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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 29th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 29th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the anchor points in claim 1, ln. 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required 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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fand et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0231508) in view of Ryan (U.S. Patent 9,440,216).
Regarding claim 1, Fand discloses a device (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a body portion (12, 16, Fig. 1),
the body portion (12, 16, Fig. 1) has a volume (the space that the stem shape 16 and the flower head shape 12 occupy combined, shown in Fig. 1) and at least one surface (the internal surface of the stem 16 and the internal surface of the flower head 12, shown in Fig. 1),
the volume comprises of at least one network of a plurality of fluidly connected passages (14, holes 14 open up to passages that are fluidly connected to the space that the stem shape 16 and the flower head shape 12 occupy combined, and disperse a scented substance 20 through the holes 14 to release a scent in the air, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0016),
the at least one network of fluidly connected passages (14, Fig. 1) has at least one first end (bottom end of holes 14 opening to shoulder 34, shown in Figs. 1-3) and at least one second end (top end of holes 14 opening up to the surrounding environment, shown in Figs. 1-3),
the at least one first end and at least one second end are separated by a distance (bottom end of holes 14 and top end of holes 14 are separated by a distance, the length of the threaded region 30, shown in Fig. 1),
the at least one of the first or second ends are fluidly connected to the at least one surface (scented substance 20 from the reservoir 18 travels through the bottom end of holes 14 to the top end of holes 14, and is dispersed through the internal surface of the stem 16 and the internal surface of the flower head 12, Paragraph 0016),
each individual passage within the plurality of fluidly connected passages has a cross section (holes 14 have a circular axial cross section with respect to the lateral axis of the scented flower 10, shown in Figs. 1-3),
the distance (bottom end of holes 14 and top end of holes 14 are separated by a distance, the length of the threaded region 30, shown in Fig. 1), and the cross section of each passage (holes 14 have a circular axial cross section with respect to the lateral axis of the scented flower 10, shown in Figs. 1-3) within the plurality of fluidly connected passages (14, Fig. 1) defines a surface within each passage (not explicitly shown in the figures, but the distance between the bottom end of the holes 14 and the top end of the holes 14 and the circular axial cross section of the holes 14 with respect to the longitudinal axis define an internal surface of the holes 14, Figs. 1-3),
at least one active composition (20, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0016),
the at least one active composition (20, Fig. 1) is disposed within the at least one network of a plurality of fluidly connected passages (14, scented substance 20 travels from reservoir 18 through the holes 14, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0016),
the surface (not explicitly shown in the figures, but the distance between the bottom end of the holes 14 and the top end of the holes 14 and the circular axial cross section of the holes 14 with respect to the longitudinal axis define an internal surface of the holes 14, Figs. 1-3) within each passage (14, Fig. 1) is configured to disperse the at least one active composition (20, scented substance 20 traveling through the holes 14 is dispersed from the top end of holes 14, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0016), and
wherein the at least one active composition (20, Fig. 1) is a hydrogel (scented substance 20 may comprise a hydrogel, Paragraph 0018), and
wherein the at least one active composition (20, Fig. 1) evaporates and shrinks (substance 20 evaporates and depletes over time, Paragraph 0019) and the at least one surface (the internal surface of the stem 16 and the internal surface of the flower head 12, shown in Fig. 1) provides anchor points to reduce the rate at which the at least one active composition (20, Fig. 1) recedes (stem 16 is preferably translucent so that the amount of substance 20 remaining in reservoir 18 may be easily determined from an initial starting point, Paragraphs 0017-0018).
PNG
media_image1.png
803
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Fand does not disclose the at least one surface comprises a triply periodic minimal surface geometry. Ryan teaches a device (entire structure, Fig. 5) comprising the at least one surface (external surface of the entire structure, shown in Fig. 5) comprises a triply periodic minimal surface geometry (the structure is a Schwarz P surface, which is a type of triply periodic minimal surface geometry, Col. 8, Ln. 17-40).
Fand and Ryan are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of active composition structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the at least one surface taught in Ryan’s device to Fand’s device, to have the at least one surface comprises a triply periodic minimal surface geometry. Doing so improves the mass transfer capability, such as absorption of the active composition (Ryan, Col. 2, Ln. 31-34).
With respect to claim 3, Fand, as modified by Ryan, discloses the device of claim 1 above. Fand further discloses the body portion (12, 16, Fig. 1) comprises a porous material (interpreting as a material that is permeable to fluids, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, flower head 12 and stem 16 comprise a porous material because a scented substance 20 flows through the stem 16 and the flower head 12 to the surrounding environment, Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 5, Fand, as modified by Ryan, discloses the device of claim 1 above. Ryan further teaches the triply periodic minimal surface geometry is selected from the group consisting of: a gyroid geometry, a lidinoid geometry, a Schwarz D “diamond” geometry, or a Schwarz P “primitive” structure geometry (the structure is a Schwarz P surface, Col. 8, Ln. 17-40).
With respect to claim 12, Fand, as modified by Ryan, discloses the device of claim 1 above. Fand further discloses the body portion has a cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of: a square, a rectangle, a circle, an ellipse, a rhombus, a semi-circle, and a trapezium (12, 16, stem 16 and center of flower head 12 have a circle cross-section with respect to the lateral axis of the scented flower 10, shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Fand discloses the device of claim 1 above. However, Fand does not disclose the body portion comprising two networks of a plurality of fluidly connected passages. Ryan teaches a device (entire structure, Fig. 14) comprising the body portion (external surface of the entire structure, shown in Fig. 14) comprising two networks of a plurality of fluidly connected passages (primary and secondary surface is the first and second network, respectively, annotated in Fig. 14, Claim 12, Col. 9, Ln. 19-27).
PNG
media_image2.png
511
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fand and Ryan are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of active composition structures. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body portion taught in Ryan’s device to Fand’s device, to have the body portion comprising two networks of a plurality of fluidly connected passages. Doing so allows for the active composition to travel across the passages more flexibly and efficiently, while also allowing for a second active composition to be used in the device (Ryan, Col. 11, Ln. 59 to Col. 12, Ln. 4).
With respect to claim 14, Fand, as modified by Ryan, teaches the device of claim 13 above. However, Fand does not disclose a first active composition is disposed within the first network, and a second active composition is disposed within the second network. Ryan further teaches a first active composition (“heated fluid”, Col. 11, Ln. 25-29) is disposed within the first network (31, 33, Fig. 31), and a second active composition (“cold fluid”, Col. 11, Ln. 25-29) is disposed within the second network (32, 34, Fig. 31).
PNG
media_image3.png
604
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fand and Ryan are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of active composition structures. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body portion taught in Ryan’s device, to Fand’s device to have a first active composition is disposed within the first network, and a second active composition is disposed within the second network. Doing so increases the efficiency of the active compositions being used over time (Ryan, Col. 11, Ln. 59 to Col. 12, Ln. 4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fand et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0231508) in view of Ryan (U.S. Patent 9,440,216) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bennett et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0147969).
Regarding claim 2, Fand, as modified by Ryan, discloses the device of claim 1 above. However, Fand and Ryan do not teach each individual passage within the plurality of fluidly connected passages has one or more branches. Bennett teaches a device (10, Fig. 1) comprising each individual passage (20, Fig. 1) within the plurality of fluidly connected passages (20, Fig. 1) has one or more branches (22, Fig. 1).
Fand, Ryan, and Bennett are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of active composition structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the one or more branches taught in Bennett’s device to Fand’s device, as modified by Ryan, to have each individual passage within the plurality of fluidly connected passages has one or more branches. Doing so provides optimum fragrance release in the diffuser (Fand, Paragraph 0011).
Claims 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fand et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0231508) in view of Ryan (U.S. Patent 9,440,216) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Venkatesh (“Design of Mathematically Defined Heterogeneous Porous Scaffold Architecture for Tissue Engineering”, NPL).
Regarding claim 6, Fand, as modified by Ryan, discloses the device of claim 1 above. However, Fand and Ryan do not teach the at least one surface is defined according to Equation 1:
F(x, y, z) = sin(x) · cos(y) + sin(y) · cos(z) + sin(z) · cos(x) = T Equation 1
Venkatesh teaches the at least one surface is defined by the third equation from the top, which is Equation 1 (Table 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
526
805
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fand, Ryan, and Venkatesh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of active composition structures. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Venkatesh to Fand, as modified by Ryan, to yield the predictable results of having the triply periodic minimal surface structure defined by Equation 1. Doing so provides a specific equation that provides limits on various sinusoidal shapes.
With respect to claim 9, Fand, as modified by Ryan, discloses the device of claim 1 above. However, Fand and Ryan do not teach the cross section of each individual passage within the plurality of fluidly connected passages varies. Venkatesh teaches the volume fraction of the body portion can vary, which causes the lengths and pore sizes of the cross sections to vary (Col. 1-2, Pg. 21010).
Fand, Ryan, and Venkatesh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of active composition structures. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Venkatesh to Fand, as modified by Ryan, to yield the predictable results of having the lengths and the pore sizes of the cross sections of the passages vary. Doing so provides the flexibility for the active composition to travel through the passages more easily and efficiently.
In regards to claim 10, Fand, as modified by Ryan and Venkatesh, discloses the device of claim 9 as applied above. However, Fand and Ryan do not teach the cross section of each individual passage within the plurality of fluidly connected passages is greater in the center of the body portion than the cross section of each individual passage within the plurality of fluidly connected passages at the periphery of the body portion. Venkatesh teaches the volume fraction of the body portion and pore architectures can vary, which provides the flexibility to change the lengths and pore sizes of the cross sections to be greater in the center than at the periphery (Col. 1-2, Pg. 21010).
