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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180119960 A1 (hereinafter “FISHER”).
PNG
media_image1.png
1009
2603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, FISHER discloses a firepit for onsite assembly, the firepit comprising: a tank head (see at least 300/700) comprising: an exterior surface (see the figures), an interior cavity (see the figures), and an aperture (303), and a base (see at least 200/600) comprising: a bendable, upstanding tab (206; see also para. [0076]: “The cross-members may be constructed relatively inexpensively from sheet or plate metal by stamping out, die-cutting, laser cutting or water cutting the cross-member shapes.” Sheet metal is bendable. NOTE: Applicant does not claim a bent upstanding tab, instead Applicant claims a “bendable, upstanding tab” thus the limitation only requires an upstanding tab that is capable of being bent. The upstanding tab(s) 206 of FISHER are capable of being bent.), capable of passing through the aperture (303), and a single leg (see 201 or 202; also note that each longitudinal half of 201 or 202 can also be interpreted as a leg), whereby the firepit is assembled by placing the tank head (see at least 300/700) on the base (see at least 200/600), thereby allowing the bendable, upstanding tab to pass through the aperture, and urging the bendable, upstanding tab toward the interior cavity (see at least Figs. 5 & 6).
Regarding Claim 4, FISHER further discloses the leg comprising: a slot (see 203 or 204; see also the slot between elements 205 and 206).
Regarding Claim 5, FISHER further discloses the base (see at least 200/600) further comprising: at least three interconnecting legs (each longitudinal half of 201 or 202 is interpreted as a leg; see annotated FIG. 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
833
1613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, FISHER further discloses the base (see at least 200/600) further comprising: at least three interconnecting legs (each longitudinal half of 201 or 202 is interpreted as a leg; see annotated FIG. 6 below) and a slot (see 203 or 204; see also the slot between elements 205 and 206).
Regarding Claim 10, FISHER discloses a firepit for onsite assembly, the firepit comprising: a tank head (see at least 300/700) comprising: an exterior surface (see the figures), an interior cavity (see the figures), a port (302), and an aperture (303), and a base (see at least 200/600) comprising: at least one bendable, upstanding tab (206; see also para. [0076]: “The cross-members may be constructed relatively inexpensively from sheet or plate metal by stamping out, die-cutting, laser cutting or water cutting the cross-member shapes.” Sheet metal is bendable. NOTE: Applicant does not claim a bent upstanding tab, instead Applicant claims a “bendable, upstanding tab” thus the limitation only requires an upstanding tab that is capable of being bent. The upstanding tab(s) 206 of FISHER are capable of being bent.) capable of passing through the aperture (303; see at least Figs. 5 & 6), whereby the firepit is assembled by placing the tank head on the base, thereby allowing the at least one bendable, upstanding tab to pass through the aperture, and urging the at least one bendable, upstanding tab toward the interior cavity (see again at least Figs. 5 & 6).
Regarding Claim 13, FISHER further discloses the leg comprising: a slot (see 203 or 204; see also the slot between elements 205 and 206).
Regarding Claim 14, FISHER further discloses the base (see at least 200/600) further comprising: at least three interconnecting legs (each longitudinal half of 201 or 202 is interpreted as a leg; see annotated FIG. 6 above).
Regarding Claim 15, FISHER further discloses the base (see at least 200/600) further comprising: at least three interconnecting legs (each longitudinal half of 201 or 202 is interpreted as a leg; see annotated FIG. 6 above) and a slot (see 203 or 204; see also the slot between elements 205 and 206).
Regarding Claim 16, FISHER discloses a firepit for onsite assembly, the firepit comprising: a tank head (see at least 300/700) comprising: an exterior surface (see the figures), an interior cavity (see the figures), a port (302), and a plurality of apertures (303), and a base (see at least 200/600) comprising: four interconnecting legs (see the four feet 208; furthermore each longitudinal half of 201 or 202 is interpreted as a leg; see annotated FIG. 6 above), each interconnecting leg comprising: a bendable, upstanding tab (206; see also para. [0076]: “The cross-members may be constructed relatively inexpensively from sheet or plate metal by stamping out, die-cutting, laser cutting or water cutting the cross-member shapes.” Sheet metal is bendable. NOTE: Applicant does not claim a bent upstanding tab, instead Applicant claims a “bendable, upstanding tab” thus the limitation only requires an upstanding tab that is capable of being bent. The upstanding tab(s) 206 of FISHER are capable of being bent.) capable of passing through an aperture (303), whereby the firepit is assembled by placing the tank head on the base, thereby allowing the four bendable, upstanding tabs to pass through the plurality of apertures, and urging at least one bendable, upstanding tab toward the interior cavity (see again at least Figs. 5 & 6).
Regarding Claim 18, FISHER further discloses at least one interconnecting leg further comprising: a slot (see at least 203/204; see also the slot between elements 205 and 206).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 10th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues that FISHER repeatedly and specifically refers to a pair of legs, meaning two legs. Further arguing that multiple claims and the specification of Fisher claim "a pair of flat stock lower cross- members." Further yet arguing that Fisher claims only different configurations of two stand legs but does not claim a single leg or three or more legs.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification at para. [0009] states: “In addition, the base could be a single stand with a hinged leg, allowing for more compact shipment, or, alternatively, multiple legs. Without imposing limitation, the stand or legs could be made of metal, other material used by the skilled artisan, or any combination thereof. If using multiple legs, a skilled artisan could utilize slots whereby the legs could interconnect to form one unit, the base, for accepting the tank head.” Therefore, the cross-members 201/202 of FISHER can together comprise a single leg; or in the alternative, each individual cross-member can comprise a single leg. Turning now to the “three or more legs” limitation: the cross-members 201/202 are interpreted as four legs utilizing slots 203/204 whereby the legs interconnect to form one unit, the base, for accepting the tank head. Further still, the four feet 208 of the cross-members can be interpreted as four legs; in the alternative, each longitudinal half of cross-members 201 or 202 can be interpreted as a leg; see annotated FIG. 6 above. Thus, FISHER does disclose a single leg or three or more legs.
Next Applicant argues that Fisher does not disclose bendable tabs. Instead, Fisher discloses only tabs that have enough force to puncture a can and provide grip to a can without bending the tabs.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, and reiterated here, FISHER at para. [0076] states: “The cross-members may be constructed relatively inexpensively from sheet or plate metal by stamping out, die-cutting, laser cutting or water cutting the cross-member shapes.” Sheet metal is bendable. It is further noted that Applicant does not claim a bent upstanding tab, instead Applicant claims a “bendable, upstanding tab” thus the limitation only requires an upstanding tab that is capable of being bent. The upstanding tab(s) 206 of FISHER are capable of being bent.
Next Applicant argues that Fisher [0074] also teaches against bendable tabs: "Also, since the lower cross-members provide a strong, stable stand for the can, there is no need to cut and bend out tabs in the floor of the can."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the quoted sentence/portion of FISHER. The quoted sentence states that there is no need to cut the floor of the can (equivalent to Applicant’s claimed tank head) to provide bent-out tabs which would serve as a base or stand for said can since the cross-members serve that purpose of providing a strong, stable stand for the can. In other words, the quoted sentence is directed to the can and not to the cross-members. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, this does not express a teaching-away/against the tabs 206 of the cross-members being bendable. As mentioned above, Applicant does not claim a bent upstanding tab, instead Applicant claims a “bendable, upstanding tab” thus the limitation only requires an upstanding tab that is capable of being bent. The upstanding tab(s) 206 of FISHER are capable of being bent.
Finally, regarding Claims 16 and 18, Applicant argues Fisher teaches only cross-member pairs and not four interconnecting legs. In addition, Fisher does not teach bendable tables.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cross-members 201/202 of FISHER are interpreted as four legs utilizing slots 203/204 whereby the legs interconnect to form one unit, i.e., the base, for accepting the tank head. Further still, the four feet 208 of the cross-members can be interpreted as four legs; in the alternative, each longitudinal half of cross-members 201 or 202 can be interpreted as a leg; see annotated FIG. 6 above. Thus, FISHER does disclose four interconnecting legs. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Applicant does not claim a bent upstanding tab, instead Applicant claims a “bendable, upstanding tab” thus the limitation only requires an upstanding tab that is capable of being bent. The upstanding tab(s) 206 of FISHER are capable of being bent.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing 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