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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on February 24, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 11 has been added.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a plate configured to seal said at least one weakened area such that the liquid volatile substance in the container is prevented from flowing out through the weakened area of the porous element.” The originally filed specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited “seal” limitation. The specification describes that the plate (8) “covers the external part of the weakened area” and is “maintained in physical contact with the porous element after activation, avoiding liquid to flow freely through the weakened area” (see, e.g., paragraphs [0034]-[0035]). However, the specification does not describe the plate as forming a seal, nor does it disclose any structure or arrangement that would result in sealing the weakened area in the sense of preventing fluid passage. The disclosure that the plate “covers” the weakened area and “avoids liquid to flow freely” suggests, at most, a reduction or restriction of low, rather than the formation of a seal that prevents liquid from flowing out, as now claimed. The term “seal” implies a closure that substantially prevents or blocks fluid leakage, which is a stronger limitation than merely covering or restricting flow, and such functionality is not reasonably conveyed by the originally filed disclosure. As a result, the claimed “seal” limitation introduces new matter not supported by the original disclosure and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the plate is configured to contact the porous element in a first state in which the perforable sheet is perforated by the at least one perforator, and the plate is configured to seal the weakened area in a second state in which the liquid volatile substance is diffused from the impregnated porous element.” The originally filed specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited “seal” limitation. The specification describes that the plate (8) “covers the external part of the weakened area” and is “maintained in physical contact with the porous element after activation, avoiding liquid to flow freely through the weakened area” (see, e.g., paragraphs [0034]-[0035]). However, the specification does not describe the plate as forming a seal, nor does it disclose any structure or arrangement that would result in sealing the weakened area in the sense of preventing fluid passage. The disclosure that the plate “covers” the weakened area and “avoids liquid to flow freely” suggests, at most, a reduction or restriction of low, rather than the formation of a seal that prevents liquid from flowing out, as now claimed. The term “seal” implies a closure that substantially prevents or blocks fluid leakage, which is a stronger limitation than merely covering or restricting flow, and such functionality is not reasonably conveyed by the originally filed disclosure. As a result, the claimed “seal” limitation introduces new matter not supported by the original disclosure and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Allowable Subject Matter
As stated in the previous Office Action dated September 25, 2025, Claim 8 was objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following claim recitation was indicated allowable in the previous Office Action:
A device for diffusing volatile substances, comprising: a container configured to contain a liquid volatile substance; a perforable sheet configured to close at least a portion of said container; at least one perforator configured to perforate said perforable sheet; and a porous element that is impregnated with the liquid volatile substance when the perforable sheet is perforated, wherein the porous element comprises at least one weakened area in correspondence with said at least one perforator, wherein the weakened area is weakened compared to the rest of the porous element, wherein the device further comprises a plate maintained in physical contact with the porous element after activation, avoiding the liquid volatile substance to freely flow out through the weakened area of the porous element, wherein said at least one perforator is mounted on a plate, which when the perforable sheet is perforated, is in contact with the porous element, wherein said plate includes two or more perforators as said at least one perforator, wherein the perforators in said plate are placed vertically, defining an upper perforator and a lower perforator, wherein the container is partially filled with the liquid volatile substance, defining a filled portion and an empty portion in the container so that the upper perforator is at a height corresponding to the empty portion and the lower perforator is at a height corresponding to the filled portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights