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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/10/2026 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.
Regarding the relative dimensions of the device, examiner again asserts MPEP2144.04 IV. In response to applicant's argument that the claimed dimensions would fit a particular building, 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).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “wherein the door being configured to provide access” [sic]; and “wherein the platform having a radiation-absorbing coating to absorb sunlight” [sic]. This appears to be a typographical error. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 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 10 recites “wherein the predefined place faces a south direction”. It is unclear from the claims and specification what structure corresponds to the functional limitation.
Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends recites “A solar cooker configured to be mounted at a predefined place…” and “…wherein the predefined place comprises one of a window, a wall, or a vertical surface, and wherein the mounting flange and the mounting bolts are configured to mount the solar cooker over the predefined place such that the outer shell and the inner shell are exposed to sunlight outside the building premise and the door is accessible from inside the building premise”.
It is unclear from the claims and specification if the predefined place is a positively recited element of the claims. It is unclear if the claims merely require a device which could be mounted to a south facing wall or if the claims require that the device mounted to a south facing wall. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would ascertain the difference between a similar device configured to be mounted over a window, a wall, or a vertical surface and a device configured to be mounted over a window, a wall, or a vertical surface which faces a south direction. It is unclear from the claims and specification if a similar device which is mounted over a predefined place facing east would avoid infringement.
Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. “ MPEPE 2173.05g.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
“35USC112(d) requires that dependent claims further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends. In the present case, it is unclear how claim 10 further limits the subject matter of claim 1. Instant specification fails to provide any guidance as to how attachment to a South facing window, wall, or vertical surface would be structurally different from a similar device configured to be mounted to a non-South facing wall, window, or vertical surface.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner acknowledges the duality of the above rejections. Assuming arguendo, that the claim further limits the claim from which it depends, how the claims further limits is unclear. Assuming arguendo, that the claim does not require any structural difference beyond what is required by claim 1, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. In the interest of compact prosecution, both rejections are raised.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wyk WO2014179820A1 in view of Lipinski US4212288 in view of Burns et al. US4848320
Regarding claim 1, Van Wyk WO2014179820A1 discloses a solar cooker configured to be mounted at a predefined place of a building premise (abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
ii. an inner shell formed of a transparent material (Fig. 1, transparent top wall 22);
the inner shell defining a cooking space and having a platform for placing one or more containers (Fig. 2, 14),
iv. a door covering an opening of the solar cooker, wherein the door being configured to provide access to the one or more containers from inside the building premise (Fig. 1, door 36 or door 28, Fig. 2);
v. a mounting flange for mounting the solar cooker over the predefined place (Wall mount 16, Fig. 1, or flanges of supports 32, Fig. 1); and
vi. mounting bolts for supporting the mounting of the solar cooker over the predefined place (bolts, seen in Fig. 1 on the flanges of supports 32, or, bolts of wall mount a6, page 7, ¶2) ,
wherein the predefined place comprises one of a window, a wall, or a vertical surface, and wherein the mounting flange and the mounting bolts are configured to mount the solar cooker over the predefined place such that the outer shell and the inner shell are exposed to sunlight outside the building premise and the door is accessible from inside the building premise (Seen in fig. 1).
Van Wyk does not expressly disclose
i. an outer shell formed of a transparent material;
the inner shell covered by the outer shell,
wherein the platform [has] a radiation-absorbing coating to absorb sunlight, and
wherein the outer shell, the inner shell and the platform are arranged such that the sunlight passes through the outer shell and the inner shell and impinges on the radiation-absorbing coating of the platform for heating food items inside the one or more containers;
iii. a gap provision provided between the outer shell and the inner shell for receiving air between the outer shell and the inner shell, wherein the air insulates the inner shell making the inner shell, and conserves the heat inside the cooking space of the inner shell;
Lipinski US4212288 teaches a wall mounted solar collector (Fig. 1) comprising an outer shell formed of a transparent material (Fig. 1, and Fig. 2, transparent housing 12, layer 12a is an outer layer);
the inner shell formed of a transparent material and covered by the outer shell (Fig. 2, layer 12b or 12b),
wherein the outer shell, the inner shell and the platform are arranged such that the sunlight passes through the outer shell and the inner shell and impinges on the interior (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, Col. 2 Ln. 30-35);
iii. a gap provision provided between the outer shell and the inner shell for receiving air between the outer shell and the inner shell, wherein the air insulates the inner shell making the inner shell, and conserves the heat inside the cooking space of the inner shell (best seen in Fig. 2,. Col. 2 Ln. 30-35, label 24 points to a gap).
Lipinski teaches that such a configuration provides an insulating effect while retaining the effectiveness of solar heating (Col. 2 Ln. 30-35).
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 transparent outer shell and gap provision, as taught by Lipinski, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving solar heating devices with the known predictable result of providing insulation while retaining effectiveness of solar heating.
Burns et al. US4848320 teaches a solar oven wherein the interior of the cooking chamber is provided with a radiation absorbing coating thereby converting sunlight into heat (Col. 3 Ln. 19-23).
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 to absorb sunlight, as taught by Burns, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving solar cooking devices with the known predictable result of absorbing sunlight and converting it into heat.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wyk WO2014179820A1 in view of Lipinski US4212288 in view of Burns et al. US4848320 in view of Iniestra Hernandez US20030052117.
Regarding claim 2, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the 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 (¶61, ¶20).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wyk WO2014179820A1 in view of Lipinski US4212288 in view of Burns et al. US4848320 in view of Ker US4655196.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the1 solar cooker as claimed in claim 1, wherein the predefined place faces a south direction.
Ker US4655196 teaches that a wall mounted solar cooker should be mounted in a south facing wall so as to receive sunlight (Col. 3 Ln. 59-64).
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 such that it is mounted in a sought facing wall, as taught by Ker, since doing so amounts to a mere rearrangement of a prior art device with the known predictable result of receiving sunlight.
Conclusion
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 517-272-6460. 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
Prosecution Insights