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
Election/Restrictions
After detailed examination, further consideration, and in view of applicant’s arguments the restriction requirement mailed 10/21/25 has been withdrawn.
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 8 and 16 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.
Claims 8 and 16 have been rejected as being indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) since they contain a Markush group, e.g. claim 8/16 recites "a shape chosen from a group comprising: a triangle, a rectangle, a pentagon, a hexagon, or a heptagon." Since comprising is open-ended, it's unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed the claim. Applicant may overcome the rejection by amending "comprising" to read "consisting."
Per MPEP 2173.05(h)
A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group “consisting of” (rather than “comprising” or “including”) the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group “comprising” or “consisting essentially of” the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022) (each independent claim recites "a selection from the group comprising a person, an animal, an animated character, a creature, an alien, a toy, a structure, a vegetable, and a fruit.” … (emphasis added). “Given the breadth of variation among the specified alternatives and the use of the open-ended word ’comprising’ to define the scope of the list, we affirm the Board's conclusion that the pending claims recite improper Markush language and are indefinite under § 112(b).”). If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as “at least one member” selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as “or mixtures thereof”). Id. at 1281. See also MPEP § 2111.03.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Siddiqi (US 12,385,639), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Siddiqi shows:
1. A torch device comprising: a housing having a thermal energy source 108 positioned therein; an ignition button 110 operatively connected to the thermal energy source; and a thermal energy producing structure 104 extending from a first end of the housing and operatively connected to the thermal energy source, wherein the thermal energy producing structure comprises an inner surface 118, an outer surface 116, an opening 124 defined by the inner surface, and at least one orifice 122 positioned around a periphery of the thermal energy producing structure such that thermal energy produced at the at least one opening is distributed evenly around a peripheral circumference of an object positioned within the opening (fig. 1A,1C).
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the thermal energy source comprises a fuel tank 108 configured to store fuel (col. 5, lines 10-36) and the device further comprises an electrical ignition wire 112 (“piezoelectric igniter” inherently includes a wire to allow the flow of electricity to create a spark) positioned within the housing and configured to ignite the fuel when activated by the ignition button.
3. The device of claim 2, wherein the ignition button is configured to ignite the fuel at the at least one orifice and allow fuel to flow from the fuel tank to the at least one orifice (col. 8, lines 10-28).
5. The device of claim 1, wherein the opening defined by the inner surface is a closed loop (fig. 1A,1C).
6. The device of claim 5, wherein the closed loop is circular (fig. 1A,1C).
9. The device of claim 1, wherein the at least one orifice comprises a plurality of nozzles 122 disposed on the inner surface of the thermal energy producing structure (fig. 1A,1B,1C).
10. The device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of nozzles protrudes outwardly from the inner surface (fig. 1A,1C).
12. A thermal energy producing structure configured to be coupled to a handheld housing having a thermal energy source 108 positioned therein, the thermal energy producing structure comprising: an inner surface 118; an outer surface 116; an opening 124 defined by the inner surface; and at least one orifice 122 positioned around a periphery of the thermal energy producing structure such that thermal energy produced at the at least one orifice is distributed evenly around a peripheral circumference of an object positioned within the opening (fig. 1A,1C).
13. The structure of claim 12, wherein the opening defined by the inner surface is a closed loop (fig. 1A,1C).
14. The structure of claim 13, wherein the closed loop is circular (fig. 1A,1C).
17. The structure of claim 12, wherein the at least one orifice comprises a plurality of nozzles 122 disposed on the inner surface of the structure (fig. 1A,1B,1C).
18. The structure of claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of nozzles protrudes outwardly from the inner surface (fig. 1A,1C).
20. The structure of claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of nozzles is configured to direct the thermal energy towards the center of the opening (fig. 1C).
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqi (US 12,385,639) in view of Pogrell (US 3,873,262).
Siddiqi discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the igniter including a battery, wire and resistive heating element.
Pogrell, in the same or related field of endeavor (specifically, torches and lighters), teaches that it is known in the art to provide an ignitor including a battery 20, resistive heating element 17, and a wire 28,33 connected therebetween (fig. 1).
Pogrell teaches that such an arrangement provides for safe operation (col. 2, lines 23-27).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention incorporate the igniter arrangement as taught by Pogrell into the invention disclosed by Siddiqi, so as to provide for safe operation.
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 (claims 8 and 16 as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqi (US 12,385,639), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Siddiqi fails to specifically recite the claimed shape of the loop.
The claimed shape is an obvious modification based on design choice, and depends on manufacturing considerations such as cost of the desired design and/or consumer demand for preferred esthetic appeal.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the flush nozzles into the invention disclosed by Siddiqi, so as to provide for manufacturing considerations.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqi (US 12,385,639), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Siddiqi fails to specifically recite that the nozzles are flush with the inner surface.
The claimed shape/size/location/orientation is an obvious modification based on design choice, and depends on spatial considerations such as availability of space and arrangement of other components, as well as manufacturing considerations such as consumer demand for preferred esthetic appeal.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the flush nozzles into the invention disclosed by Siddiqi, so as to provide for spatial and/or manufacturing considerations.
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. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, 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