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
Amendment filed 1/21/2026 has been entered. In light of the new amendments, 35 USC § 112 rejections are moot.
Pending claims 1-14 are addressed below.
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 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 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe (US 20110168802) in view of Zobele (US 20040076553). Additional evidence is provided via relevant teaching in Barlics (US 4928881; see col. 4, ln 10-16).
Regarding claim 1, Hoppe discloses a device for the diffusion of volatile substances, comprising:
a container (102), having an interior and an exterior, the interior has a volume defined by walls and a bottom (par. 21: “The vessel 102 may have a top 108, sidewalls and a bottom 110 and may substantially enclose a fluid chamber 112”; see in figs. 1-3) of the container (interior of 102) which hold a liquid with the volatile substances (par. 21: “fragrance, air freshener”; par. 22: “liquid 118”), and which includes an opening (fig. 2: 114; par. 21: “The top 108 of the vessel 102 may define an orifice 114”), for communication from the interior of the container to the exterior of the container (surrounding);
a lid (106) that can be removably attachable (par. 24: “the sealing member 106 may be interference fit in the top 108 of the vessel 102, as is known in the art”, interference fit of components is removably attachable with sufficient pressure or tension) to the container (102) to close the opening (114);
a diffuser wick (104) for controlled diffusion of volatile substances (par. 30: “drawing of the liquid 118 up the wick 104 for diffusion into the surrounding atmosphere”), one end (upper end of 104) of which protrudes from the lid (106; see fig. 3); and
a diffuser wick cap (116) covering the end (upper end) of the diffuser wick (104; fig. 1 shows upper portion of 116 covering various portions of wick 104) which protrudes from the lid (106);
Hoppe does not teach the container (102), the lid (106), the diffuser wick (104) and the cap (116) are all made of a single common plastic material.
However, Zobele teaches a comparable diffusing device (fig. 1) wherein the entirely of the device (container 4, 5 and wick 3; par. 41) may be made from PET (polyethylene terephthalate) or PP (polypropylene; par. 41: “For example, the two half- shells 4 and 5 may be made in PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and the wick 3 may be made in porous PET or the two half- shells 4 and 5 may be made in PP (polypropylene) and the wick 3 in porous PP”). Paragraphs 37-38 also conveys that wick 3 and half shells 4-5 may be made of any suitable material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the container (102), the lid (106), the diffuser wick (104) and the cap (116) all made of a single common plastic material as suggested in paragraph 41 of Zobele, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Utilizing the same, single common material for multiple parts would simplify production and reduce cost for outsourcing.
Further regarding claim 1, the “removably attachable” feature of the diffuser wick lid is alternatively addressed, as followed. In the instant where applicant insists that disclosure of “interference fit” does not equate to “removably attachable”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make component connection separable, i.e. removably attachable, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Doing so would allow the container to be re-used, as evidence in Barlics (US 4928881; see col. 4, ln 10-16), where Barlics teaches wick holder 14, previously attached to container 12, may be removed from the container 12 for repurposing of the assembly.
Note: all references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing the primary reference, unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 2, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the device for the diffusion of volatile substances according to claim 1, wherein the plastic material is polypropylene (Zobele, par. 41).
Regarding claim 3, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the device for the diffusion of volatile substances according to claim 1, wherein the plastic material is polyethylene (Zobele, par. 41).
Regarding claim 4, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the lid (106) further comprises a slot (fig. 2: 128; par. 25, 27) through which the diffusion wick (104) is placed (see figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the diffusion wick (104) comprises a seal extension (see annotation below; central portion of the wick 104 extending through 106).
Regarding claim 6, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the device according to claim 5 wherein the seal extension (see annotation below; central portion of the wick 104 extending through 106) is defined in a central sector (see annotation labeling dashed line box) of the diffusion wick (104) that can be fitted into this slot (128).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the diffusion device for volatile substances according to claim 1, wherein the cap (116) is in contact with the end of the diffuser wick (upper end of wick 104; see annotation).
PNG
media_image2.png
543
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the diffusion device for volatile substances according to claim 1, wherein slot (128) has a lip (see annotation below ) extending outward from the slot.
PNG
media_image3.png
437
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the diffusion device for volatile substances according to claim 8, wherein the cap (116) is shaped to contact the lip of the slot (128; see annotation below).
PNG
media_image4.png
435
769
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the diffusion device for volatile substances according to claim 8, wherein the cap (116) is shaped to cover the lip of the slot (128) and contact lid (106; see annotation for claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 11, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the diffusion device for volatile substances according to claim 1, wherein the cap (116) seals slot (128) to prevent the liquid from spilling (when underside of 116 sits on top of the lid, underside of 116 prevent spill of sloshing liquid; see annotation for claim 9).
Regarding claim 12, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the diffusion device for volatile substances according to claim 1, wherein the cap has a rectangular shape that is configured to surround the wick that has a corresponding rectangular shape (see fig. 1).
Claims 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe (US 20110168802) in view of Zobele (US 20040076553), further in view of Schram (US20040118936).
Regarding claim 13, Hoppe does not teach the slot is defined by a flange that extends above the lid.
Schram discloses a comparable container 10 with lid 16 and wick 20 (figs. 1-3). The lid 16 includes a slot (inside 28) defined by upward extending flange 28 to support the a portion of the wick (figs. 1-2).
PNG
media_image5.png
620
952
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoppe to incorporate the teachings of Schram to provide the upward extending flange on the lid and portion of cap extension to provide additional support for the wick. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating wick and cap alignment while providing additional structural support for the wick to ensure the wick remain standing.
PNG
media_image6.png
486
575
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Hoppe, as modified, teaches the diffusion device for volatile substances according to claim 13, wherein the cap has a rectangular shape (Hoppe teaches rectangular cap 116), and the slot has a corresponding rectangular shape (slot 128 is rectangular when receiving wick 104; see Hoppe’s fig. 3) so that the cap is configured to surround the slot elevation (upward flange extension) above the lid (Hoppe’s rectangular cap would surround the flange of the rectangular slot, as modified in view of Schram; see also annotation under rejection of claim 9 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Hoppe’s item 106 is a flange that fits into slot 114 and not a lid (Remarks page 6); item 106 seals the wick, not the container (Remarks page 7).
This is found not persuasive. The current claim language does not distinguish any details of the “lid” that would exclude item 106 from being called the “lid”. Since item 106 cover/close the opening 114 as claimed, regardless of how it covers the opening, item 106 meets the limitation of the claim. The current claim language requires the “lid…to close the opening”, and item 106 close the opening 114 as shown in fig. 3.
Hoppe’s item 116 cited to read on the “cap” does not entirely cover the diffusion wick (Remarks page 7).
This is found not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument above, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the cap entirely cover the diffusion wick) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Schram’s cited item 16 is a plug and wick holder, not a lid that covers the container (Remarks page 8).
This is found not persuasive. Applicant’s claimed “lid (2)” as shown in fig. 2 is a top cover attached to the container 1; the lid provided with a slot that is structured hold portion 12 of the wick 4. The plug and wick holder 16 shown in Schram attaches to the top opening of container 10 and support the wick in the same manner as the claimed device and the item 106 taught by Hoppe’ s fig. 3.
Zobele teaches two half-shells that are welded and the wick made out of the same material, PET or PP. If all of the parts of Hoppe are welded, then there cannot be a protective cap that unremovable (presumably a typo, and applicant meant to say “there cannot be a protective cap that is removable”). The requirement that the parts be weldable removes any suggestion or motivation (Remarks page 9). Zobele teaches “welding”, not “recycling” (Remarks page 10).
This is found not persuasive. It is noted that the combination of Hoppe in view of Zobele, as previously presented and maintained above, does not meant to bodily modify Hoppe’s device to have weldable half shells and wick. Hoppe, as the primary reference, teaches many main features of the claimed invention, including the container, lid, diffuser wick and diffuser wick cap. Zobele was cited to show that it is known in the art to utilize a single common plastic material to make manufacture different components in the same device. More specifically, paragraph 41 of Zobele demonstrates that all the parts of Zobele’s device can be made of a single common plastic, either PET or PP. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technical capability to select a known plastic material to manufacture all parts out of that same plastic material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Utilizing a single common material for multiple parts would simplify production and reduce cost for outsourcing, i.e. no additional effort is needed to purchase a different plastic or additional machine parts to accommodate processing of the different plastic property. The welding feature taught by Zobele is not relevant to the combination presented in the examiner’s rejection.
Frustrated purpose of the primary reference (Remarks page 10). Zobele teaches rigid materials like PET or PP as suitable for forming a hard bottle shell, which is too hard for the flexibility needed to make sealing member 106 (Remarks page 11).
This is found not persuasive. Hoppe’s paragraph 33 discloses various plastic materials that the sealing member 106 can be made out of, and those example include plastic material that can also be made rigid for certain application but is disclosed in Hoppe to be made flexible to serve as the “sealing member” (par. 33: “a sealing member 106 with a breakable opening 128 may be made of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyamide, or other chemically resistant resins that may be sheared without much stretching”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technical capability to select an existing plastic material widely known in the market and form the parts with the chosen structural integrity for the intended performance. Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence showing certain plastic material is not compatible.
In light of the responses above, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752