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 .
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.
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) 6, 8-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Todd [2809626].
With respect to claim 6, Todd discloses: A smudge pot, comprising: a pot (1) having an interior configured to hold a liquid fuel [col 2, line 6-9]; a pot lid (2) configured to cover the interior of the pot and contain the liquid fuel, the pot lid having a combustion hole (at 4) and a return hole (at 6) extending therethrough; a chimney (5) aligned with the combustion hole of the pot lid, the chimney extending up from the pot lid; and a return pipe (7) having a first end (at 10) positioned inside of the chimney, a second end (at 6) coupled with the pot lid at the return hole, and a pipe wall extending between the first end and the second end, the first end having a first opening aligned with a center of the return pipe and the second end having a second opening aligned with the center of the return pipe, wherein, when the liquid fuel is ignited, the return pipe is configured to cycle air within the chimney through the return pipe back down to the pot [see FIG 2, col 2, line 15-31].
Todd further discloses:
{cl. 8} The smudge pot of claim 6, wherein the pipe wall is parallel to the chimney adjacent to the second end [see FIG 2].
{cl. 9} The smudge pot of claim 6, wherein the second opening is aligned with the return hole of the pot lid [see FIG 2].
{cl. 11} The smudge pot of claim 6, wherein the inner diameter of the arc is greater than an outer diameter of the chimney [see FIG 2].
{cl. 12} The smudge pot of claim 6, wherein the return pipe is manufactured using a mandrel bending process [the return pipe is bent in a structurally identical manner as shown in the applicant’s drawings, however the “mandrel bending process” is an irrelevant limitation in an apparatus claim and holds no patentable weight, see MPEP 2113].
{cl. 13} The smudge pot of claim 6, wherein the pipe wall comprises an arc in a range of 160-200 degrees [see FIG 2].
PNG
media_image1.png
593
638
media_image1.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) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd [2809626], further in view of Georges [3744476] and Hilker [4582478].
With respect to claim 1, Todd discloses: A smudge pot, comprising: a pot (1) having an interior configured to hold a liquid fuel; a pot lid (2) configured to cover the interior of the pot and contain the liquid fuel, the pot lid having a combustion hole (at 4) and a return hole (at 6) extending therethrough; a chimney (5) aligned with the combustion hole of the pot lid, the chimney extending up from the pot lid; a hollow return pipe (7) having a first end (at 10) positioned inside of the chimney, a second end coupled with the pot lid at the return hole, and a pipe wall extending between the first end and the second end, the first end having a first opening aligned with a center of the return pipe and the second end having a second opening aligned with the center of the return pipe, wherein the pipe wall comprises an arc (10) in a range of 91-220 degrees adjacent to the first end, wherein the pipe wall is parallel to the chimney adjacent to the second end, wherein the second opening is aligned with the return hole of the pot lid, and wherein, when the liquid fuel is ignited, the return pipe is configured to cycle air within the chimney through the return pipe back down to the pot [see FIG 2, col 2, line 15-31]; and an access port (3) extending through the pot lid and having a sleeve extending down from the pot lid into the interior of the pot [see FIG 2, col 2, line 10-14].
Todd further shows:
{cl. 3} The smudge pot of claim 1, wherein the inner diameter of the arc is greater than an outer diameter of the chimney [see FIG 2].
{cl. 4} The smudge pot of claim 1, wherein the return pipe is manufactured using a mandrel bending process [the return pipe is bent in a structurally identical manner as shown in the applicant’s drawings, however the “mandrel bending process” is an irrelevant limitation in an apparatus claim and holds no patentable weight, see MPEP 2113].
{cl. 5} The smudge pot of claim 1, wherein the pipe wall comprises an arc in a range of 160-200 degrees [see FIG 2].
Todd however does not show the vents or the dipstick as further claimed.
Georges makes up for the venting deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 1, cont’d} the chimney extending up from the pot lid and having a plurality of vents (42, 44) extending through a sidewall of the chimney (22) [see FIG 1, col 3, line 35-col 4, line 2].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Todd with the teachings of Georges because Georges provides ventilation holes on the chimney in order to ensure complete combustion of the fuel.
Hiker makes up for the dipstick deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 1, cont’d} and a dipstick (24) configured to plug the access port (22) and extend down into the sleeve, wherein the dipstick is configured to indicate a depth of liquid fuel remaining in the pot [see FIG 2, col 4, line 29-33].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Todd with the teachings of Hiker because Hiker provides a dipstick that allows a user to assess the amount of fuel remaining in the fuel pot.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd [2809626], further in view of Georges [3744476].
With respect to claim 7, Todd discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the use of the vent holes.
Georges makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 7} The smudge pot of claim 6, wherein the chimney has a plurality of vents (42, 44) extending through a sidewall of the chimney (22) [see FIG 1, col 3, line 35-col 4, line 2].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Todd with the teachings of Georges because Georges provides ventilation holes on the chimney in order to ensure complete combustion of the fuel.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd [2809626], further in view of Hilker [4582478].
With respect to claim 14, Todd discloses: A smudge pot, comprising: a pot (1) having an interior configured to hold a liquid fuel; a pot lid (2) configured to cover the interior of the pot and contain the liquid fuel, the pot lid having a combustion hole (at 4) and a return hole (at 6) extending therethrough; a chimney (5) aligned with the combustion hole of the pot lid, the chimney extending up from the pot lid; a return pipe (7) having a first end (at 10) positioned inside of the chimney, a second end coupled with the pot lid at the return hole, and a pipe wall extending between the first end and the second end, wherein, when the liquid fuel is ignited, the return pipe is configured to cycle air within the chimney through the return pipe back down to the pot [col 2, line 15-31]; and an access port (3) extending through the pot lid and having a sleeve extending down from the pot lid toward a base of the pot [see FIG 2, col 2, line 10-14].
Todd further shows:
{cl. 15} The smudge pot of claim 14, wherein the first end has a first opening aligned with a center of the return pipe and the second end has a second opening aligned with the center of the return pipe [see FIG 1].
{cl. 16} The smudge pot of claim 14, wherein the pipe wall is parallel to the chimney adjacent to the second end [see FIG 2].
{cl. 18} The smudge pot of claim 14, wherein the inner diameter of the arc is greater than an outer diameter of the chimney [see FIG 2].
{cl. 19} The smudge pot of claim 14, wherein the return pipe is manufactured using a mandrel bending process [the return pipe is bent in a structurally identical manner as shown in the applicant’s drawings, however the “mandrel bending process” is an irrelevant limitation in an apparatus claim and holds no patentable weight, see MPEP 2113].
{cl. 20} The smudge pot of claim 14, wherein the pipe wall comprises an arc (at 10) in a range of 160-200 degrees [see FIG 2].
Todd does not show the use of the dipstick as claimed.
Hiker makes up for the dipstick deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 14, cont’d} and a dipstick (24) configured to plug the access port (22) and extend down into the sleeve, wherein the dipstick is configured to indicate a depth of liquid fuel remaining in the pot [see FIG 2, col 4, line 29-33].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Todd with the teachings of Hiker because Hiker provides a dipstick that allows a user to assess the amount of fuel remaining in the fuel pot.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd [2809626], in view of Georges [3744476] and Hilker [4582478], further in view of Christopherson [5144939].
With respect to claim 2, Todd discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the use of the heat shield.
Christopherson makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 2} The smudge pot of claim 1, further comprising a heat shield (24) positioned on a top of the chimney and configured to deflect heat passing through the chimney [see FIG 1, col 3, line 3-8].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Todd with the teachings of Christopherson because Christopherson provides a heat shield at a combustion chimney to evenly dissipate the heat.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd [2809626], further in view of Christopherson [5144939].
With respect to claim 10, Todd discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the use of the heat shield.
Christopherson makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 10} The smudge pot of claim 6, further comprising a heat shield (24) positioned on a top of the chimney and configured to deflect heat passing through the chimney [see FIG 1, col 3, line 3-8].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Todd with the teachings of Christopherson because Christopherson provides a heat shield at a combustion chimney to evenly dissipate the heat.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd [2809626], in view of Hilker [4582478], further in view of Christopherson [5144939].
With respect to claim 17, Todd discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the use of the heat shield.
Christopherson makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 17} The smudge pot of claim 14, further comprising a heat shield (24) positioned on a top of the chimney and configured to deflect heat passing through the chimney [see FIG 1, col 3, line 3-8].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Todd with the teachings of Christopherson because Christopherson provides a heat shield at a combustion chimney to evenly dissipate the heat.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights