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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/7/2026 has been entered.
Claims status
Claims 1-43 are pending. Claims 12-41 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's arguments and the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 by Mr. Sammie Joe Glorioso (“the Glorioso Declaration”) filed 8/4/2026 with respect to the rejection of present claims 1-11 and 42-43 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glorioso et al. (US Pub. 2019/0387779; “Glorioso”) in view of EP 3280496 to Sun et al. (“Sun”) have been carefully studied and fully considered, but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant contends that it would not be obvious to modify the substantially pure plant extract of Glorioso to be suspended in a gel mixture based on the disclosures of Sun, because such modification is not possible without certain conditions and procedures, which are missing from Glorioso and Sun, as described in the specification as filed, and as further supported in the Inventor Declaration (“the Glorioso Declaration”), due to the volatility of higher concentrations of plant extracts such as terpenes (e.g., 95% to 100% of terpenes) certain conditions and procedures are required for suspending a higher concentration of terpenes in a gel mixture (remarks, page 11, second and third para). Applicant argues that Sun does not teach the necessary pressure and temperatures conditions using a cylinder drum pump that would allow for suspending a higher concentration of terpenes in a gel mixture (remarks, page 11, last para). Applicant argues that Sun only discloses the use of terpenes in low concentrations such as "0.1 wt% to 10 wt%" (remarks, page 12, second para).
In response to applicant’s contention, Applicant's arguments and the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 by Mr. Sammie Joe Glorioso (“the Glorioso Declaration”) have been carefully studied and fully considered, but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons.
First, the examiner does not agree with applicant’s interpretation of the instant claims. The examiner notes for the record that neither independent claim 1 nor independent claim 43 recites or requires “a higher concentration of plant extracts in a gel mixture” or “a higher concentration of terpenes in a gel mixture”, contrary to applicant’s assertion. Specifically, the instant claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “wherein the substantially pure plant extract comprising about 95% to about 100% of the plant extract is suspended in the gel mixture”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, this limitation of instant claim 1 requires that (1) the substantially pure plant extract comprises about 95% to about 100% of the plant extract, and that (2) the substantially pure plant extract be suspended in the gel mixture. The instant claim 1, however, does not recite or require the plant extracts be present at a high(er) concentration or any specific concentration of in the gel mixture. Claim 43 contains the same issue. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments and the Glorioso Declaration directed to the alleged difficulty of suspending a high concentration of plant extract or terpenes in the gel mixtures are not found persuasive.
Secondly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the equipment, e.g., a cylinder pump use to regulate the temperature and pressure) 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). The instant claims 1 and 43 do not recite the cylinder pump or any equipment components or the process pressure and temperatures conditions.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Glorioso teaches the mixture of substantially pure plant extract (that comprises about 95% to about 100% of the plant extract) blended with the two-way humidity control material is in a gel mixture. Glorioso does not specifically teach the substantially pure plant extract is suspended in the gel mixture, as instantly claimed in claims 1 and 43.
Sun teaches a fragrance containing composition in the form of gel suspension having plant extract/fragrance suspended in the gel mixture providing extended longevity fragrance composition (para [0008] [0011] [0028], the suitable fragrance substance includes natural extracts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the humidity control system of Glorioso in view the teachings of Sun, to include the substantially pure plant extract (that comprises about 95% to about 100% of the plant extract) in the gel mixture in the form of gel suspension as taught by Sun having the plant extract/fragrance suspended in the gel mixture as taught by Sun (para [0008] [0011] [0028]), to provide an improved humidity control system with extended longevity fragrance, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory humidity control system that is the same as instantly claimed in claims 1 and 43.
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glorioso et al. (US Pub. 2019/0387779; “Glorioso”) in view of EP 3280496 to Sun et al. (“Sun”).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 43, and claim 10, Glorioso teaches a humidity control system (humidity control system 1, see Figs. 2; para [0012]) comprising:
- a two-way humidity control material (Fig. 2, para [0006] [0019], the humidity control substance 10 of Glorioso that is two-way humectant, meeting the claimed limitations),
- a substantially pure plant extract (20) (the suitable plant extract such as terpenes, para [0006], Glorioso teaches the inclusion and the use of plant extract, and Glorioso does not teach or suggest that its plant extract must include other extract and/or substance, i.e., other than the plant extract, which would otherwise render the plant extract not pure, and thus, the plant extract of Glorioso is considered being substantially pure plant extract, meeting the claimed limitations) blended with the two-way humidity control material to form a mixture (para [0006], the two-way humectant is mixed with the plant extract/terpenes forming a mixture, meeting the claimed limitations), wherein the substantially pure plant extract comprises about 95% to about 100% of the plant extract (Glorioso teaches using plant extract, and Glorioso does not teach or suggest that its plant extract must include other extract/other than plant extract, and thus, such plant extract of Glorioso that is of 100% plant extract, and is considered being substantially pure plant extract comprises 100% plant extract, meeting the claimed limitations of claim 1 and claim 43; further Glorioso teaches using the suitable plant extract such as terpenes/pure terpenes, para [0020] [0021], which is the same plant extract as that of the instant application, meeting the claimed material limitations of claim 10); and
- a package (the package 30, Fig. 1; para [0006] [0012]) housing the two-way humidity control material (10) and the substantially pure plant extract (20) (see Fig. 1, para [0006] [0012]).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Glorioso teaches its humidity control system with the inclusion of suitable humidity control material that includes the substantially pure plant extract (20) blended with the two-way humidity control material to form a mixture (para [0006]). Glorioso further teaches as in one of its embodiments that the mixture (of the humidity control material and the substantially pure plant extract) is a gel mixture, and the gel mixture is housed in the package (para [0028], Glorioso teaches that its humidity control substance also includes a gelling agent, and thus, is a gel mixture; and Glorioso teaches the gelling agent may increase viscosity of the humidity control substance 10 and the glycerin-plant extract mixture and may reduce or minimize the likelihood of the humidity control substance 10 and the glycerin-plant extract mixture leaching through the package).
It should be noted that the recitation of the mixture is “added to the package as” a gel mixture of claim 1 and of claim 43 is considered as product-by-process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that the recited process (i.e., the step of adding, and/or the process of how it is added, and the equipment used) does not result in a patentably distinctive structural difference in the resultant package of which the gel mixture is housed in the package. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
As discussed above, Glorioso teaches the mixture of substantially pure plant extract (that comprises about 95% to about 100% of the plant extract) blended with the two-way humidity control material is in a gel mixture. In this regard, Glorioso teaches using plant extract, and Glorioso does not teach or suggest that its plant extract must include other extract/other than plant extract, and thus, such plant extract of Glorioso that is of 100% plant extract, and is considered being substantially pure plant extract comprises 100% plant extract, meeting the claimed limitations of being substantially pure plant extract comprises about 95% to about 100% of the plant extract.
Glorioso does not specifically teach the substantially pure plant extract (that comprises about 95% to about 100% of the plant extract) is suspended in the gel mixture, as instantly claimed in claims 1 and 43.
Sun teaches a fragrance containing composition in the form of gel suspension having plant extract/fragrance suspended in the gel mixture providing extended longevity fragrance composition (para [0008] [0011] [0028], the suitable fragrance substance includes natural extracts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the humidity control system of Glorioso in view the teachings of Sun, to include the substantially pure plant extract (that comprises about 95% to about 100% of the plant extract) in the gel mixture in the form of gel suspension as taught by Sun having the plant extract/fragrance suspended in the gel mixture as taught by Sun (para [0008] [0011] [0028]), to provide an improved humidity control system with extended longevity fragrance, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory humidity control system that is the same as instantly claimed in claims 1 and 43.
Regarding claim 43, claim 43 contains process limitations with regards to how the mixture/blend is made, i.e., blended … by a homogenizer. It should be noted that the recitation of “the plant extract is blended with the mixture by a homogenizer” of claim 43 is considered as product-by-process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that the recited process does not result in a patentably distinctive structural difference in the resultant blend/mixture. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Glorioso teaches that the packaging comprises nonwoven fabric (para [0016]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Glorioso teaches as in one of its embodiments that the nonwoven fabric comprises polyethylene (para [0016]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Glorioso teaches as in one of its embodiments that the nonwoven fabric comprises polyethylene and a polypropylene spunbound material (para [0017]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Glorioso teaches the two-way humidity control material (10) comprises a viscous miscible glycerol and water mix (para [0019]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Glorioso teaches the two-way humidity control material comprises a saturated salt solution (para [0019]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Glorioso teaches as in one of its embodiments the inclusion of ascorbic acid para [0027]), the ascorbic acid being housed in the package with the two-way humidity control material and the substantially pure plant extract (para [0027], the ascorbic acid is included with the humidity control substance, being housed in the package).
Regarding claim 8, Glorioso teaches the inclusion of a humidity indicating card affixed to the package (para [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Glorioso teaches the inclusion of suitable amount of the substantially pure plant extract in the amount of 0.025% to about 5% by weight (para [0195]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of about 0.025% and about 5.0%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Glorioso teaches the suitable plant extract includes terpene Linalool, Myrcene, a-Pinene, Humulene, Beta-Caryophyllene (para [0020] [0021]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 42, claim 42 contains process limitations with regards to how the mixture is added to the package, i.e., using a cylinder pump. It should be noted that the recitation of “the mixture is added to the package using a cylinder pump” of claim 42 is considered as product-by-process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that the recited process does not result in a patentably distinctive structural difference in the resultant humidity control system. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached on 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights