COMBINATION FIRE PIT, GRILL AND COOKING WOK

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 . FINAL REJECTION Applicant's response with amendments received on January 23, 2026 is acknowledged, however, the Drawing objection to line quality and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejection dated on November 17, 2025 has not been fully resolved. Therefore, the Drawing objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejection dated on November 17, 2025 has been withdrawn, and a new objection and rejection has been issued and made final below. The Drawings The line quality of the drawings are objected to as being improper and not sufficient enough so that all details are reproducible in a printed patent, 37 CFR 1.84(l). Specifically, lines appear incomplete/missing in areas in addition to jagged line quality which prevent exact details of the design not be seen clearly. The Examiner suggests a new submission with clear, complete images (ex: all figure drawings in landscape layout), so all details of the claimed design can be determined. See Examiner’s example in Figs. 1, 2 and 9. PNG media_image1.png 669 714 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 1073 795 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 628 498 media_image3.png Greyscale There are features of the design in which the placement and configuration appear differently between the views or have details that are not located in the same corresponding areas and in some areas are not shown at all. Specifically, the rounded outer portion of the handle-like area is shown in opaque separate ring-like portions in Figs. 1, 2, 16 and 17 and inconsistently shown as transparent spring-like coils in Fig. 18. When inconsistencies are present, it is required that drawings be made consistent - MPEP 37 CFR 1.152. See Examiner's example below in Figs. 1 and 18. PNG media_image4.png 719 1382 media_image4.png Greyscale Rejection under 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) because the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the same nor does it particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons: The exact shape, appearance, depth and location of the area shown shaded in grey in Fig. 10 cannot fully be understood. PNG media_image5.png 534 481 media_image5.png Greyscale In an attempt to overcome these rejections, the applicants may convert all areas shown shaded in grey in Fig. 10 to distinct, evenly spaced broken lines. In addition, a broken line statement preceding the claim should be added in the specification (e.g., “The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the COMBINATION FIRE PIT, GRILL AND COOKING WOK that form no part of the claimed design."). In addition, to avoid confusion to the scope of the claim, all contour/shade lines within the areas shown shaded in grey in Fig. 10 should be removed (see Surface Shading - MPEP 1503.02 II). Overall, the exact shape and appearance of the claimed design cannot be understood. There are features of the design in which the placement and configuration appear differently between the views or have details that are not located in the same corresponding areas and in some areas are not shown at all. As a result, the misaligned and inconsistent illustrations leave the exact appearance of the claim left to conjecture. Specifically, the tube-like portion highlighted in Fig. 2 is inconsistently shown in Figs. 11 and 12. See areas of inconsistencies below. PNG media_image6.png 690 1134 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 1035 1331 media_image7.png Greyscale In an attempt to overcome the rejection, applicants may submit new drawing views with all details of the claimed design consistently shown throughout without introducing new matter. Since Fig. 13 isn’t shown or supported in other views, to avoid new matter, it is suggested that Fig. 13 be removed. Rejection under 35 USC § 112 (a) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) as failing to comply with the description requirement. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, the Combination Fire Pit, Grill and Cooking Wok as shown in the new amendments to the Drawings submitted on 1/23/2026 was not originally described. See Examiner’s examples below. PNG media_image8.png 803 1484 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 688 1257 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 408 1038 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 759 1098 media_image11.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 413 1257 media_image12.png Greyscale To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the Combination Fire Pit, Grill and Cooking Wok as shown in the amendments submitted on 1/23/2026. OR Submit new drawing views with the details shown consistently with what was originally disclosed on 08/06/2022 without introducing new matter. OR Return the portions mentioned above in the amended drawings back to that of the original disclosure with attention to the 112 (a) and (b) rejections of the previous Office Action dated 11/17/2025 without introducing new matter. Replacement Drawings Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are recommended in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. The replacement sheets should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. If preparing new drawings, care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by U.S.C 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Conclusion The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b) for the reasons set forth above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY CLARK-RASHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-9150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 EST. 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, JAE LIANG can be reached at 571-270-0229. 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. /C.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2921 /JAE LIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2921