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 .
Priority
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 17899337, filed 08/31/2021. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement was filed. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 3, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1, Lines 9-10 and Claim 5, Lines 9-10 recite “a width of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 50% of a width of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration” should read “the width of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 50% of the width of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration.”
Claim 3, Lines 1-3 and Claim 6, Lines 1-3 recite “a height of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 50% of a height of the fireplace grate” should read “the height of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 50% of the height of the fireplace grate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 11-12 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.
Claim 1, Lines 9-10 and Claim 5, Lines 9-10 recite “a width of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 50% of a width of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration” which is unclear to the Examiner in consideration to the specification. No drawing or section in the specification clarifies which dimension is width. Furthermore, paragraph 22 in the specification recites “the height of the box 108 may be determined by the width of the cross bars 102 and support bars 104” further adding confusion to which dimension is being referenced for the width. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will assume width to be the dimension marked below in blue. In addition, in a disassembled state, there is no specific configuration to compare with the assembled configuration. The disassembled parts can be arranged in any way and spread out over any distance. Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected based on their dependency on claims 1 and/or 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
509
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3, Lines 2-3 and Claim 6, Lines 2-3 recite “wherein a height of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 50% of a height of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration” which is unclear to the Examiner in consideration to the specification. No drawing or paragraph in the specification discloses which specification is height. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose the layout of the disassembled parts meaning the disassembled parts can be arranged in any way and spread out over any distance. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will assume height to be the dimension marked below in yellow.
PNG
media_image2.png
522
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4, Lines 2-3 and Claim 5, Lines 2-3 recite “wherein the height of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 33% of the height of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration” which is unclear to the Examiner in consideration to the specification. No drawing or paragraph in the specification discloses which specification is height. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose the layout of the disassembled parts meaning the disassembled parts can be arranged in any way and spread out over any distance. Claims 6-7 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 11, Lines 1-2 recite “a distance D1 between each cross bar at first side of the grate is smaller than distance D2 at an opposite side of the grate.” No drawing or paragraph in the specification discloses which pair of sides is being referred to. Furthermore, Figure 8 adds to the confusion by marking D1 and D2 at the same position. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the “sides” to be what is marked in green in the annotation below. Claim 12 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 11.
PNG
media_image3.png
312
385
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Malecki (U.S. Patent 4,140,102), hereinafter Malecki, in view of optimization of ranges and Shelton (U.S. Patent 3,830,218).
Regarding claim 1, Malecki teaches
A fireplace grate comprising a plurality of cross bars (Tubular Spacing Members 16), a plurality of support bars (Segments 13), and a plurality of fasteners (Bolts 18 and 21, and Nuts 22), (Column 1, Lines 43-58, and Figures 1 and 2) b.
the plurality of support bars and the plurality of cross bars can be nested together in a disassembled configuration (Column 2, Lines 34-42).
Malecki does not teach that each fastener is configured to extend through a hole in one of the cross bars and engage a corresponding threaded hole in one of the support bars so that each cross bar can be fastened to the plurality of support bars in an assembled configuration with each cross bar spanning the plurality of support bars.
Shelton teaches that each fastener (Bolts 5) is configured to extend through a hole in one of the cross bars (Chains 2) and engage a corresponding threaded hole in one of the support bars (Horizontal Bars 4 and 6) so that each cross bar can be fastened to the plurality of support bars in an assembled configuration with each cross bar spanning the plurality of support bars (Column 1, Lines 28-44).
While Shelton discloses chains in place of solid bars, the prior art is still applicable as the chains and solid bars serve the same function. Additionally, one could be motivated before the effective filing date to modify the chains of Shelton into bars to provide a fireplace grate that does not change structure. Furthermore, while Shelton does not explicitly state that the bars are threaded, it can be assumed they are if a bolt is being fastened through it. Even if we assume that not to be true, one could have been motivated before the effective filing date to modify the holes of Shelton to explicitly threaded holes in order to ensure a more secure structure and fastener.
While Malecki does not specifically teach a width of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 50% of a width of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration, there remains an optimization of ranges rejection as it is known that unassembled width compared to assembled width is a result affective variable meaning by varying the ratio than the outcome will vary. Therefore, it is known that by minimizing the size of the parts that will in turn minimize the size of the box which can be shipped (Column 1, Lines 10-25 and Column 2, Lines 34-42). Additionally, see 112b rejections above regarding usage of “width” in this claim.
Regarding claim 2,
Malecki and Shelton disclose the fireplace grate of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Malecki further discloses wherein in the disassembled configuration, the cross bars and support bars are in a nested relationship to each other (Column 2, Lines 34-42).
Regarding claim 3,
Malecki and Shelton disclose the fireplace grate of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
While Malecki does not explicitly teach “wherein a height of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 50% of a height of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration,” it is known that unassembled height compared to assembled height is a result affective variable meaning by varying the ratio than the outcome will vary. Therefore, it is known by Malecki that by minimizing the size of the parts that will in turn minimize the size of the box which can be shipped (Column 1, Lines 10-25 and Column 2, Lines 34-42). Additionally, see 112b rejections above regarding usage of “height” in this claim.
Regarding claim 4,
Malecki and Shelton disclose the fireplace grate of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2).
While Malecki does not explicitly teach “wherein the height of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 33% of the height of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration,” it is known that unassembled height compared to assembled height is a result affective variable meaning by varying the ratio than the outcome will vary. Therefore, it is known by Malecki that by minimizing the size of the parts that will in turn minimize the size of the box which can be shipped (Column 1, Lines 10-25 and Column 2, Lines 34-42). Additionally, see 112b rejections above regarding usage of “height” in this claim.
Regarding claim 5, Malecki discloses
A method of providing a fireplace grate, the method comprising the steps of:
Arranging, in a box, a plurality of cross bars (Tubular Spacing Members 16), a plurality of support bars (Segments 13), and a plurality of fasteners (Bolts 18 and 21, and Nuts 22), (Column 1, Lines 43-58, and Figures 1 and 2)
Wherein the the plurality of support bars and the plurality of cross bars are in a nested arrangement in the box in a disassembled configuration (Column 2, Lines 34-42).
While Malecki does not explicitly use the term method, Malecki discloses packing the required parts in a nested arrangement in a shipping box in a disassembled configuration which is equivalent to the claim (Column 2, Lines 34-42).
Malecki does not teach that each fastener is configured to extend through a hole in one of the cross bars and engage a corresponding threaded hole in one of the support bars so that each cross bar can be fastened to the plurality of support bars in an assembled configuration with each cross bar spanning the plurality of support bars.
Shelton teaches that each fastener (Bolts 5) is configured to extend through a hole in one of the cross bars (Chains 2) and engage a corresponding threaded hole in one of the support bars (Horizontal Bars 4 and 6) so that each cross bar can be fastened to the plurality of support bars in an assembled configuration with each cross bar spanning the plurality of support bars (Column 1, Lines 28-44).
While Shelton discloses chains in place of solid bars, the prior art is still applicable as the chains and solid bars serve the same function. Additionally, one could be motivated before the effective filing date to modify the chains of Shelton into bars to provide a fireplace grate that does not change structure. Furthermore, while Shelton does not explicitly state that the bars are threaded, it can be assumed they are if a bolt is being fastened through it. Even if we assume that not to be true, one could have been motivated before the effective filing date to modify the holes of Shelton to explicitly threaded holes in order to ensure a more secure structure and fastener.
While Malecki does not specifically teach a width of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 50% of a width of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration, there remains an optimization of ranges rejection as it is known that unassembled width compared to assembled width is a result affective variable meaning by varying the ratio than the outcome will vary. Therefore, it is known that by minimizing the size of the parts that will in turn minimize the size of the box which can be shipped (Column 1, Lines 10-25 and Column 2, Lines 34-42). Additionally, see 112b rejections above regarding usage of “width” in this claim.
Regarding claim 6,
Malecki and Shelton disclose the fireplace grate of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4).
While Malecki does not explicitly teach “wherein a height of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 50% of a height of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration,” it is known that unassembled height compared to assembled height is a result affective variable meaning by varying the ratio than the outcome will vary. Therefore, it is known by Malecki that by minimizing the size of the parts that will in turn minimize the size of the box which can be shipped (Column 1, Lines 10-25 and Column 2, Lines 34-42). Additionally, see 112b rejections above regarding usage of “height” in this claim.
Regarding claim 7,
Malecki and Shelton disclose the fireplace grate of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
While Malecki does not explicitly teach “wherein a height of the fireplace grate in the disassembled configuration is less than 33% of a height of the fireplace grate in the assembled configuration,” it is known that unassembled height compared to assembled height is a result affective variable meaning by varying the ratio than the outcome will vary. Therefore, it is known by Malecki that by minimizing the size of the parts that will in turn minimize the size of the box which can be shipped (Column 1, Lines 10-25 and Column 2, Lines 34-42). Additionally, see 112b rejections above regarding usage of “height” in this claim.
Regarding claim 14, Malecki discloses
A method of assembling a fireplace grate comprising:
Providing a plurality of cross bars (Tubular Spacing Members 16), a plurality of support bars (Segments 13), and a plurality of fasteners (Bolts 18 and 21, and Nuts 22), (Column 1, Lines 43-58, and Figures 1 and 2).
While Malecki does not explicitly use the term method, Malecki discloses packing the required parts in a nested arrangement in a shipping box in a disassembled configuration which is equivalent to the claim (Column 2, Lines 34-42).
Malecki does not teach that each fastener is configured to extend through a hole in one of the cross bars and engage a corresponding threaded hole in one of the support bars so that each cross bar can be fastened to the plurality of support bars in an assembled configuration with each cross bar spanning the plurality of support bars.
Shelton teaches that each fastener (Bolts 5) is configured to extend through a hole in one of the cross bars (Chains 2) and engage a corresponding threaded hole in one of the support bars (Horizontal Bars 4 and 6) so that each cross bar can be fastened to the plurality of support bars in an assembled configuration with each cross bar spanning the plurality of support bars (Column 1, Lines 28-44).
While Shelton discloses chains in place of solid bars, the prior art is still applicable as the chains and solid bars serve the same function. Additionally, one could be motivated before the effective filing date to modify the chains of Shelton into bars to provide a fireplace grate that does not change structure. Furthermore, while Shelton does not explicitly state that the bars are threaded, it can be assumed they are if a bolt is being fastened through it. Even if we assume that not to be true, one could have been motivated before the effective filing date to modify the holes of Shelton to explicitly threaded holes in order to ensure a more secure structure and fastener.
Regarding claim 15,
Malecki and Shelton disclose the fireplace grate of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14).
Malecki further discloses removing the cross bars (Tubular Spacing Members 16), plurality of support bars (Segments 13), and plurality of fasteners (Bolts 18 and 21, and Nuts 22) from a nested relationship in a box (Column 2, Lines 34-42).
While Malecki does not explicitly state removing as a step, it must clearly be a step in the method or else how would the fireplace grate be assembled.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Malecki (U.S. Patent 4,140,102), hereinafter Malecki, in view of optimization of ranges and in view of Shelton (U.S. Patent 3,830,218) and further in view of Johnston (US 8,776,779 B2), hereinafter Johnston.
Regarding claim 8, Malecki discloses
A fireplace grate comprising a plurality of cross bars (Tubular Spacing Members 16), a plurality of support bars (Segments 13), and a plurality of fasteners (Bolts 18 and 21, and Nuts 22), (Column 1, Lines 43-58, and Figures 1 and 2)
Malecki does not teach that each fastener is configured to extend through a hole in one of the cross bars and engage a corresponding threaded hole in one of the support bars so that each cross bar can be fastened to the plurality of support bars in an assembled configuration with each cross bar spanning the plurality of support bars and wherein at least one of the cross bars is mounted in a manner whereby it is not substantially perpendicular to the other cross bars.
Shelton teaches that each fastener (Bolts 5) is configured to extend through a hole in one of the cross bars (Chains 2) and engage a corresponding threaded hole in one of the support bars (Horizontal Bars 4 and 6) so that each cross bar can be fastened to the plurality of support bars in an assembled configuration with each cross bar spanning the plurality of support bars (Column 1, Lines 28-44).
While Shelton discloses chains in place of solid bars, the prior art is still applicable as the chains and solid bars serve the same function. Additionally, one could be motivated before the effective filing date to modify the chains of Shelton into bars to provide a fireplace grate that does not change structure. Furthermore, while Shelton does not explicitly state that the bars are threaded, it can be assumed they are if a bolt is being fastened through it. Even if we assume that not to be true, one could have been motivated before the effective filing date to modify the holes of Shelton to explicitly threaded holes in order to ensure a more secure structure and fastener.
Johnston disclose wherein at least one of the cross bars (V-Bar Rib 3) is mounted in a manner whereby it is not substantially perpendicular to the other cross bars (V-Bar Rib 3) (Figures 1,2). Merriam Webster defines perpendicular as “being at right angles.” Therefore, by their nature of being angled, the cross bars of Johnston are not perpendicular to the other cross bars.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fireplace grate of Malecki and Shelton wherein at least one of the cross bars is mounted in a manner whereby it is not substantially perpendicular to the other cross bars as taught by Johnston. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification by Johnston’s teaching that doing so “[provides] more stability” (Column 1, Lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 9,
Malecki, Shelton, and Johnston disclose the fireplace grate of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8).
Johnston further discloses wherein at least one of the cross bars (V-Bar Rib 3) is mounted in a manner whereby it is not perpendicular to the support bars (Legs 1,2) (Figure 1). Merriam Webster defines perpendicular as “being at right angles.” Therefore, by their nature of being angled, the cross bars of Johnston are not perpendicular to the support bars.
Regarding claim 10,
Malecki, Shelton, and Johnston disclose the fireplace grate of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8).
Johnston further discloses wherein the cross bars (V-Bar Rib 3) are arranged in a splayed manner relative to the support bars (Legs 1,2) (Figure 1).
Merriam Webster defines splay as “to expand apart or outward” or “turned outward.” Referencing Figure 8 in the application, mirrors this.
Regarding claim 11,
Malecki, Shelton, and Johnston disclose the fireplace grate of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8).
Johnston further discloses wherein a distance D1 between each cross bar (V-Bar Rib 3) at first side of the grate is smaller than distance D2 at an opposite side of the grate (Figure 1, Column 1, Lines 26-31).
As discussed above in the 112b section, it is unclear what is intended as a “side” of the grate. Based on the annotation below, it can be seen that regardless of what two opposing sides are the sides referenced in the claim, Johnston fulfills that limitation. The distances are marked below in the annotated image.
PNG
media_image4.png
541
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Malecki (U.S. Patent 4,140,102), hereinafter Malecki, in view of optimization of ranges and in view of Shelton (U.S. Patent 3,830,218), in view of Johnston (US 8,776,779 B2), hereinafter Johnston, and further in view of Dahlquist (US 3,771,511), hereinafter Dahlquist.
Regarding claim 12,
Malecki, Shelton, and Johnston disclose the fireplace grate of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11), but do not disclose wherein a first support bar at a first end of the grate is longer than a second support bar at a second end of the grate.
Dahlquist discloses wherein a first support bar (Front Legs 18) at a first end of the grate is longer than a second support bar (Rear Legs 19) at a second end of the grate (Column 2, Lines 62-65).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fireplace grate of Malecki, Shelton, and Johnston wherein a first support bar at a first end of the grate is longer than a second support bar at a second end of the grate as taught by Dahlquist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification by Dahlquist’s teaching that this allows for the grate to be angled allowing “logs [to] roll or slide down to a point where the burning temperature is higher…and…there will be alarge amount of heat radiated into a room” (Column 1, Lines 1-23).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Malecki (U.S. Patent 4,140,102), hereinafter Malecki, in view of optimization of ranges and in view of Shelton (U.S. Patent 3,830,218), in view of Johnston (US 8,776,779 B2), hereinafter Johnston, and further in view of Ziebert (US 4,369,762), hereinafter Ziebert.
Regarding claim 13,
Malecki, Shelton, and Johnston disclose the fireplace grate of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8), but do not disclose wherein at least one support leg is mounted on an underside of at least one support bar.
Ziebert discloses wherein at least one support leg (Legs 18) is mounted on an underside of at least one support bar (Elongated Interconnecting Members 14) (Column 2, Lines 28-51).
Similar to the application, all the cross bars (Support Members 12) are mounted to a support bar (Elongated Interconnecting Members 14). Then further support legs (Legs 18) are connected to said support bar (Elongated Interconnecting Members 14) making it identical to the claim.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fireplace grate of Malecki, Shelton, and Johnston wherein at least one support leg is mounted on an underside of at least one support bar as taught by Ziebert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as it allows for more logs to be placed on the fireplace grate at once, allowing for less interaction with the fireplace grate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hassett et al. (U.S. Patent Des. 267,223) teaches a fireplace grate made up of support bars and cross bars capable of being disassembled, Johnston (U.S. Patent US 8,776,779 B2) teaches a fireplace grate made up of support bars and cross bars, and Wright (U.S. Patent Application US 2002/0129810 A1) teaches a fireplace grate made up of support bars and cross bars with a fireplace grate accessory made up of support bars and cross bars with known dimensions that can be disassembled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICA FINNEY-LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4994. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9AM-7PM EST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached on (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.
/FREDERICA V FINNEY-LONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 08/19/2025
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762