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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7, and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 216 (fig. 3), 520 (fig. 5).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 22 of the submitted specification, “wick 106” should be “wick 104.”
In ¶ 25 of the submitted specification, “reservoir 116” should be “reservoir 102.”
In ¶ 29 of the submitted specification, “and/r” should be “and/or.”
In ¶ 31 of the submitted specification, “in sect” should be “insect.”
In ¶ 35 of the submitted specification, “heater 516” should be “heater 512.”
In ¶ 36 of the submitted specification, “heater 540” should be “heater 512.”
In ¶ 36 of the submitted specification, “reservoir 106” should be “reservoir 102.”
In ¶ 38 of the submitted specification, “sting light” should be “string light.”
In ¶ 39 of the submitted specification, “heater 514” should be “heater 512.”
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 11–14 and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 11 has been amended to recite that “the power supply reaches the heater from a location above the fitting.” The Office has reviewed the original specification and drawings for this limitation, and although such a limitation would follow naturally from the way the invention is described, this particular limitation does not seem explicitly disclosed, or even clearly implied, anywhere.
Claims 12–14 and 16–20 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (EP 1258190 A1).
Claim 1: Brown discloses an insect repellent device (evident from ¶ 2, “insecticide”) comprising:
a reservoir (10) having a liquid repellent (14; that this could be a liquid repellant is clearly evident given the language in ¶ 2) therein;
a wick (13) extending into the reservoir that moves the liquid repellent from the reservoir and exposes it to air for volatilization (evident from at least fig. 1 and fan 22); and
a housing (1) containing a heater (2);
wherein the housing fits onto the reservoir over the wick (see fig. 1) and affixes to the reservoir on a top thereof (via 8 and 11) such that the heater is in proximity to the wick (see fig. 1) promoting volatilization of the repellent and the reservoir extends below the housing (ibid.).
Claim 3: Brown discloses a battery in the housing that powers the heater (¶ 16, “a battery inserted in the unit”).
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Butler et al. (US Pub. 2010/0051598).
Claim 2: Brown does not disclose a solar panel on the housing that powers the heater.
However, Butler discloses a similar apparatus with a housing (2) that has a solar panel (¶ 62, “solar cells,” where a plurality of cells constitutes a panel; note that ¶ 62 discloses that the solar cells and batteries may be installed together).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the solar panel of Butler onto the housing of Brown to provide a convenient, portable, and naturally regeneratable power source.
Claim 5: Brown does not disclose that the reservoir is at least partially translucent.
However, Butler discloses a similar apparatus with a reservoir (¶ 55, “reservoir portion”) that is at least partially translucent (¶ 55, “a reservoir portion in the form of a glass bottle”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the reservoir of Brown out of the at least partially translucent material taught by Butler to provide a means for a user to see the liquid level inside the reservoir.
Claim 6: Although Brown discloses a switch 26 for controlling the temperature, Brown does not seem to explicitly disclose a control circuit that activates and deactivates the heater.
However, Butler discloses a similar apparatus with a control circuit (¶ 60, “controller”) that activates and deactivates a heater (as described in ¶¶ 63 and 65).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the control circuit of Butler onto the heater of Brown to allow for appropriate activation and deactivation (in the case of Butler, the controller is linked to a motion sensor to vaporize the volatile liquid when a user is detected).
Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (EP 1258190 A1) in view of Butler et al. (US Pub. 2010/0051598).
Claim 7: Brown discloses an insect repellent device (evident from ¶ 2, “insecticide”) comprising:
a housing (1) containing a battery (¶ 16, “a battery inserted in the unit”);
a heater (2) in the housing powerable by the battery (¶ 16, “the heater unit . . . powered by means of a battery”);
a reservoir (10) having a wick (13) extending therefrom; and
a fitting between the housing (via 8) and reservoir (via 11) affixing the housing and reservoir together (described in ¶ 18 and shown in fig. 1);
wherein, with the housing and reservoir affixed together, the heater is in sufficient proximity to the wick to raise a temperature thereof (¶ 20, “On activation, the heater warms up, warming the wick rod and resulting in rapid evaporation of volatile liquid from the rod”) but the reservoir extends below the housing (see fig. 1).
Brown does not disclose its housing having a solar panel affixed thereto.
However, Butler discloses a similar apparatus with a housing (2) that has a solar panel (¶ 62, “solar cells,” where a plurality of cells constitutes a panel; note that ¶ 62 discloses that the solar cells and batteries may be installed together).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the solar panel of Butler onto the housing of Brown to provide a convenient, portable, and naturally regeneratable power source.
Claim 8: Brown does not explicitly disclose a liquid insect repellent received in the reservoir and wicked toward the heater by the wick.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Brown clearly suggests that it falls within a field that includes insect repellents (¶ 2, “insecticide units”), and further would have understood that the “volatile liquid” discussed in ¶ 2 was an insecticide liquid.
