicitly teach that at least one first leg and the at least one second leg each comprise a tubular member with a rectangular cross section.
However, Zelek teaches a folding support mechanism used with a barbecue grill (Abstract, Fig 1 collapsible cart assembly 100 used with barbecue grill assembly 10), the folding support mechanism comprising legs which are tubular members having a rectangular cross-section (paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, in view of Zelek, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the folding support mechanism of Yeh by forming the first and/or second legs from a tubular member with a rectangular cross-section. Zelek teaches that the rectangular cross-section is an equivalent alternative to the circular cross-section shown in the disclosure of Yeh (Zelek paragraph [0041]). Furthermore, the tubular (i.e., hollow) structure would be advantageous over a solid structure since it would be lighter weight and require less material. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the legs from tubular members, and would have found it obvious to use tubular members with a rectangular cross-section, since this shape was known as an art-recognized equivalent structure at the time the invention was filed, which would produce a predictable and equally desirable result.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh, as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of US 6,439,221 issued to Ward et al (hereinafter “Ward”).
Regarding claim 14, Yeh teaches the folding support mechanism of claim 10 (see details in claim 10 rejection above). But Yeh does not teach that when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position, a handle positioned and located on the product support frame is positioned proximal to an upper end of the folding support mechanism.
However, Ward teaches a folding support mechanism (Abstract, Fig 1) with a product support frame similar to that of Yeh (Fig 1 grill body 12), wherein when the folding support mechanism is in a folded position (Fig 2), a handle positioned and located on the product support frame is positioned proximal to an upper end of the folding support mechanism (Fig 2 handle 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the folding support mechanism of Yeh by including a handle positioned and located on the product support frame, as taught by Ward. The modification would result in the claimed invention, and would advantageously allow for easy transport of the grill by a single person in the folded position (Ward col 4 line 66 – col 5 line 6).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh, as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Hunt.
Regarding claim 15, Yeh teaches the folding support mechanism of claim 10 (see details in claim 10 rejection above). Yeh teaches a foot member (Fig 2, lower end 213 of second leg curved outward for better stability; paragraph [0021]), but it is not clear that the foot member is configured to support the folding support mechanism in an upright position when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position.
However, Hunt teaches a similar folding support mechanism (Abstract, Fig 1) having a folded position (Fig 11) and an unfolded position (Fig 1), the folding support mechanism comprising a product support frame (Fig 1 frame 120, also shown in Fig 25), a first leg (Fig 1 second leg unit 158), and a second leg (Fig 1 first leg unit 136). Hunt further teaches that the folding support mechanism further comprises a foot member configured to support the folding support mechanism in an upright position when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position (Fig 13 second support bar 174, shown supporting the folding support mechanism in a folded, upright position; paragraph [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the folding support mechanism of Yeh by including the foot member taught by Hunt on the first leg(s) along with the wheels, the foot member being configured to support the folding support mechanism in an upright position when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position. This would allow the product to be self-supported in the upright position for easier storage or transport.
Regarding claim 16, Yeh teaches the folding support mechanism of claim 10 (see details in claim 10 rejection above). But Yeh does not teach that the at least one first leg is coupled to a foot member configured to support the folding support mechanism in an upright position when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position.
However, Hunt teaches a similar folding support mechanism (Abstract, Fig 1) having a folded position (Fig 11) and an unfolded position (Fig 1), the folding support mechanism comprising a product support frame (Fig 1 frame 120, also shown in Fig 25), a first leg having wheels at the base (Fig 1 second leg unit 158 connected to wheel 170), and a second leg comprised of pivotally connected upper and lower portions (Fig 1 first leg unit 136 comprised of front leg 140 and foldable foot 146). Hunt further teaches that the first leg is coupled to a foot member configured to support the folding support mechanism in an upright position when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position (Fig 3 13 second support bar 174; shown in Fig 13 supporting the folding support mechanism in a folded, upright position; paragraph [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the folding support mechanism of Yeh by including the foot member taught by Hunt on the first leg(s) along with the wheels, the foot member being configured to support the folding support mechanism in an upright position when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position. This would allow the product to be self-supported in the upright position for easier storage or transport.
Regarding claim 17, Yeh teaches the folding support mechanism of claim 10 (see details in claim 10 rejection above). Yeh teaches that the folding support mechanism further comprises at least one wheel (Fig 1 wheels 222). But Yeh does not teach that the folding support mechanism comprises at least one standoff, wherein when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position, the folding support mechanism is configured to lie horizontally on a stable surface with the at least one standoff and the at least one wheel configured to abut the stable surface.
However, Hunt teaches a similar folding support mechanism (Abstract, Fig 1) having a folded position (Fig 11) and an unfolded position (Fig 1), the folding support mechanism comprising a product support frame (Fig 1 frame 120, also shown in Fig 25), a first leg having wheels at the base (Fig 1 second leg unit 158 connected to wheel 170), and a second leg comprised of pivotally connected upper and lower portions (Fig 1 first leg unit 136 comprised of front leg 140 and foldable foot 146). Hunt further teaches that the folding support mechanism comprises at least one standoff (Fig 26 first support bar 166), wherein when the folding support mechanism is in the folded position, the folding support mechanism is configured to lie horizontally on a stable surface with the at least one standoff and the at least one wheel configured to abut the stable surface (Fig 26; paragraph [0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the folding support mechanism of Yeh by including the standoff taught by Hunt, which would result in the invention as claimed. The standoff configured to support the mechanism, along with the wheel, on a stable horizontal surface, would advantageously allow the product support frame to remain horizontal and distanced from the ground or underlying surface when in the folded, horizontal position, thus allowing for easier storage in this position while preventing wear and damage to the frame (Hunt paragraph [0117]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh, as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of US 3,386,430 issued to Linstead (hereinafter “Linstead”) and in further view of US 5,318,322 issued to Home (hereinafter “Home”).
Regarding claim 20, Yeh teaches the folding support mechanism of claim 10 (see details in claim 10 rejection above). Yeh teaches a mounting bracket coupled to the product support frame (Fig 3, retainer 12). It is also noted that the mounting bracket would be connected, at least indirectly, to a product module when a product module is coupled to the product support frame. But Yeh does not explicitly teach that the folding support mechanism further comprises a product module coupled to the product support frame; a linkage member configured to be selectively coupled to the mounting bracket; and wherein the linkage member is configured to selectively receive an aperture in a fuel source.
However, Yeh at least suggests a product module coupled to the product support frame, since Yeh teaches that the device is intended to be used as a grill (Yeh, Abstract). Furthermore, Linstead teaches a similar folding support mechanism (Fig 1; col 1 lines 8-21) with a product support frame (Fig 1 brazier 5), wherein a product module is coupled to the product support frame (Fig 1 wire grill 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to couple a product module, such as the grilling rack of Linstead, to the product support frame of Yeh, as is known in the art, in order to allow food to be supported for grilling over the grill base/product support frame.
Furthermore, Home teaches a folding support mechanism (Abstract, Fig 1) with a product support frame (Fig 1 product shelf which comprises two beams 70, pivot 11, and bar 90), a product module coupled to the product support frame (Fig 1 barbecue grill 71); a linkage member configured to be selectively coupled to the product support frame (Fig 3 hook 61); and wherein the linkage member is configured to selectively receive an aperture in a fuel source (Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the folding support mechanism of Yeh/Linstead to include the linkage member of Home configured to be selectively coupled to the mounting bracket and configured to selectively receive an aperture in a fuel source, so that the barbecue grill is able to support a fuel source such as a gas tank when desired. It is noted that the linkage member would be selectively coupled to the mounting bracket in a manner similar to that taught by Home, since Yeh teaches that the crossbar 220 is selectively coupled to the mounting bracket 12 in a similar manner to the way rod 60 is selectively coupled to slots 75 of Home. Thus, adding the linkage member (hook 61) of Home to the crossbar 220 of Yeh would be a straightforward modification with predicable results and would result in the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,096,247 issued to Witzel et al teaches a folding support mechanism for a grill module with first and second folding legs.
US 3,646,895 issued to Campbell teaches a folding support mechanism for a table comprised of pivoting support legs, wherein one of the support legs is foldable in a manner similar to that disclosed by Applicant.
US 6,422,230 issued to Stewart et al teaches a folding support mechanism for a grill module with first and second legs, the second leg comprised of upper and lower portions that are pivotable relative to each other.
US 2011/0094494 by Malumyan teaches a folding support mechanism for a grill module with first and second legs, the second leg comprised of upper and lower portions that are pivotable relative to each other.
US 2021/0085126 by Bartlett teaches a folding support mechanism for a grill module comprising a first leg, a second foldable leg, wheels, a foot member, and a standoff.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 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, 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 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights