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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1 at line 7, the claim recites “of core”. The Examiner believes this should be “of a core”. At line 9, the claim recites “a secondary air inlet”, however, no “first air inlet” is recited. At line 10, the claim recites “a secondary air intake”, however, no “first air intake” is recited. At line 9, the claim recites “the main torch”, for which there is no antecedent basis. Claim 4 recites “aa volatile”. This should be “a volatile”. Appropriate correction is required. Based on their dependence on claim 1, claims 2, 3, and 5-9 are also objected to.
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, 2, 4-6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 5912192 A) in view of Ahern (US 5992354 A) and Ho (US 20150315508 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method (FIG. 1B, the method of manufacturing and operating the displayed assembly) for smokelessly (column 2, lines 7 and 8, “ There is no unpleasant odor, no toxic gas, and substantially no smoke when it is burned.”) combusting coals (FIG. 1B, the coals that make up barbecue briquette 20b), comprising stacking (manufacturing the assembly of FIG. 1B necessarily involves laying each of the layers on top of one another) an ignition agent layer (FIG. 1B, fire igniting layer 26), a pilot coal (FIG. 1B, fire-catching coal 24) and a lower coal (FIG. 1B, body layer 22) from above to bottom (FIG. 1B, the layers are stacked from top to bottom), igniting the ignition agent layer, and burning downwardly (column 1, lines 59-61, “The present invention provides a combustible article that is readily and quickly ignited, and then burns from top to bottom”); wherein the ignition agent layer is selected from an ignition paste or an ignition cake alone (FIG. 1B, the fire igniting layer 26 is a cake (i.e., a 3D solid)), or in combination with a straw charcoal grille.
Kim fails to teach that the layers are stacked in a stove; wherein the ignition paste or the ignition cake comprises an alcohol mixture having a carbon atom number of 2-9; wherein a large combustion chamber (7) is formed in the top part of core (2)with the aid of a gathering fire plate (6); wherein a secondary air inlet opening(4) is provided in the stove in order to supply the main torch in the large combustion chamber (7) with a secondary air intake to supplement the combustion.
However, Ahern teaches that the ignition paste or the ignition cake comprises an alcohol mixture having a carbon atom number of 2-9 (appendix B, a number of alcohol types may be used in the fuel mixture).
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 Kim by making it so the ignition layer contains ethyl additives, as taught by Ahern, 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 Kim with these aforementioned teachings of Ahern with the motivation of improving the burning qualities of the layer.
Ahern fails to teach that the layers are stacked in a stove; wherein a large combustion chamber is formed in the top part of core with the aid of a gathering fire plate; wherein a secondary air inlet opening is provided in the stove in order to supply the main torch in the large combustion chamber with a secondary air intake to supplement the combustion.
However, Ho teaches that the layers are stacked in a stove (FIG. 5, the coals are stacked within an assembly for providing heat); wherein a large combustion chamber (FIG. 4, the space within the first chimney 1 in which the coals burn) is formed in the top part of core (FIG. 4, the displayed assembly) with the aid of a gathering fire plate (FIG. 4, the second chimney 2); wherein a secondary air inlet opening (FIG. 2, holes 24) is provided in the stove in order to supply the main torch (FIG. 5, the flame producing assembly created when the coals are lit) in the large combustion chamber with a secondary air intake (FIG. 1, ventilation openings 4) to supplement the combustion.
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 Kim by making it so the layers of Kim are disposed in a heating chimney, as taught by Ho, 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 Kim with these aforementioned teachings of Ho with the motivation of controlling the burn and employing the layers for a particular use.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim, Ahern, and Ho teaches that the straw charcoal grille is prepared from complete carbonized product of straw or other agricultural and forestry wastes, potassium water glass, and cooked lime powder (in claim 1, the straw charcoal grille is one of several options, which, in the rejection above, the Examiner did not choose. Therefore no rejection is necessary for claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim, Ahern, and Ho fails to teach that the fuel used for the pilot coal has a volatile content of 30-50%, while the fuel used for the lower coal has a a volatile content of 20-40%.
