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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2 line 2 “an connector,,” should be “a connector,”
In claim 3 line 1 “the combustion holes first” should be “the combustion holes include first”
In claim 3 line 2 “136” should be deleted
In claim 4 line 3 “metallic thermal insulation layer” should be “metallic thermal insulation layers”
. 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 1-10 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 line 7 requires “a first being arranged between the inner layer and the outer layer”, it is unclear what “a first being refers to”. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “a first gap being arranged between the inner layer and the outer layer”, consistent with the subsequent clause “a second gap being arranged between the first thermal layer and the outer layer” [claim 1 line 8-9].
Claims 2-10 are rejected as indefinite for depending on an indefinite independent claim.
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)(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(s) 1, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 2017/0347832 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Lin discloses an unpowered smokeless stove1, comprising a housing [reference characters 12 and 21], an inner barrel [reference characters 22, 23, 11, 6, 25, 24, 41, and 42], and a top ring [reference character 5], the inner barrel is placed on the housing by means of the top ring2, the inner barrel comprising an outer wall [reference characters 11 and 22] and a thermal insulation layer [see annotated Fig. below], the outer wall comprising an outer layer [reference character 22] and an inner layer [reference character 11], a side of the inner layer being provided with combustion holes [reference character 112] and air inlet holes [reference character 113], the thermal insulation layer includes a first thermal insulation layer3 [reference character 6], a second thermal insulation layer [see annotated Fig. below], a third thermal insulation layer [reference character 25], and a fourth thermal insulation layer [reference character 24], a first [gap] [reference character 92] being arrange between the inner layer and the outer layer, a second gap [see annotated Fig. below] being arranged between the first thermal insulation layer and a second thermal insulation layer, the air inlet holes are arranged between the first thermal insulation layer and the second thermal insulation layer [see annotated Fig. below].
PNG
media_image1.png
831
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7 Lin discloses that the housing is made of ceramic fibers [see paragraph 0027, element 21 is fibrous].
With respect to claim 9 Lin discloses that the top ring is provided with ventilation holes [reference character 53], a fire gathering ring [reference character 13 is detached on the top ring].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2017/0347832 A1) in view of Boetcker (US 4,909,235).
With respect to claim 4 Lin discloses an air thermal insulation layer [the air layer formed by the “second gap” shown in the annotated Fig. above] is formed between the first thermal insulation layer and the second thermal insulation layer. Lin further discloses that the third insulation layer [reference character 25] is made from metal [see paragraph 0035, “[t]he auxiliary reflective member 25 is, for example, copper foil or aluminum foil”].
Lin does not disclose that the first thermal insulation layer, the second thermal insulation layer, and the fourth thermal insulation layer are all metallic thermal insulation layer.
Boetcker discloses a cooking stove where the insulation is provided by a “thicker gauge” of metal which provide both thermal insulation and strength [column 8 lines 15-18].
I would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the stove taught by Lin by forming the first, third, and fourth thermal insulation layers from a “thicker gauge” of metal, as taught by Boetcker, because the use of metal provides both thermal insulation and strength [column 8 lines 15-18 of Boetcker].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2017/0347832 A1).
With respect to claim 5 Lin discloses that holes [reference character 62] are evenly arranged on the first thermal insulation layer.
Lin does not disclose that the holes are kidney-shaped.
However, the shape of the holes is interpreted to be an obvious matter of design choice absent a specific recitation that the claimed shape is significant. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the holes so that the are kidney shaped since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP §2144.04].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2017/0347832 A1) in view of Ahmed et. al (US 12,127,708 B2).
With respect to claim 6 Lin does not disclose that the third thermal insulation is made of a non-metallic inorganic material.
Ahmed discloses a pellet grill where the bottom of the fire-box is insulated with a “ceramic mineral wool type insulation” [column 4 line 27].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to form the third insulation material from a ceramic mineral wool, as taught by Ahmed, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Since "[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it." Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995) [MPEP §2111.02]. The preambular clause “an unpowered smokeless stove” is not interpreted as limiting the claim since the body of the claim does not define, refer to, or require the negative limitation “unpowered” or the functional limitation “smokeless”.
2The limitation “the inner barrel is placed on the housing by means of the top ring” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation where “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966…” [MPEP §2113]; since Lin discloses the product as claimed the process is not given patentable weight.
3 Note that the applicant’s specification characterizes “insulation layer” broadly; for example, “[t]he first thermal insulation layer 141, the second thermal insulation layer 142, and the fourth thermal insulation layer 144 are all metallic thermal insulation layers…” [paragraph 0029 of the applicant’s PgPub], where the layers are implemented as metal sheets or plates [see Fig. 2 of the applicant’s specification], and where the third thermal insulation layer is a “non-metallic inorganic material” [see paragraph 0030 of the applicant’s PgPub]. The applicant also discloses that an “…an air thermal insulation layer is formed between the first thermal insulation layer 141 and the second thermal insulation layer 142” (emphasis added) [paragraph 0029 of the applicant’s PgPub]. Therefore (inclusively but not exclusively) metal sheets, air gaps, and non-metallic materials all qualify as “thermal insulation layers”.