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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, with reference to Claim 17, the “horn-shaped enclosures” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 or phrase “special-shaped holes” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term or phrase “special-shaped holes” 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 the interest of advancing prosecution and for purposes of this Office Action the term or phrase “special-shaped holes” is interpreted as a hole comprising any shape.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 212252810 U (hereinafter “LI”) in view of US 2003/0156828 A1 (hereinafter “JAMIESON”).
PNG
media_image1.png
859
2190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, LI discloses a detachable electric fireplace (10), comprising: a base (900, 100, 105, 106, 400), at least one artificial firewood assembly (200/300) detachably disposed on a top of the base (see Figs. 1 & 4), at least one light source assembly (101/102, 103/104) detachably disposed on the base, and a flame simulation assembly (see at least 500/600) disposed inside the base; wherein the at least one artificial firewood assembly comprises a firewood support (200) and an artificial firewood (300); the firewood support (200) is detachably disposed on the base (see the provided English translation: “wherein the simulation ash carbon 200 is mounted on the fixing plate 100”); a light-transmitting hole is defined on the firewood support (see the provided English translation: “the front end of the simulation grey carbon 200 and the rear end is provided with a light transmission port (not shown); the light projected to the simulation grey carbon 200 can be projected to the simulation diesel 300 through the light transmission port”); the artificial firewood (300) is disposed on the firewood support (200) and is disposed above the light-transmitting hole (see again the provided English translation: “the front end of the simulation grey carbon 200 and the rear end is provided with a light transmission port (not shown); the light projected to the simulation grey carbon 200 can be projected to the simulation diesel 300 through the light transmission port”); the artificial firewood is a light-transmitting hollow structure (see the provided English translation: “simulation ash carbon 200 and simulation wood 300 can be made of transparent wood or transparent resin material”); the at least one light source assembly (101/102, 103/104) is disposed below the light-transmitting hole (see again the provided English translation: “the front end of the simulation grey carbon 200 and the rear end is provided with a light transmission port (not shown); the light projected to the simulation grey carbon 200 can be projected to the simulation diesel 300 through the light transmission port”); light emitted by the at least one light source assembly penetrates through the light-transmitting hole to light up the artificial firewood (see again the provided English translation: “the front end of the simulation grey carbon 200 and the rear end is provided with a light transmission port (not shown); the light projected to the simulation grey carbon 200 can be projected to the simulation diesel 300 through the light transmission port”).
LI discloses that the artificial firewood (300) is installed on the firewood support (see the provided English translation: “the simulation firewood 300 is installed on the simulation grey carbon 200”) however, it is unclear whether the artificial firewood is detachably disposed on the firewood support.
JAMIESON teaches an electric fireplace comprising artificial firewood (50) is detachably disposed on a firewood support (52).
PNG
media_image2.png
664
1042
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LI wherein the artificial firewood is detachably disposed on the firewood support as taught and/or suggested by JAMIESON, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Furthermore, such a modification would provide a means to vary the aesthetic properties of said electric fireplace by allowing replacement said artificial firewood with different versions of artificial firewood. Other benefits of such a modification would be facilitating repair or maintenance of said artificial firewood due to the easier manipulation provided by a detachable element.
Regarding Claim 2, LI further discloses wherein the base comprises a base main body (see 900, 100, 105, 106, 400) and a cover plate (530/630); an opening is defined on a top of the base main body (see 900, 100, 105, 106, 400); the base main body (see 900, 100, 105, 106, 400) is hollow; the cover plate (530/630) covers on the top of the base main body; the flame simulation assembly (see at least 500/600) is disposed inside the base main body; wherein the cover plate comprises a mounting portion (530) and a rear cover portion (630) connected to the mounting portion; the at least one artificial firewood assembly (200/300) is detachably disposed on the mounting portion (best seen in Fig. 4; see also the provided English translation: “wherein the simulation ash carbon 200 is mounted on the fixing plate 100”); the at least one artificial firewood assembly comprises the firewood support (200) detachably disposed on the mounting portion (see again Fig. 4; see also the provided English translation: “wherein the simulation ash carbon 200 is mounted on the fixing plate 100”) and the artificial firewood (300) detachably disposed on the firewood support (as taught by JAMIESON, discussed above with regard to Claim 1); the at least one light source assembly is detachably disposed on the mounting portion (see the provided English translation: “the front control plate 101 is provided with a front lamp light source 102” and “the front control plate 101 is mounted on the front light blocking member 530”).
Regarding Claim 7, LI further discloses wherein the flame simulation assembly comprises a heating mechanism (see the provided English translation: “the electric heating device 900 comprises a fan assembly, a heating assembly and a control circuit part; the heating assembly can generate heat; the fan assembly is suitable for blowing the heat generated by the heating assembly to the external environment of the shell; the control circuit part is electrically connected with the fan assembly and the heating assembly.”) disposed inside the base main body and a flame light mechanism (see at least 500/600) disposed inside the base main body; an air outlet is defined on a front end of the base main body (see the front of base main body element 900); an air inlet is defined on a rear end of the base main body (see Fig. 2 which illustrates an air inlet defined on the rear end of the base main body; in the alternative, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LI by providing an air inlet at a convenient location, such as on a rear end of the base main body, which can provide air to said fan assembly).
Regarding Claim 11, Li in view of JAMIESON does not disclose wherein the mounting portion and the rear cover portion are integrally formed.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Li in view of JAMIESON wherein the mounting portion and the rear cover portion are integrally formed, 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 18, LI further discloses wherein the detachable electric fireplace (10) further comprises a front firewood frame (indicated in annotated Figs. 3 & 4 below) disposed on a front end of the base main body.
PNG
media_image3.png
698
1306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of JAMIESON as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20210088221 A1 (hereinafter “CROWE”).
Regarding Claim 10, LI in view of JAMIESON does not disclose wherein a main control board is disposed inside the base main body; the main control board is electrically connected to the at least one light source assembly and the flame simulation assembly; a window is disposed on a front end of the base main body; an operation panel is embedded in the window; the operation panel is electrically connected to the main control board and controls the at least one light source assembly and the flame simulation assembly through the main control board.
CROWE teaches an electric fireplace wherein a main control board (controller 28 (with printed control board assembly (PCBA)); controller 428 can include a main PCBA 428P) is disposed inside the base main body (40, 440); the main control board is electrically connected to the at least one light source assembly and the flame simulation assembly (see para. [0064]: “Further, as shown, the controller 28 can include a control panel 328A that enables the user to control the various functions of the electric fireplace 10, e.g., the power, the heat, the light/flames, etc.”); a window (i.e., the window housing the control panel 328A) is disposed on a front end of the base main body; an operation panel (328A) is embedded in the window; the operation panel is electrically connected to the main control board and controls the at least one light source assembly and the flame simulation assembly through the main control board (see again para. [0064]: “Further, as shown, the controller 28 can include a control panel 328A that enables the user to control the various functions of the electric fireplace 10, e.g., the power, the heat, the light/flames, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify LI in view of JAMIESON wherein a main control board is disposed inside the base main body; the main control board is electrically connected to the at least one light source assembly and the flame simulation assembly; a window is disposed on a front end of the base main body; an operation panel is embedded in the window; the operation panel is electrically connected to the main control board and controls the at least one light source assembly and the flame simulation assembly through the main control board as taught and/or suggested by CROWE, since such a modification would enable the user to control the various functions of the electric fireplace, e.g., the power, the heat, the light/flames, etc. (See again CROWE, para. [0064]: “Further, as shown, the controller 28 can include a control panel 328A that enables the user to control the various functions of the electric fireplace 10, e.g., the power, the heat, the light/flames, etc.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-15, 17 and 19 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.
Claim 16 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.
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.
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, 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 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