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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 14 and 16-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the aforementioned claims set forth a series of physical structures/configurations that are well beyond that which is disclosed within the Van Schie reference (discussed in greater depth infra), which is the prior art closest to Applicants’ claimed invention, and there would be no obvious reason to modify Van Schie to the extent necessary to satisfy each of Applicants’ pertinent limitations.
With respect to claims 6-10, 14 and 16-18, the provision of a plurality of specialized elements within an electric fireplace assembly is well known, but providing the specific components and arrangements set forth within the aforementioned claims within Van Schie’s particular fireplace would interfere with the ability of the Van Schie fireplace’s ability to create the three-dimensional visual effect described within the reference.
In view of the foregoing, the modifications necessary to satisfy each of Applicants’ pertinent claim limitations would be likely to render the Van Schie assembly incapable of continuing to operate/behave in the particular manner set forth within the reference itself (given the particularly sensitive nature of such simulated optical electronic fireplace assemblies), which would be strongly indicative of an application of improper hindsight reasoning.
Claims 6-10, 14 and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Note that any change to the scope of the claimed invention related to the aforementioned claims may potentially affect the determinations/treatment of claims set forth supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim 1 recitation of “one or more dedicated video processors transmitting flame videos onto each of the video display surfaces” and the claim 11 recitation of “a video processor associated with each of the video display surfaces” are unclear, as it is unknown whether the invention requires each video display surface to have its own individual assigned video processor, or alternatively, multiple video display surfaces can receive their respective videos from one common video processor. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
The term “approximately” in claims 3 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for multiple limitations in the claims, including: i) claims 7-8 recite the limitation "the simulated logs".
The claims 7-8 recitations of “according to an input” are unclear, as it is unknown exactly what type of “input” is desired; and it is unknown exactly which factors and considerations are to be evaluated in relation to the recitation of “according to”. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
The term “generally” in claims 9-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The claim 15 recitation of “a desired image” is unclear, as it is unclear which person/entity/mechanism determines what image is “desired” or how such a “desired” determination is to be made. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
Claims 2, 4-6, 12, 14 and 16-18 are rejected as depending from rejected independent claims 1 and 11.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11-13 and 15 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0090751 to Van Schie et al. (“Van Schie”).
Regarding claim 1, Van Schie anticipates a layered (fig. 2b) simulated flame mechanism (e.g. first display device 20, second display device 30 and mirror 10, together, as shown in fig. 2a) for use in (fig. 2a) an electric (para. 132) fireplace (e.g. artificial fireplace 1, as shown in fig. 2a), the layered (fig. 2b) simulated flame mechanism (20, 30 and 10, together) comprising: i) two or more video display surfaces (e.g. first display device 20 and second display device 30; per para. 115, the respective display devices display videos of flames), spaced apart (fig. 2a), and oriented in layers relative to each other (fig. 2a) by one or more of (i) different elevations (fig. 2a), (ii) different orientations in a horizontal plane, or (iii) different orientations in a vertical plane; and ii) one or more dedicated video processors (e.g. digital storage device 63, as shown in fig. 3a) transmitting (para. 132) flame videos (e.g. first video 22 and second video 32, as shown in fig. 2b and discussed at para. 116 and 132) onto (para. 132) each of the video display surfaces (20 and 30), generating a simulated flame (para. 25) on (figs. 2a-b) each of the video display surfaces (20 and 30), iii) wherein the spacing and orientation (fig. 2a) of the two or more video display surfaces (20 and 30) relative to each other (fig. 2a) creates a three-dimensional flame appearance (para. 77 and 125).
Regarding claim 2, Van Schie anticipates the layered simulated flame mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein the video display surfaces (20 and 30) are oriented in a stepped configuration relative to each other (fig. 2a) at different elevations (fig. 2a) to create an appearance of flames of different heights (para. 22) at different depths (fig. 2a) within the fireplace (1).
Regarding claim 3, Van Schie anticipates the layered simulated flame mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one video display surface (30) is oriented approximately vertically (fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 4, Van Schie anticipates the layered simulated flame mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein each flame video display surface (20 and 30) has a dedicated video processor (63).
Regarding claim 5, Van Schie anticipates the layered simulated flame mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one video display surface (20 and 30) comprises electrochromic glass (per para. 61, glass may be used as desired), wherein the electric fireplace (1) includes a controller (62, as shown in fig. 3a), and wherein the controller (62) controls (fig. 3a) the one or more dedicated video processors (63) and the electrochromic glass (aforementioned glass of para. 61).
Regarding claim 11, Van Schie anticipates a layered (fig. 2b) simulated flame mechanism (e.g. first display device 20, second display device 30 and mirror 10, together, as shown in fig. 2a) for use in (fig. 2a) an electric (para. 132) fireplace (e.g. artificial fireplace 1, as shown in fig. 2a), the layered (fig. 2b) simulated flame mechanism (20, 30 and 10, together) comprising: i) a first, a second, and a third video display surface (e.g. first display device 20, mirror 10, and second display device 30, respectively; per para. 115, the respective display devices display videos of flames), the video display surfaces (20, 10 and 30, respectively) spaced apart from one another (fig. 2a) with the second video display surface (10) positioned between (fig. 2a) the first and the third video display surfaces (20 and 30, respectively), the first, second, and third video display surfaces (20, 10 and 30, respectively) oriented in a stepped configuration (fig. 2a) with the first video display surface (20) at a first elevation (e.g. at a 0 degree angle to the horizon, as shown in fig. 2a), the second video display surface (10) at a second elevation (e.g. at a 45 degree angle to the horizon, as shown in fig. 2a), and the third video display surface (30) at a third elevation (e.g. at a 90 degree angle to the horizon, as shown in fig. 2a), the second elevation (aforementioned 45 degree angle) being greater than (fig. 2a) the first elevation (aforementioned 0 degree angle) and the third elevation (aforementioned 90 degree angle) being greater than (fig 2a) the second elevation (aforementioned 45 degree angle); and ii) a video processor (e.g. digital storage device 63, as shown in fig. 3a) associated with (para. 132) each of the video display surfaces (20, 10 and 30, respectively), each video processor (63) transmitting (e.g. via controller 62, per para. 132) light (e.g. first light beam 21 and second light beam 31, as shown in fig. 2b and discussed at para. 141) onto (para. 132) its respective video display surface (20 and 30) to generate an image of a simulated flame (fig. 2b) on the respective video display surface (20 and 30); iii) wherein the spacing apart (fig. 2a) of the video display surfaces (20, 10 and 30) and their stepped configuration (fig. 2a) creates a three-dimensional flame appearance (para. 77 and 125) when light (21 and 31) from the video processors (63) is transmitted onto (para. 132) the video display surfaces (20, 10 and 30).
Regarding claim 12, Van Schie anticipates the layered simulated flame mechanism as claimed in claim 11, wherein at least one video display surface (e.g. 10 and 20) is oriented at an angle relative to vertical (fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 13, Van Schie anticipates the layered simulated flame mechanism as claimed in claim 11, wherein at least one video display surface (e.g. 10 and 20) is oriented at an angle relative to vertical (fig. 2a) and at least one video display surface (e.g. 30) is approximately vertical (fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 15, Van Schie anticipates the layered simulated flame mechanism as claimed in claim 11, wherein at least one video display surface (20, 10 and 30) comprises electrochromic glass (per para. 61, glass may be used as desired), wherein the electric fireplace (1) includes a controller (62, as shown in fig. 3a), and wherein the controller (62) controls (fig. 3a) the electrochromic glass (aforementioned glass of para. 61) and the video processor (63) associated with (fig. 3a) the at least one video display surface (20, 10 and 30) to together create a desired image (fig. 2a) on the at least one video display surface (20, 10 and 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Daniel J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights