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
The amendments filed 10/20/2025 are entered. The claim objections are withdrawn.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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13-15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangler (US 20130157207 A1) in view of Del Cotto (US 20160281031 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Spangler teaches a wick (FIG. 7, wick 1), comprising: a sheet (FIG. 7, the body of wick 1) comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of a wood (paragraph 17, patterned wick 1 can be made of wood), a wood-like substance, and a cellulose fiber; and an engraved booster region (FIG. 7, the deer-shaped pattern) that is a region at a surface of the sheet where material of the sheet has been removed (paragraphs 18 and 19, the patterns 3 can be woven (i.e., engraved) into the patterned wick 1); wherein: the sheet has a thickness, a height, and a width (FIG. 7, the body of the wick 1 has a thickness, height, and width), the thickness being a smallest dimension of the sheet (FIG. 2, the thickness T is less than the height or width); the engraved booster region has a depth, a height, and a width, the depth being the smallest dimension of the engraved booster region (FIG. 7, the engraved deer of the wick 1 has three dimensions, of which the thickness is the smallest); the height of the sheet and the height of the engraved booster region extend in a vertical direction when the wick is provided in a candle (FIG. 7, the heights of the wick 1 and the pattern are oriented vertically); the depth of the engraved booster region is a distance the engraved booster region extends into the thickness of the sheet, the depth of the engraved booster region being less than the thickness of the sheet (FIG. 7, paragraph 18 notes that the pattern can be woven into the wick 1. As shown in the pattern, some portions are entirely cut-around, meaning that they would fall off if the engraving went fully through the wick 1. Therefore it is clear that the engraving only goes partially through the thickness of the wick 1); the height of the engraved booster region is a largest dimension of the engraved booster region (FIG. 7, the deer is taller than it is wide or thick).
Spangler fails to teach that a ratio of the width of the engraved booster region to the width of the sheet is 1:3 to 1:8.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make a ratio of the width of the engraved booster region to the width of the sheet is 1:3 to 1:8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Del Cotto teaches in paragraph 41 that a first predetermined width (of a wick) and/or second predetermined width (of a wick booster) may be between about 0.7 inch and about 0.8 inch, up to 1 inch, greater than 0.06 inches or between 0.6 inches and 1 inch), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the ratio between the width of a wick and the width of an engraving or booster is a result effective variable because it affects both the burning qualities of the ick as well as its aesthetic properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a ratio of the width of the engraved booster region to the width of the sheet is 1:3 to 1:8, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto fails to teach that the height of the engraved booster region is at least 80% of the height of the sheet.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the height of the engraved booster region is at least 80% of the height of the sheet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Del Cotto teaches a booster member 14 that is 100% the height of the wick), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that engraving height is a result effective variable because it affects the burn properties and aesthetic qualities of the wick. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the height of the engraved booster region is at least 80% of the height of the sheet, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto teaches that engraved booster region is located in a middle third of the width of the sheet.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto teaches that the wick comprises a single engraved booster region on a single side of the sheet (Spangler, FIG. 7, there is only one deer design on one side of the wick 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto teaches that the wick comprises plural, separate engraved booster regions formed on one or both sides of the sheet (Spangler, FIG. 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art could also interpret the separate portions of the flag design on wick 1 to be a series of booster regions).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto teaches that the engraved booster region is formed by laser engraving the sheet (Spangler, paragraph 18, the pattern may be laser cut).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto teaches that the engraved booster region comprises a plurality of spots where material of the sheet has been removed (Spangler, FIG. 7, material has been removed at a number of locations to create the deer pattern).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto fails to teach that the height of the sheet is 1 to 8 inches; the width of the sheet is 0.125 to 6 inches; the thickness of the sheet is 0.010 to 0.045 inches; and the width of the engraved booster region is 0.05 to 0.25 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make it so the height of the sheet is 1 to 8 inches; the width of the sheet is 0.125 to 6 inches; the thickness of the sheet is 0.010 to 0.045 inches; and the width of the engraved booster region is 0.05 to 0.25 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (paragraphs 40 and 41 describe the dimensions of the wick and the booster), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the dimensions of the wick are a result effective variable because the dimensions of a wick determine its burning properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make it so the height of the sheet is 1 to 8 inches; the width of the sheet is 0.125 to 6 inches; the thickness of the sheet is 0.010 to 0.045 inches; and the width of the engraved booster region is 0.05 to 0.25 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto fails to teach that the sheet comprises cherry wood.
However, Del Cotto further teaches that the sheet comprises cherry wood (paragraph 11, the wick may be made of cherry wood).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Spangler by making the wick 1 of Spangler out of cherry wood, as taught by Del Cotto, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spangler with these aforementioned teachings of Del Cotto since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the cherry wood of Del Cotto for the unspecified wood of Spangler. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto fails to teach that the sheet comprises maple wood.
However, Del Cotto further teaches that the sheet comprises maple wood (paragraph 11, the wick may be made of maple wood).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Spangler by making the wick 1 of Spangler out of maple wood, as taught by Del Cotto, with a reasonable expectation of Spangler success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spangler with these aforementioned teachings of Del Cotto since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the maple wood of Del Cotto for the unspecified wood of Spangler. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto teaches that the sheet comprises wood (Spangler, FIG. 7, the body of the Wick 1 is made of wood); a grain direction of the wood is substantially aligned with the height of the sheet (Del Cotto, FIG. 1, the grain of the wood is parallel with a vertical axis).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto teaches a candle (Spangler, paragraph 23, candle 10), comprising: the wick of claim 1; and a body of meltable fuel (Spangler, paragraph 23, the wax of the candle 10).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto teaches that the wick is held upright in the body of meltable fuel by a sustainer (Spangler, paragraph 23, the wick 1 is held up by a jar 9).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto fails to teach that the meltable fuel comprises a natural wax.
However, further teachings of Del Cotto teach that the meltable fuel comprises a natural wax (paragraph 10, the wax is natural wax).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Spangler by using natural wax in the candle 10, as taught by Del Cotto, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spangler with these aforementioned teachings of Del Cotto since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the natural wax of Del Cotto for the wax of Spangler. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto teaches that the body of meltable fuel is provided in a container (Spangler, paragraph 23, the wax is held in a jar 9).
Regarding claim 20, Spangler teaches a wick (FIG. 7, wick 1), comprising: a sheet (FIG. 7, the body of wick 1) comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of a wood (paragraph 17, patterned wick 1 can be made of wood), a wood-like substance, and a cellulose fiber; and an engraved booster region (FIG. 7, the deer-shaped pattern) that is a region at a surface of the sheet where material of the sheet has been removed by laser engraving (paragraph 18, the pattern may be laser cut); wherein: the sheet has a thickness, a height, and a width (FIG. 7, the body of the wick 1 has a thickness, height, and width), the thickness being a smallest dimension of the sheet (FIG. 2, the thickness T is less than the height or width); the engraved booster region has a depth, a height, and a width, the depth being the smallest dimension of the engraved booster region (FIG. 7, the engraved deer of the wick 1 has three dimensions, of which the thickness is the smallest); the height of the sheet and the height of the engraved booster region extend in a vertical direction when the wick is provided in a candle (FIG. 7, the heights of the wick 1 and the pattern are oriented vertically); the depth of the engraved booster region is a distance the engraved booster region extends into the thickness of the sheet, the depth of the engraved booster region being less than the thickness of the sheet (FIG. 7, paragraph 18 notes that the pattern can be woven into the wick 1. As shown in the pattern, some portions are entirely cut-around, meaning that they would fall off if the engraving went fully through the wick 1. Therefore it is clear that the engraving only goes partially through the thickness of the wick 1); the height of the engraved booster region is a largest dimension of the engraved booster region (FIG. 7, the deer is taller than it is wide or thick).
Spangler fails to teach that the width of the engraved booster region is 0.075 to 0.175 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make it so the width of the engraved booster region is 0.075 to 0.175 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Del Cotto teaches in paragraph 41 that a second predetermined width (of a wick booster) may be between about 0.7 inch and about 0.8 inch), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the width of an engraving or booster is a result effective variable because it affects both the burning qualities of the ick as well as its aesthetic properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make it so the width of the engraved booster region is 0.075 to 0.175 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangler and Del Cotto as applied to claims 1-10, 13-16, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Decker (US 20050037308 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto fails to teach that the sheet comprises poplar wood.
However, Decker further teaches that the sheet comprises maple wood (paragraph 28, the wick may be made of poplar wood).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Spangler by making the wick 1 of Spangler out of poplar wood, as taught by Decker, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spangler with these aforementioned teachings of Decker since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the poplar wood of Decker for the unspecified wood of Spangler. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto fails to teach that the sheet comprises wood that has been dyed.
However, Decker teaches that the sheet comprises wood that has been dyed (paragraph 31, the wick may be dyed).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Spangler by making the wick 1 dyed, as taught by Decker, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spangler with these aforementioned teachings of Decker with the motivation of giving the wick 1 an aesthetically appealing color.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangler and Del Cotto as applied to claims 1-10, 13-16, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Decker (US 20210033278 A1; hereinafter Decker 2).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto fails to teach that the meltable fuel comprises a petroleum-based wax.
However, Decker 2 teaches that the meltable fuel comprises a petroleum-based wax (paragraph 228, the candle may use a petroleum (paraffin) wax).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Spangler by using petroleum wax in the candle 10, as taught by Decker 2, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spangler with these aforementioned teachings of Decker 2 since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the petroleum wax of Decker 2 for the wax of Spangler. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Spangler and Del Cotto fails to teach that the meltable fuel comprises a petroleum-based wax.
However, Decker 2 teaches that the meltable fuel comprises a blend of natural and petroleum-based waxes (paragraph 228, the candle may use a petroleum (paraffin) wax, natural wax, or a mixture of both).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Spangler by using a mixture of natural and petroleum wax in the candle 10, as taught by Decker 2, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spangler with these aforementioned teachings of Decker 2 since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the mixture of natural and petroleum wax of Decker 2 for the wax of Spangler. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 9 of the remarks the Applicant asserts that the opening in the deer pattern of FIG. 7 extends fully through the sheet. However, the Applicant makes this case by asserting that (as seen in FIG. 2) the sheet is split into two sheets: a base sheet and an image sheet). In the rejection above, the Examiner treats the sheet as one sheet, and therefore the opening in what the Applicant calls “the image sheet,” which does not extend into “the base sheet,” does not extend fully through the sheet.
Further down page 9, the Applicant asserts that the pattern is not dominantly vertical. However, the Examiner notes that (as shown in FIG. 7), the deer pattern is much taller than it is wide.
On page 10 of the remarks, the Applicant further asserts that it would not be obvious to manipulate the dimensions of the booster region, since Delcotto teaches a booster region that extends outwards from the sheet, instead of receding into the sheet like Spangler. However, the Examiner notes that Delcotto is only employed in the rejection to modify the dimensions of a booster region, regardless of whether it extends inward or outward.
Lastly, on page 10 the Applicant asserts that the features of the claims provide unexpected, superior results. However, the Applicant cites attributes only found in the specification. As the claims stand, their elements are taught in full by the above cited references.
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 WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762