CTNF 18/091,455 CTNF 101632 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CA3145083 , filed on 12/30/2021 . Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0028, line 6, "a length of 117 of between 6 inches - 44 inches" should read "a length 117 of 6 inches - 44 inches". In paragraph 0032, lines 2, "a length of between 3-4 inches" should read "a length of 3-4 inches". In paragraph 0034, a period is needed at the end of the last sentence. In paragraph 0037, lines 8, "shapes and sized discussed and shown here" should read "shapes and sizes discussed and shown here" . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: A period is needed at the end of the last sentence . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kornely (U.S. Patent No. 20100244474) . Regarding claim 1, Kornely teaches a device (100) for moving burning materials around a fire pit (Abstract), the device (100) comprising: A device handle (40) including a handle shaft defining a first handle end opposite a second handle end, the second handle end defining a rear of the device (Fig. 1, element 40; annotated figure); and A device head including a head shaft defining a fist head end (20) opposite a second head end (22), the second head end (22) being attached about the first handle end of the device handle (40), the device head further including (Paragraph 0031, lines 3-5; Paragraph 0033, lines 1-2; Fig. 1, elements 20, 22): A first hook portion attached about a first side of the head shaft (Fig. 2, element 20); A second hook portion attached about a second side of the head shaft (Fig. 2, element 22); A substantially flat portion attached about the first head end (Fig. 2, element 40). Additional details are provided in the figure below. PNG media_image1.png 747 976 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Kornely teaches the first hook portion (20) includes a first curved body having a first wide end tapering into a first pointed end, wherein the second hook portion (22) includes a second curved body having a second wide end tapering into a second pointed end, and wherein the first wide end and the second wide end extend substantially perpendicular from the head shaft (Paragraph 0043, lines 1-7; Fig. 2, elements 20, 22). Regarding claim 11, Kornely teaches a sleeve (10) covering a portion of the handle shaft and the head shaft, and wherein the sleeve (10) is made from a substantially fire-resistant material (Paragraph 0031, lines 1-3; Paragraph 0032, lines 1-8) . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Oatis (U.S. Patent No. 9416976) . Regarding claim 20, Oatis teaches a method of using a device (10) to move burning materials around a fire pit, the method comprising the steps of (Abstract): Providing the device (10), the device (10) including (Column 4, lines 42-52): A device handle (26) including a handle shaft defining a first handle end opposite a second handle end, the second handle end defining a rear of the device, the device handle (26) being made from a material having a substantially low thermal conductivity (Column 5, lines 4-7; Column 8, lines 66-67; Column 9, lines 2-3; annotated figure); and A device head including a head shaft (16) defining a first head end opposite a second head end, the second head end being attached about the first handle end of the handle (26), the device head further including (Fig. 2, elements 12, 16, 17; annotated figure): A first hook portion (21) attached about a first side of the head shaft (16) (Fig. 2, elements 16, 21b; Fig. 3, element 21; annotated figure); A second hook portion (21) attached about a second side of the head shaft (16) (Fig. 2, elements 16, 21b; Fig. 3, element 21; annotated figure); and A substantially flat portion (39) attached above the first head end (Fig. 2, elements 16, 39; Fig. 3, element 39); Grasping the handle shaft (26) about the second handle end (Column 3, lines 42-52); Inserting the device head into the fire pit (Column 3, lines 55-60); Selectively poking one or more burning materials with one of the first hook portion (21) and the second hook portion (21) (Column 3, lines 55-60); and Selectively shoveling said one or more burning materials with the substantially flat portion (39) (Column 4, lines 1-17). Additional details are provided in the figures below . PNG media_image2.png 664 622 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 705 575 media_image3.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornely in view of Snyder (US 20170307222) . Regarding claim 3, Kornely fails to teach the orientation of the pointed ends. Snyder teaches a fire pit device (100) where one of the first pointed end (128) and the second pointed end (124) is orientated in a downward direction towards the rear of the device (100), and wherein another one of the first pointed end (128) and the second pointed end (124) is orientated in an upward direction towards a front of the device (100), the front of the device (100) being opposite the rear of the device (100) (Fig. 2, elements 124, 128; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Snyder in Kornley to facilitate the creation of prongs that point in multiple directions, which provides better grabbing ability when pushing and pulling burning materials as taught by Snyder (Paragraph 0010, lines 1-4) . PNG media_image4.png 654 744 media_image4.png Greyscale 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornely in view of Snyder and in further view of Miller (US 20190003714) . Regarding claim 4, Kornely in view of Snyder fails to teach a flat portion with multiple sides. Miller teaches a fire pit device (10) with a substantially flat portion (16) the includes a flat body having a first flat side (78a) and a second flat side (78b) and a shaft end (70) opposite a tip end (72), the tip end (72) terminating at the front of the device (10) (Paragraph 0014, lines 1-14; Fig. 5A, elements 16, 70, 72; Fig. 5B, elements 78a, 78b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Miller in Kornely as modified by Snyder to facilitate the creation of a substantially flat portion that is useful in tending fires and moving burning wood as taught by Miller (Paragraph 0014, lines 8-9). Regarding claim 5,. Snyder further teaches a fire pit device wherein the substantially flat portion further includes a third hook portion (128) attached about a top surface of the flat body and a fourth hook portion (124) attached about a bottom surface of the flat body (Fig. 2, elements 128, 124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include the additional teachings of Snyder in combination of Kornely, Snyder, and Miller discussed above to facilitate the creation of multiple hook portions that provide better grabbing ability when pushing and pulling materials as taught by Snyder (Paragraph 0010, lines 1-4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornely in view of Snyder in view of Miller . Regarding claim 6, Kornely in view of Snyder and Miller discloses the claimed invention except for the dimensions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create pointed ends with a distance of 3-4 inches from the head shaft, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to create a tool with these dimensions on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornely in view of Snyder in view of Miller . Regarding claim 7, Kornely in view of Snyder and Miller discloses the claimed invention except for the dimensions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a flat portion having both a width and length of 4 inches, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to create a tool with these dimensions on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Regarding claim 8,. Miller further teaches a fire pit device (10) with a substantially flat portion (16) that includes a spade shape (Fig. 5A, element 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include the additional teachings of Miller in combination of Kornely and Snyder discussed above to facilitate the creation of a flat portion with a spade shape that can tend fires and move burning wood as taught by Miller (Paragraph 0014, lines 8-9) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornely in view of Snyder in view of Miller and in further view of King (US 20150360867) . Regarding claim 9, King further teaches a firewood device (1) with a substantially flat portion (3) that includes a substantially triangle shape (Fig. 2, element 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include the additional teachings of King in combination of Kornely, Snyder and Miller discussed above to facilitate the creation of a flat portion with a triangular shape that can establish a secure connection between the tool and the firewood as taught by King (Paragraph 0019, lines 16-18). Regarding claim 10, King further teaches a fire pit device (1) that has a substantially flat portion (3) with a triangle shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include the additional teachings of King in combination of Kornely, Snyder and Miller discussed above to facilitate the creation of a substantially flat portion with a half triangle shape and a half spade shape that can drag and move different sized firewood as taught by King (Paragraph 0002, lines 2-4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12, 13, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornely (US 20100244474) . Regarding claim 12, Kornely teaches that the substantially fire-resistant material is cold rolled steel (Paragraph 0037, lines 1-6). Kornely discloses the claimed invention except for stainless steel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) Regarding claim 13, Kornely teaches the device handle (30) is made from a material having a substantially low thermal conductivity (Paragraph 0038, lines 1-3, 6-9). Regarding claim 14, Kornely teaches that the material with substantially low thermal conductivity is wood (Paragraph 0040, lines 1-3). Kornely discloses the claimed invention except for hickory wood. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use hickory wood, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 15, Kornely teaches that the device head is made of cold rolled steel (Paragraph 0037, lines 1-6). Kornely discloses the claimed invention except fortempered steel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use tempered steel, since it is held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornely in view of Snyder (US 20170307222) . Regarding claim 16, Kornely as discussed above discloses the claimed device except for third and fourth hook portions. Snyder teaches a fire pit device (100) with a third hook portion (122) and a fourth hook portion (128) (Fig. 2, elements 122, 128; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Snyder to facilitate the creation of a third and fourth hook portions that provide better grabbing ability when pushing and pulling burning materials as taught by Snyder (Paragraph 0010, lines 1-4) . PNG media_image5.png 674 572 media_image5.png Greyscale 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornely in view of Snyder and in further view of Miller (US 20190003714) . Regarding claim 17, Kornely in view of Snyder fails to teach a flat portion with a spade shape. Miller teaches a fire pit device (10) with a substantially flat portion (16) that includes a spade shape (Paragraph 0014, lines 8-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Miller to facilitate the creation of a flat portion with a spade shape that can tend fires and move burning wood as taught by Miller (Paragraph 0014, lines 8-9) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornely in view of Snyder in view of Miller and in further view of King (US 20150360867) . Regarding claim 18, Snyder in view of Miller fails to teach a flat portion with a triangular shape. King teaches a firewood device (1) with a substantially flat portion (3) that includes a substantially triangle shape (Fig. 2, element 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include the additional teachings of King in combination with Kornely, Snyder and Miller to facilitate the creation of a flat portion with a triangular shape that can establish a secure connection between the tool and the firewood as taught by King (Paragraph 0019, lines 16-18). Regarding claim 19, King further teaches a fire pit device (1) that has a substantially flat portion (3) with a triangle shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include the additional teachings of King in combination with Kornely, Snyder and Miller to facilitate the creation of a substantially flat portion with a half triangle shape and a half spade shape that can drag and move different sized firewood as taught by King (Paragraph 0002, lines 2-4) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nabors (U .. This reference is made of record because it includes a grill pit device that features dimensions for a shaft and pointed ends (Column 2, lines 62-64; Column 3, lines 6-9, 16-22). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm. 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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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. /SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/091,455 Page 2 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/091,455 Page 3 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/091,455 Page 4 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/091,455 Page 5 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/091,455 Page 6 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/091,455 Page 7 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/091,455 Page 8 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/091,455 Page 9 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/091,455 Page 10 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/091,455 Page 11 Art Unit: 3654