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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Dery have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art lacks a greenhouse effect, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon, applicant’s arguments fail to point out structural differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that Hernandez is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hernandez teaches a device for warming food and is thus reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved.
Applicant argues that the dimensional selection of the device is unpredictable. Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, applicant has not set forth any evidence of unpredictable results yielded by the claimed dimensions.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:.
Claim 1 recites “an inner shell having platform” [sic]. This appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 1 recites “wherein each of the inner shell is made of a transparent material” [sic]. This appears to be a typographical error. Only an inner shell is claimed.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the platform having a radiation-absorbing coating to absorb a maximum amount of sunlight” [sic]. This appears to be a typographical error that creates an incomplete clause.
Claim 1 recites “the gap allows . . . and conserve “[sic]. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker US681095 in view of Erwin US4125109.
Regarding claim 1, Baker US681095 teaches a solar cooker, comprising:
i. an outer shell formed of a transparent material (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, glass sheet 19);
ii. an inner shell (glass sheet 20) having platform [sic] for placing one or more containers (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, baffle 22)
wherein each of the inner shell is made of a transparent material (Glass, Page 1, col. 2 Ln. 77-80),
wherein the inner shell and the platform is arranged such that the sunlight passes through the outer shell and the inner shell to impinge on the platform (Seen in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, sunlight passes through 19, 21, 20 and impinges 22),
wherein the outer shell covers the inner shell (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4);
iii. a gap provision provided between the outer shell and the inner shell for allowing air between the outer shell and the and the inner shell (air space 21),
wherein the gap allows a maximum transfer of heat inside the solar cooker and the air insulates the inner shell making the inner shell a sealed shell, and conserve the heat inside the inner shell due to the sunlight inside the inner shell (The functional limitation is interpreted in light of instant specification to be met by the air space between the two glass sheets of Baker);
iv. a door covering an opening or closing of the solar cooker to provide access to the one or more containers (door corresponding to latch 26, page 1 line 87-89);
v. a mounting flange for mounting the solar cooker over a predefined place (seen in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3); and
Baker does not expressly disclose
wherein the platform having a radiation-absorbing coating to absorb a maximum amount of sunlight, and
vi. mounting bolts for supporting the mounting of the solar cooker
Erwin US4125109 teaches a solar oven wherein the exposed surface of the solar absorber plate is provided with a radiation-absorbing coating thereby absorbing incident solar radiation and converting it to heat (Col. 2 Ln. 54-57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a radiation absorbing coating, as taught by Erwin, since doing so is a known technique for improving similar devices with the known predictable result of absorbing solar radiation.
Erwin US4125109 teaches in the field of solar ovens that bolts are known suitable fastening means (Col. 2 Ln. 19-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with bolts, as taught by Erwin, since doing so amounts to a known technique for fastening solar ovens with the known predictable results of fastening the device.
Regarding claim 10, the previously combined references teach the solar cooker as claimed in claim 1, wherein the predefined place comprises one of a window, a wall, or a vertical, or a stand-alone place (Baker, Fig. 1, Platform 50 meets the broadly claimed “stand-alone place”).
Regarding claim 12, the previously combined references teach the solar cooker as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gap provision creates a greenhouse effect inside the inner shell to conserve the heat inside the inner shell (The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, the corresponding structure as interpreted in light of the specification, is met by the air gap 21 of Baker).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker US681095 in view of Erwin US4125109 in view of Iniestra Hernandez US20030052117.
Regarding claim 2, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose solar cooker as claimed in claim 1, wherein the solar cooker comprises a length in a range of 550 mm to 580 mm, a width in a range of 520 mm to 550 mm and a height in a range of 280 mm to 320 mm.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art amounts to a mere change in size or dimensions of the prior art device. As of the current record, there is no evidence to suggest that a device of the claimed dimensions would perform differently than the prior art device. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04IV A
Iniestra Hernandez US20030052117 teaches that in the field of food warming devices it is known to vary the size and shape of a device may be varied in order to accommodate the foods to be heated (161, 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device to be within the claimed range since doing so amounts to a mere change in size of the prior art device and would predictably vary the amount of food or materials which could be heated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deepak Deean whose telephone number is (571)270-3347. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/DEEPAK A DEEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762