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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2022 and 11/06/2025 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al (US 2010/0162599).
Regarding claim 17, O’Neill discloses a simulated fireplace insert system for constructing a plurality of simulated fireplace insert assemblies of different widths using shared components comprising: a shared foundation (Fig. 4 #2 fuel bed) having a front, a top, opposing left and right sides, and a rear;
a first face frame (Fig. 4 #4 vertical support struts) having a first width and being selectively secured to said front of said foundation (Fig. 4 #2 fuel bed) in a first simulated fireplace assembly, and a second face frame (Fig. 4 #4 vertical support struts) having a second width and being selectively secured to said front of said foundation (Fig. 4 #2 fuel bed) in a second simulated fireplace assembly.
However, O’Neill does not disclose that the first and second face frames have different widths.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first and second face frames having different widths, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 18, O’Neill teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and O’Neill teaches further comprising first and second extension brackets (Shown in the figure below) secured between said foundation and said second face frame in said second simulated fireplace assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5, 9, 13, 19, 21, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al (US 2010/0162599) as applied to claim 17, in view of Crowe et al (US 11,867,409).
Regarding claim 19, O’Neill teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), but does not teach further comprising a heater unit within the shared foundation.
Nonetheless, Crowe in the same field of endeavor being electric fireplaces teaches further comprising a heater unit (Fig. 1 #26 heater assembly) within the shared foundation (Fig.1 #40 integrated electrical insert).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heater unit within the shared foundation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 21, O’Neill teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), but does not teach further comprising shared first and second upright structural supports each having a lower end secured or coupled to said foundation.
Nonetheless, Crowe teaches further comprising shared first and second upright structural supports (Fig. 2 #34 side panels) each having a lower end secured or coupled to said foundation (Fig. 6B shows the side panels having lower ends coupled to the foundation.).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second structural supports coupled to the foundation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 5, O’Neill teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 21), but does not teach further comprising a first horizontal structural connector having a first width secured between respective upper ends of said first and second upright structural supports in said first simulated fireplace assembly, and a second horizontal structural connector having a second width secured between respective upper ends of said first and second upright structural supports in said second simulated fireplace assembly.
Nonetheless, Crowe teaches further comprising a first horizontal structural connector (Shown in the figure below) having a first width secured between respective upper ends of said first and second upright structural supports in said first simulated fireplace assembly, and a second horizontal structural connector (Shown in the figure below) having a second width secured between respective upper ends of said first and second upright structural supports in said second simulated fireplace assembly.
However, O’Neill in view of Crowe does not teach the first and second horizontal structural connectors having different widths.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first/second horizontal structural connector having different widths, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
PNG
media_image2.png
547
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, O’Neill teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 21), and O’Neill teaches further comprising a first viewing panel (Fig. 4 #3 glass screen) having a first width received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports in said first simulated fireplace assembly,
a second viewing panel (Fig. 4 #3 glass screen) having a second width received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports in said second simulated fireplace assembly.
However, O’Neill in view of Crowe does not teach the first and second viewing panels having different widths.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first/second viewing panels having different widths, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 13, O’Neill teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), but does not teach further comprising a first viewing panel having a first width received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports in said first simulated fireplace assembly, a second viewing panel having a second width received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports in said second simulated fireplace assembly.
Nonetheless, Crowe teaches further comprising a first viewing panel (Fig. 9B #936 front frame) having a first width received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports in said first simulated fireplace assembly (Col. 13 lines 7-13 ---" Further, as shown, the electric fireplace 910 can further include one or more of simulated logs 920, a back panel 932, side panels 934 and a front frame 936 that can each be individually (or collectively in some implementations of the back panel 932 and side panels 934) installed and/or positioned within the structural opening 911A of the cabinet assembly 911B.”),
a second viewing panel (Fig. 9B #936 front frame) having a second width received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports in said second simulated fireplace assembly (Col. 13 lines 7-13 ---" Further, as shown, the electric fireplace 910 can further include one or more of simulated logs 920, a back panel 932, side panels 934 and a front frame 936 that can each be individually (or collectively in some implementations of the back panel 932 and side panels 934) installed and/or positioned within the structural opening 911A of the cabinet assembly 911B.”).
However, O’Neill in view of Crowe does not teach the first and second viewing panels having different widths.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first/second viewing panels having different widths, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 25, O’Neill in view of Crowe teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), and Crowe teaches further comprising shared first and second upright structural supports (Fig. 2 #34 side panels) each having a lower end secured or coupled to said foundation (Fig. 6B shows the side panels having lower ends coupled to the foundation.).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second structural supports coupled to the foundation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 26, O’Neill in view of Crowe teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 25), and Crowe teaches further comprising a first horizontal structural connector (Shown in the figure below) having a first width secured between respective upper ends of said first and second upright structural supports in said first simulated fireplace assembly, and a second horizontal structural connector (Shown in the figure below) having a second width secured between respective upper ends of said first and second upright structural supports in said second simulated fireplace assembly.
However, O’Neill in view of Crowe does not teach the first and second horizontal structural connectors having different widths.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first/second horizontal structural connector having different widths, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
PNG
media_image2.png
547
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, O’Neill in view of Crowe teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 25), and Crowe teaches further comprising a first viewing panel (Fig. 9B #936 front frame) having a first width received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports in said first simulated fireplace assembly (Col. 13 lines 7-13 ---" Further, as shown, the electric fireplace 910 can further include one or more of simulated logs 920, a back panel 932, side panels 934 and a front frame 936 that can each be individually (or collectively in some implementations of the back panel 932 and side panels 934) installed and/or positioned within the structural opening 911A of the cabinet assembly 911B.”),
a second viewing panel (Fig. 9B #936 front frame) having a second width received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports in said second simulated fireplace assembly (Col. 13 lines 7-13 ---" Further, as shown, the electric fireplace 910 can further include one or more of simulated logs 920, a back panel 932, side panels 934 and a front frame 936 that can each be individually (or collectively in some implementations of the back panel 932 and side panels 934) installed and/or positioned within the structural opening 911A of the cabinet assembly 911B.”).
However, O’Neill in view of Crowe does not teach the first and second viewing panels having different widths.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first/second viewing panels having different widths, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Claim(s) 20 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al (US 2010/0162599) as applied to claim 18, in view of Crowe et al (US 11,867,409).
Regarding claim 20, O’Neill teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), but does not teach further comprising a heater unit within the shared foundation.
Nonetheless, Crowe teaches further comprising a heater unit (Fig. 1 #26 heater assembly) within the shared foundation (Fig.1 #40 integrated electrical insert).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heater unit within the shared foundation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 22, O’Neill teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), but does not teach further comprising shared first and second upright structural supports each having a lower end secured or coupled to said foundation.
Nonetheless, Crowe teaches further comprising shared first and second upright structural supports (Fig. 2 #34 side panels) each having a lower end secured or coupled to said foundation (Fig. 6B shows the side panels having lower ends coupled to the foundation.).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second structural supports coupled to the foundation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 23, O’Neill in view of Crowe teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 22), and Crowe teaches further comprising a first horizontal structural connector (Shown in the figure below) having a first width secured between respective upper ends of said first and second upright structural supports in said first simulated fireplace assembly, and a second horizontal structural connector (Shown in the figure below) having a second width secured between respective upper ends of said first and second upright structural supports in said second simulated fireplace assembly.
However, O’Neill in view of Crowe does not teach the first and second horizontal structural connectors having different widths.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first/second horizontal structural connector having different widths, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
PNG
media_image2.png
547
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, O’Neill in view of Crowe teaches the insert system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 22), and Crowe teaches further comprising a first viewing panel (Fig. 9B #936 front frame) having a first width received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports in said first simulated fireplace assembly (Col. 13 lines 7-13 ---" Further, as shown, the electric fireplace 910 can further include one or more of simulated logs 920, a back panel 932, side panels 934 and a front frame 936 that can each be individually (or collectively in some implementations of the back panel 932 and side panels 934) installed and/or positioned within the structural opening 911A of the cabinet assembly 911B.”),
a second viewing panel (Fig. 9B #936 front frame) having a second width received and supported at the front of the foundation between said first and second upright supports in said second simulated fireplace assembly (Col. 13 lines 7-13 ---" Further, as shown, the electric fireplace 910 can further include one or more of simulated logs 920, a back panel 932, side panels 934 and a front frame 936 that can each be individually (or collectively in some implementations of the back panel 932 and side panels 934) installed and/or positioned within the structural opening 911A of the cabinet assembly 911B.”).
However, O’Neill in view of Crowe does not teach the first and second viewing panels having different widths.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first/second viewing panels having different widths, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761