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 fuel used for the pilot coal have a volatile content of 30-50%, while the fuel used for the lower coal have a volatile content of 20-40%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Kim, abstract, the fire-catching layer and body layer have differing percentages of non-carbonized, volatile ingredients), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that percentage of volatile compounds in a coal brick is a result effective variable because it affects the quality, duration, and character of the burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fuel used for the pilot coal have a volatile content of 30-50%, while the fuel used for the lower coal have a volatile content of 20-40%, 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)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim, Ahern, and Ho fails to teach that the formulation of the ignition paste is: isopropyl alcohol 46 %, ethanol 20 %, ethylene glycol 5 %, calcium oleate 3 %, magnesium oleate 1%, calcium stearate 3 %, magnesium stearate 1 %, and water 21 %.
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 fuel used for the pilot coal out of isopropyl alcohol 46 %, ethanol 20 %, ethylene glycol 5 %, calcium oleate 3 %, magnesium oleate 1%, calcium stearate 3 %, magnesium stearate 1 %, and water 21 %, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Ahern, appendix B, the fuel may include any of the compounds listed, which are included in varying percentages in different embodiments), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that percentage of compounds in a coal brick is a result effective variable because it affects the quality, duration, and character of the burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fuel used for the pilot coal out of isopropyl alcohol 46 %, ethanol 20 %, ethylene glycol 5 %, calcium oleate 3 %, magnesium oleate 1%, calcium stearate 3 %, magnesium stearate 1 %, and water 21 %, 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)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim, Ahern, and Ho fails to teach that the formulation of the ignition cake is: isopropyl alcohol 46%, ethanol 20%, ethylene glycol 5%, water 20%, sodium stearate 5%, magnesium stearate 3%, and slaked lime 1%.
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 fuel used for the pilot coal out of isopropyl alcohol 46%, ethanol 20%, ethylene glycol 5%, water 20%, sodium stearate 5%, magnesium stearate 3%, and slaked lime 1%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Ahern, appendix B, the fuel may include any of the compounds listed, which are included in varying percentages in different embodiments), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that percentage of compounds in a coal brick is a result effective variable because it affects the quality, duration, and character of the burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fuel used for the pilot coal out of isopropyl alcohol 46%, ethanol 20%, ethylene glycol 5%, water 20%, sodium stearate 5%, magnesium stearate 3%, and slaked lime 1%, 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)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim, Ahern, and Ho teaches that the pilot coal and the lower coal have a ventilation hole of the inner ring (Kim, FIG. 1B, the inner air hole 30) and a ventilation hole of the outer ring (Kim, FIG. 1B, the outer air holes 30), and the diameter of the ventilation hole of the inner ring is larger than that of the ventilation hole of the outer ring (FIG. 1B, the diameter of the inner air hole 30 is larger than the outer air holes 30).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kim, Ahern, and Ho teaches that the number of the straw charcoal grille is 1, the number of the ignition paste or the ignition cake is 1, and the number of the lower coal is 1-3 (in claim 1, the straw charcoal grille is one of several options, which, in the rejection above, the Examiner did not choose. Therefore no rejection is necessary for claim 10).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Ahern, and Ho as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, and 10 above, and further in view of Wiley (US 8945247 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim, Ahern, and Ho fails to teach that the pilot coal and the lower coal, a pigment iron oxide red is used as the catalyst for water gasification reaction and combustion reaction.
However, Wiley teaches that the pilot coal and the lower coal, a pigment iron oxide red is used as the catalyst for water gasification reaction and combustion reaction (col. 11, ll. 30-32, “As noted, in some embodiments fly ash contains iron oxide, calcium oxide, and titanium oxide, all of which are combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis enhancing catalysts. ”).
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 Kim by making it so the layers of Kim include iron oxide, as taught by Wiley, 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 Kim with these aforementioned teachings of Wiley with the motivation of hastening ignition by using iron oxide as a catalyst.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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 7 is allowable because the Examiner was unable to find a reference teaching a coal brick made out of all the listed elements of claim 7. Many of the individual elements of claim 7 could be found in other references, but the Examiner was unable to determine a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine such references.
Claim 8 is allowable because the Examiner was unable to find a reference teaching a coal brick made out of all the listed elements of claim 7. Many of the individual elements of claim 7 could be found in other references, but the Examiner was unable to determine a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine such references.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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
Prosecution Insights