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 .
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 20 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.
Claim 20 requires “a base supporting the artificial log above the base”, it is unclear how a base can support a log above itself. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring “a base supporting the artificial log”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross (US 2020/0240629 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Gross discloses an artificial log assembly comprising: an artificial log [reference character 20] being a non-flammable material [see paragraph 0041], the artificial log having an outer wall defining a main portion rounded about and elongated along an axis and a branch portion extending from the main portion transverse to the main portion [see Fig. 1C]; the artificial log having a cavity inside the outer wall [the cavity accommodating the pipe 10], the cavity extending along the main portion and from the main portion into the branch portion [see Fig. 1C]; slits [reference characters 22, 23, and 25] extending through the outer wall to the cavity, at least one of the slits being on the main portion and at least one of the slits being on the branch portion [see Fig. 4]; a fuel supply [reference character 10] in the cavity; the fuel supply including a main pipe elongated along the axis in the cavity along the main portion and a branch pipe extending from the main pipe in the cavity along the branch portion [see Fig. 1C]; a plurality of the fuel outlets [reference character 24] along the main pipe and being spaced along the axis; and at least one of the fuel outlets extending from the branch pipe [see Fig. 1C].
With respect to claim 2 Gross discloses that the main portion is generally cylindrical including an outer wall and two ends and the branch portion is generally cylindrical with an outer wall and two ends, the outer wall of the branch portion abutting the outer wall of the main portion [see annotated Fig. below].
PNG
media_image1.png
317
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5 Gross discloses that the main portion is generally cylindrical including an outer wall and two ends and the branch portion is generally cylindrical with an outer wall and two ends, the base of the branch portion abutting the outer wall of the main portion [see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 8 Gross discloses that at least some of the slits [reference character 22] have at least an axial portion elongated along the axis.
With respect to claim 9 Gross discloses that at least some of the slits have a diverging portion [the width of slot 22] extending transversely from the axial portion.
With respect to claim 12 Gross discloses that the outer wall of the main portion of the artificial log has a length along the axis and the slits on the main portion each have a length, the length of each slit being less than 1/2 the length of the outer wall of the main portion [see annotated Fig. below, the slits 25 are clearly less than ½ the length of the length of the main portion].
PNG
media_image2.png
377
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19 Gross discloses that the artificial log includes ends fixed to the outer wall of the main portion and spaced from each other along the axis enclosing the cavity therebetween [see annotated Fig. below].
PNG
media_image3.png
340
819
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 2020/0240629 A1).
With respect to claims 11 and 13-15 requires that “the outer wall has a substantially uniform wall thickness and the outer wall of the main portion includes a substantially uniform outer diameter, the wall thickness of the outer wall being less than 1/10 the outer diameter of the outer wall of the main portion” (claim 11), “the outer wall of the main portion of the artificial log has a length and an outer diameter, the outer diameter of the outer wall being less than 1/4 of the length of the main portion” (claim 13), “the outer wall of the main portion has a circumference and the slits on the main portion each have a length and a width, the greatest width of each slit being less than 1/10 the circumference of the outer wall of the main portion” (claim 14), “the outer wall has a length along the axis and the slits each have a length along the axis, the length of each slit being less than 1/2 the length of the outer wall” (claim 15). However, these limitations are interpreted as obvious changes in size of the artificial log system; therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the sizes required by claims 11 and 13-15 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 16 Gross does not disclose that the outer wall is made of metal. However, Gross does disclose that “[t]he block body 20 can be made of any heat resistant, non-combustible material allowing producing the block body with the above-mentioned appearance and texture” [paragraph 0041]. Therefore, in the same field of log burners it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify Gross by forming the outer wall from metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Since Gross discloses “any heat resistant, non-combustible material”, the designation of a specific material does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design.
Claim(s) 3, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 2020/0240629 A1) in view of Dudgeon (US 663,811).
With respect to claim 3 Gross does not disclose that the artificial log includes a bottom having an opening receiving the fuel supply.
Dudgeon discloses a gas stove that includes an artificial log [see annotated Fig. below] having a bottom having an opening [see annotated Fig. below] receiving a fuel supply [reference character 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Gross by introducing the fuel through an opening in a bottom of the artificial log as taught by Dudgeon, in order to incorporate the artificial log system taught by Gross into the larger system of a gas stove.
PNG
media_image4.png
353
409
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17 Gross does not disclose that the outer surface includes surface features having the appearance of tree bark.
Dudgeon discloses that the artificial log has surface features having the appearance of tree bark [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Gross by providing surface features which look like bark, as taught by Dudgeon, in order to enhance the appearance of the artificial log system.
With respect to claim 18 Gross does not disclose that the artificial log includes a bottom having an elongated opening receiving the fuel supply.
Dudgeon discloses a gas stove that includes an artificial log [see annotated Fig. below] having a bottom having an elongated opening [see annotated Fig. below] receiving a fuel supply [reference character 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Gross by introducing the fuel through an opening in a bottom of the artificial log as taught by Dudgeon, in order to incorporate the artificial log system taught by Gross into the larger system of a gas stove.
PNG
media_image5.png
358
577
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20 Gross does not disclose a base supporting the artificial log, the base having a hole, and the fuel supply extending through the hole from below the base to above the base.
Dudgeon discloses a gas stove that includes an artificial log and a base [see annotated Fig. below], the base having a hole [see annotated Fig. below], and a fuel supply [reference characters 16-19] extending through the hole from below the base to above the base [see annotated Fig. below].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Gross by providing a base supporting the artificial log, the base having a hole, and the fuel supply extending through the hole from below the base to above the base as taught by Dudgeon, in order to incorporate the artificial log system taught by Gross into the larger system of a gas stove.
PNG
media_image6.png
534
651
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-7, 10, 21-23 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762