DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-24 as filed 1/03/2025 are pending for consideration.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 10,327,589. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the parent patent recites all of the limitations of the claim of the instant application. It is noted that the trough as recited in the parent patent is readable on the grease funneling surface recited in the instant application.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 11, 13, 11, 11, 11, 13, 11, and 11, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 10,959,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the parent patent recites all of the limitations of the claim of the instant application. It is noted that the sloped surface as recited in the parent patent is readable on the grease funneling surface recited in the instant application.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, and 1, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,284,743. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the parent patent recites all of the limitations of the claim of the instant application. It is noted that the sloped surface as recited in the parent patent is readable on the grease funneling surface recited in the instant application.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 23, 23, 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 23, 23, 27, 28, 27, 27, 1, 3, 1, and 1, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,800,954. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the parent patent recites all of the limitations of the claim of the instant application. It is noted that the sloped surface as recited in the parent patent is readable on the grease funneling surface recited in the instant application.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 5, 1, 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 10, 7, 7, 13, 14, 16, 13, 13, 19, 21, 23, 19, and 19, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,185,873. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the parent patent recites all of the limitations of the claim of the instant application. It is noted that the sloped surface as recited in the parent patent is readable on the grease funneling surface recited in the instant application.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14, 14, 14, 14, 7, 7, 7, and 7, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 10,327,588. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the parent patent recites all of the limitations of the claim of the instant application. It is noted that the sloped surface as recited in the parent patent is readable on the grease funneling surface recited in the instant application.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 12, 12, 12, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 1, 9, 11, 9, and 9, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 10,952,564. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the parent patent recites all of the limitations of the claim of the instant application. It is noted that the sloped surface as recited in the parent patent is readable on the grease funneling surface recited in the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action (or with a timely filed terminal disclaimer as described above).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations set forth in the claims. Michaelis (US Patent 2,786,929) teaches a cooking appliance 1 having front, rear, left and right sides (as shown in Figure 1); and a griddle 17 having a splash guard 18 and a grease funneling surface 21. However, Michaelis fails to teach the splash guard along the rear end of the cooking surface extending a height from the cooking surface that is greater than the height of the splash guard along the front end of the cooking surface as required by claims 1 and 7 (such that this rear end also extends adjacent the grease opening as required by the claims).
Bruno et al. (US Patent 7,340,994) teaches a griddle 10 in which a rear side (having handle 30) extends a height from a cooking surface 12 that is greater than the height of the splash guard along the front end of the cooking surface (the opposite end at least at the location which does not include a handle 30). However, Bruno fails to teach a grease funneling surface extending from the flat cooking surface and extending adjacent the rear end of the flat cooking surface, the grease funneling surface configured to facilitate the grease to flow downward and away from the flat cooking surface of the griddle, the grease funneling surface positioned adjacent the grease opening defined in the griddle required by claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, there is not sufficient evidence that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the modifications necessary to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 15 and 20, Michaelis fails to teach the splash guard top edge extends adjacently above the grease opening defined in the griddle. Ortner (US Patent Application 2015/0335200) also teaches a griddle 10 but fails to teach the splash guard top edge extends adjacently above the grease opening defined in the griddle.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moses (US Patent 4,119,021) teaches a rear opening 56 for grease, however fails to teach a portion of the splash guard extends above the rear opening.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights