Patent examiner does not get my invention

[PostKSR]

Jurisdiction

California

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. The examiner also did not cite which KSR rational she was using.

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

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[adjusterjack]

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

A picture is worth a thousand words.

A video is worth a million words.

Presenting a video certainly wouldn't hurt.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Leaving my own personal opinions aside about the world of inventions, physics, inevitability and patent law, I can tell you that patent prosecution is an art in itself. And for you to succeed in being granted a patent you need to investigate fully prior to prosecuting a patent as to whether prior art exists. Usually this is taken into account when describing the invention (which can be challenging to read for the layperson.) This is so specialized that I don't think anyone here can help you without a proper consultation with a patent attorney. The USPTO explains the reply, rejection and appeals process for patents.

 

[PostKSR]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

A video is worth a million words.

Presenting a video certainly wouldn't hurt.

Thanks for your support

 

[PostKSR]

Leaving my own personal opinions aside about the world of inventions, physics, inevitability and patent law, I can tell you that patent prosecution is an art in itself. And for you to succeed in being granted a patent you need to investigate fully prior to prosecuting a patent as to whether prior art exists. Usually this is taken into account when describing the invention (which can be challenging to read for the layperson.) This is so specialized that I don't think anyone here can help you without a proper consultation with a patent attorney. The USPTO explains the reply, rejection and appeals process for patents.

Thanks Michael for your thoughts. Having a few patents under my belts and still being a layperson, I really am looking for suggestions how to approach the examiner. On my last patent the examiner called me after reviewing my office reply and we made small changes together plus added a few more claims. On this this one, the examiner did not reach out before finalizing the application.Thanks again.