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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are amended. Claims 8 are as previously presented. Claims 2-6 and 10-11 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1 and 7-9 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 05, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-8, filed on 08/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment regarding the head’s ability to raise the center area and new interpretation of prior art.
Applicant argues that the “head” is shown in dotted lines in their Fig. 1 and 2, where the head feature is on the backside of the plate and raises the center area by forming a gap between the plate and reservoir so that an air gap is made.
Examiner agrees that this definition of the head would be different from the prior art of Stewart as the “head” was only construed to be a location that is lifted first, where that would cause the center area of the plate to be lifted. However, the claim does not include the specific language used by the applicant in the arguments. Examiner recommends adding in clarifying language that “the head is located on the backside of the plate and raises the center area by forming an air gap between the plate and reservoir”.
Based on this new understanding of the “head” feature, it is the Examiner’s position that the Vogt reference includes a head within a plate opening that is below the plate, where there is an air gap formed in order to facilitate lifting (Modified Fig. 13, where the head feature shown to be below the plate).
PNG
media_image1.png
909
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 13, Vogt
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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 20120138594 A1) in view of Vogt (US 2001475 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stewart discloses a wax removing device (Abstract, “A wax remover”) for a wax heater (Para. 0004, “scent warmers have been used, as an alternative to candles, to heat scented wax or scented oil and vaporize scent additives therein.”) comprising:
a plate member sized to fit within a reservoir of the wax heater (Para. 0018, “base portion 102 may have a size and shape that is configured to conform to the geometry of a surface of a wax container 202 of a scent-warmer device 200 (FIG. 3).”);
an opening formed within a center area of the plate member (Para. 0022, “For example, as shown in FIG. 1, the wax remover 100 may include at least one aperture 106 that extends through the base portion 102 from the major surface on one side thereof to the major surface on an opposing side thereof.”); and
a handle extending up from the plate member (Para. 0017, “least one tab 104 attached to and extending from the base portion 102.”), wherein the handle comprises:
a rod member attached to the plate member (Modified Fig. 2, where the rod and knob features of the handle are shown); and
a knob attached to a distal end of the rod member (Modified Fig. 2, where the rod and knob features of the handle are shown, where the knob is shown to be attached to a distal end of the rod away from the plate).
PNG
media_image2.png
385
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Stewart
Stewart does not disclose:
naming specifically wherein the handle comprises: a rod member attached to the plate member; and a knob attached to a distal end of the rod member; and
a head formed on a first end of the rod member, wherein the head has a larger perimeter than a perimeter of the opening, wherein the head raises the center area of the plate member off of the reservoir when the device is placed within the reservoir of the wax heater.
However, Vogt discloses where a handle extends from a center area of the plate member (Fig. 10, where the neck portion 48 construed as the rod member extends all the way down towards the plate 40, where the rod member is shown to be attached to the center of the plate member), and where there is a handle that is made of a rod attached with a knob (Page 9, right column, lines 2-3, “the projecting handle end includes a neck portion 48 and a handle knob 49.”, where the neck portion 48 is construed to be the rod member), where a head is formed on the first end of a rod member that has a larger perimeter than the opening, wherein the head raises the center area of the plate member off of the reservoir when the device is placed within the reservoir (Page 9, left column, lines 58-63, “Each lifting tool (Figs. 10, 12 and 13) includes a circular bottom plate 40 which may be radially ribbed as at 40a to strengthen it and which is secured to the lower end of a hollow shaft 41, the latter extending through a suitable opening in the center of the plate 40”, where modified Fig. 13 shows that the head or bottom plate 40 has a perimeter larger than the opening from the plate or bottom disk 18, where head 40 with ribs 40a raises the center area of the plate 18 off of the reservoir shown by creating a gap between the two structures). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the handle in Stewart to specifically include the rod and knob features and have the head features as taught by Vogt.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to handle the removal of an object in a sanitary manner, where a user’s fingers do not need to contact the object being removed, as stated by Vogt, Page 10, left column, lines 40-41, “The handling of the ice cream from start to finish is effected in a highly sanitary manner.”, and lines 22-27, “practical hand elevator- or carrier for bulk packages of individual ice cream blocks designed to facilitate the lifting of the package containers”;
where the head features additional ease in hand removal of material located within a reservoir, as stated by Vogt, Page 5, right column, lines 21-27, “a rugged, durable, practical hand elevator- or carrier for bulk packages of individual ice cream blocks designed to facilitate the lifting of the package containers 25 to the top of the hole so that they may be readily grasped and removed.”.
Regarding the specific positioning of the handle being in the center of the plate versus at the edges, it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification to make. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Stewart includes the handles at the sides to facilitate the lifting of the center plate 102 and Vogt similarly has a handle 48 located in the center of the plate that facilitates the lifting of the plate 40, with the only difference being the positioning of the handles while the end result of lifting the plate is unchanged. As a result, both handle placements allow for the center plate to be lifted and the specific location of the handle would be a mere matter of user design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Stewart discloses a wax removing device (Abstract, “A wax remover”) for a wax heater (Para. 0004, “scent warmers have been used, as an alternative to candles, to heat scented wax or scented oil and vaporize scent additives therein.”) comprising:
a circular plate member sized to fit within a reservoir of the wax heater (Para. 0018, “base portion 102 may have a size and shape that is configured to conform to the geometry of a surface of a wax container 202 of a scent-warmer device 200 (FIG. 3).”, where modified Fig. 2 shows that the plate or base portion 102 is circular); and
a handle extending up from the plate member (Para. 0017, “least one tab 104 attached to and extending from the base portion 102.”), wherein the handle comprises:
a rod member attached to the plate member (Modified Fig. 2, where the rod and knob features of the handle are shown); and
a knob attached to a distal end of the rod member (Modified Fig. 2, where the rod and knob features of the handle are shown, where the knob is shown to be attached to a distal end of the rod away from the plate).
Stewart does not disclose:
a handle extending up from a center area of the plate member;
naming specifically wherein the handle comprises: a rod member attached to the plate member; and a knob attached to a second end of the rod member;
a head formed on a first end of the rod member, wherein the head raises the center area of the plate member off of the reservoir when the device is placed within the reservoir of the wax heater.
However, Vogt discloses where a handle extends from a center area of the plate member (Fig. 10, where the neck portion 48 construed as the rod member extends all the way down towards the plate 40, where the rod member is shown to be attached to the center of the plate member), and where there is a handle that is made of a rod attached with a knob (Page 9, right column, lines 2-3, “the projecting handle end includes a neck portion 48 and a handle knob 49.”, where the neck portion 48 is construed to be the rod member), where a head is formed on the first end of a rod member that has a larger perimeter than the opening, wherein the head raises the center area of the plate member off of the reservoir when the device is placed within the reservoir (Page 9, left column, lines 58-63, “Each lifting tool (Figs. 10, 12 and 13) includes a circular bottom plate 40 which may be radially ribbed as at 40a to strengthen it and which is secured to the lower end of a hollow shaft 41, the latter extending through a suitable opening in the center of the plate 40”, where modified Fig. 13 shows that the head or bottom plate 40 has a perimeter larger than the opening from the plate or bottom disk 18, where head 40 with ribs 40a raises the center area of the plate 18 off of the reservoir shown by creating a gap between the two structures). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the handle in Stewart to specifically include the rod and knob features and have the head features as taught by Vogt.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to handle the removal of an object in a sanitary manner, where a user’s fingers do not need to contact the object being removed, as stated by Vogt, Page 10, left column, lines 40-41, “The handling of the ice cream from start to finish is effected in a highly sanitary manner.”, and lines 22-27, “practical hand elevator- or carrier for bulk packages of individual ice cream blocks designed to facilitate the lifting of the package containers”;
where the head features additional ease in hand removal of material located within a reservoir, as stated by Vogt, Page 5, right column, lines 21-27, “a rugged, durable, practical hand elevator- or carrier for bulk packages of individual ice cream blocks designed to facilitate the lifting of the package containers 25 to the top of the hole so that they may be readily grasped and removed.”.
Regarding the specific positioning of the handle being in the center of the plate versus at the edges, it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification to make. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Stewart includes the handles at the sides to facilitate the lifting of the center plate 102 and Vogt similarly has a handle 48 located in the center of the plate that facilitates the lifting of the plate 40, with the only difference being the positioning of the handles while the end result of lifting the plate is unchanged. As a result, both handle placements allow for the center plate to be lifted and the specific location of the handle would be a mere matter of user design choice.
Regarding claim 8, modified Stewart teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, as set forth above, discloses comprising an opening formed within a center area of the plate member (Stewart, Para. 0022, “For example, as shown in FIG. 1, the wax remover 100 may include at least one aperture 106 that extends through the base portion 102 from the major surface on one side thereof to the major surface on an opposing side thereof.”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Stewart teaches the apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above, discloses wherein the head has a larger perimeter than a perimeter of the opening (Teaching from Vogt, Modified Fig. 13 shows that the head or bottom plate 40 has a perimeter larger than the opening from the plate or bottom disk 18).
Conclusion
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.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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 GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
10/02/2025
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761