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
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 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 9-12 and 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traeger (US 2017/0176018) in view of Chaudhry (US 2014/0021852).
Traeger discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations, including:
9. (New) A barbecue grill or heater, comprising: a barbecue grill body or a heater body (fig. 1); a biomass particle fuel combustion area 112 associated with the barbecue grill body or the heater body (fig. 3); an 142 at least partially installed within the biomass particle combustion area (fig. 3); and an igniter 140 electrically coupled to the (fig. 3), said igniter configuredto ignite biomass particles in the biomass particle fuel combustion area (col. 6, lines 8-14).
10. (New) The barbecue grill or heater of claim 9, wherein the igniter is configured to generate a
11. (New) The barbecue grill or heater of claim 9, wherein the (fig. 3,6).
12. (New) The barbecue grill or heater of claim 9, wherein the igniter is a manual igniter (fig. 9; para. 0047 – “user-operable power switch 154”).
15. (New) The barbecue grill or heater of claim 14, further comprising: a power supply coupled to the igniter, wherein the power supply is other than a standard commercial power supply providing 110V/120V or 220V/240V (para. 0046).
16. (New) The barbecue grill or heater of claim 9, further comprising: a screw feeder for delivering biomass particle fuel to the biomass particle combustion area (fig. 1).
17. (New) The barbecue grill or heater of claim 9, further comprising: an air blower 144 for delivering air to the biomass particle combustion area (fig. 4,19).
18. (New) The barbecue grill or heater of claim 9, further comprising:a power supply coupled to the igniter, wherein the power supply is other than a standard commercial power supply providing 110V/120V or 220V/240V (para. 0046).
19. (New) A barbecue grill or heater, comprising: a barbecue grill body or a heater body; a biomass particle fuel combustion area associated with the barbecue grill body or the heater body; and an (see previous claims), said igniter configuredto ignite biomass particles in the biomass particle fuel combustion area (col. 6, lines 8-14).
20. (New) The barbecue grill or heater of claim 19, wherein the electrode rod is coupled to a
21. (New) The barbecue grill or heater of claim 19, further comprising:a power supply coupled to the electrode rod, wherein the power supply is other than a standard commercial power supply providing 110V/120V or 220V/240V (para. 0046).
22. (New) A biomass particle fuel combustion system, comprising: a biomass particle fuel combustion area; and an (see previous claims).
23. (New) The biomass particle fuel combustion system of claim 22, wherein the electrode rod is coupled to a
24. (New) The biomass particle fuel combustion system of claim 22, further comprising:a power supply coupled to the electrode rod, wherein the power supply is other than a standard commercial power supply providing 110V/120V or 220V/240V (para. 0046).
25. (New) The biomass particle fuel combustion system of claim 22, further comprising: an igniter coupled to the (see previous claims).
26. (New) The biomass particle fuel combustion system of claim 25, wherein the igniter is a manual igniter (see previous claims).
Traeger teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly recite the igniter including a high voltage source and creates a spark.
Chaudhry, in the same or related field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to provide a spark igniter 10 with a high voltage source (para. 0008).
Chaudhry teaches that such an arrangement provides for water resistant igniter (Title). Such an arrangement is extremely beneficial for outdoor grills and heater exposed to the elements.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention incorporate the igniter as taught by Chaudhry into the invention disclosed by Traeger, so as to provide for rainy days.
Claims 13, 14, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traeger (US 2017/0176018) in view of Chaudhry (US 2014/0021852), which combination teaches substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, the combination fails to specifically recite the claimed igniter type.
Official Notice is given that piezoelectric and pulse igniters are old and well known in the art.
Such an arrangement has the clear and obvious benefit of providing for manufacturing considerations, such as cost and availability.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed igniter type into the invention taught by Traeger and Chaudhry, so as to provide for manufacturing considerations.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with regard to the rejected claims have been considered, but are not deemed fully persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (applicant asserts that the word electrode is never addressed in reference to Traeger, but the rejection is based on that “ it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention incorporate the igniter as taught by Chaudhry into the invention disclosed by Traeger”), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that “the Office Action acknowledges that Traeger does not include an igniter configured to cause an electrode rod to generate arc sparks. In view of this deficiency, the Office Action turns to Chaudhry and contends Chaudhry discloses a spark igniter 10 and that it would be obvious to incorporate the igniter into Trager. But even if combined, the igniter of Chaudhry would not cause the resistive heating element of Traeger to generate arc sparks to ignite biomass particles in the biomass particle fuel combustion area. And there is no reasonable basis to somehow completely redesign Treager with the igniter of Chaudhry, designed to spark gas flowing to a burner, to arrive at the features of claim 1.”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner’s assertion of Official Notice is taken to be admitted prior art in view of applicants’ non-traversal of the assertion. MPEP 2144.03. The examiner appreciates applicants’ waiver and efforts to expedite prosecution of the instant invention by avoiding unnecessary deliberations of well known aspects of the art.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
October 6, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
