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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “MCP” (page 2, 13th line) should be changed to --PCM--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims must be in the form of a single sentence.
Claim 1 includes a plurality of sentences. Applicant is advised to change all but the last period (“.”) with a semicolon (“;”), change all capital letters other than the first word to lower case, and add the term “and” after the last semicolon.
Claim 5, 3rd line, includes a period that should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The term “13” in the 3rd line does not have parentheses.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “movable by means of one or two supports” in claim 1, 2nd line.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-6 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 recites the term “the latter” in the 3rd line. It is not clear to what the latter is referring too, thus making claim vague and indefinite. Applicant is advised to replace this term with the intended component.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the height of the sun" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the focal point (10)" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the small copper tank" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the term “the latter” in the 6th line. It is not clear to what the latter is referring too, thus making claim vague and indefinite. Applicant is advised to replace this term with the intended component.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the heat" in the 7th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the oven" in the 8th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cooking time" in the 9th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the container (8) or (16)" in the 9th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the small reservoir" in the 10th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the focal point (9)" in the 11th and 12th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the term “its lid” in the 12th line. It is not clear to what this term is referring too, thus making claim vague and indefinite. Applicant is advised to replace this term with the intended component.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the assembly" in the 12th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the term “an electronic mechanical system” in the 12th line. It is not clear if this is the same or different system than recited in the 3rd line, thus making claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the path of the sun" in the 13th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the distance" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the form" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the auxiliary heating element" in the 2n line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and it is not clear if applicant intended to limit the scope of the claims to only that which has been recited, as is the result of the use of the term “consisting of” in claim 1, 1st line.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components.
Howieson (WO 2018/042163) discloses A solar cooker with an insulated wall 30d, a transparent surface 40 including Fresnel lens 48,49 (page 16, line 18), movable by one or two supports 44,45, electronic mechanical system 60,100 to automatically track 14 the path of the sun, but fails to disclose the auxiliary resistor or receiving heat by conduction from a reservoir.
Nevertheless, due to the claims vagueness and indefiniteness the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained., these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
January 27, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762