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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilert (US-20240053021-A1) in view of McKnight (WO 2009126660 A2).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Weilert teaches a wood pellet patio heater (FIG. 1, patio heater 100), the wood pellet patio heater comprising: a heat reflector (FIG. 1, heat deflector 190), the heat reflector having a dome shape (FIGS. 1 and 2, the heat deflector 190 is roughly dome shaped, as Cambridge Dictionary defines a dome as “a rounded roof on a building or room,” and the heat deflector 190 has a rounded profile. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dome)), wherein the heat reflector is in mechanical communication with a chimney (FIG. 1, flue 180) at a top of the chimney, the chimney having a tubular shape, where the chimney directs heat from secondary combustion of a fuel source to the heat reflector, the rocket stove (FIG. 2, the assembly of combustion chamber 120) comprising, a primary combustion chamber (FIG. 2, the combustion chamber 120), where the primary combustion chamber initially combusts the fuel source, wherein a first end of the primary combustion chamber is open to atmosphere (FIG. 2, the lower end of the combustion chamber 120 lets out into an open ash tray), and a second end of the primary combustion chamber is received perpendicularly … , a replaceable cartridge (FIG. 3, the assembly of the fuel grate 162, which can be removed in disassembly), where the replaceable cartridge receives the fuel source for combustion, the replaceable cartridge removably residing in an interior of the primary combustion chamber, the replaceable cartridge comprising rods (FIG. 3, the grate is made up of sloping perpendicular rods), the rods sloping downward from a back of the replaceable cartridge to a front of the replaceable cartridge terminating in a barrier (FIG. 3, the right angled portion of the fuel grate 162), the rods being are parallel to each other, and where the rods are spaced to prevent the fuel source from falling between the rods during combustion, and supports (FIG. 3, the walls on each side of the fuel grate 162), the supports are on each side and the back of the replaceable cartridge to provide structural support to the rods, and the barrier, the barrier at the front of the replaceable cartridge, perpendicular to the rods; and a hopper (FIG. 2, pellet hopper 140), where the hopper delivers the fuel source to the replaceable cartridge of the primary combustion chamber, wherein the hopper is in mechanical communication with a top of the primary combustion chamber and is in mechanical communication with the [component above the combustion chamber] via the primary combustion chamber.
Weilert fails to teach wherein the chimney is in mechanical communication with a chimney ledge on an air mixing manifold of a rocket stove, the air mixing manifold configured to promote secondary combustion; wherein the air mixing manifold is in mechanical communication with a base.
However, Mcknight teaches wherein the chimney is in mechanical communication with a chimney ledge on an air mixing manifold (“For example, we have observed the benefits of providing a low speed, almost gentle type of swirl in the second combustion zone through the use of angled active secondary air. To achieve this type of support, containment and mixing for the combusting dispersion via direction controlled active secondary air, a circular manifold may be utilized”) of a rocket stove, the air mixing manifold configured to promote secondary combustion; wherein the air mixing manifold is in mechanical communication with a base.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including an air manifold above the combustion chamber to encourage secondary combustion, as taught by McKnight, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of McKnight with the motivation of improving burning efficiency.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the combination of Weilert and McKnight teaches that the hopper has a first portion (FIG. 2, the upper, vertical portion of the pellet hopper 140), the first portion being vertical and in mechanical communication with a second portion (FIG. 2, the lower portion of the pellet hopper 140 that directs fuel toward the combustion chamber 120), the second portion being angled diagonally downward to deliver the fuel source to the primary combustion chamber, wherein the hopper is in mechanical communication with the primary air combustion chamber at the second portion, and the hopper is in mechanical communication with a support ring (FIG. 1, the ring structure at the base of the flue 180 that abuts the pellet hopper 140) at the first portion of the hopper, the support ring being in further mechanical communication with the chimney.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the combination of Weilert and McKnight teaches that the hopper is in mechanical communication with the primary combustion chamber partially inside the air mixing manifold and partially outside of the air mixing manifold (in the combination above, the hopper 140 of Weilert is in communication with both the combustion chamber and the mainfold).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilert and McKnight as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Hill (US 20190383491 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Weilert and McKnight fails to teach that the replaceable cartridge does not include any flat surfaces.
However, Hill teaches that the replaceable cartridge does not include any flat surfaces (FIG. 4, basket 36 has no flat surfaces).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including making it so the fuel grate 162 has no flat surfaces, as taught by Hill, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of Hill with the motivation of preventing ash from sticking to the grate.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Weilert and McKnight fails to teach that the slope of the rods of the replaceable cartridge is from 40 to 75 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the slope of the rods of the grate of Weilert between 40 and 75 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (in Hill, FIGS. 5 and 6, the angle is adjustable across positive and negative angles relative to a horizontal plane), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that grate angle is a result effective variable because it affects how fuel pellets rest and how ash flows down into the ash tray. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the slope of the rods of the grate of Weilert between 40 and 75 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilert and McKnight as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Brooks (US 8869788 B2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Weilert and McKnight fails to teach that the space between the rods is configured to allow the fuel source being wood pellets to combust without falling between the rods, where the space is from .3 to .6 centimeters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the space between the rods of the grate between 0.3 and 06 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (col. 4, ll. 35-45, the grates are spaced such that 1 inch pellets cannot pass through), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that grate spacing is a result effective variable because it affects the types of fuel that may be used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the space between the rods of the grate between 0.3 and 06 cm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilert and McKnight as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Jeong (KR 102108840 B1), Lasco (DE 202016104327 U1), and Labattu (FR 2944585 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the combination of Weilert and McKnight fails to teach that the air mixing manifold further comprises a heat riser, where the heat riser promotes secondary combustion and draws flames of the combustion upward to the chimney, and four fins, the four fins configured to modify air flow velocity within the air mixing manifold creating a vortex in the chimney, and wherein the chimney is made of glass; and a secondary air control, the secondary air control in sliding communication with the air mixing manifold to allow varying levels of atmosphere into the air mixing manifold; and the base, the base in mechanical communication with a bottom of the air mixing manifold, where the base is configured to stabilize the wood pellet patio heater.
However, Jeong teaches that the air mixing manifold further comprises a heat riser (“The firebox according to the present invention is narrow, high, and shallow, so that the firewood is gathered and heat and smoke are concentrated in the firebox, and the heat riser is narrowed and high to express the Rocket Heater function”), where the heat riser promotes secondary combustion and draws flames of the combustion upward to the chimney.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including making it so the assembly includes a heat riser, as taught by Jeong, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of Jeong with the motivation of improving rocket heater function.
Jeong fails to teach four fins, the four fins configured to modify air flow velocity within the air mixing manifold creating a vortex in the chimney, and wherein the chimney is made of glass; and a secondary air control, the secondary air control in sliding communication with the air mixing manifold to allow varying levels of atmosphere into the air mixing manifold; and the base, the base in mechanical communication with a bottom of the air mixing manifold, where the base is configured to stabilize the wood pellet patio heater.
However, Lasco teaches four fins (FIG. 6, deflection unit 92, which has components at the four sides of the assembly), the four fins configured to modify air flow velocity within the air mixing manifold creating a vortex in the chimney, and wherein the chimney is made of glass (FIG. 3, glass tube 66).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including making it so the assembly includes vortex fins and a glass chimney, as taught by Lasco, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of Lasco with the motivation of giving the user a visible and aesthetically interesting experience.
Lasco fails to teach a secondary air control, the secondary air control in sliding communication with the air mixing manifold to allow varying levels of atmosphere into the air mixing manifold; and the base, the base in mechanical communication with a bottom of the air mixing manifold, where the base is configured to stabilize the wood pellet patio heater.
However, Labattu teaches a secondary air control, the secondary air control in sliding communication with the air mixing manifold to allow varying levels of atmosphere into the air mixing manifold (FIG. 1, slider 1 modulates airflow into a burner); and the base, the base in mechanical communication with a bottom of the air mixing manifold, where the base is configured to stabilize the wood pellet patio heater.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including making it so the assembly includes air sliders, as taught by Labattu, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of Labattu with the motivation of giving the system versatility when different amounts of intake air are needed.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilert and McKnight as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Kang (KR 200374930 Y1).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the combination of Weilert and McKnight fails to teach a safety cage formed of stainless steel woven mesh, the safety cage being cylindrical in shape and partially enclosing the chimney, rocket stove, and base, wherein the safety cage is in removable mechanical communication with safety cage rings, and a door, where the door provides access to the primary combustion chamber, the door is in mechanical communication with a support ring and the base.
However, Kang teaches a safety cage (FIG. 1, mesh 14) formed of stainless steel woven mesh, the safety cage being cylindrical in shape and partially enclosing the chimney, rocket stove, and base, wherein the safety cage is in removable mechanical communication with safety cage rings (FIG. 1, the upper and lower rings that bound the vertical extend of the mesh 14), and a door (FIG. 1, door 10), where the door provides access to the primary combustion chamber, the door is in mechanical communication with a support ring and the base.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including a mesh cage about the assembly, as taught by Kang, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of Kang with the motivation of protecting users from the hot flue surface.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilert in view of McKnight and Labattu.
