DETAILED ACTION Application Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 08/17/2023. Claim(s) 1–27 are pending. Election/Restrictions Claims 9– 18, 20 , & 23–27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/02/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (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. Claims 1–2, 8, 19, & 21–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0262761 to Carroll et al . With regard to claim s 1 & 19 , Carroll discloses an apparatus , and its associated method of use, configured to perform a prescribed burn of vegetative ground fuel (abstract), comprising: a movable platform (14) configured to traverse ground that contains the vegetative ground fuel ( ¶¶ 0019–0020) ; a burn chamber (12) disposed on the movable platform (Figs. 1 & 9; ¶¶ 0019, 0032) ; a plurality of torches (62 , 64, 66 ) disposed in the burn chamber (12) and configured to ignite vegetative ground fuel within a prescribed burn region of the ground (Fig. 9; ¶¶ 0024, 0026–0027) ; an air supply system and a fuel supply system fluidically coupled to the plurality of torches (¶¶ 0019, 0026–0027, 0032) ; a containment arrangement situated relative to the burn chamber and configured to confine burning of the vegetative ground fuel to the prescribed burn region (Figs. 1 & 9; ¶¶ 0019, 0032) ; and a discharge apparatus positioned relative to the burn chamber and configured to expel residual effluent from the burn chamber (¶ 0033) , the discharge apparatus comprising an extractor fan configured to create an inward airflow into the burn chamber through a gap defined between the containment arrangement and the ground (¶¶ 0019–0020; 0032–0033) , wherein the inward airflow is sufficient to inhibit escape of flames and embers beyond the containment arrangement (an outlet fan plus the natural draft produced by rising heated combustion gases would inherently prevent the escape of flames and embers from under the containment arrangement) . With regard to claim 2 , Carroll further discloses the plurality of torches (76) are directed towards the ground (Fig. 10; ¶ 0024) . With regard to claim 8, Carroll further discloses the fuel supply system is configured to supply propane fuel (¶ 0026). With regard to claim 21, Carroll further discloses adjusting one or more of a flame length and a flame temperature by adjusting one or both of a fuel supply system and an air supply system of the prescribed burn vehicle (¶ 0035). With regard to claim 22, Carroll further discloses the prescribed burn of the vegetative ground fuel is performed continuously while moving the burn chamber over the ground (¶ 0035). 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 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of US 5,626,087 to Lompa . Carroll further discloses the plurality of torches comprises a first set of torches (64) and a set of second torches (66) (Fig. 10; ¶ 0024–0025); and the first set of torches (64) are directed towards the ground (Fig. 10; ¶ 0024–0025). Carroll fails to disclose the second set of the torches are directed away from the ground and configured to burn smoke captured within the burn chamber. Lompa teaches a second set of the torches are directed away from the ground and configured to burn smoke captured within the burn chamber (Col. 4, lines 37–48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the vegetative burner of Carroll with the afterburner of Lompa because such a combination would have had the added benefit of reduced exhaust emissions. Claim s 4–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll . With regard to claim 4, Carroll fails to explicitly disclose each of the torches produces a flame having a length of about 1 foot to about 3 feet. Flame length is a known results-effective variable because the greater the fuel length, the faster fuel is consumed . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a flame length of about 1 foot to about 3 feet , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele , 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling , 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With regard to claim 5, Carroll fails to explicitly disclose each of the torches produces a flame having a temperature of about 500° F to about 3600° F. Flame temperature is a known results-effective variable because the greater the temperature, the faster the fuel is consumed . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a flame temperature of about 500° F to about 3600° F , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele , 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling , 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of US 2017/0328563 to Yamamoto . Carroll fails to disclose the air supply system comprises a blower fluidically coupled to each of the torches and configured to supply air for supporting a flame generated by each torch. Yamamoto teaches a blower fluidically coupled to each of the torches and configured to supply air for supporting a flame generated by each torch (¶ 0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the vegetative fuel combustor of Carroll with the blower of Yamamoto because such a combination would have had the added benefit of enhanced, efficient combustion of both the fuel supplied by the burner and the vegetative ground matter. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7619 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30-5:30 M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steven B McAllister can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6785 . 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. /DAVID J LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 March 16, 2026