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
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17, at line 1, recites “the collar configured.” The Examiner believes this should be “the collar is configured.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 7-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Begg (US 20130084533 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Begg teaches a portable fireplace (FIG. 1, assembly 10) comprising: a receptacle (FIG. 8, the assembly of enclosure 80 and fuel chamber 20) having a base (FIG. 8, the bottom sides of the enclosure 80 and the fuel chamber 20) and a wall (FIG. 8, the sides of the enclosure 80 and the fuel chamber 20), the wall extending upward from the base (FIG. 8, the sides of the fuel chamber 20 and the enclosure 80 extend upwardly from the lower sides), wherein an interior side of the wall (FIG. 8, the interior surfaces of the walls of the fuel chamber 20) and an interior side of the base (FIG. 8, the interior surfaces of the bottom wall of the fuel chamber 20) define a burn chamber (FIG. 8, the interior volume of the fuel chamber 20) open to an environment external to the receptacle (FIG. 1, the fuel chamber 20, when burning, is open to the exterior atmosphere); and a refractory liner (FIG. 8, filler 60, which contains fuel, and is able to withstand high temperatures, which is Merriam-Webster’s definition of “refractory” (definition 3) (“Refractory.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refractory. Accessed 28 Aug. 2026.)) positioned within the burn chamber (FIG. 8, the filler 60 sits within the fuel chamber 20), the refractory liner engaging the interior side of the base and the interior side of the wall (FIG. 8, the filler 60 sits within the fuel chamber 20 and touches its walls), and the refractory liner configured to receive and absorb at least a portion of a flammable substance (paragraph 24, “The device has a portable hollow housing defining a fuel chamber filled with ceramic fiber filler and permeated with alcohol.”).
Regarding claim 2, Begg teaches that the refractory liner engages the interior side of the base (FIG. 8, the filler 60 sits within the fuel chamber 20 and touches its walls) and at least a portion of the interior side of the wall (FIG. 8, the filler 60 sits within the fuel chamber 20 and touches its walls).
Regarding claim 4, Begg teaches that the refractory liner has a refractory exterior (FIG. 7, the surfaces of the filler 60 abutting the cage side walls 42) side opposite a refractory interior side (FIG. 7, the surfaces of the filler 60 abutting the side walls 16), the refractory exterior side of the refractory liner engaging the interior side of the wall (FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Begg teaches that the flammable material comprises at least one of ethanol (paragraph 41, the filler 60 is soaked with ethanol) or isopropyl alcohol, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Begg teaches that the receptacle comprises at least one of ceramic, high-temperature refractory metal, heat-resistant stone, granite, marble, limestone, sandstone, slate, quartz, ceramic, concrete, ceramic (paragraph 44, the enclosure 80 is made of ceramic), or a castable refractory material, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Begg teaches that the receptacle comprises a generally spherical geometry, a generally cylindrical geometry, or a generally polyhedral geometry (FIG. 8, the enclosure 80 is polyhedral in shape).
Regarding claim 10, Begg teaches that the interior side of the wall has an exterior side of the wall opposite thereto (FIG. 8, the exterior walls of the enclosure 80).
Regarding claim 11, Begg teaches that the exterior side of the wall and the interior side of the wall co-extend upward from the base, such that the exterior side of the wall and the interior side of the wall form an upper portion of the receptacle (FIG. 8, the interior and exterior walls of the enclosure 80 extend upward from the bottom and form a top part of the assembly 10 (i.e., the groove 90 of FIG. 2 and the top surface of the enclosure 80)), the upper portion defining an opening to the burn chamber (FIG. 1, open portion 32).
Regarding claim 12, Begg teaches that a surface of the upper portion of the receptacle is generally perpendicular to a plane defined by the interior side of the wall and a plane defined by the exterior side of the wall (FIG. 2, the groove 90 is perpendicular to the vertical walls of the assembly).
Regarding claim 13, Begg teaches a collar (FIG. 1, flange 24) positioned atop the upper portion of the receptacle (FIGS. 1 and 2, the flange 24 lies atop the groove 90), the collar having geometrical dimensions that decrease a size of the opening to the burn chamber, so as to limit exposure of the burn chamber to the environment external to the receptacle (FIG. 1, the flange 24 decreases the size of the open enclosure 80 to the opening 32).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Begg teaches a collar (FIG. 1, flange 24) positioned adjacent to the upper portion of the receptacle (FIGS. 1 and 2, the flange 24 lies adjacent to the top surface of the enclosure 80), the collar having geometrical dimensions that decrease a size of the opening to the burn chamber, so as to limit exposure of the burn chamber to the environment external to the receptacle (FIG. 1, the flange 24 decreases the size of the open enclosure 80 to the opening 32).
Regarding claim 15, Begg teaches an inner surface of the upper portion of the receptacle defines the opening to the burn chamber (FIG. 1, the surface between the top surface of the enclosure 80 and the groove 90); and at least a portion of the collar contacts the inner surface of the upper portion of the receptacle (FIG. 1, the flange 24 contacts the surface between the top surface of the enclosure 80 and the groove 90).
Regarding claim 16, Begg teaches that the collar is removably coupleable to the upper portion of the receptacle (FIG. 3, the flange 24 may removable rest in the groove 90, held in place).
Regarding claim 18, Begg teaches that the environment external to the receptacle comprise at least one of oxygen (O2) (the external environment is air, which contains O2), ammonia (NH3), butane (C4H10), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), or propane (C3H8), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 19, Begg teaches a portable fireplace (FIG. 1, assembly 10) comprising: a receptacle (FIG. 8, the assembly of enclosure 80 and fuel chamber 20) having a base (FIG. 8, the bottom sides of the enclosure 80 and the fuel chamber 20) and wall (FIG. 8, the sides of the enclosure 80 and the fuel chamber 20), wherein the wall has a wall interior side (FIG. 8, the interior surfaces of the walls of the fuel chamber 20) opposite from a wall exterior side (FIG. 8, the exterior surfaces of the walls of the enclosure 80), and the base has a base interior side (FIG. 8, the interior surfaces of the bottom wall of the fuel chamber 20) opposite from a base exterior side (FIG. 8, the exterior surfaces of the base wall of the enclosure 80); the wall extending upward from the base (FIG. 8, the sides of the enclosure 80 and the fuel chamber 20), such that the wall exterior side and the wall interior side form an upper portion of the receptacle (FIG. 8, the interior and exterior walls of the enclosure 80 extend upward from the bottom and form a top part of the assembly 10 (i.e., the groove 90 of FIG. 2 and the top surface of the enclosure 80)), and the wall interior side and the base interior side define a burn chamber (FIG. 8, the interior volume of the fuel chamber 20); and a refractory liner (FIG. 8, filler 60, which contains fuel, and is able to withstand high temperatures, which is Merriam-Webster’s definition of “refractory” (definition 3) (“Refractory.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refractory. Accessed 28 Aug. 2026.)) positioned within the burn chamber, the refractory liner engaging the base interior side and the wall interior side (FIG. 8, the filler 60 sits within the fuel chamber 20 and touches its walls), and the refractory liner configured to receive and absorb at least a portion of a flammable substance (paragraph 24, “The device has a portable hollow housing defining a fuel chamber filled with ceramic fiber filler and permeated with alcohol.”).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beggs as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-16, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Kimmel (US 9745542 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Begg fails to teach that the refractory liner comprises at least one of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or silicon oxide (SiO2), or a combination thereof.
However, Kimmel teaches that the refractory liner comprises at least one of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or silicon oxide (SiO2), or a combination thereof (col. 4, ll. 48-50, “In one embodiment, wick 504 is made from about 60% to about 90% Al2O3 and from about 10% to about 30% SiO2.”).
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 Begg by making the filler to be composed of Al2O3 and SiO2, as taught by Kimmel, 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 Begg with these aforementioned teachings of Kimmel with the motivation of employing a cheap and easily accessible material for the filler.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beggs as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-16, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Prada (US 11022318 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Begg teaches a…mesh (FIG. 7, baffle cage 34), the…mesh engaging the refractory interior side of the refractory liner (FIG. 7, the baffle cage 34 abuts the filler 60) and configured to limit a flammability of the flammable substance by minimizing an intake of oxygen (O2) (paragraphs 42 and 43, the oxygen mixes with the vapor through the baffle cage 34).
Begg fails to teach that the mesh is a ceramic-based mesh.
However, Prada teaches that the mesh is a ceramic-based mesh (col. 6, ll. 39-41, “In another aspect, the mesh substrate in any of the aforementioned embodiments is provided as a metal mesh or a ceramic mesh substrate.”).
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 Begg by making the baffle cage 34 ceramic, as taught by Prada, 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 Begg with these aforementioned teachings of Prada with the motivation of replacing the stainless steel cage of Begg (which is rust resistant, but can still oxidize) with a ceramic material that cannot oxidize.
Regarding claim 6, Begg teaches that the ceramic-based mesh comprises at least one of an alumina- or silica-based ceramic fiber (col. 14, ll. 42-43, “insulating layers of ultra-short-channel-length ceramic mesh comprising woven silica”), or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beggs as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-16, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Johnston (US 20200393136 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Begg teaches that the collar is configured to couple to the upper portion of the receptacle via an … fit between a substantially round outer edge of the collar and an inner surface of the upper portion of the receptacle (FIG. 3, the rounded corner edges of the flange 24 fits in the inner surface of the groove 90).
Begg fails to teach that the fit is an interference fit.
However, Johnston teaches that the fit is an interference fit (paragraph 28, “Continued movement of the panels relative to reach other causes head 176 to form an interference fit with flange 155”).
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 Begg by making it so the flange 24 fits into the groove 90 with an interference fit, as taught by Johnston, 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 Begg with these aforementioned teachings of Johnston with the motivation of keeping the flange 24 in place securely without necessitating tools to install it or take it out.
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