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
This Final Office action is based on the 18/908039 application originally filed October 07, 2024.
Amended claims 1-16, filed September 17, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a NEW MATTER rejection. In newly amended claim 1, applicant claimed “a flat down burning” and newly amended claims 10 and 11, applicants claimed “a curved surface”. Applicant did not state in their remarks where this claim language could be found. Additionally, the specification does not describe the newly submitted limitations. Specifically the present speciation only discloses “a flat surface” (see paragraph 005 of the current specification). The current claims should be canceled or amended in light of the current specification.
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) 1-3 and 6-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hodsdon et al. (US 2020/0362257) hereinafter “Hodsdon”.
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 6-16
Hodsdon discloses in paragraph 0002, a novel type of combustible log torch which can be ignited to provide heat for warmth or cooking, and light for illumination. It is convenient and safe to use and provides optimal characteristics of quickly providing a bonfire without the need for a fireplace or a fire pit. The fire produced by the combustible log is also optimal for safely and conveniently cooking food items thereon.
Hodsdon discloses in paragraph 0011, the combustible log torches are made with wood particles, such as wood sawdust, wood shavings, wood dust, wood chips, and mixtures thereof. The combustible log torches can optionally include lignin. In any case, renewable materials which are byproducts from sawmills and paper plants are utilized in manufacturing the combustible log torches. There is a long felt need for value added uses for wood particles and lignin which is provided by their use in the combustible log torches. The combustible log torches are also made by an efficient process that does not typically require any cutting or machining. In other words, the combustible log torches of this invention can be manufactured consistently in an efficient manner without the need for labor intensive procedures.
Hodsdon discloses in paragraph 0013, a combustible log torch having a top end, a bottom end, a circumferential peripheral side, at least one vertical hole which extend through the entire length of the combustible log torch from the bottom end to the top end, and at least one vent which extend through the circumferential peripheral side of the torch longitudinally from the vertical cavity; said top end, said bottom end, and said circumferential peripheral side defining an essentially cylindrical log shaped structure which constitutes the peripheral surfaces of the combustible log torch.
Hodsdon discloses in paragraph 0078 and FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the combustible log torch 1 has a top end 2 with 3 cavities (updraft chambers) 3 which extend through the entire length of the combustible log torch 1 from top to bottom. As shown in FIG. 2 the combustible log torch 1 also has a circumferential peripheral side 4. As shown in FIG. 3, FIG. 4, and FIG. 5 the combustible log torch 1 also has vents 5 on its bottom end 6 which extend through the circumferential peripheral side 4 of the torch 1 longitudinally from each of the vertical cavities 3. The combustible log torch 1 can also optionally have vents which are situated on the top end 2 thereof (not shown in the drawings). To attain more consistent and uniform burning of the combustible log torch 1 it is preferred for the vents to be angled upwardly from the circumferential peripheral side of the combustible log torch to each of the vertical cavities.
Hodsdon discloses in paragraph 0079, the combustible log torches will typically be of a cylindrical shape or a shape which is essentially cylindrical and which simulates natural wood logs. However, the combustible log torches can optionally be of other shapes if desired for other aesthetic effects or for particular purposes, for instance the log torches can be oval shaped, pumpkin shaped, or in the configuration of a polygon having virtually any number of sides of the same or different lengths. For example, the log torch can a square, pentagon, hexagon, heptagon, or octagon shaped profile. A log torch having a square profile is depicted in FIGS. 6-8. In this embodiment of the invention the log torch 10 has a top end 11, a bottom end 12, four flat sides 13, 14, 15, and 16, and only one vertical cavity 17 which extends vertically through the entire length of the combustible log torch. In this embodiment the vertical cavity 17 is of a square shape.
Hodson discloses in paragraph 0081, the cavities can be of other desired shapes, such as ovals, squares (which includes orthogonal sides), pentagons, hexagons, heptagons, octagons, and the like. In any case the cavities will normally be arranged on the top end and the bottom end of the torch log in a circular pattern with the cavities being centered about 40% to about 65% of the distance from the center of the log to its circumferential peripheral side. In most cases the cavities will be centered about 45% to about 60% of the distance from the center of the log to its circumferential peripheral side.
