18018368DETAILED 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
The amendment filed October 17th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
The term “generally” in claim 8, ln. 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is not quantifiable and the specification does not provide a standard for how generally concave the shape of the cap should be. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the cap has a concave shape.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buschmann (US 20110253801 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Buschmann discloses an insect repelling device (20, volatile material 54 within container 52 of the dispenser 20 can be an insect repellant and therefore can be used for insect repelling, Figs. 1-3, Paragraph 0028) comprising:
a base (24, Figs. 1-3) configured to support a fluid reservoir (52, cavity 24 accepts a volatile material refill 50, which includes the container 52, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0025), the fluid reservoir (52, Fig. 3) configured to contain an insect repelling fluid (54, container 52 holds a volatile material 54, and volatile material 54 within container 52 of the dispenser 20 can be an insect repellant, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0027-0028); and
a cap (22, Figs. 1-3) having an exhaust port (annotated in Fig. 3) that permits a vapor of the insect repelling fluid to be emitted (volatile material 54 is moved to the top portion 102 of the wick 58 through capillary action and is evaporated through the channel 26 to the annotated exhaust port, Paragraphs 0031-0032), the cap (22, Figs. 1-3) configured to permit a condensate of the insect repelling fluid to flow toward the exhaust port (volatile material 54 is evaporated from the top portion 102 of the wick 58 towards the channel 26 to the annotated exhaust port, annotated and shown in Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0009, 0031-0032).
PNG
media_image1.png
693
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Buschmann discloses the insect repelling device of claim 1. Buschmann further discloses a wick (58, Fig. 3) extends from the fluid reservoir (52, shown in Fig. 3) to a heating element (interpreting a heating element as a heater, not explicitly shown, but there is a heater that the top portion 102 of the wick 58 is exposed to, Paragraph 0031), the heating element (not explicitly shown, but there is a heater that the top portion 102 of the wick 58 is exposed to, Paragraph 0031) configured to vaporize the insect repelling fluid from the wick (58, the wick 58 is exposed to allow heat from the heater to evaporate the volatile material 54, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0031).
In regards to claim 5, Buschmann discloses the insect repelling device of claim 2. Buschmann further discloses the cap (22, Figs. 1-3) includes at least one opening (top opening of the cap, annotated in Fig. 3) configured to permit a condensate of the insect repelling fluid to flow toward at least one of the wick or the heating element (evaporated volatile material 54 moves to the top portion of the wick 58, Paragraph 0031).
PNG
media_image2.png
693
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Buschmann discloses an insect repelling device (20, volatile material 54 within container 52 of the dispenser 20 can be an insect repellant and therefore can be used for insect repelling, Figs. 1-3, Paragraph 0028) comprising:
a base (24, Figs. 1-3) configured to support a fluid reservoir (52, cavity 24 accepts a volatile material refill 50, which includes the container 52, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0025), the fluid reservoir (52, Fig. 3) containing an insect repelling fluid (54, container 52 holds a volatile material 54, and volatile material 54 within container 52 of the dispenser 20 can be an insect repellant, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0027-0028) and a wick (58, Fig. 3) extending from the fluid reservoir (52, shown in Fig. 3); and
an upper section (annotated in Fig. 3) having a heating assembly (not explicitly shown, but there is a heater that the top portion 102 of the wick 58 is exposed to, Paragraph 0031) and cap (22, Figs. 1-3) with an exhaust port (annotated and shown in Fig. 3) that permits a vapor of the insect repelling fluid to be emitted (volatile material 54 is moved to the top portion 102 of the wick 58 through capillary action and is evaporated through the channel 26 to the annotated exhaust port to be emitted from the device, Paragraphs 0031-0032), the cap (22, Figs. 1-3) defining a condensate drainage path (26, Fig. 3) between the heating assembly (not explicitly shown, but there is a heater that the top portion 102 of the wick 58 is exposed to, Paragraph 0031) and the exhaust port (annotated and shown in Fig. 3) to permit a condensate of the insect repelling fluid to flow toward the exhaust port (volatile 54 is evaporated from the top portion 102 of the wick 58 towards the channel 26 to the annotated exhaust port, annotated and shown in Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0009, 0031-0032).
PNG
media_image3.png
693
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 (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 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschmann (US 20110253801 A1) in view of Broncano Atencia (US 20100221143 A1, herein referenced to as “Broncano”).
Regarding claim 3, Buschmann discloses the insect repelling device of claim 2. However, Buschmann does not disclose a chimney as claimed. Broncano teaches an insect repelling device (1, various fragrances, including an insect repellant, may be selected as the fragrance, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0008-0009) comprising a chimney (37, passage 37 can also be considered as a chimney, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0063) is positioned between the heating element (30-32, Figs. 3-4) and the cap (8, heating elements 30-32 are provided on the outside of the passage 37 within the housing 8, shown in Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0063) and extends through the exhaust port (opening of housing 8 connecting to passage 37, shown in Figs. 1-2) to define a condensate drainage path (path within passage 37, shown in Figs. 1-2) to one of the wick or the heating element (thermal energy inside of passage 37 heats the fragrance transported by the wick 6 and volatizes the fragrance, and is released from the system through an open side at the top of the passage 37, Paragraph 0063).
Buschmann and Broncano are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of insect repelling devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the chimney taught in Broncano’s device to Buschmann’s device, to have a chimney is positioned between the heating element and the cap and extends through the exhaust port to define a condensate drainage path to one of the wick or the heating element. Doing so volatilizes and transports the fluid so that it can be released out of the device more efficiently (Broncano, Paragraphs 0007, 0063).
With respect to claim 4, Buschmann, as modified by Broncano, discloses the insect repelling device of claim 3. Buschmann further discloses an upper surface (upper surface of the housing 22, shown in Figs. 1-3) of the cap (22, Figs. 1-3) is sloped toward the exhaust port (annotated and shown in Figs. 2-3).
Claims 6-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschmann (US 20110253801 A1) in view of Taylor et al. (US 20230255188 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Buschmann discloses the insect repelling device of claim 2. However, Buschmann does not disclose the heating element includes a heater housing having an exhaust extension that extends coaxially through the exhaust port the heating element. Taylor teaches an insect repelling device (10, device can be used for insect repellant, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0100) comprises the heating element (211, Fig. 4) includes a heater housing (210, Fig. 4) having an exhaust extension (217 and annotated in Fig. 4) that extends coaxially through the exhaust port (221, shown in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
681
651
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Buschmann and Taylor are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of insect repelling devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the heating element taught in Taylor’s device to Buschmann’s device, to have the heating element includes a heater housing having an exhaust extension that extends coaxially through the exhaust port the heating element. Doing so provides beneficial delivery of controlled vaporization of fluids in a wide variety of environmental conditions (Taylor, Paragraphs 0009-0010).
Regarding claim 7, Buschmann, as modified by Taylor, discloses the insect repelling device of claim 6. Taylor further teaches a chimney (219, 220, conical chamber 219 and straight section 220 combined acts as a chimney, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0128) is coaxially positioned within the exhaust extension (217, annotated and shown in Fig. 4) and cooperates with the exhaust extension (217, annotated and shown in Fig. 4) to define a condensate drainage path (path defined by annotated exhaust extension and outlet duct section 217, shown in Fig. 4) in communication with the wick (206, combination of conical chamber 219 and the straight section 220 acts as a chimney and accelerates flow of the gas from the wicks and to the outlet 221, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0128).
In regards to claim 8, Buschmann, as modified by Taylor, discloses the insect repelling device of claim 7. However, Buschmann does not teach the cap as claimed. Taylor teaches the cap (218, Fig. 4) has a generally concave shape (shown in Fig. 4) that includes at least one opening (top opening of outlet body 218, annotated in Fig. 4) configured to permit a condensate of the insect repelling fluid to flow toward at least one of the wick or the heating element (the structure supports vaporization of the liquid formulation at the distal ends of the wicks, Paragraphs 0070, 0085).
PNG
media_image5.png
681
579
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Buschmann and Taylor are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of insect repelling devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the cap taught in Taylor’s device to Buschmann’s device, to have the cap has a generally concave shape that includes at least one opening configured to permit a condensate of the insect repelling fluid to flow toward at least one of the wick or the heating element. Doing so promotes vaporization of the liquid at the wick surface and allows the vapor to flow from the device (Taylor, Paragraphs 0070, 0085).
