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 on 2/17/2026 after a final rejection was mailed 11/17/2025. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on February 17th 2026 is acknowledged. Three pages of amended claims were received on 2/17/2026. Claim 1 has been amended, Claims 12 and 14 have been cancelled, and Claims 16-19 are newly presented. The claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the final rejection mailed 2/17/2026. Claims 1-8, 11, 13, and 16-19 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I in the reply filed on 5/24/2024 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 3/27/2024 is acknowledged. Claim 15 was withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The examiner notes that withdrawn Claim 15 depends from Claim 14, which is now cancelled. Appropriate correction of Claim 15 is advised.
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 1-8, 11, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C). 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2011/0095097 A1 to Herd et al. (“Herd”) in view of US PGPUB 2009/0202446 A1 to Vlad et al. (“Vlad”) and US PGPUB 2020/0223091 A1 to Hu et al. (“Hu”).
As to Claim 1, Herd discloses a fragrance dispensing device (See Fig. 5), wherein the fragrance dispensing device comprises:
a reservoir (See the “glass container” in Fig. 5) having an open end (See Annotated Fig. 5), wherein the reservoir contains a quantity of a liquid composition (See Annotated Fig. 5 and See Paragraph 0035 disclosing a solvent blend), wherein the liquid composition is a fragrance material composition (See Paragraph 0045); and
an emanating substrate (See Annotated Fig. 5, the emanating substrate is a reed) comprising chemically treated cellulosic material (See Paragraph 0035 disclosing reeds that are dipped in the solvent, therefore the reeds are at least treated by the solvent to some extent), wherein the chemically treated cellulosic material is rattan (See Paragraph 0045) the emanating substrate having a first end that contacts the open end of the reservoir (See Annotated Fig. 5), and a second end in contact with the liquid composition (See Annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd as applied to Claim 1 above, Herd does not specifically disclose wherein the fragrance material composition comprises a surfactant-water base, perfume, and water (See Paragraph 0045 disclosing fragrance mixed with solvent blends, but water is not specifically disclosed).
However, Vlad discloses a fragrance dispensing device (See Paragraph 0001) comprising a liquid composition (See Paragraph 0019) that is a fragrance material composition that comprises a surfactant-water base, perfume, and water (See Paragraph 0058 disclosing a composition that is a combination of multiple materials including water, perfume, and a surfactant-water base).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fragrance dispensing device of Herd as applied to Claim 1 above to utilize the liquid composition of Vlad, since doing so would yield the predictable result of having a liquid composition that is non-toxic and cost-effective (See Vlad Paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad as applied to Claim 1 above, Herd does not specifically disclose wherein a chemical treatment removes at least one component selected from the group consisting of lignin and hemicellulose from the cellulosic material, wherein the chemical treatment comprises immersing the cellulosic material in a boiling alkali solution for a time sufficient to remove the least one component selected from the group consisting of lignin and hemicellulose, followed by at least one wash step to remove the alkali solution, wherein the chemically treated cellulosic material is further treated to increase the density of the chemically treated cellulosic material, wherein the further treatment comprises mechanical hot-pressing.
However, Hu discloses wherein a chemically treated cellulosic material (Fig. 1 and See Paragraph 0066 disclosing chemically treated wood) is treated with a chemical treatment that removes at least one component selected from the group consisting of lignin and hemicellulose from the cellulosic material (See Paragraphs 0176-0178), wherein the chemical treatment comprises immersing the cellulosic material in a boiling alkali solution for a time sufficient to remove the least one component selected from the group consisting of lignin and hemicellulose (See Paragraph 0176 disclosing boiling 2.5M of NaOH and 0.4M of Na2SO3 for 30 minutes and up to 72 hours. Lignin and hemicellulose will be removed per Paragraph 0179) followed by at least one wash step to remove the alkali solution (See Paragraph 0177 disclosing having a solvent remove remnants of the chemical solution), wherein the chemically treated cellulosic material is further treated to increase a density of the chemically treated cellulosic material, wherein the further treatment comprises mechanical hot-pressing (See Paragraph 0174 disclosing mechanical hot pressing to remove water and See Paragraph 0190 disclosing an increase in density).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fragrance dispensing device of Bennet in view of Vlad as applied to Claim 1 above such that the chemically treated cellulosic material is treated with a chemical treatment that removes at least one component selected from the group consisting of lignin and hemicellulose from the cellulosic material, wherein the chemical treatment comprises immersing the cellulosic material in a boiling alkali solution for a time sufficient to remove the least one component selected from the group consisting of lignin and hemicellulose, followed by at least one wash step to remove the alkali solution, wherein the chemically treated cellulosic material is further treated to increase the density of the chemically treated cellulosic material, wherein the further treatment comprises mechanical hot-pressing as taught by Hu, since doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Hu to yield the predictable result of removing water from the chemically treated cellulosic material, reducing an overall size of the chemically treated cellulosic material, and improving mechanical properties of the chemically treated cellulosic material (See Hu Paragraphs 0066-0067), thus making the emanating substrate more resistant to breaking and easier to transport and store.
As to Claim 2, in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 1 above, Herd as modified by Vlad and Hu further discloses wherein the at least one component selected from the group consisting of lignin and hemicellulose is removed in an amount sufficient to increase the flexibility of the emanating substrate (See Paragraph 0178 of Hu discloses boiling in the chemical solution, which removes some amount of lignin and hemicellulose per Paragraph 0179. Such a removal of lignin and hemicellulose will increase a flexibility of a reed of Herd by some amount. See Paragraph 0055 disclosing a substrate becoming less rigid.).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 1 above, Herd as modified by Vlad and Hu further discloses the at least one component selected from the group consisting of lignin and hemicellulose is removed in an amount sufficient to increase the porosity of the emanating substrate (See Paragraph 0178 of Hu discloses boiling in the chemical solution, which removes some amount of lignin and hemicellulose per Paragraph 0179. Such a removal of lignin and hemicellulose will increase a flexibility of a reed of Herd by some amount. Such a removal of lignin will increase a porosity of a reed of Herd by some amount per Paragraph 0055).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 3 above, Herd as modified by Vlad and Hu further discloses wherein the increase in porosity increases the rate at which the liquid composition is absorbed into the first end of the emanating substrate (Paragraph 0055 of Hu disclosing an increase in porosity. A more porous reed of Herd will absorb liquid composition at a faster rate.)
As to Claim 5, in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 3 above, Herd as modified by Vlad and Hu further discloses wherein the increase in porosity increases the rate of diffusion of the liquid composition into an ambient environment (See Paragraph 0055 of Hu disclosing an increase in porosity, which will allow substances to be diffused at a faster rate from the reed of Herd).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 3 above, Herd as modified by Vlad and Hu further discloses wherein the increase in porosity increases the surface area to volume ratio of the emanating substrate (See Hu Paragraph 0055 disclosing an increase in porosity. When a porosity of a reed of Herd is increased, more surface area will result. Therefore, a surface area to volume ratio of a reed of Herd will increase).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 6 above, Herd as modified by Vlad and Hu further discloses wherein the increased surface area to volume ratio of the emanating substrate increases the rate at which the liquid composition is absorbed into the first end of the emanating substrate (See Paragraph 0055 of Hu disclosing an increase in porosity, which will increase a surface area to volume ratio of a reed of Herd and thus allow more area for liquid composition in the reservoir of Herd to be absorbed into the first end.).
As to Claim 8 in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 6 above, Herd as modified by Vlad and Hu further discloses wherein the increased surface area to volume ratio of the emanating substrate increases the rate of diffusion of the liquid composition into an ambient environment (See Paragraph 0055 of Hu disclosing an increase in porosity, which will increase a surface area to volume ratio of a reed of Herd and thus allow more area for liquid composition in the reed to diffuse into an ambient environment.).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 1 above, Hu further discloses wherein the further treatment increases the density of the chemically treated cellulosic material threefold (See Hu Paragraph 0082 disclosing “about 3 times increase” in density.).
As to Claim 12 in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 1 above, Vlad further discloses wherein the liquid composition is a composition selected from the group consisting of: a fragrance material composition, an insect repellant composition, a deodorizing composition, and combinations thereof (See Vlad Paragraph 0058 disclosing a fragrance mixture).
As to Claim 13 in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 1 above, Herd discloses a method for delivering a liquid composition to an ambient environment comprising providing the fragrance dispensing device of Claim 1 (See Herd Annotated Fig. 5 and See Paragraph 0035).
As to Claim 16 in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 1 above, Hu further discloses wherein discloses wherein the alkali solution comprises 2.5M NaOH and 0.4M Na2SO3 or the alkali solution is ammonia (See Hu Paragraph 0176 disclosing 2.5M NaOH and 0.4M Na2SO3).
As to Claim 17 in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 1 above, Vlad further discloses wherein the surfactant-water base comprises dioctyl sulfosuccinate sodium salt, monooleate ethoxylated sorbitol, monolaureate ethoxylated sorbitol, PPG-26 buteth-26, PEG-40 hydrogenated castor oil, and water (See Vlad Paragraph 0058 and Table 1 showing a combination of the claimed materials).
As to Claim 18 in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 1 above, Vlad further discloses wherein the fragrance material composition further comprises sodium pyrrolidone carboxylic acid and sodium benzoate (See Vlad Paragraphs 0033-0034 disclosing including salts that can be a mixture of sodium pyrrolidone carboxylic acid and sodium benzoate).
As to Claim 19 in reference to the fragrance dispensing device of Herd in view of Vlad and Hu as applied to Claim 1 above, Vlad does not specifically disclose wherein the fragrance material composition has a surfactant/perfume ratio of 0.84 (See Paragraph 0031 disclosing a range of surfactant to perfume of between 0.2 and 4.5, but a specific ratio of .84 is not disclosed). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fragrance material composition have a surfactant/perfume ratio of 0.84, since applicant has not placed any criticality on the claimed surfactant/perfume ratio (See Paragraph 084 of Applicant’s Specification which merely states “Following this procedure a perfume formulation having a surfactant/perfume ratio of 0.84 was obtained”), Vlad discloses a range of surfactant/perfume ratios that encompasses the claimed surfactant/perfume ratio, and utilizing a surfactant/perfume ratio of .84 would yield the predictable result of delivering a desired concentration of fragrance to an environment.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights