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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0110289 A1 (hereinafter “MYERS”) in view of US 0,042,867 A (hereinafter “NIEMOLLER”).
PNG
media_image1.png
553
1606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, MYERS discloses an apparatus for stoking a fire, the apparatus comprising: a tube (9 or 29) including at least one tube segment, wherein the tube includes a proximal region comprising a first aperture (see 5), a distal region comprising a second aperture (see 11, 32), and a hollow interior region connecting the first aperture and the second aperture, such that the first aperture and the second aperture are in fluid communication with each other (see para. [0015]: “There is a shaft portion 29, which is substantially linear and which is hollow, and which shaft portion has a first end portion that includes a handle means comprising the elements 3, 5, 7 and a second end portion which includes a hook means 13 for manipulating logs and the like. The hollow shaft portion enables the user of a poker according to the invention to blow air from their lungs into hole 16 disposed on the handle portion, which air then travels through the hollow portion of the shaft and exits the poker at hole 32 that is disposed at the second end portion of the shaft 29”), wherein the second aperture is surrounded by an outer rim (i.e., the rim defining hole 32); and an object (13) extending distally from the distal region of the tube and positioned below the outer rim (see Fig. 1).
MYERS does not disclose that said object comprises a plate; wherein the plate includes at least one fuel-engaging feature and a fluid- diverting region, wherein the fluid diverting region diverts fluid emitted from the second aperture, such that a path of the fluid changes.
PNG
media_image2.png
524
1829
media_image2.png
Greyscale
NIEMOLLER teaches an apparatus for stoking a fire, the apparatus comprising: an object comprises a plate (A); wherein the plate includes at least one fuel-engaging feature (indicated in annotated Fig. 1 above) and a fluid-diverting region (indicated in annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the fluid diverting region diverts fluid emitted from a second aperture (indicated in annotated Fig. 2 above), such that a path of the fluid changes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify MYERS wherein said object comprises a plate; wherein the plate includes at least one fuel-engaging feature and a fluid- diverting region, wherein the fluid diverting region diverts fluid emitted from the second aperture, such that a path of the fluid changes as taught and/or suggested by NIEMOLLER, since MYERS states at para. [0018]: “The hook portion 13 may take on any configuration and in one embodiment includes an L-shaped portion as shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2.” Therefore, since both references teach an object attached to the distal region of a tube which performs the same, or similar, function, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one object attached to the distal region of a tube for the other to achieve the predictable result of performing an intended useful function for stoking a fire. Furthermore, such a modification would provide a user with a useful shovel for scooping solid fuel or solid fuel residue when needed.
Regarding Claim 6, MYERS in view of NIEMOLLER does not disclose wherein the plate is formed with one of the tube segments in a single integrated piece.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify MYERS in view of NIEMOLLER wherein the plate is formed with one of the tube segments in a single integrated piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding Claim 7, NIEMOLLER further teaches wherein the plate (A) comprises two fuel-engaging features (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding Claim 8, NIEMOLLER further teaches wherein the at least one fuel-engaging feature extends downwardly (see annotated Fig. 1 above), such that the lowest elevation of the at least one fuel-engaging feature is below the second aperture (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 9, NIEMOLLER further teaches wherein the fluid-diverting region (see annotated Fig. 1 above) of the plate (A) comprises a flat region.
Regarding Claim 10, NIEMOLLER further teaches wherein the plate (A) comprises a single, integrated piece.
Regarding Claim 11, MYERS further discloses wherein the tube comprises a plurality of tube segments (see Fig. 2; tube segments 19, 17, 9) configured to be connected in series with each other, wherein each of the plurality of tube segments includes a proximate region including a first aperture, a distal region including a second aperture, and a hollow interior region connecting the first aperture and the second aperture, such that the first aperture and the second aperture are in fluid communication with each other, and wherein the plurality of tube segments are configured to be connected in series with each other, such that, when the plurality of tube segments are connected in series with each other, the first aperture of a proximate-most one of the plurality of tube segments is in fluid communication with the second aperture of a distal-most one of the plurality of tube segments (see para. [0018]: “In FIG. 2 is an alternate form of the invention in which the shaft 29 comprises a plurality of elements 9, 17, and 19. In this embodiment, a longest shaft element 9 is connected to a shorter shaft element 19 by means of a coupling element 17. In such an embodiment, the longest shaft element comprises a tube which comprises threads at each of its ends. The coupling element 17 may comprise a tube comprising a bore through its interior which is threaded and is thus adapted to mate with the threads on the ends of the longest shaft element 9, or may alternately comprise a bead such as 7 (FIG. 3) which includes a threaded bore whose threads are adapted to mate with the threads on the ends of the longest shaft element 9. The shorter shaft element 19 in one embodiment also comprises a tube having threads disposed on its end portions. Thus, the coupling element 17 connects the longest shaft element 9 to the shorter shaft element 19 to one another to provide the shaft.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14, 16-20 are allowed.
Claims 2-5 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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
Prosecution Insights