Patent examiner does not get my invention

[EstateQuestion]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Hi,
Just got the dreaded final rejection for a simple utility patent I filed Pro Se. My method independent claim was rejected under 35 U.S.C . 103. Looking for suggestions what to say when I talk with the examiner and file AFCP 2.0.

Background

I came up with a way of fully coating foodstuffs with a light marshmallow coating without stirring or mixing using a microwave oven. For the 103 rejection, the examiner cited using a microwave popcorn maker with a butter dispenser and claims if you substitute marshmallows for butter in the dispenser will result in fully coating the popcorn as it pops. The clever substitution does not work. The amounts and placement of foodstuffs, marshmallows and vents are critical to fully coat a foodstuff. The popcorn popper does not have the right structure and the foodstuffs and marshmallow placement cannot be done in order to achieve the desired result. Plus the marshmallow will burn long before any popcorn is popped. I pointed these facts in my non-final response on another popcorn popper that was found.

Wonder if putting together a youtube video showing why it won't work would help.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Hi,
Just got the dreaded final rejection for a simple utility patent I filed Pro Se. My method independent claim was rejected under 35 U.S.C . 103. Looking for suggestions what to say when I talk with the examiner and file AFCP 2.0.

Background

I came up with a way of fully coating foodstuffs with a light marshmallow coating without stirring or mixing using a microwave oven. For the 103 rejection, the examiner cited using a microwave popcorn maker with a butter dispenser and claims if you substitute marshmallows for butter in the dispenser will result in fully coating the popcorn as it pops. The clever substitution does not work. The amounts and placement of foodstuffs, marshmallows and vents are critical to fully coat a foodstuff. The popcorn popper does not have the right structure and the foodstuffs and marshmallow placement cannot be done in order to achieve the desired result. Plus the marshmallow will burn long before any popcorn is popped. I pointed these facts in my non-final response on another popcorn popper that was found.

Wonder if putting together a youtube video showing why it won't work would help.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Your patent was rejected for being obvious and you want to argue the rejection based on the popcorn popper example cited by the examiner. You will not be amending a claim. Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[EstateQuestion]

Your patent was rejected for being obvious and you want to argue the rejection based on the popcorn popper example cited by the examiner. You will not be amending a claim. Am I understanding this correctly?

Thanks for the reply. Understand I will need to update at least one claim for the AFCP 2.0 which is fine. I would prefer to not argue with the examiner, but understand her concerns and hopefully clear up any misunderstandings she has about the invention. Equating butter and marshmallow as behaving the same way when microwaved I think is key since one liquefies and drips onto the popcorn below acting as a topping while the other expands enormously, but does not to drip.

 

[quincy]

Thanks for the reply. Understand I will need to update at least one claim for the AFCP 2.0 which is fine. I would prefer to not argue with the examiner, but understand her concerns and hopefully clear up any misunderstandings she has about the invention. Equating butter and marshmallow as behaving the same way when microwaved I think is key since one liquefies and drips onto the popcorn below acting as a topping while the other expands enormously, but does not to drip.

I recommend you have a patent agent (or patent attorney, if you want to go to the expense) assist you with the AFCP application so that the objections to your original patent application are addressed properly with your amendment(s). It appears your original application failed to describe your invention to the understanding of the examiner (although it is also possible the examiner understood the invention and still found it did not meet the nonobvious requirement).

Through the following USPTO link, you can ask questions about your AFCP 2.0 application by using the "Contacts mailbox:" https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/after-final-consideration-pilot-20

Good luck, EstateQuestion.

 

[EstateQuestion]

I recommend you have a patent agent (or patent attorney, if you want to go to the expense) assist you with the AFCP application so that the objections to your original patent application are addressed properly with your amendment(s). It appears your original application failed to describe your invention to the understanding of the examiner (although it is also possible the examiner understood the invention and still found it did not meet the nonobvious requirement).

Through the following USPTO link, you can ask questions about your AFCP 2.0 application by using the "Contacts mailbox:" https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/after-final-consideration-pilot-20

Good luck, EstateQuestion.

Thanks quincy for your thoughts and link.

 

[quincy]

Thanks quincy for your thoughts and link.

I am afraid I offered you little but, you're welcome, EstateQuestion. The thanks are appreciated.

I wish you good luck with your application and your invention's future.