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 § 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fine (1247101).
Teaches a griddle configured for use with a liquid heating medium, the griddle comprising:
a griddle plate (col. 1 lines 36-37; metal plate; see below with respect to intended use “griddle”)
a reservoir body (col. 1 lines 41-44) coupled to the griddle plate such that the reservoir body and griddle plate collectively define a reservoir configured to receive a liquid heating medium (col. 1 lines 41-44)
a port in fluid communication with the reservoir (col. 2 lines 65-69), the port being open to the atmosphere (col. 2 lines 65-69 relieve pressure, blow off; alternatively col. 2 lines 63-64 relative filling) to facilitate maintenance of the reservoir at atmospheric pressure (col. 2 lines 65-69 relieve pressure, blow off; col. 2 lines 63-64 open for filling) and
a heat element (col. 2 lines 60-63) in thermal communication with the reservoir and configured to impart heat to the liquid heating medium (col. 1 lines 41-44) located within the reservoir (col. 1 lines 41-44).
It is noted the recitation in the claims “a griddle” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Fine discloses a reservoir body coupled to the griddle plate such that the reservoir body and griddle plate collectively define a reservoir configured to receive a liquid heating medium, a port in fluid communication with the reservoir, the port being open to the atmosphere to facilitate maintenance of the reservoir at atmospheric pressure; and a heat element in thermal communication with the reservoir and configured to impart heat to the liquid heating medium located within the reservoir as presently claimed, it is clear that the “metal” “plate” of Fine would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. a griddle, as presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
With respect to Independent claim 15, a method for operating a griddle (where it is noted the “griddle” intended use is taken as above) the method comprising the steps of:
filling (col. 2 lines 63-64) a reservoir with a liquid heating medium (col. 1 lines 41-44) through a port (col. 2 lines 67-68) in fluid communication with the reservoir (col. 2 lines 67-68), the reservoir being defined by a griddle plate and a reservoir body coupled to the griddle plate (col. 1 lines 41-44), the reservoir being filled until the liquid heating medium contacts the griddle plate (fig. 2) and
heating the liquid heating medium with a heat element in thermal communication with the reservoir (col. 2 lines 57-63).
With respect to claims 3 and 20, the heat element is located outside of the reservoir (fig. 2).
With respect to claims 5 and 18, wherein the heat element is a gas heat element (col. 2 lines 60-62; burner).
Claim 6, further comprising a temperature sensor (col. 2 lines 73-76) in thermal communication with the reservoir, the temperature sensor being configured to sense a temperature of the liquid heating medium (col. 2 line 76).
Claim 9, further comprising at least one dividing wall (fig. 2 ref. 4) located within the reservoir to separate the reservoir into two regions (fig. 2 area of ref. 8 and area of ref. 12; col. 1 lines 45-49).
Claim 16, wherein the port is open to the atmosphere during the heating step (col. 2 lines 63-69).
Claims 1-2, 4, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simeoni (EP1486151).
Simeoni teaches a griddle configured for use with a liquid heating medium, the griddle comprising:
a griddle plate (par. 0001 cooking plate; par. 0016 food on cooking plate; see below with respect to intended use “griddle”)
a reservoir body (par. 0019) coupled to the griddle plate such that the reservoir body and griddle plate collectively define a reservoir configured to receive a liquid heating medium (par. 0019)
a port in fluid communication with the reservoir (par. 0020), the port being open to the atmosphere (par. 0020; oil is fed, drained off) to facilitate maintenance of the reservoir at atmospheric pressure (par. 0020 when open for filling, draining) and
a heat element (par. 0019) in thermal communication with the reservoir (par. 0019 immersed) and configured to impart heat to the liquid heating medium located within the reservoir (par. 0019).
It is noted the recitation in the claims “a griddle” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Simeoni discloses a reservoir body coupled to the griddle plate such that the reservoir body and griddle plate collectively define a reservoir configured to receive a liquid heating medium, and a heat element in thermal communication with the reservoir and configured to impart heat to the liquid heating medium located within the reservoir as presently claimed, it is clear that the (cooking plate for cooking food directly thereon par. 0016) would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. a griddle, as presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
With respect to Independent claim 15, a method for operating a griddle (where it is noted the “griddle” intended use is taken as above) the method comprising the steps of:
filling (par. 0020) a reservoir with a liquid heating medium (par. 0020 oil) through a port (par. 0020) in fluid communication with the reservoir (par. 0020), the reservoir being defined by a griddle plate and a reservoir body coupled to the griddle plate (par. 0019), the reservoir being filled until the liquid heating medium contacts the griddle plate (par. 0019, par. 0022 laps on lower side of cooking plate; fig. 2) and
heating the liquid heating medium with a heat element in thermal communication with the reservoir (par. 0019).
Claims 2 and 19, wherein the heat element is located within the reservoir (par. 0019)
Claims 4 and 17, wherein the heat element is an electric heat element (par. 0019).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 7-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fine (1247101) in view of Ramer (3245462).
Fine teaches with respect to Independent claim 12, a griddle configured for use with a liquid heating medium (col. 1 lines 36-37; metal plate; see below with respect to intended use “griddle”), the griddle comprising:
a griddle plate (col. 1 lines 36-37; metal plate; see below with respect to intended use “griddle”) having an outer surface and an inner surface to define a griddle plate thickness therebetween (fig. 2 ref. 3)
a reservoir body (col. 1 lines 41-44) coupled to the griddle plate such that the reservoir body and griddle plate collectively define a reservoir configured to receive a liquid heating medium (col. 1 lines 41-44) and
a heat element (col. 2 lines 60-63) in thermal communication with the reservoir and configured to impart heat to the liquid heating medium (col. 1 lines 41-44) located within the reservoir (col. 1 lines 41-44).
It is noted the recitation in the claims “a griddle” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Fine discloses a reservoir body coupled to the griddle plate such that the reservoir body and griddle plate collectively define a reservoir configured to receive a liquid heating medium, a port in fluid communication with the reservoir, the port being open to the atmosphere to facilitate maintenance of the reservoir at atmospheric pressure; and a heat element in thermal communication with the reservoir and configured to impart heat to the liquid heating medium located within the reservoir as presently claimed, it is clear that the “metal” “plate” of Fine would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. a griddle, as presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Fine teaches a metal plate for cooking food directly thereon and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of known griddles and known griddle plates as taught by Ramer.
Ramer teaches the metal cooking surface being 11-gauge (col. 3 line 29-30; .1250 inches for steel) such that the griddle surface does not warp due to heating (col. 3 lines 27-31).
Thus since both teach metal plates for direct cooking of food thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a known griddle plate thickness being less than 1 inch as taught by Ramer (col. 3 line 29-30; .1250 inches for steel) for its art recognized purpose of conducting heat for cooking on flat surfaces as taught both
With respect to claim 7, Fine teaches griddle plate includes an outer griddle surface and an inner griddle surface opposite the outer griddle surface and facing the reservoir (col. 1 lines 41-44), the griddle plate having a griddle plate thickness as the distance between the outer griddle surface and the inner griddle surface (fig. 2 ref. 3).
Ramer teaches the metal cooking surface being 11-gauge (col. 3 line 29-30; .1250 inches for steel) such that the griddle surface does not warp due to heating (col. 3 lines 27-31).
Thus since both teach metal plates for direct cooking of food thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a known griddle plate thickness being less than 1 inch as taught by Ramer (col. 3 line 29-30; .1250 inches for steel) for its art recognized purpose of conducting heat for cooking on flat surfaces as taught by both
With respect to claim 8, since both teach metal plates for direct cooking of food thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a known griddle plate thickness between 0.1 inches and 1.0 inch as taught by Ramer (col. 3 line 29-30; .1250 inches for steel) for its art recognized purpose of conducting heat for cooking on flat surfaces as taught by both.
Claim 13, the griddle is configured such that the reservoir is fluidly open to the atmosphere (col. 2 lines 63-64; filling/open).
Claim 14, further comprising at least one dividing wall (fig. 2 ref. 4) located within the reservoir to separate the reservoir into two regions (fig. 2 area of ref. 8 and area of ref. 12; col. 1 lines 45-49).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simeoni (EP1486151) in view of Ramer (3245462).
Simeoni teaches electric heating of a cooking surface and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of electric griddles as taught by Ramer.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Simeoni teaches the heat element includes a first heat element positioned within a first region (par. 0019).
Ramer teaches the advantage of providing a second griddle unit such that each electric heating element is provided with individual thermostat control (col. 3 lines 33-37)
Though silent to two regions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second heat element positioned within a second region of the two regions since duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced and since Ramer teachers by providing a second heat element positioned within a second region of the two regions, the first heat element and the second heat element being independently operable (col. 3 lines 33-37). The art recognized advantage of both multiple cooking surfaces for cooking more than one food at a time and/or such that a user may continue to cook on a first region in the instant the second region is unavailable as taught by Ramer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simeoni (EP1486151) in view of Scicchitano (3603767).
Simeoni teaches the cooking plate heated by a bath of diathermic fluid (par. 0019) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of known liquid heating mediums for cooking plates as taught by Scicchitano.
Thus since both teach liquid heating mediums for cooking griddle tops, since Scicchitano teaches the heating medium selected from a variety of liquids which are able to provide heat of up to 500F (col. 3 lines 33-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known liquid heating medium with that of another such that the griddle is configured to generate a temperature on an outer surface of the griddle plate above 400 degrees Fahrenheit thus providing desired cooking temperature relative meat and fish as taught by Simeoni (par. 0016)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20160262563, 4955361, 3815575 cooking surface heating by liquid heating medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