Hodsdon discloses in paragraph 0082, the vertical cavities can optionally include an igniter to facilitate catching the combustible log torch on fire. The igniter can be any material that will readily ignite and catch the log torch on fire. For instance, the igniter can be a wick, a fuse or any other suitable material which can optionally be impregnated with a natural flammable substance, such as a paraffin, a wax, or the like. In one preferred embodiment the igniter is simply a piece of cotton which is pushed firmly into one or more of the vertical cavities of the torch log.
Hodson further discloses in paragraph 0092, the wood particle composition can also include hemp from Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and/or Cannabis ruderalis plants. It may be desirable to utilized hemp fibers from plants which have been bred to produce minimal levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to comply with applicable laws. In any case, the level of hemp fiber included in the wood particle composition will depend upon the type of wood particles utilized as well as the specific nature of the food grade binder and will be adjusted to attain desired flame characteristics and burn time (rate of burn). In such wood particle compositions, the hemp will typically be present in the wood particle composition at a level of 5 weight percent to 40 weight percent, based upon the total solids weight of the wood particle composition. The hemp will more typically be added to the wood particle composition at a level which is within the range 10 weight percent to 30 weight percent, based upon the total solids weight of the wood particle composition. The hemp will frequently be added to the wood particle composition at a level which is within the range of 15 weight percent to 25 weight percent, based upon the total solids weight of the wood particle composition.
Hodsdon discloses in paragraph 0093, the wood particle composition can also include a triglyceride oil to improve the manner in which the combustible log torch burns. Such triglyceride oils typically vegetable oils which are esters that are from glycerol and three fatty acids. Some representative examples of triglyceride oils that can be used include almond oil, canola oil, coconut oil, corn oil, cotton seed oil, flax seed oil, grape seed oil, olive oil, palm oil, peanut oil, safflower oil, sesame oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil, walnut oil, and mixtures thereof. In many cases it is preferred to employ soybean oil or corn oil as the triglyceride oil. In any case, the level of triglyceride oils included in the wood particle composition will depend upon the type of wood particles utilized as well as the specific nature of the food grade binder and will be adjusted to attain desired flame characteristics and burn time (rate of burn). In such wood particle compositions, the triglyceride oil will typically be present in the wood particle composition at a level of 1 weight percent to 35 weight percent, based upon the total solids weight of the wood particle composition. The triglyceride oil will more typically be added to the wood particle composition at a level which is within the range 5 weight percent to 20 weight percent, based upon the total solids weight of the wood particle composition. The triglyceride oil will frequently be added to the wood particle composition at a level which is within the range of 6 weight percent to 15 weight percent or at a level which is within the range of 8 weight percent to 12 weight percent, based upon the total solids weight of the wood particle composition. The triglyceride oil can be mixing into the wood particle composition prior to compaction or it can be applied to the surface of a combustible log torch and allowed to be absorbed into the matrix of the wood particle composition of the log torch. It is typically preferred to apply the triglyceride oil to the surface of the log torch and allow it to be absorbed therein because this procedure helps to prevent the triglyceride oil from becoming rancid and accordingly allows for the log torch to be stored over a longer period before being burnt. A wide variety of methods can be used for applying the triglyceride oil to the surface of the log torch. For instance, the triglyceride oil can be sprayed onto the surface of the log torch or the log torch can be dipped into the triglyceride oil. The triglyceride oil can also be applied to the surface of the log torch with brushes or rollers. In any case, to attain better burn characteristics it is preferred to apply the triglyceride oil to the top (upper part) of the log torch.
PNG
media_image1.png
795
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
568
926
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
750
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodsdon et al. (US 2020/0362257) hereinafter “Hodsdon” in view of Simmons et al. (US 4,102,653) hereinafter “Simmons”.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5
Hodsdon discloses the firelog briquette of independent claim 1 of the present invention but fails to further disclose the log is coated with a fire retardant.
However, it is known in the art to coat a wood fuel briquette with a fire retardant, as taught by Simmons.
