Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/851,581

WEED BURNER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 26, 2024
Priority
Apr 14, 2022 — CN 202210414089.0 +2 more
Examiner
SHIRSAT, VIVEK K
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
BATAVIA B.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
828 granted / 1117 resolved
+14.1% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1142
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1117 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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, 6-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et. al (US 6,455,813 B1) in view of Pehkonen et. al (US 2020/0187311 A1). With respect to claim 1 Sakamoto discloses a weed burner1, comprising a control arm [reference character 10], a burner tip [reference character 1], a housing [reference character 11], and a heater [within housing 11, see column 5 lines 29-44] , the burner tip being connected to the control arm [see Fig. 6], the control arm being movably connected to the housing [see Fig. 6], wherein; the heater is secured to the housing [see column 5 lines 29-44], the burner tip comprises a magnetizer [copper, see column 2 lines 38-52] that is heated; the burner tip has a heating position where the magnetizer is located in the heater [tip 1 inserted into 12] to perform heating and an operating position [shown in Fig. 6] where the magnetizer is located outside the heater to perform weed burning2. Sakamoto does not disclose that the heater comprises an electromagnetic coil or that the magnetizer is electromagnetically heated. Pehkonen discloses an induction heated tool heating system that includes an electromagnetic coil [reference character 2] where a magnetizer (the tool) [reference character 7] is inserted into the coil in order to be inductively heated [paragraph 0076]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the heater taught by Sakamoto by replacing the resistance heater with an inductive heater as taught by Pehkonen in order to heat the burner tip without contact between the burner tip and the heating element. With respect to claim 2 the combination of Sakamoto and Pehkonen disclose that the housing comprises a jacket [see annotated Fig. below] sleeved over an outer periphery of the burner tip, a front end of the jacket being formed with a through hole [reference character 12] for the burner tip to pass through, the electromagnetic coil being secured in the jacket [in combination with Pehkonen]. With respect to claim 3 the combination of Sakamoto and Pehkonen disclose that the jacket is an insulation jacket [see aluminum nitride in column 5 lines 35-37 and the Abstract, which is an electrical insulator isolating the tool from the heating element]. PNG media_image1.png 289 486 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 6 the combination of Sakamoto and Pehkonen disclose that a front end of the housing is provided with a stand [see annotated Fig. below] configurable to abut against the ground to retain the housing, the control arm being movable relative to the housing [moved in and out of the housing] to allow for the burner tip to access the operating position. PNG media_image2.png 285 492 media_image2.png Greyscale With respect to claim 7 the combination of Sakamoto and Pehkonen disclose that the burner tip is formed by the magnetizer [see column 2 lines 38-52 of Sakamoto]. With respect to claim 10 the combination of Sakamoto and Pehkonen disclose that the housing is provided with a circuit board [see Fig. 5] configured to control operation of the electromagnetic coil; and/or, the housing is provided with a battery [column 5 lines 12-14] which supplies power to the electromagnetic coil. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5 and 8-9 are 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM. 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. /VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 1 Though not explicitly disclosed by Sakamoto a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the burner tip could be heated and used to burn weeds. 2 See footnote 1.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 26, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746420
FLAME ARRESTER HAVING DEFORMATION UNIT ASSEMBLY
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12742545
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MIXING FLUIDS
3y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12742548
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED FURNACE INDUCER SENSOR OUTPUT VERIFICATION
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12745365
Server System Fan System
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12729850
GAS BURNER ASSEMBLY FOR A COOKTOP APPLIANCE
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.1%)
2y 11m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1117 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month