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, filed 8/26/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) for claims 4 and 5 regarding an antecedent for said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 4/23/2025 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/26/2025, with respect to 112(b) for claims 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 the limitation “rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures”, claim 4 the limitation “a planar flange extending along at least a portion of said upright supports”, and claim 15 recites the limitation “said transparent viewing panel comprises glass and said viewing panel attachment structures comprise inwardly extending channels” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 4/23/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection for claim 14 which recites the limitation “an inwardly extending viewing panel attachment structure”. The examiner remains unclear as to what the viewing panel attachment structures are meant to be. The applicant points to elements 631 and 632 which the specification discloses to be “tabs” but it remains unclear in the description of 631 and 632 in the specification that 631 and 632 are what is meant to be an inwardly extending viewing panel attachment structure. There is a disconnect between the claim language and the written description in the specification.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a forward edge of said top panel portion,” ends with a comma vs a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 22 of which claim 24 depends. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Note, examiner is considering claim 24 as not further limiting instead of an intention to duplicate structure already set forth in claim 22.
Drawings
The examiner does not concede that all drawing objections are accounted for due to the numerous amount.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the forwardly extending portion, rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures, downwardly extending portion, an inwardly extending viewing panel attachment structure, inwardly extending channels, structural connectors 609, an upwardly facing rear channel, a shoulder extending rearwardly adjacent an upper end of said upright supports, a mesh screen panel, and a top panel portion must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8 of prior U.S. Patent No. 17/694,403. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application 17/694,403
Application 17/694,424
Claim 1
A ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit comprising:
a firebox panel having a rear imaging screen portion and a forwardly extending portion;
a foundation having a front, a top, opposing left and right sides, and a rear;
said firebox panel having a lower peripheral edge removably secured to said foundation, first and second upright structural supports each having a lower end removably secured to said foundation adjacent to said front, said forwardly extending panel portion of said firebox panel engaging said uprights structural supports whereby said foundation and said upright structural supports transfer structural rigidity to said firebox panel;
and a simulated firebed assembly removably received on the foundation.
Claim 1
A furniture assembly comprising, in combination:
a ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit comprising:
a firebox panel having a rear imaging screen portion and a forwardly extending portion;
a foundation having a front, a top, opposing left and right sides, and a rear;
said firebox panel having a lower peripheral edge removably configured to be secured to said foundation, first and second upright structural supports each having a lower end removably configured to be secured to said foundation adjacent to said front, said forwardly extending panel portion of said firebox panel engaging said uprights structural supports whereby said foundation and said upright structural supports transfer structural rigidity to said firebox panel;
and a electronic simulated firebed assembly removably configured to be received on the foundation;
and a furniture piece comprising;
a furniture base having an upper surface, a furniture top having a lower surface, left and right furniture sides extending between the upper surface of the furniture base and the lower surface of the top and structurally supporting said top above said base when assembled therewith to form an insert cavity within said furniture assembly, wherein said assembled simulated fireplace kit is slidably received into said insert cavity
Claim 2
wherein each of said upright supports has a rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structure, said forwardly extending portion of said firebox panel having a respective forward edge portion secured to said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures of said upright structural supports.
Claim 2
wherein each of said upright supports has a rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structure, said forwardly extending portion of said firebox panel having a respective forward edge portion configured to be secured to said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures of said upright structural supports.
Claim 3
wherein said forwardly extending panel portion comprises left and right side panel portions extending forwardly from side edges of said rear imaging screen portion
Claim 3
wherein said forwardly extending panel portion comprises left and right side panel portions extending forwardly from side edges of said rear imaging screen portion
Claim 4
wherein said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures comprise a planar flange extending along at least a portion of said upright supports
Claim 4
wherein said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures comprise a planar flange extending along at least a portion of said upright supports
Claim 5
wherein said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures comprise a channel extending along at least a portion of said upright supports
Claim 5
wherein said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures comprise a channel extending along at least a portion of said upright supports
Claim 6
wherein said left and right side panel portions of said firebox panel each have a lower peripheral edge removably secured to said foundation.
Claim 6
wherein said left and right side panel portions of said firebox panel each have a lower peripheral edge removably secured to said foundation.
Claim 7
wherein said forwardly extending panel portion comprises a top panel portion extending forwardly from a top edge of said rear imaging screen portion
Claim 7
wherein said forwardly extending panel portion comprises a top panel portion extending forwardly from a top edge of said rear imaging screen portion
Claim 8
wherein said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures comprise a shoulder extending rearwardly adjacent an upper end of said upright supports
Claim 8
wherein said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures comprise a shoulder extending rearwardly adjacent an upper end of said upright supports
Thus, it is apparent that the more specific patent claims 1-8 encompass application claims 1-8, respectively. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since application claims 1-8 are anticipated by patent claims 1-8, respectively, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claims 1-8 are obvious over patent claims 1-8, respectively.
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.
Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, and 16 are 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.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner is unclear what structural limitations are required to meet the disclosure of “a top panel portion” is with regards to the forwardly extending panel portion as to if it is a top part like a cap that sits over top of the forwardly extending panel portions or if it is a support that goes between them. The examiner interprets this very broadly as a top or cap that resides on top of the forwardly extending panel portions.
Claim 8 is also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an inwardly extending viewing panel attachment structure” and the examiner is unclear which attachment structure the applicant is referring to as an attachment structure is not identified in the specification nor claims in such a manner to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the limitation of said attachment structure.
Claim 15 is also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “a mesh screen” because the applicant has not included said mesh screen in the drawings and only referenced that a mesh screen can be present in invention of the instant application and the specification nor drawings disclose where a mesh screen is present in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised as to the structural limitations of the mesh screen.
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 24 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. Claim 24 is a substantial duplicate of claim 22 of which claim 24 depends and does not further limit claim 22. 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.
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 (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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, 17-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US8166965B2 Miles.
Regarding claim 1,
Miles teaches,
A ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit (insert assembly 10) comprising:
a firebox panel having a rear imaging screen portion (firebox 18, specifically rear wall 22) and a forwardly extending portion (opposed side walls 24 and 26);
a foundation (burner plate 56) having a front, a top, opposing left and right sides, and a rear (figs. 2, 3, 4, 5);
said firebox panel having a lower peripheral edge removably secured to said foundation (base rim 20 has bores 120), first and second upright structural suports each having a lower end secured to said foundation adjacent to said front (see annotated fig. 3 below), said forwardly extending panel portion of said firebox panel engaging said uprights structural supports (figs. 1-7) whereby said foundation and said upright structural supports transfer structural rigidity to said firebox panel (the result of being attached to each other is inherent to create greater structural rigidity);
and a simulated fire bed assembly (burner 32 and pilot assembly 34) received on the foundation (column 6 lines 12 to 15 teach the components of Miles being able to be assembled and it is anticipated that the same components are also therefore removable).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 1 (as discussed above)
wherein each of said upright supports has a rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structure, said forwardly extending portion of said firebox panel having a respective forward edge portion secured to said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures of said upright structural supports (See annotated fig. 3 below and fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
628
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein said forwardly extending panel portion comprises left (26) and right (24) side panel portions extending forwardly from side edges of said rear imaging screen portion (figs. 2, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 4,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 2 (as discussed above)
wherein said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures comprise a planar flange extending along at least a portion of said upright supports (see the annotated fig. 3 of claim 2, the rearwardly extending firebox panel attachments are a flange).
Regarding claim 6,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 3 (as discussed above)
wherein said left and right side panel portions of said firebox panel each have a lower peripheral edge (rim 20) removably secured to said foundation (column 7 lines 15 through 26).
Regarding claim 7,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 2 (as discussed above),
wherein said forwardly extending panel portion comprises a top panel portion extending forwardly from a top edge of said rear imaging screen portion (firebox top 28 fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 7 (as discussed above)
wherein said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures comprise a shoulder extending rearwardly adjacent an upper end of said upright supports (see annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
477
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 1 (as discussed above)
wherein said forwardly extending panel portion comprises a top panel portion extending forwardly from a top edge of said rear imaging screen portion, said kit further comprising a firebox panel edge support having a rearwardly extending support structure secured to a forward edge of said top panel portion, (firebox top 28 fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 9 (as discussed above)
wherein said firebox panel edge support further includes a downwardly extending portion engaging said upright structural supports (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 1 (as discussed above)
wherein said kit further comprises a heater unit located within the foundation (burner 34 is on top of burner plate 56 and is therefore within the foundation as it is part of it).
Regarding claim 12,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 1 (as discussed above)
wherein said kit further comprises a decorative face frame secured to the front of the foundation (see fig. 5, glass panel 38 doubles as a decorative face frame, decorative fender 16).
Regarding claim 13,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 1 (as discussed above)
wherein said kit further comprises a transparent viewing panel received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports (window and glass panel 38 see figs. 4 and 5 column 6 lines 12 to 23).
Regarding claim 14,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 13 (as discussed above)
wherein each of said upright structural supports each has an inwardly extending viewing panel attachment structure (the glass of glass panel 38 is taught in Miles to be integral to glass panel 38 and therefore the box created by the opening of glass panel 38 contains attachment structures to contain the glass which are inwardly extending see annotated fig. 2 below and therefore inherently contains the glass of glass panel 38 per column 6 lines 12 to 23) , said transparent viewing panel having opposing side edges received and coupled to said viewing panel attachment structures (see annotated fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
633
591
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 17, 19, 21, and 23,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 1 (as discussed above)
wherein said kit further comprises a horizontal structural support extending between upper ends of said first and second upright structural supports (see annotated fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
631
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 18, 20, 22, and 24,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claims 17, 19, 22, and 24 respectively (as discussed above)
wherein said horizontal structural support comprises a structural connector secured between respective upper ends of said first and second upright structural supports (see annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
774
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 25,
Miles teaches,
The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claims 1 (as discussed above)
wherein said foundation includes an upwardly facing rear channel, said lower peripheral edge of said rear imaging screen of said firebox panel received in said rear channel (see fig. 5 the upward facing channel is formed by burner plate 56 and short inlet pipes 74 to meet with rear wall 22).
Regarding claims 27,
Miles teaches,
A ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit (insert assembly 10) comprising:
a firebox panel structure comprising a rear imaging screen (firebox 18, specifically rear wall 22), and left and right side panels (see annotated fig. 3 below);
a foundation (burner plate 56) having a front, a top, opposing left and right sides, and a rear (figs. 2, 3, 4, 5);
said left and right side panels of said firebox panel structure each having a lower peripheral edge secured to said foundation (base rim 20 has bores 120), first and second upright structural supports each having a lower end removably secured to said foundation (figs. 1-7), said left and right side panel portions of said firebox engaging said rear imaging screen and said uprights structural supports whereby said foundation and said upright structural supports transfer structural rigidity to said firebox panel structure (the result of being attached to each other is inherent to create greater structural rigidity);
and a simulated firebed assembly received on the foundation (burner 32 and pilot assembly 34 and column 6 lines 12 to 15 teach the components of Miles being able to be assembled and it is anticipated that the same components are also therefore removable).
PNG
media_image7.png
750
706
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US8166965B2 Miles in view of GB2275105A O’Niell.
Regarding claim 5,
Miles teaches, The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 4 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Miles does not teach: wherein said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures comprise a channel extending along at least a portion of said upright supports.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, O’Niell teaches a simulated flame fireplace insert (page 1 lines 1 to 11) wherein said rearwardly extending firebox panel attachment structures (27 front glass panel retaining bracket, retaining side brackets 28, and 29 front glass channel) comprise a channel extending along at least a portion of said upright supports (29 front glass channel is a channel).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the front glass panel 38 of Miles with the 29 front glass channel of O’Niell for the purpose of retaining glass and other structural members (Miles page 11 lines 25 through 37).
Regarding claim 15,
Miles teaches, The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of 14 (as discussed above) and further teaches wherein said transparent viewing panel comprises glass (glass panel 38 per column 6 lines 12 to 23).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Miles does not teach: and said viewing panel attachment structures comprise inwardly extending channels.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, O’Niell teaches a simulated flame fireplace insert (page 1 lines 1 to 11) and said viewing panel attachment structures comprise inwardly extending channels (27 front glass panel retaining bracket, retaining side brackets 28, and 29 front glass channel and 29 front glass channel is a channel).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the front glass panel 38 of Miles with the 29 front glass channel of O’Niell for the purpose of retaining glass and other structural members (Miles page 11 lines 25 through 37).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US8166965B2 Miles in view of US 20140044423 A1 Chu
Regarding claim 16,
Miles teaches, The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Miles does not teach: wherein said kit further comprises a mesh screen panel received and supported at the front of the foundation between said left and right upright supports.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Chu teaches in the embodiment of figs. 6a through 6j and alternative embodiment of fig. 9a and 9b wherein said kit further comprises a mesh screen panel removably received and supported at the front of the foundation between said left and right upright supports (par. 9, 20, and claim 6).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the glass of glass panel 38 of Miles with the mesh screen of Chu for the purpose of to provide the advantage to provide a simulated fireplace with an alternative aesthetic.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US8166965B2 Miles in view of US 20060230656 A1 Spengler
Regarding claim 26,
Miles teaches, The ready to assemble simulated fireplace insert kit of claim 4 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Miles does not teach: wherein said foundation includes left and right upwardly facing side channels, said side panel portions of said firebox panel received in said side channels.
Spengler teaches an artificial portable fireplace (Spengler abstract claim 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of providing structures for attaching parts of a portable fireplace to each other (Spengler par. 8).
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by Spengler teaching structure to connect parts together as is evident by locking channels 80 and 62 of Spengler.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using channels to connect and retain parts (Spengler par. 5 and 8) of firebox 18, specifically rear wall 22 and opposed side walls 24 and 26 to the burner plate 56 of Miles.
The results would have been predictable, since Spengler teaches the attached lock channels 80 and 62 to secure and retain parts (Spengler par. 5 and 8).
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761