Simmons discloses in column 2 lines 50-65, an aromatic wood product for use in barbecuing foods. Broadly, the product is directed toward aromatic wood products treated to inhibit combustion thereof, preventing flaming and controlling the emission rate of the aromatic smoke and vapors at temperatures sufficient to produce cooking heat. These articles are adapted for use in association with conventional fuels such as nonaromatic woods, charcoal, or gas. The resulting combustion process is such as to generate relatively uniform amounts of non-flaming smoke and vapor during the entire cooking process and their lives match or exceed the life of the fuel for the total cooking time of the food.
Simmons further discloses in column 3 lines 14-40, the process may be applied to either naturally occurring sections of aromatic wood, i.e., chunks, blocks, small logs and the like, or to comminuted aromatic woods molded into briquettes. The treatment of the naturally occurring sections involves their impregnation with a class of combustion retarding chemicals which are not quickly dissipated by the combustion process. The combustion retarding additives may act either physically or chemically upon the combustion process. They may cause changes in porosity, thereby changing the available surface area for combustion activity. Some may melt or fuse at combustion temperatures coating the combustion surfaces of the wood and decreasing combustion by reducing the rate of oxygen transport to the surface.
Simmons discloses in column 3 lines 58-65, the degree of impregnation of the wood with these chemicals will depend upon the natural characteristics of the wood and the ultimate combustion rate desired, but typically the flame retardant chemicals may vary between 40% by weight of the final product and 1% by weight. The percentage will be chosen to produce the desired combustion inhibiting effect described in the particular wood type utilized.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the flame retardant of Simmons to the fire log briquette of Hodsdon. The motivation to do so is to use a flame retardant as a coating over wood products for use in barbecuing foods in order to control the combustion rate and the emission rate of aromatic smoke and vapors at temperatures sufficient to produce cooking heat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “None of the references of record are arranged with an array of holes parallel with a flat orientation and orthogonal to a flat down burning of the briquette. Indeed, Hodson clearly states vertical holes which facilitate a quick and thorough burn of the log or briquette. The other three references do not express or reasonably teach a horizontal array of holes configured to create a slow burning of the briquette with sidestream gases. Also, none of the references recite or reasonably suggest alone or in combination an array of holes from a curved side of the log/briquette to another curved side of the log/briquette. Furthermore, none of the references of record recite or reasonably teach or suggest a smolder burning from the array of holes orthogonal to the burning and parallel to a flat portion of the geometry of the briquette.”
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. As stated in the above rejection, Hodsdon discloses in paragraph 0079, the combustible log torches will typically be of a cylindrical shape or a shape which is essentially cylindrical and which simulates natural wood logs. However, the combustible log torches can optionally be of other shapes if desired for other aesthetic effects or for particular purposes, for instance the log torches can be oval shaped, pumpkin shaped, or in the configuration of a polygon having virtually any number of sides of the same or different lengths. For example, the log torch can a square, pentagon, hexagon, heptagon, or octagon shaped profile. A log torch having a square profile is depicted in FIGS. 6-8. In this embodiment of the invention the log torch 10 has a top end 11, a bottom end 12, four flat sides 13, 14, 15, and 16, and only one vertical cavity 17 which extends vertically through the entire length of the combustible log torch. Hodson discloses in paragraph 0081, the cavities can be of other desired shapes, such as ovals, squares (which includes orthogonal sides), pentagons, hexagons, heptagons, octagons, and the like. Therefore, Hodsdon specifically teaches the claimed invention due to the square log having square cavities, meets the claimed flat surface briquette with holes/cavities/vents parallel to the flat surface with orthogonal angles. Therefore, it is maintained Hodsdon has met the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Collis (CA 3086848 A1) discloses in the abstract, compositions comprising wood pellets and cannabis and methods of making wood pellet compositions including cannabis are described. The wood pellets include wood particles and cannabis particles. The method includes drying, milling, mixing and heating wood particles and cannabis with a lubricant and forming the mixture into pellets using a pelleting die.
Peterson et al. (US 2004/0244281) discloses in the abstract, an artificial firelog and firestarter chip producing apparatus comprising a cutting assembly, a compression conveyor auger assembly and a die. The apparatus converts standard waxed corrugated cardboard boxes into artificial firelogs by first slicing cardboard sheets into cardboard strips, then chopping the cardboard strips into cardboard segments in the cutting assembly.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771