DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is the response to amendment filed 06/19/2025 for application 18803782.
The terminal disclaimer filed 06/19/2026 has been acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCOTT et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0308373) in view of MOE’S BLACK GOLD BBQ (Vortex Knockoff | How Well Does It Work?) and CLARKE (GB 2395956 A).
SCOTT et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0308373) teach a portable insulated grill.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the portable insulated grill comprises a housing 20 that holds a removable main grate 70, auxiliary grate 80 and a firebox 50. SCOTT et al. further teach a firebox that has a grate 52 to support a solid fuel.
Auxiliary grate 80 may be considered the presently claimed food-supporting grill grate. Auxiliary grate 80 is shown in the Figs and grill grates are generally known to have parallel spaced bars that allow for food to be placed.
The firebox 50 with a grate 52 on the bottom may be considered the presently claimed grid.
MOE’S BLACK GOLD BBQ is relied on to teach a grill grate that comprises an opening that allows for addition of solid fuel through the parallel bars.
The MOE’S BLACK GOLD BBQ video teaches grilling with a cooking grate with a central hole and evenly spaced bars.
The screencaps and the video show a cooking grate with a central hole that would allow for the addition of charcoal through the cooking grate without the need to remove the cooking grate and replacing the cooking grate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the type of grate with a middle hole as shown in the MOE’S BLACK GOLD BBQ video as the auxiliary grate 80 in the process that SCOTT et al. teach, with the middle hole being over the fuel basket in SCOTT et al.
The motivation to do so would be the ease of adding charcoal to the grill and the ability to introduce extra charcoal without interruption of cooking or lifting and replacing the cooking grate. Once placed as setup for the grill, the cooking grate with the middle hole shown in the MOE’S BLACK GOLD BBQ video, need not be lifted or moved before fuel is introduced. (without lifting or moving any portion of a food-supporting grill grate, adding solid fuel through the food-supporting grill onto a grid underlying the food-supporting grill grate wherein the food-supporting grill comprising spaced bars for supporting food and providing a cooking area)
The limitation “the solid fuel can be added to the grid directly beneath any portion of the cooking area by passing the solid fuel between any adjacent ones of the spaced bars” appears to be suggesting a functional limitation as well as suggest that it is optional for the food-supporting grill and not a specific step of the process that is claimed.
The cooking grate that is shown in the MOE’S BLACK GOLD BBQ video appears capable for one of ordinary skill in the art to pass solid fuel between any adjacent ones of the spaced bars.
Once solid fuel such as charcoal has been added to the firebox 50 and ignited to generate heat to cook food, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to place food to the auxiliary grate 80 and then cook the food.
Regarding claim 1, alternatively, auxiliary grate 80 is taught in paragraph 28 to be capable of being moved by rotating the grill grate out with a wire support 86.
Rotating the grill grate would not be considered lifting.
SCOTT et al. teach in paragraph 26 that the solid fuel may hold charcoal or wood chips or other fuel.
CLARKE is relied on to teach choosing a size for the solid fuel.
CLARKE teaches recycled particular/granular firefighter. CLARKE teaches on page 1 that ease of ignition, effective rate of combustion, and heat loss are considerations for solid fuel.
The firefighter comprises particles with particles size of less than 12 mm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the solid fuel must also be above a certain size to not fall through the grate 52 of firebox 50.
A size of more than ¼ inch would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, CLARKE is relied on to teach choosing a size for the solid fuel.
CLARKE teaches recycled particular/granular firefighter. CLARKE teaches on page 1 that ease of ignition, effective rate of combustion, and heat loss are considerations for solid fuel.
The firefighter comprises particles with particles size of less than 12 mm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the solid fuel must also be above a certain size to not fall through the grate 52 of firebox 50.
A size of less than 3/8 inch would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, SCOTT et al. teach auxiliary grate 80 and grates are commonly known to comprises evenly spaced bars. The grate shown in MOE’S BLACK GOLD BBQ video are shown to comprises evenly spaced bars.
Regarding claim 3, SCOTT et al. teach a firebox 50 with a grate 52 that comprises perforations.
SCOTT et al. from the current claims in that the depth of the firebox while the current claims call for a depth of less than 0.5 inches.
However, it has been held by the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the depth of the firebox in SCOTT et al., as long as the fuel stays in the firebox, to expect that the depth of the firebox may be changed and still hold the fuel.
Regarding claim 7, SCOTT et al. teach that in paragraphs 21 and 26 that the grate 52 on the bottom of firebox 50 allows spent coal and ash to pass through the grate.
