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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (US 2019/0117017), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
West discloses:
17. (Original) A charcoal-containing fuel block 200 comprising: a charcoal layer 210, a flavor layer 230, and a shape (inherent), when viewed along a center axis extending through and perpendicular to the charcoal layer and the flavor layer (fig. 2,4),
18. (Original) The charcoal-containing fuel block of claim 17,
19. (Original) The charcoal-containing fuel block of claim 17, further comprising an ignition coating 240 around the charcoal layer and the flavor layer (fig. 2; para. 0019 – “combustible packaging” satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “ignition coating”).
Nevertheless, West fails to specifically recite the claimed shaped.
The claimed shape/size/location/orientation is an obvious modification based on design choice, and depends on spatial considerations such as availability of space and arrangement of other components.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed shape into the invention disclosed by West, so as to provide for spatial considerations.
In addition, Official Notice is given that providing a notch, cutout or chamfer is old and well known in the art.
Such an arrangement has the clear and obvious benefit of providing for proper fit and alignment of components.
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 cutout/chamfer into the invention disclosed by West, so as to provide for proper fit and alignment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
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
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.
September 25, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
