Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/767,817

DEVICE FOR DIFFUSING VOLATILE SUBSTANCES

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Apr 08, 2022
Examiner
ZHOU, QINGZHANG
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
ZOBELE HOLDING S.P.A.
OA Round
4 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
551 granted / 817 resolved
-2.6% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
871
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 817 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 2, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-4 and 8 have been canceled. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on claim interpretations applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As to pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that Gruenbacher fails to disclose the wick assembly is a single-piece structure. However, the claims do not define that the wick assembly is a single-piece structure. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully disagrees the Applicant’s argument. The rupture element 144 in conjunction with the compressible material 164 and the wick 170 of Gruenbacher still would read on the limitation “wick assembly”. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “said wick assembly defining a base, from which said projection projects, and lateral extensions.” It appears there is a grammar error in describing lateral extensions. It is suggested to amend to -said wick assembly defining a base, from which said projection projects, and lateral extensions extend-. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “the side wall of said base element.” It is suggested to amend to -a side wall of said base element-. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 7, each recites the limitation "the fixing piece" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the limitation refers to “clamp”. Therefore, it is suggested to amend the limitation to -the clamp-. Claims 5-7 and 9 are also rejected under 112(b) because of dependency on claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruenbacher et al. (WO 2010/121039 A2). With regard to claim 1, Gruenbacher discloses a device for diffusing volatile substances (Fig. 15), comprising: a container (38) containing a liquid with said volatile substances, a base element (32/134) that closes said container (Fig. 15), and a wick assembly (144/164/170) that is impregnated with said volatile substances (Fig. 14), wherein the wick assembly (144/164/170) is fixed in a removable manner to said base element (134, see Fig. 15) and comprises a projection (158); said wick assembly (144/164/170) defines a base (170), from which said projection (158) projects (see Fig. 14), and lateral extensions (see annotated figure below); wherein the projection (158) is connected to the base (170) by a clamp (20/24 “cam”, connection between 158 and 170 is shown in Fig. 14), which affixes, in a removable manner (as shown in Fig. 15), the wick assembly (144/164/170) to the base element (134, Fig. 14); wherein the projection (158) is configured to activate the opening of a valve (42) of said container; wherein the base element (134) comprises a housing (Fig. 14) which houses the lower part of the fixing piece (24); and wherein the base (170) and lateral extensions (see annotated figure below) are configured to be impregnated with said volatile substances (Fig. 4). PNG media_image1.png 567 597 media_image1.png Greyscale With regard to claim 5, the device of Gruenbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gruenbacher further discloses that said base element (134) comprises a plurality of evaporation holes (116/118). With regard to claim 6, the device of Gruenbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Gruenbacher further discloses that said evaporation holes (118) are arranged on the side wall of said base element (32/134). With regard to claim 7, the device of Gruenbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gruenbacher further discloses that fixing piece (24) housed within the housing of the base element (32/134) is removably fixed (Fig. 15). With regard to claim 9, the device of Gruenbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gruenbacher further discloses that each side of the lateral extensions (see annotated figure above) extend outwards from a perimeter of the base (170) at an angle (at a zero degree angle). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 08, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 08, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 08, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jan 07, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jul 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Feb 02, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599917
SHOWER HEAD CAPABLE OF BEING RAPIDLY ASSEMBLED
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582856
FIRE SUPPRESSION ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582575
EYE RINSING ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582213
BEAUTY EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569869
Method of Determining Characteristic of Fluid, Control System, Apparatus and Robot System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+24.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 817 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month