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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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.
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, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traeger (US 10222092 B1), hereinafter Traeger, in view of Peters (US 8336537 B1), hereinafter Peters.
Regarding claim 1, Traeger discloses a portable smokeless stove, comprising:
a combustion cylinder, wherein the combustion cylinder is provided with an accommodating chamber with upper and lower openings, and the accommodating chamber is configured to accommodate a fire source (“inner combustion vessel 110” column 3, line 28 and “The inner combustion vessel 110 can include an opening 158 at the bottom thereof” column 6, line 45 and the upper opening is shown in figure 3);
a separating net provided in the accommodating chamber and configured to carry the fire source (“Wood pellets 180 can be disposed on the grate 130” column 4, line 9); and
first ventilation holes provided at upper and lower ends of the combustion cylinder, wherein each of the first ventilation holes is distributed along a circumferential direction of the combustion cylinder and communicated with the accommodating chamber (“The inner combustion vessel 110 can include upper vessel orifices 115 and lower vessel apertures 120. The upper vessel orifices 115 can be generally circular in form, and can be disposed around the circumference of an upper region of the inner combustion vessel 110. It will be understood that other suitable orifices besides circular orifices can be disposed in the upper region of the inner combustion vessel 110. The lower vessel apertures 120 can be generally rectangular in form and can be disposed around the circumference of a lower region of the inner combustion vessel 110. It will be understood that other suitable apertures besides rectangular apertures can be disposed in the lower region of the inner combustion vessel 110” column 3, line 29), and the first ventilation hole at the lower end is underneath the separating net (“The lower vessel apertures 120 can be disposed at or beneath the grate support flange 125” column 3, line 59);
wherein the first ventilation hole at the lower end is configured to such in air to form an upward airflow in the combustion cylinder (“Wood pellet gases 190” column 5, line 19).
PNG
media_image1.png
686
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
636
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Traeger does not disclose the first ventilation hole at the upper end is configured to discharge smoke, and the first ventilation hole at the lower end is cooperated with the first ventilation hole at the upper end to form an upward airflow in the combustion cylinder.
However, Peters teaches the first ventilation hole at the upper end is configured to discharge smoke, and the first ventilation hole at the lower end is cooperated with the first ventilation hole at the upper end to form an upward airflow in the combustion cylinder (“This stove uses a unique exhaust venting system which has exhaust vent openings near the top of the inner combustion bin (FIG. 6, Reference 20.) FIG. 5. shows arrows between the outer exhaust bin and the inner combustion bin. These arrows depict the flow of exhaust from the exhaust vent openings near the top of the inner combustion bin (FIG. 6., Reference 20) down to be drawn up through the return exhaust openings in the neck of the tapered funnel (FIGS. 5., and 6., Reference 19.) This embodiment is an improvement over prior art as it uses an inner combustion bin cover (FIGS., 2., 5., and 6., Reference 6) that allows the exhaust to circulate and keep the stove hotter within the inner combustion bin (FIGS. 5., 6., 7., and 8., Reference 2.) before the exhaust exits the said inner combustion bin” column 3, line 13)
PNG
media_image3.png
602
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
560
358
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Peters, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first ventilation hole at the upper end is configured to discharge smoke, and the first ventilation hole at the lower end is cooperated with the first ventilation hole at the upper end to form an upward airflow in the combustion cylinder as is taught in Peters, in the stove disclosed by Traeger because Peters states that allowing the exhaust to circulate will “keep the stove hotter within the inner combustion bin.” Therefore, permitting at least some of the exhaust to circulate will improve heat generation in Traeger.
Regarding claim 2, Traeger, as modified by Peters, discloses the portable smokeless stove of claim 1, further comprising:
a cover movably provided on the combustion cylinder;
wherein the cover is provided with a flame gathering port communicated with the accommodating chamber of the combustion cylinder (“The flame guide 192 can bring the wood pellet gases 190 and the upward flowing heated combustible air 175 together to achieve a complete combustion, thereby reducing or eliminating smoke” column 5, line 52).
Regarding claim 6, Traeger, as modified by Peters, discloses the portable smokeless stove of claim 1, further comprising:
an outer cylinder sleeved on a periphery of the combustion cylinder (“inner combustion vessel 110 can be inserted into and removed from the outer housing 105” column 3, line 28);
wherein a bottom of the outer cylinder is provided with a supporting block along a circumference of the cylinder wall (“three or more casters 198 can be attached beneath the outer housing 105” column 6, line 10), a sidewall of the outer cylinder is provided with a plurality of second ventilation holes, and each of the second ventilation holes is distributed along a circumference of the outer cylinder and is communicated with the accommodating chamber (“The outer housing 105 can include air intake vents 155” column 4, line 58).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traeger, in view of Peters, and further in view of Peng (CN 104896523 A), hereinafter Peng.
Regarding claim 3, Traeger, as modified by Peters, discloses the portable smokeless stove of claim 2.
Traeger, as modified by Peters, does not disclose a bracket movably provided on one side of the cover facing away from the combustion cylinder.
However, Peng teaches a bracket movably provided on one side of the cover facing away from the combustion cylinder (“two-section container supporting frame 9 by the support arm 901 and the bracket arm 902, the supporting arm 901 rotatably connected with the head cover 1, a support arm 902 rotatably connected with the supporting arm 901 for supporting the container” citation from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image5.png
580
466
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Peng’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a bracket movably provided on one side of the cover facing away from the combustion cylinder as is taught in Peng, in the stove disclosed by Traeger because Peng states that the brackets support a container. Therefore, including the brackets of Peng will expand the usefulness of Traeger by enabling the support of a cooking container.
Regarding claim 4, Traeger, as modified by Peters and Peng, discloses the portable smokeless stove of claim 3, further comprising:
a supporting frame (140 and 145);
wherein the supporting frame comprises a supporting platform and a supporting leg provided on the supporting platform (198), and one side of the supporting platform facing away from the supporting leg is connected to one side of the combustion cylinder facing away from the bracket (Figure 1).
Traeger, as modified by Peters and Peng, does not disclose the supporting leg is movably provided.
However, Peng teaches wherein the supporting leg is movably provided (“turning pin 3 is rotatably arranged at the bottom of the outer cylinder 8, for supporting camping firewood stove and can be folded to the outer cylinder 8 of the central turning. When using, turning the leg 3 along the outer tube 8 at the bottom of the outward radial direction; the turning support 3 included angles with the outer cylinder 8 is equal to 90 degrees, the firewood burning oven for camping supported by a certain height by turning the supporting leg 3, so that air can smoothly enter in 7 from the bottom of the firewood stove for camping. when it is not used, the turnover support 3 to the centre of the bottom of the outer cylinder 8 turning, the turning leg 3 folded, reducing the occupancy space of the firewood stove for camping”).
In view of Peng’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the supporting leg is movably provided as is taught in Peng, in the stove disclosed by Traeger because Peng states that the folding legs reduces occupancy space. Therefore, including the movably provided legs of Peng will simplify storage of the stove of Traeger.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traeger, in view of Peters, in view of Peng, and further in view of Madurski (US 4599988 A), hereinafter Madurski.
Regarding claim 5, Traeger, as modified by Peters and Peng, discloses the portable smokeless stove of claim 4.
Traeger, as modified by Peters and Peng, does not disclose:
wherein a connecting column is provided on one side of the supporting platform facing away from the combustion cylinder, and one end of the supporting leg is provided with a connecting rod rotatably provided in the connecting column; and
the supporting frame is provided with a storage state and a supporting state;
when in the storage state, the supporting leg fits with the supporting platform, and a supporting angle formed between the supporting leg and the supporting platform is 0 degree;
when in the supporting state, a free end of the supporting leg is away from the supporting platform, and the supporting angle formed between the supporting leg and the supporting platform is not 0 degree.
However, Madurski teaches:
wherein a connecting column is provided on one side of the supporting platform facing away from the combustion area, and one end of the supporting leg is provided with a connecting rod rotatably provided in the connecting column (“Each of the U-shape legs is pivotally supported upon the underside of bottom wall 13 by corresponding transverse support channels 33. These are adapted to frictionally engage the bights of each leg 29” column 2, line 45); and
the supporting frame is provided with a storage state and a supporting state;
when in the storage state, the supporting leg fits with the supporting platform, and a supporting angle formed between the supporting leg and the supporting platform is 0 degree (“When barbecue 11 is not in use, it can be stored or carried, with the legs folded so as to engage bottom wall 13 of the firebox as shown in dash lines, FIG. 3” column 2, line 53);
when in the supporting state, a free end of the supporting leg is away from the supporting platform, and the supporting angle formed between the supporting leg and the supporting platform is not 0 degree (Figure 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
172
464
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
274
442
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Peng does not disclose the claimed leg folding arrangement. Madurski teaches the claimed leg folding arrangement. The substitution of one known element (the leg folding arrangement of Peng) for another (the leg folding arrangement of Madurski) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the leg folding arrangement taught in Madurski would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for folding the legs in for storage Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traeger, in view of Peters, and further in view of Boetcker (US 4909235 A), hereinafter Boetcker.
Regarding claim 7, Traeger, as modified by Peters, discloses the portable smokeless stove of claim 6.
Traeger, as modified by Peters, does not disclose wherein an upper opening of the outer cylinder gradually expands toward a lower opening of the outer cylinder.
However, Boetcker teaches wherein an upper opening of the outer cylinder gradually expands toward a lower opening of the outer cylinder (“Because of the semi-conical shape of housing body 29, a large open area 46 is created between the bottom and sides of the firebox 12 and the housing body 29 when they are assembled for use. This large space effectively keeps heat, generated in the firebox, away from the housing body 29 and greatly increasing the safety of the device” column 3, line 44).
PNG
media_image8.png
706
448
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
316
496
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In view of Boetcker’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein an upper opening of the outer cylinder gradually expands toward a lower opening of the outer cylinder as is taught in Boetcker, in the stove disclosed by Traeger because a Boetcker states that the shape improves safety. Therefore, including the expanding walls as taught by Boetcker will improve safety in the stove of Traeger.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traeger, in view of Peters, and further in view of Lehmann (DE 674303 C), hereinafter Lehmann.
Regarding claim 8, Traeger, as modified by Peters, discloses the portable smokeless stove of claim 1.
Traeger, as modified by Peters, does not disclose wherein an inner wall of the combustion cylinder is provided with a plurality of bosses integrally fixed on the inner wall of the combustion cylinder, and the separating net is provided on the bosses.
However, Lehmann teaches wherein an inner wall of the combustion volume (1-4) is provided with a plurality of bosses (9) integrally fixed on the inner wall of the combustion volume, and the separating net (10) is provided on the bosses.
PNG
media_image10.png
534
466
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Traeger does not disclose the claimed support for the separating net. Lehmann teaches the claimed support for the separating net. The substitution of one known element (the support of Traeger) for another (the support of Lehmann) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the support taught in Lehmann would have yielded predictable results, namely, support for the separating net Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traeger, in view of Peters, in view of Peng, and further in view of Harrington (US 20200096199 A1), hereinafter Harrington.
Regarding claim 9, Traeger, as modified by Peters and Peng, discloses the portable smokeless stove of claim 4.
Traeger, as modified by Peters and Peng, does not disclose:
a collecting base movably provided on the side of the supporting platform facing away from the supporting leg;
wherein the collecting base comprises a supporting wall and a collecting bottom plate connected to the supporting wall, one end of the supporting wall away from the collecting bottom plate is connected to a bottom of the combustion cylinder, and the collecting bottom plate is provided on the side of the supporting platform facing away from the supporting leg and is configured to collect a soot and/or other combustibles.
However, Harrington teaches:
a collecting base (536 and 542) movably provided on the side of the supporting platform (532) facing away from the supporting leg (550);
wherein the collecting base comprises a supporting wall (536) and a collecting bottom plate (542) connected to the supporting wall, one end of the supporting wall away from the collecting bottom plate is connected to a bottom of the combustion cylinder, and the collecting bottom plate is provided on the side of the supporting platform facing away from the supporting leg (Figure 10) and is configured to collect a soot and/or other combustibles (“a removable ash pan 542 situated below the opening 538 of the funnel 536” paragraph [0046]).
PNG
media_image11.png
516
690
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In view of Harrington’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include:
a collecting base movably provided on the side of the supporting platform facing away from the supporting leg;
wherein the collecting base comprises a supporting wall and a collecting bottom plate connected to the supporting wall, one end of the supporting wall away from the collecting bottom plate is connected to a bottom of the combustion cylinder, and the collecting bottom plate is provided on the side of the supporting platform facing away from the supporting leg and is configured to collect a soot and/or other combustibles as is taught in Harrington, in the stove as presently modified because Harrington states “the inner chamber wall 104 is separable from the base 108 to facilitate emptying of ashes and other cleaning tasks” (paragraph [0026]). Therefore, including the features of Harrington will facilitate removal of ashes and cleaning in the stove as presently modified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Haislip (US 2158236 A)
PNG
media_image12.png
348
464
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Stockwell (US 2190139 A)
PNG
media_image13.png
456
410
media_image13.png
Greyscale
No (KR 890001566 Y1)
PNG
media_image14.png
610
406
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
472
516
media_image15.png
Greyscale
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights