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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraphs [0019] and [0028] the word “spot” is used, this appears to be a typographical error wherein the intended word is: spout.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “spot” is used, this appears to be a typographical error wherein the intended word is: spout. For purposes of this Office Action the word “spot” is interpreted as the word spout. 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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "spot". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 282,578 (hereinafter “SKINNER”).
PNG
media_image1.png
894
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, SKINNER discloses a spill-free refillable torch container, comprising: a body (A) defining a cavity therein; a neck (see a’; particularly that portion of a’ in contact with a top substrate a) defining a first passage in fluid communication with the cavity (see Lns. 29-31: “The removable cap a is perforated, and provided with the curved filling-spout a' and the adjustable wick-tube a2.”); a spout (see again the curved filling-spout a'; particularly that portion of a’ distal from a top substrate a) defining a second passage in fluid communication with the first passage; and a wick (see wick-tube a2) at least partially disposed within the cavity and at least partially exposed outside of the cavity (see Fig. 1).
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 (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.
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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKINNER in view of CN 209116327 U (hereinafter “LI”).
Regarding Claim 2, SKINNER does not disclose wherein the body, neck, and spot comprise metal.
PNG
media_image2.png
780
926
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Li teaches an alcohol lamp which uses stainless steel in its construction (see the provided English translation: “the original alcohol burner is a large stainless steel cylinder, is provided with openings, with a very thin stainless steel pipe in the middle, the lamp-wick passes through stainless steel tube and then winding a layer of cotton outside the stainless steel tube to clamp the stainless steel to be used”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify SKINNER wherein the body, neck, and spot comprise metal, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 3, SKINNER does not disclose wherein the body is generally cylindrical.
Li teaches an alcohol lamp wherein the body (1) is generally cylindrical.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify SKINNER wherein the body is generally cylindrical as taught by LI, since both references teach a body used for the same purpose, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one body for the other to achieve the predictable result of providing a cavity for containing a substance, such as a fuel. Furthermore, it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding Claims 4-9, SKINNER in view of LI discloses the claimed limitations, specifically SKINNER discloses wherein the body (A) comprises a top substrate (a), bottom substrate (indicated in annotated Fig. 1 above), and a generally cylindrical body therebetween (see the discussion of Claim 3 above), the body further defining a wick through hole and a neck through hole in the top substrate (see again Lns. 29-31: “The removable cap a is perforated, and provided with the curved filling-spout a' and the adjustable wick-tube a2.”); wherein the first passage and the second passage are in fluid communication with a neck through hole (see Fig. 1); wherein the wick is at least partially disposed within the wick through hole (see Fig. 1); wherein the spill-free refillable torch container is constructed and arranged such that fluid may be wicked up the wick (see Fig. 1); wherein the neck, the spout, the first passage, and the second passage are constructed and arranged to receive fluid therein to fill the cavity and provide fluid to the wick (see Lns. 41-44: “The oil - reservoir and filling-spout admit of the lamps being readily filled without removing the same from the brackets.”); wherein the spill-free refillable torch container is constructed and arranged to facilitate refilling of the cavity without needing to move the wick (see again Lns. 41-44: “The oil - reservoir and filling-spout admit of the lamps being readily filled without removing the same from the brackets.”).
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKINNER in view of LI and US 20220170629 A1 (hereinafter “ZEITLER”).
Regarding Claims 10-18, the limitations recited in the independent claim as well as the dependent claims mirror limitations already discussed above with regard to Claims 1-9 with the exception of a newly introduced limitation comprising: a circular flange attached to the body and being constructed and arranged to facilitate positioning of the spill-free refillable torch container within an object.
Therefore, SKINNER in view of LI discloses all of the claim limitations except for a circular flange attached to the body and being constructed and arranged to facilitate positioning of the spill-free refillable torch container within an object. All of the other limitations have already been addressed in the discussion of Claims 1-9 above, or are otherwise evident from the discussion of Claims 1-9 above. In the interest of brevity, the same or equivalent claim limitations and the obviousness rationale for combining the references, as already discussed above, will not be repeated here.
ZEITLER teaches a torch container comprising: a circular flange (214) attached to the body (104) and being constructed and arranged to facilitate positioning of the spill-free refillable torch container within an object (306).
PNG
media_image3.png
804
1399
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify SKINNER in view of LI to comprise a circular flange attached to the body and being constructed and arranged to facilitate positioning of the spill-free refillable torch container within an object as taught and/or suggested by ZEITLER, since such a modification would provide a mechanism by which said torch can be suspended within another receptacle thereby providing a protective shell or barrier around the body of said torch. In addition, said protective shell or barrier could provide an insulative gap between said body and said object thus providing a degree of thermal protection for a user.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, the limitations recited in the independent claim as well as the dependent claim mirror limitations already discussed above with regard to Claims 1-18. Therefore, SKINNER in view of LI and ZEITLER discloses all of the claim limitations. In the interest of brevity, the same or equivalent claim limitations and the obviousness rationale for combining the references, as already discussed above, will not be repeated here.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799