Employing screens to select a range for the size of the solid fuels would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as screens are well known for separation based on sizes.
CLARKE teaches recycled particular/granular firefighter. CLARKE teaches on page 1 that ease of ignition, effective rate of combustion, and heat loss are considerations for solid fuel.
The firefighter comprises particles with particles size of less than 12 mm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the solid fuel must also be above a certain size to not fall through the grate 52 of firebox 50.
A size of less than 3/8 inch but greater than 1/4 inch would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 8-9, SCOTT et al. further teach in paragraph 44 and Fig 1A, 1B, 2, and 3B, that the portable insulated grill may be modified to work with a gas burner. Gas burners can be supported inside chamber of housing 20 from inner shell 26.
Regarding claims 10-11, and 14, SCOTT et al. teach that the portable insulated grill may have gas burners on the bottom and the firebox can also comprise fuel such as charcoal on the firebox.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply heat from the gas burners and the combustion of the solid fuel in the firebox.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have turned on the gas burners to combust the charcoal and once the charcoal has been lit, one of ordinary skill in the art would have turned off the gas burner.
Applying known methods for providing heat in a grill that is taught to support both methods of applying heat would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, SCOTT et al. do not explicitly teach that the perforations in the fuel basket make up to 39% to 44% of a surface area of perforated portions of the fuel basket.
However, SCOTT et al. teach a firebox 50 with a grate 52 that comprises perforations. SCOTT et al. teach in paragraph 26 that the grate 52 is there to allow spent coal and ash to pass through perforations. SCOTT et al. further teach the geometry and shape of the firebox 50 and grate 52 are configured to facilitate heat and fire control in the grill.
SCOTT et al. do not appear to explicitly teach that the fuel basket perforations comprise 39%-44% of the fuel basket.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the perforations on the grate 52 in SCOTT et al. to comprise 39%-44% of perforations to allow air to flow up and react with the solid fuel in the firebox 50.
"[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 1-3, 6-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCOTT et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0308373) in view of MOE’S BLACK GOLD BBQ (Vortex Knockoff | How Well Does It Work?) and CLARKE (GB 2395956 A) and further in view of TEE et al. (USPGPUB 2015/0342399).
The above discussion of SCOTT et al. in view of MOE’s BLACK GOLD BBQ and CLARK is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 16-18, TEE et al. is relied on to teach lava rocks and drip trays that are placed under the firebox and above the gas burners and wherein the gas burners are ignited to light the gas grill.
TEE et al. teach a kit that can be used to retrofit a grill. The grill is retrofitted with a drip tray and a plurality of lava rocks and a heat source. The drip tray is placed under the grill and under the plurality of lava rocks and above the heat source.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the drip tray and the lava rocks above the gas burners in SCOTT et al.
TEE et al. teach in paragraph 26 that a drip tray allows significant reduction of grease and other liquid from falling on or near the gas burners.
TEE et al. also teach in paragraph 20 that the lava rocks to heat to a temperature and allow for heat retention and distribution.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BOWYER (USPGPUB 20160007622) teaches a barbeque grill smoker with grill grates that are slidable.
YEKUTIELY (USPGPUB 20220330750) teaches a grate for a grill with a partial cover that can be lifted.
WALKER (US 9215950) teaches a portable grill assembly where a grill grate can be slid around a stake.
ZISSERSON (USPGPUB 20090064872) teaches grill grate with multiple sections that can be detachable replaced. The detachable sections of the grill grate allow for easy access to the fuel underneath the grill grate.
KNOX (USPGPUB 20210307562) teaches a portable grill system with a grill grate and a fuel insert under the grill grate and fuel insert support members that extend pass evenly spaced bars of a grill grate.
KRALL (US 6173644) teaches how to convert an apparatus for converting a gas grill into a charcoal burning grill. KRALL teaches an adapter container for holding flammable material.
KRONMAN (US 6161534) teaches a fuel basket for holding solid fuel in which the fuel basket has perforations on the bottom that are about 3/16 inches.
BURKHART (U.S. 4719899) teaches an apparatus in which granular fuel is dispensed in between parallel grill elements into baskets. The granular fuel includes charcoal.
ALPERT (U.S. 6000389) teaches a grill that is a combination gas and charcoal grill.
KOMOSKY (US 6895958) teaches a cooking apparatus with removable grills that may be inserted and pulled out.
CRACE (US 5427805) teaches briquette comprising aromatic pellets. CRACE teaches in column 4, wood pellets with sizes of greater than 1/4 inches in diameter and length.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights