DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “lit” appears to be a misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 12, line 9, recites “advancing a combustible casket having a deceased body…” In other words, line 9 is directed to a step of a combustible casket that encompasses or positively claims (i.e. “having”) a human body (the scope of a “deceased body” is broad enough to cover or include a human organism).
To overcome this rejection, “having” should be replaced with functional language such as “configured.” For example, “advancing a combustible casket having a deceased body and…” could read “advancing a combustible casket having configured to have a decreased body placed therein, and…” or something similar, in order to overcome this rejection.
Claims 12-18 are rejected via dependency from independent claim 12.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Baccini (US 20220290859 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Baccini discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations unless otherwise noted) a cremation method, comprising: a) providing an accelerant module having a combustible carrier, flame accelerant material disposed in solid form within the combustible carrier, the flame accelerant material having a melting temperature, and a combustion temperature that is higher than the melting temperature, wherein the combustible carrier is configured to maintain sufficient structural integrity at the melting temperature to retard the flow of the flame accelerant materials in a molten state, and to degrade or burn sufficiently at the combustion temperature to allow the flame accelerant material to combust; b) advancing a combustible casket having a deceased body and supporting the accelerant module into a cremation position of a cremation retort where the cremation position has an internal temperature of less than 700 degrees Fahrenheit (para. 48); and c) increasing the temperature at the cremation position to over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit to combust the combustible casket, the deceased body, and the accelerant module (para. 155).
Regarding claim 13, Baccini discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising, prior to step b), supporting the accelerant module with the deceased body (para. 144).
Regarding claim 18, Baccini discloses the cremation accelerant module of claim 12, wherein the flame accelerant material comprises pellets (para. 91).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 11, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccini (US 20220290859 A1) in view of Weir (US 3034873 A).
Regarding claim 1, Baccini discloses a cremation accelerant module, comprising:
a carrier comprising a combustible tube (10);
flame accelerant material disposed in solid form within the combustible casing (para. 108), the flame accelerant material having a melting temperature, and a combustion temperature that is higher than the melting temperature (Baccini discloses, in paras. 62 and 70, the same accelerant compounds as the ones listed in present claims 2 and 3);
wherein the combustible tube has a wall thickness selected to maintain sufficient structural integrity at the melting temperature to retard the flow of the flame accelerant materials in a molten state, and to degrade or burn sufficiently at the combustion temperature to allow the flame accelerant material to combust (paras. 106, 108, and 116).
Baccini fails to disclose:
where the carrier is tube shaped.
Weir teaches a fuel carrier comprising a combustible tube (Fig. 1, 2). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Baccini here the carrier is tube shaped. The modification has several advantages. First, a tube shape has a higher volume to surface ratio compared to a flat box shape (Baccini), so it can hold more accelerant while keeping the packaging small. Second, a tube is more structurally rigid than a flat box and it is also easier to carry. This makes handling the carrier easier and it is less likely to break. And third, it is easier to fill the tube with accelerant than it is to fill the flat box.
Regarding claim 2, modified Baccini discloses the cremation accelerant module of claim 1, wherein the flame accelerant material comprises a compound selected from alkali metal salts, alkaline earth metal salts, ammonium salts, alkali metal peroxides or alkaline earth metal peroxides (Baccini, paras. 62, 67).
Regarding claim 3, modified Baccini discloses the cremation accelerant module of claim 2, wherein the flame accelerant includes potassium nitrate (Baccini, para. 70).
Regarding claim 4, modified Baccini discloses the cremation accelerant module of claim 1, wherein the combustible tube comprises a rolled sheet tube (see Weir; col. 2, lines 13-15). Note: the term “rolled” is a product by process limitation. See MPEP 2113. As long as the prior art tube is the same or similar to the presently claimed tube (which is the case here), then the burden shifts to the Applicant to show a nonobvious difference.
Regarding claim 5, modified Baccini discloses (see Weir for citations) the cremation accelerant module of claim 4, wherein the combustible tube has a first open end and a second open end, wherein the carrier further comprises a first cap having a shape corresponding to the first open end, the first cap disposed over or in the first open end (Fig. 1 shows a top cap covering the first open end), and wherein the carrier further comprises a second cap having a shape corresponding to the second open end, the second cap disposed over or in the second open end (Fig. 1 shows a bottom plate covering the second open end).
Regarding claim 6, modified Baccini discloses the cremation accelerant module of claim 4, wherein the flame accelerant material is in pellet form (Baccini, para. 91).
Regarding claim 10, modified Baccini discloses the cremation accelerant module of claim 1, wherein the combustible tube defines a single compartment containing the flame accelerant material (see Figures of Weir).
Regarding claim 11, modified Baccini discloses (see Weir for citations) the cremation accelerant module of claim 4, wherein the combustible tube has a first open end and a second open end, wherein the carrier further comprises a first cap having a shape corresponding to the first open end, the first cap disposed over or in the first open end (Fig. 1 shows a top cap covering the first open end), and wherein the carrier further comprises a second cap having a shape corresponding to the second open end, the second cap disposed over or in the second open end (Fig. 1 shows a bottom plate covering the second open end).
Regarding claim 16, modified Baccini discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the combustible container comprises a tube (see modification made for the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Baccini discloses the cremation accelerant module of claim 1, wherein the combustible tube comprises a rolled sheet tube (see Weir; col. 2, lines 13-15). Note: the term “rolled” is a product by process limitation. See MPEP 2113. As long as the prior art tube is the same or similar to the presently claimed tube (which is the case here), then the burden shifts to the Applicant to show a nonobvious difference.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccini (US 20220290859 A1) in view of Weir (US 3034873 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bukowina (DE 202011106072 U1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Baccini discloses the cremation accelerant module of claim 6, except further comprising a flexible pouch disposed within the combustible tube, and wherein the flame accelerant material is disposed within the flexible pouch.
However, Bukowina teaches a flexible pouch (2) disposed within a combustible container (1), wherein the fuel is disposed within the flexible pouch. The pouch with the fuel and the container are both ignited.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Baccini to further comprise a flexible pouch disposed within the combustible tube, and wherein the flame accelerant material is disposed within the flexible pouch. The motivation to combine is so that the combustible tube can have a customized mix of accelerants. During production, different assembly lines can be setup so that each assembly line is dedicated to filling pouches with a customized mix of accelerants. The pouches can then be placed inside the combustible tubes, each tube labeled to identify the specific accelerant mix. A customer may desire a certain accelerant mix such as mixes that burn faster (or slower), burn hotter (or cooler), or burn cleaner.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccini (US 20220290859 A1) in view of Weir (US 3034873 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kojima (JP H07308351 A).
Regarding claims 8, 9, modified Baccini discloses placing the accelerant onto the lid of a casket (Baccini, Fig. 3) except further comprising
at least part of an anchor arrangement configured to affix the tube to at least one of a casket lit or a torso of a deceased body (as recited in claim 8), and
wherein the anchor arrangement comprises double-sided tape (as recited in claim 9).
However, Kojima teaches using double-sided tape (2F1) to affix an item onto a lid of a casket (see English translation; pg. 5, sixth paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Baccini to include at least part of an anchor arrangement (i.e., double sided tape) configured to affix the tube to at least one of a casket lit or a torso of a deceased body. The motivation to combine is so that the accelerant is securely attached to the casket when moving the casket. This would be especially beneficial during transport of the casket from the vehicle to the crematorium.
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Baccini (US 20220290859 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Baccini discloses the method of claim 12, except wherein step b) further comprises advancing the combustible casket into the cremation position using manual force. However, Official Notice is taken that this feature is well-known and common knowledge, and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to manually push the casket due to its lower costs.
Regarding claim 15, Baccini discloses the method of claim 14, except wherein step b) further comprises advancing the combustible casket on rollers made of a combustible material. However, Official Notice is taken that this feature is well-known and common knowledge. These rollers are called cremation rollers and are made of combustible cardboard. They are easily found using a Google search. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to advance the combustible casket on rollers made of a combustible material (e.g., cremation cardboard rollers), so that the casket can be easily loaded into the cremation chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762