Regarding claim 9, Weilert teaches a wood pellet patio heater (FIG. 1, patio heater 100), the wood pellet patio heater comprising: a heat reflector (FIG. 1, heat deflector 190), the heat reflector having a dome shape (FIGS. 1 and 2, the heat deflector 190 is roughly dome shaped, as Cambridge Dictionary defines a dome as “a rounded roof on a building or room,” and the heat deflector 190 has a rounded profile. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dome)), wherein the heat reflector is in mechanical communication with a chimney (FIG. 1, flue 180) at a top of the chimney, the chimney having a tubular shape, where the chimney directs heat from secondary combustion of a fuel source to the heat reflector, the rocket stove (FIG. 2, the assembly of combustion chamber 120) comprising, a primary combustion chamber (FIG. 2, the combustion chamber 120), where the primary combustion chamber initially combusts the fuel source, wherein a first end of the primary combustion chamber is open to atmosphere (FIG. 2, the lower end of the combustion chamber 120 lets out into an open ash tray), and a second end of the primary combustion chamber is received perpendicularly … , a replaceable cartridge (FIG. 3, the assembly of the fuel grate 162, which can be removed in disassembly), where the replaceable cartridge receives the fuel source for combustion, the replaceable cartridge removably residing in an interior of the primary combustion chamber, the replaceable cartridge comprising rods (FIG. 3, the grate is made up of sloping perpendicular rods), the rods sloping downward from a back of the replaceable cartridge to a front of the replaceable cartridge terminating in a barrier (FIG. 3, the right angled portion of the fuel grate 162), the rods being are parallel to each other, and where the rods are spaced to prevent the fuel source from falling between the rods during combustion, and supports (FIG. 3, the walls on each side of the fuel grate 162), the supports are on each side and the back of the replaceable cartridge to provide structural support to the rods, and the barrier, the barrier at the front of the replaceable cartridge, perpendicular to the rods; and a hopper (FIG. 2, pellet hopper 140), where the hopper delivers the fuel source to the replaceable cartridge of the primary combustion chamber, wherein the hopper is in mechanical communication with a top of the primary combustion chamber and is in mechanical communication with the [component above the combustion chamber] via the primary combustion chamber.
Weilert fails to teach wherein the chimney is in mechanical communication with a chimney ledge on an air mixing manifold of a rocket stove, the air mixing manifold configured to promote secondary combustion; wherein the air mixing manifold is in mechanical communication with a base.
However, Mcknight teaches wherein the chimney is in mechanical communication with a chimney ledge on an air mixing manifold (“For example, we have observed the benefits of providing a low speed, almost gentle type of swirl in the second combustion zone through the use of angled active secondary air. To achieve this type of support, containment and mixing for the combusting dispersion via direction controlled active secondary air, a circular manifold may be utilized”) of a rocket stove, the air mixing manifold configured to promote secondary combustion; wherein the air mixing manifold is in mechanical communication with a base.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including an air manifold above the combustion chamber to encourage secondary combustion, as taught by McKnight, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of McKnight with the motivation of improving burning efficiency.
McKinght fails to teach a secondary air control, the secondary air control is in sliding communication with the air mixing manifold to allow varying levels of atmosphere into the air mixing manifold, the secondary air control is a three-sided rectangular tube, where a bottom does not have a wall to provide air flow into the air mixing manifold when the secondary air control is in an open position; and the base, where the base is configured to stabilize the wood pellet patio heater, the base in mechanical communication with a bottom of the air mixing manifold.
However, Labattu teaches a secondary air control, the secondary air control is in sliding communication with the air mixing manifold to allow varying levels of atmosphere into the air mixing manifold (FIG. 1, slider 1 modulates airflow into a burner), the secondary air control is a three-sided rectangular tube (FIG. 1, slider 1 is an extended member with at least three sides), where a bottom does not have a wall to provide air flow into the air mixing manifold when the secondary air control is in an open position (when ope, the slider 1 allows air into the combustion chamber and manifold); and the base, where the base is configured to stabilize the wood pellet patio heater, the base in mechanical communication with a bottom of the air mixing manifold.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including making it so the assembly includes air sliders, as taught by Labattu, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of Labattu with the motivation of giving the system versatility when different amounts of intake air are needed.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Weilert, McKnight, and Labattu teaches that the secondary air control further comprises a handle to slide the secondary air control into open and closed positions (Labattu, FIG. 1, the slider 1 has a number of features that may be used to slide it open and closed).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilert, McKnight, and Labattu as applied to claims 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Jeong and Lasco.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Weilert, McKnight, and Labattu fails to teach that the air mixing manifold further comprises a heat riser, where the heat riser promotes secondary combustion and draws flames of the combustion upward to the chimney, andfour fins, the four fins configured to modify air flow velocity within the air mixing manifold creating a vortex in the chimney.
However, Jeong teaches that the air mixing manifold further comprises a heat riser (“The firebox according to the present invention is narrow, high, and shallow, so that the firewood is gathered and heat and smoke are concentrated in the firebox, and the heat riser is narrowed and high to express the Rocket Heater function”), where the heat riser promotes secondary combustion and draws flames of the combustion upward to the chimney.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including making it so the assembly includes a heat riser, as taught by Jeong, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of Jeong with the motivation of improving rocket heater function.
Jeong fails to teach four fins, the four fins configured to modify air flow velocity within the air mixing manifold creating a vortex in the chimney, and wherein the chimney is made of glass.
However, Lasco teaches four fins (FIG. 6, deflection unit 92, which has components at the four sides of the assembly), the four fins configured to modify air flow velocity within the air mixing manifold creating a vortex in the chimney, and wherein the chimney is made of glass (FIG. 3, glass tube 66).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including making it so the assembly includes vortex fins and a glass chimney, as taught by Lasco, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of Lasco with the motivation of giving the user a visible and aesthetically interesting experience.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Weilert, McKnight, Lubattu, Jeong, and Lasco teaches that the hopper has a first portion (FIG. 2, the upper, vertical portion of the pellet hopper 140), the first portion being vertical and in mechanical communication with a second portion (FIG. 2, the lower portion of the pellet hopper 140 that directs fuel toward the combustion chamber 120), the second portion being angled diagonally downward to deliver the fuel source to the primary combustion chamber, wherein the hopper is in mechanical communication with the primary air combustion chamber at the second portion, and the hopper is in mechanical communication with a support ring (FIG. 1, the ring structure at the base of the flue 180 that abuts the pellet hopper 140) at the first portion of the hopper, the support ring being in further mechanical communication with the chimney.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Weilert, McKnight, Lubattu, Jeong, and Lasco teaches that the hopper is in mechanical communication with the primary combustion chamber partially inside the air mixing manifold and partially outside of the air mixing manifold (in the combination above, the hopper 140 of Weilert is in communication with both the combustion chamber and the manifold).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilert, McKnight, Lubattu, Jeong, and Lasco as applied to claims 11-13 above, and further in view of Kang.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Weilert and McKnight fails to teach a safety cage formed of stainless steel woven mesh, the safety cage being cylindrical in shape and partially enclosing the chimney, rocket stove, and base, wherein the safety cage is in removable mechanical communication with safety cage rings, and a door, where the door provides access to the primary combustion chamber, the door is in mechanical communication with a support ring and the base.
However, Kang teaches a safety cage (FIG. 1, mesh 14) formed of stainless steel woven mesh, the safety cage being cylindrical in shape and partially enclosing the chimney, rocket stove, and base, wherein the safety cage is in removable mechanical communication with safety cage rings (FIG. 1, the upper and lower rings that bound the vertical extend of the mesh 14), and a door (FIG. 1, door 10), where the door provides access to the primary combustion chamber, the door is in mechanical communication with a support ring and the base.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Weilert by including a mesh cage about the assembly, as taught by Kang, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weilert with these aforementioned teachings of Kang with the motivation of protecting users from the hot flue surface.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilert and McKnight as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Waters (US 20010037804 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Weilert and McKnight teaches that the heat reflector is a dome shape (FIGS. 1 and 2, the heat deflector 190 is roughly dome shaped, as Cambridge Dictionary defines a dome as “a rounded roof on a building or room,” and the heat deflector 190 has a rounded profile. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dome)).
The combination of Weilert and McKnight fails to teach having a diameter of from 15 to 25 centimeters and a depth from 51 to 91 centimeters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the diameter of the dome from 15 to 25 centimeters and a depth from 51 to 91 centimeters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Waters teaches a dome having a diameter of 34.5 inches and a corresponding depth), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that diameter and depth is a result effective variable because it affects where and how intensely the hear is radiated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make e diameter of the dome from 15 to 25 centimeters and a depth from 51 to 91 centimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762