Furthermore, Butler discloses its own reservoir (¶ 55, “reservoir portion”) having a liquid insect repellent (¶ 1, “volatile liquids, for example air fresheners and insecticides,” where 3 (see ¶ 55) is the volatile liquid).
Claim 9: Brown discloses that the insect repellent is vaporized by the heater (¶ 22, “evaporation”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Butler as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kent (US Pub. 2006/0188238).
Modified as per claim 7 above, Butler does not disclose a control circuit interconnecting the solar panel and the battery for charging of the battery.
However, Kent discloses a similar apparatus with a control circuit interconnecting a solar panel and a battery for charging the battery (¶ 70, “conversion of solar energy into electrical energy transferred for storage in batteries”; ¶ 73, “PowerFilm® can work in the present application to direct power the apparatus or to recharge AA, AAA, and 6-volt batteries 11”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the control circuit of Kent into Butler (then incorporated into Brown) to conveniently use the solar panel to recharge the battery.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (EP 1258190 A1).
Claim 11: Brown discloses an insect repellent device comprising:
a housing (1) containing a heater (2);
a reservoir (10) that attaches to the housing by a fitting (via 11) on a lower end of the housing (at 8);
a wick (13) extending from proximate the heater into the reservoir (see fig. 1);
a power supply (either blades or pins 17 or a battery (see ¶ 16));
wherein the heater heats the wick using power from the power supply to promote volatilization of a liquid insect repellent in the reservoir drawn therefrom by the wick (¶ 20, “On activation, the heater warms up, warming the wick rod and resulting in rapid evaporation of volatile liquid from the rod”); and
wherein the reservoir extends below the housing when affixed to the housing (see fig. 1).
Brown does not explicitly disclose that the power supply reaches the heater from a location above the fitting.
However, this seems necessary from brown given the upper location of Brown’s heater 2 compared to its fitting 8/11 (see fig. 1), and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the power supply of Brown at the heater (and, therefore, above the fitting) since that is where the heater is.
Claim 13: Brown discloses that the power supply comprises a battery in the housing that powers the heater (¶ 16, “The heater unit . . . powered by a battery inserted in the unit”).
Claim 14: Brown discloses that the power supply comprises a connection to an external power source (via blades or pins 17).
Claim 18: Brown discloses that the housing defines at least one air passage therein extending between the wick and at least one vent (see the air passage between the top of wick 13 and vent areas 20 and 21 in fig. 1).
Claim 19: Brown discloses at least one fan (22) in the at least one air passage moving air from the wick to an area outside the housing (evident from fig. 1 and claim 6).
Claims 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Butler et al. (US Pub. 2010/0051598).
Claim 12: Brown does not disclose that the power supply comprises a solar panel on the housing that powers the heater.
However, Butler discloses a similar apparatus with a housing (2) that has a solar panel (¶ 62, “solar cells,” where a plurality of cells constitutes a panel; note that ¶ 62 discloses that the solar cells and batteries may be installed together) that powers a heater (8; clearly suggested by ¶¶ 31 and 63).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the solar panel of Butler onto the housing of Brown to provide a convenient, portable, and naturally regeneratable power source.
Claim 16: Brown does not disclose that the reservoir is at least partially translucent such that a quantity of repellent in the reservoir can be observed.
However, Butler discloses a similar apparatus with a reservoir (¶ 55, “reservoir portion”) that is at least partially translucent (¶ 55, “a reservoir portion in the form of a glass bottle”) such that a quantity of repellent in the reservoir can be observed (naturally resulting from the glass material).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the reservoir of Brown out of the at least partially translucent material taught by Butler to provide a means for a user to see the liquid level inside the reservoir.
Claim 20: Although Brown discloses a switch 26 for controlling the temperature, Brown does not seem to explicitly disclose a control circuit that turns the power supply on and off.
However, Butler discloses a similar apparatus with a control circuit (¶ 60, “controller”) that turns a power supply on and off (as described in ¶¶ 63 and 65, “not draw any power,” and see ¶ 74, “’ON’ . . . ‘OFF’”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the control circuit of Butler onto the heater of Brown to allow for appropriate power supply activation and deactivation (in the case of Butler, the controller is linked to a motion sensor to vaporize the volatile liquid when a user is detected).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Samuel et al. (US Pub. 2008/0298046).
Brown does not disclose that the fitting is a permanent connection.
However, Samuel discloses a similar apparatus with a permanent connection (¶ 14, “reservoirs 28 may be permanently attached to or integral with a housing 22”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the permanent connection taught by Samuel into Brown as part of a construction of a disposable or refillable apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Gasper (US Pub. 2011/0068190) and Davis et al. (US Pub. 2018/0103507) are both relevant prior art showing a reservoir extending below a housing.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761