DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, dated 11/13/25, has been entered.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-9, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama [US 2020/0063970] in view of Konkle [US 2009/0223512].
As to claim 1, Toyama discloses a handheld infrared implement for melting wax that is applied to a surface of snow equipment at atmospheric pressure [see figure 2], the handheld infrared light comprising: a body defining a cavity [201], and at least one infrared element positioned within the lighting cavity [202].
Toyama fails to explicitly disclose a body width of about 3 inches to about 8 inches, and a body length of about 4 inches to about 11.5 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the dimensions as such, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). One would have been motivated based on a desired size for the heating and lighting unit [see Toyama, paragraph 36].
Toyama further fails to disclose the power output as disclosed. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill to provide for powering capabilities in accordance with desired heating characteristics, as such modification only requires basic skill in the art [see Toyama, paragraph 36].
Finally, Toyama fails to explicitly disclose the use of two bulbs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement multiple bulbs, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this instance, using multiple bulbs provides redundancy and additional powering capabilities [see Toyama, paragraph 36].
Toyama also fails to explicitly disclose wherein the infrared element is an emitting bulb. Konkle teaches infrared heaters and bulbs are interchangeable [see paragraph 28]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to implement a bulb instead of infrared heater, in order to allow for the unit to provide infrared radiation without gas inputs [see Toyama, paragraph 36].
Toyama in view of Konkle fail to explicitly disclose wherein a wavelength of peak infrared radiation emitted by the two bulbs is from approximately 690 nm to approximately 5050 nanometers. Examiner notes that these ranges are commonly associated with infrared radiation a such a peak radiation would have flown naturally to one having ordinary skill in the art based upon the use of infrared emitters in Toyama and Kunkle [see Toyama, paragraph 36].
As to claim 3, Toyama fairly teaches wherein a wavelength of a peak infrared radiation emitted by the bulb units is approximately 750 nanometers to approximately 4960 nanometers [examiner notes this is commonly known wavelengths for infrared radiation]. Examiner notes that these ranges are commonly associated with infrared radiation a such a peak radiation would have flown naturally to one having ordinary skill in the art based upon the use of infrared emitters in Toyama (and Kunkle) [see Toyama, paragraph 36].
As to claim 4, Toyama discloses the handheld infrared light of claim 1, wherein the body further defines an opening [in 206] and the handheld infrared light further comprises a screen [105] positioned within the opening.
As to claim 5, Toyama discloses the handheld infrared light of claim 4, further comprising at least one reflector positioned within the lighting cavity and configured to reflect infrared radiation emitted by the at least one light out of the opening [102, figure 1].
As to claim 6, Toyama discloses the handheld infrared light of claim 1, further comprising a stand attached to the body and configured to support the handheld infrared light [218].
As to claim 7, Toyama discloses the handheld infrared light of claim 6, wherein the stand comprises a plurality of supports attached to a side of the body [218, left and right sides].
As to claim 8, Toyama discloses the handheld infrared light of claim 7, wherein the plurality of supports support the handheld infrared light such that an opening is oriented away from a supporting surface [see figure 2].
As to claim 9, Toyama discloses the handheld infrared light of claim 1, further comprising a handle attached to the body [202].
As to claim 21, Toyama discloses a handheld infrared unit for melting wax that is applied to a surface of snow equipment at atmospheric pressure [see figure 2], the handheld infrared light comprising: a body defining a lighting cavity [200]. Toyama fails to explicitly disclose at least one light positioned within the lighting cavity and comprising a bulb, wherein a wavelength of a peak infrared radiation emitted by the bulb is approximately 690 nanometers to approximately 5050 nanometers. Konkle teaches infrared heaters and bulbs are interchangeable [see paragraph 28]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to implement a bulb instead of infrared heater, in order to allow for the unit to provide infrared radiation without gas inputs [see Toyama, paragraph 36]. Toyama fails to explicitly disclose the power output between 300 and 1000 watts. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill to provide for powering capabilities in accordance with desired heating characteristics, as such modification only requires basic skill in the art [see Toyama, paragraph 36].
As to claim 22, Toyama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bulb has a power output of about 300 watts to about 1,000 watts. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill to provide for powering capabilities in accordance with desired heating characteristics, as such modification only requires basic skill in the art [see Toyama, paragraph 36].
As to claim 23, Toyama discloses the handheld infrared light of claim 21, wherein the body comprises a body width of about 3 inches to about 10 inches and a body length of about 4 inches to about 18 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the dimensions as such, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). One would have been motivated based on a desired size for the heating and lighting unit [see Toyama, paragraph 36].
As to claim 24, Toyama fairly teaches wherein a wavelength of a peak infrared radiation emitted by the bulb units is approximately 750 nanometers to approximately 4960 nanometers [examiner notes this is commonly known wavelengths for infrared radiation]. Examiner notes that these ranges are commonly associated with infrared radiation a such a peak radiation would have flown naturally to one having ordinary skill in the art based upon the use of infrared emitters in Toyama (and Kunkle) [see Toyama, paragraph 36].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-32 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: these claims recite the specific form factor of the light itself (such as the body, handle and stand) in combination with the infrared emitter which is not taught or disclosed by the prior art of record. Examiner notes that altering the cited art references to fit such a form factor would not have flown to one having ordinary skill absent the benefit of hindsight provided from applicant’s disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See rejections above regarding the new limitations and teachings of Toyama and Konkle.
Conclusion
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 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 BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jong-Suk Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875