Fand, Ryan, and Venkatesh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of active composition structures. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Venkatesh to Fand, as modified by Ryan, to yield the predictable results of varying the lengths and pore sizes of the cross sections to be greater in the center than at the periphery. There is an “obvious to try” motivation as suggested by Venkatesh above that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, that would lead to the conclusion of varying the cross sections to be greater in the center of the body portion than at the periphery. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could experiment and select from a finite set of values for the lengths of the cross sections in the center and the periphery of the body portion. Doing so provides the flexibility for the active composition to travel through the passages more efficiently.
Regarding claim 11, Fand, as modified by Ryan and Venkatesh, discloses the device of claim 9 as applied above. However, Fand and Ryan do not teach the cross section of each individual passage within the plurality of fluidly connected passages is greater at the periphery of the body portion than the cross section of each individual passage within the plurality at the center of the body portion. Venkatesh teaches the volume fraction of the body portion and pore architectures can vary, which provides the flexibility to change the length and pore size of the cross sections to be greater at the periphery than in the center (Col. 1-2, Pg. 21010).
Fand, Ryan, and Venkatesh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of active composition structures. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Venkatesh to Fand, as modified by Ryan, to yield the predictable results of varying the lengths and pore sizes of the cross sections to be greater at the periphery than in the center. There is an “obvious to try” motivation as suggested by Venkatesh above that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, that would lead to the conclusion of having the cross section of the individual passages be greater at the periphery of the body portion than in the center. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could experiment and select from a finite set of values for the lengths of the cross sections in the periphery and the center of the body portion. Doing so provides the flexibility for the active composition to travel through the passages more efficiently.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fand et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0231508) in view of Ryan (U.S. Patent 9,440,216) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Venkatesh (“Design of Mathematically Defined Heterogeneous Porous Scaffold Architecture for Tissue Engineering”, NPL) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Rudolf (“Double-Gyroid-Structured Functional Materials”, NPL).
In regards to claim 7, Fand, as modified by Ryan and Venkatesh, discloses the device of claim 6 as applied above. However, Fand, Ryan, and Venkatesh do not teach the value of T is selected from a numerical value between 0 and 1.43. Rudolf teaches at least one value of T is selected from a numerical value between 0 and 1.413 for connected surfaces and 1.413 and 1.5 for non-connected surfaces (increase in T values correlates to an increase in curvature H, Pg. 10, Paragraphs 1-2).
Fand, Ryan, Venkatesh, and Rudolf are all considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of active composition structures. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rudolf to Fand, as modified by Ryan and Venkatesh, to yield the predictable results of having the values of T for connected surfaces and non-connected surfaces to fall within the range of 0 to 1.43. Doing so provides a specific range of values that allows for change in the curvature of the surface upwards with respect to T in the x direction and H in the y direction.
Regarding claim 8, Fand, as modified by Ryan and Venkatesh, teaches the device of claim 6 as applied above. However, Fand, Ryan, and Venkatesh do not teach the value of T is selected from a numerical value between 0 and -1.43. Rudolf teaches the value of T is selected from a numerical value between 0 and -1.413 for connected surfaces and between -1.413 and -1.5 for non-connected surfaces (increase in T values correlates to an increase in curvature H and negative values function the same way as the positive values through the absolute value function, Pg. 10, Paragraph 2).
Fand, Ryan, Venkatesh, and Rudolf are all considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of active composition structures. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rudolf to Fand, as modified by Ryan and Venkatesh, to yield the predictable results of having the values of T for connected surfaces and non-connected surfaces to fall within the range of 0 to -1.43. Doing so provides a specific range of values that allows for change in the curvature of the surface downwards with respect to T in the x direction and H in the y direction.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fand et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0231508) in view of Ryan (U.S. Patent 9,440,216) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeats et al. (U.S. Patent 10,166,311).
In regards to claim 15, Fand, as modified by Ryan, discloses the device of claim 1 above. Fand and Ryan do not teach the device further comprising an airflow shield. Yeats teaches a device (10, Fig. 1) further comprising an airflow shield (51, mesh 51 allows air flow through the cage structure 50, Fig. 1, Col. 5, Ln. 1-14).
Fand, Ryan, and Yeats are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of active composition structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the airflow shield taught in Yeats’ device to Fand’s device, as modified by Ryan, to have the device further comprising an airflow shield. Doing so controls the air flow coming in and out of the device (Yeats, Col. 5, Ln. 1-14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Fand, in view of Ryan, does not disclose the amended limitations of claim 1, see Remarks, pg. 5, Fand does disclose wherein the at least one active composition evaporates and shrinks and the at least one surface provides anchor points to reduce the rate at which the at least one active composition recedes as noted above in the 103 rejection for claim 1. Fand states the substance 20 evaporates and depletes over time, and stem 16 is preferably translucent so that the amount of substance 20 remaining in reservoir 18 may be easily determined by a user from an initial starting point (Paragraphs 0017-0019).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, see Remarks, pg. 5-9, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ryan provides one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the feature of having the at least one surface comprises a triply periodic minimal surface geometry to Fand because doing so improves the mass transfer capability, such as absorption of the active composition (Ryan, Col. 2, Ln. 31-34).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached on (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights