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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to Provisional Application No. 63/373794 filed August 29, 2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “by about” is repeated. The second incidence of “by about” should be deleted. 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.
Claims 8, 9, 16, 17, and 19 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.
The term “about” in claims 8, 16, 17, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 8, it is not clear how close the angular separation of the hooks must be to 120 degrees to be considered “about 120 degrees” in angular separation. Therefore, the limitation is indefinite. For the purposes of this Office Action, the limitation is being interpreted as “the plurality of hooks comprising three hooks being angularly separated from one another by 120 degrees.” This interpretation is supported by Applicant’s specification (paragraph [0042]).
In claim 16, it is not clear how close the off-center distance must be to the claimed 3.25-4.25 inches to be considered “about 3.25-4.25 inches,” thus rendering the claim limitation indefinite. For the purposes of this Office Action, the limitation is being interpreted as “the point being at an off-center distance from the centerpoint of the hot layer blank.”
In claim 17, it is not clear how close the subtracted angle must be to the claimed 3-5 degrees to be considered “about 3-5 degrees,” thus rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office Action, the limitation is being interpreted as “the join lines being angularly separated by a subtracted angle.”
In claim 19, it is similarly unclear how close the subtracted angles must be to the claimed 3-5 degrees in line 4 and the claimed 8-10 degrees in line 6 to be considered “about 3-5 degrees” or “about 8-10 degrees”, respectively. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of this Office Action, the limitations are being interpreted as “the darts of the hot layer having a subtracted angle” and “the darts of the cool layer having a subtracted angle larger than the subtracted angle of the hot layer.”
The terms “darker” and “brownish” in claim 9 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what is meant by the term “darker.” This is a comparative term, but no reference point or standard has been provided to which the claimed coloration can be compared. The term “brownish” is also a relative term and is not clear where the boundaries of the claimed limitation would be or what colorations might be considered “brownish”. For the purposes of this Office Action, the limitation is being interpreted as “the coloration being selected from a burned or brown color.”
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.
(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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 10,222,068 issued to Bechtold (hereinafter “Bechtold”).
Regarding claim 1, Bechtold discloses an insulated cover (Fig 2 dome attachment 30 with heat shield 18; note that an air gap between 30 and 18 provides insulation, col 2 line 1-12) for use on a patio heater top (Abstract, Fig 2), comprising: a cover portion having a plurality of layers (Fig 2 cover portion consists of dome 30 as a first layer, an air gap as a second layer, and heat shield 18 as a third layer; also note that dome 30 may itself be multi-layered, col 3 line 40-48); and a plurality of hooks (Fig 10 and Fig 7, securing clips 70); the hooks connected to the cover portion (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 8, Bechtold further discloses that the plurality of hooks comprises three hooks being angularly separated from one another by 120 degrees (Fig 7 shows six equally spaced hooks 70 such that three of the hooks are each separated by 120 degrees).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-27 are allowed.
Claims 2-7, 10-15, 18, and 20 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.
Claims 9, 16, 17, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 21-27
Regarding claim 21, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests a method of insulating a patio heater top with all of the limitations of independent claim 21, particularly “applying a spring tension force between at least one of said hooks and said rim”, as claimed. Therefore, this limitation, along with every other limitation, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Bechtold, discussed above, is considered to be the closest prior art of record. Bechtold teaches a method of insulating a patio heater top (Abstract), comprising: fitting a plurality of hooks over a rim of a patio heater top (shown in Fig 10 and 7); the plurality of hooks connected to a cover portion (dome attachment 30) of a patio heater cover (Fig 2) the cover portion having a plurality of layers (col 3 line 40-48). But Bechtold does not teach applying a spring tension force between at least one of said hooks and said rim, nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bechtold with this limitation.
Claims 22-27 are allowable at least because they depend from claim 21 and include all of the limitations thereof.
Claims 2-7 and 9-20
Regarding claim 2, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an insulated cover for use on a patio heater top with all of the limitations of claim 2, particularly the lacing anchors.
Regarding claim 3, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an insulated cover for use on a patio heater top with all of the limitations of claim 3, particularly the lacing anchors.
Claims 4-6 are allowable at least because they depend from claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an insulated cover for use on a patio heater top with all of the limitations of claim 7, particularly that the hooks are sprung hooks.
Regarding claim 9, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an insulated cover for use on a patio heater top with all of the limitations of claim 9, as interpreted, particularly the limitation of a hot layer having an exposed coloration selected from a burned or brown color.
Regarding claim 10, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an insulated cover for use on a patio heater top with all of the limitations of claim 10, particularly a hot layer formed of fiber glass fabric, a cool layer formed of silicone-coated fiber glass cloth; and an insulating layer formed of needle mat between the hot layer and the cool layer.
EP 0079808 by Awano teaches a heat resistant pad with similar layers. However, the heat resistant pad taught by Awano is used on an aluminum extrusion pressing machine and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover of Bechtold by replacing the metal cover portion with the heat resistant pad of Awano.
Claims 11-12 are allowable at least because they depend from claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an insulated cover for use on a patio heater top with all of the limitations of claim 13, particularly the limitation “the plurality of layers comprising a layer of filament-woven heat-treated fiber glass fabric, the fabric being formed by highly-texturized fiber glass yarn.”
Regarding claim 14, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an insulated cover for use on a patio heater top with all of the limitations of claim 14, particularly the limitation ” the plurality of layers comprising a hot layer having at least one dart formed therein; and a cool layer having at least one dart formed therein.”
Claims 15-18 are allowable at least because they depend from claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an insulated cover for use on a patio heater top with all of the limitations of claim 19, as interpreted, particularly the limitation that the plurality of layers comprising a hot layer having three darts formed therein; the darts of the hot layer having a subtracted angle; and a cool layer having three darts formed therein; the darts of the cool layer having a subtracted angle larger than the subtracted angle of the hot layer.
Regarding claim 20, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an insulated cover for use on a patio heater top with all of the limitations of claim 20, particularly the lacing anchors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0247447 and US 2012/0247446 by Cross disclose a cover for a grill to shield the grill from rainfall and prevent heat loss from the grill.US 2008/0210214 by Wade discloses a cover for an outdoor grill having an inner insulated layer and an outer protective layer.
US 8,674,266 by Fis-Menache discloses decorative covers for a patio heater.
US 6,745,759 by Bossler discloses a removable dome cover for a patio heater.
WO 2009/152206 by Bechtold discloses a side heat director attached to a patio heater cover to direct heat to one side of the heater. The material of the heat director may be multi-layered and shaped with darts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762