Regarding claim 10, Buschmann discloses the insect repelling device of claim 9. However, Buschmann does not disclose the heating assembly includes an exhaust extension extending from a heater housing through the exhaust port, the exhaust extension including an edge radius and a bore, the cap defining a concave, sloped surface extending toward the exhaust port. Taylor teaches an insect repelling device (10, device can be used for insect repellant, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0100) comprising the heating assembly (211, Fig. 4) includes an exhaust extension (217 and annotated in Fig. 4) extending from a heater housing (210, Fig. 4) through the exhaust port (221, shown in Fig. 4), the exhaust extension (217 and annotated in Fig. 4) including an edge radius (interpreting as an edge having a radius, the edge of outlet duct section 217 and the annotated exhaust extension have a radius, shown in Fig. 4), and a bore (opening from the outlet duct section 217, shown in Fig. 4), the cap (218, Fig. 4) defining a concave, sloped surface (shown in Fig. 4) extending toward the exhaust port (221, shown in Fig. 4).
Buschmann and Taylor are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of insect repelling devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the heating assembly and the cap taught in Taylor’s device to Buschmann’s device, to have the heating assembly includes an exhaust extension extending from a heater housing through the exhaust port, the exhaust extension including an edge radius and a bore, the cap defining a concave, sloped surface extending toward the exhaust port. Doing so provides beneficial delivery of controlled vaporization of fluids in a wide variety of environmental conditions, and promotes vaporization of the liquid at the wick surface and allows the vapor to flow from the device (Taylor, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0070, 0085).
With respect to claim 11, Buschmann discloses the insect repelling device of claim 9. However, Buschmann does not disclose the cap defines a concave, sloped surface extending toward the exhaust port, a chimney is coaxially positioned above the wick and extending through the exhaust port, the chimney and the exhaust port defining the condensate drainage path. Taylor teaches an insect repelling device (10, device can be used for insect repellant, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0100) comprising the cap (218, Fig. 4) defines a concave, sloped surface (shown in Fig. 4) extending toward the exhaust port (221, shown in Fig. 4), a chimney (219, 220, conical chamber 219 and straight section 220 combined acts as a chimney, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0128) is coaxially positioned above the wick (206, shown in Fig. 4) and extending through the exhaust port (221, shown in Fig. 4), the chimney (219, 220, conical chamber 219 and straight section 220 combined acts as a chimney, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0128) and the exhaust port (221, Fig. 4) defining the condensate drainage path (path defined by annotated exhaust extension and outlet duct section 217, shown in Fig. 4).
Buschmann and Taylor are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of insect repelling devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the cap and the chimney taught in Taylor’s device to Buschmann’s device, to have the cap defines a concave, sloped surface extending toward the exhaust port, a chimney is coaxially positioned above the wick and extending through the exhaust port, the chimney and the exhaust port defining the condensate drainage path. Doing so promotes vaporization of the liquid at the wick surface and allows the vapor to flow from the device (Taylor, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0070, 0085).
In regards to claim 12, Buschmann, as modified by Taylor, discloses the insect repelling device of claim 11. Taylor further teaches the chimney (219, 220, conical chamber 219 and straight section 220 combined acts as a chimney, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0128) includes a flange (annotated in Fig. 4) that cooperates with the cap (218, shown in Fig. 4) to retain the chimney (219, 220, conical chamber 219 and straight section 220 combined acts as a chimney, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0128) to the upper section (annotated in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
681
738
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschmann (US 20110253801 A1) in view of Taylor et al. (US 20230255188 A1) as applied to claims 9 and 11-12 above, and further in view of Wynalda, Jr. (US 20170238527 A1, herein referenced to as “Wynalda”).
With respect to claim 13, Buschmann, as modified by Taylor, discloses the insect repelling device of claim 12. However, Buschmann and Taylor do not teach a sealing element. Wynalda teaches an insect repelling device (100, device can be used to distribute insect repellant, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0003) comprising a sealing element (interpreting a sealing element as a seal or gasket, 178, Fig. 4) extends between the cap (182, shown in Fig. 4, Paragraph 0070) and a portion of the heating assembly (150, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0070) to prevent the condensate from migrating away from the wick (174, seal is used to seal off liquid when device is not in use, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0015, 0067).
Buschmann, Taylor, and Wynalda are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of insect repelling devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sealing element taught in Taylor’s device to Buschmann’s device, to have a sealing element extends between the cap and a portion of the heating assembly to prevent the condensate from migrating away from the wick. Doing so prevents the user from being readily exposed to the fluid during transport and storage of the device (Wynalda, Paragraph 0067).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the term “generally” would be considered sufficiently clear and precise to one of ordinary skill in the art, see Remarks, pg. 5, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, the term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is not quantifiable and the specification does not provide a standard for how generally concave the shape of the cap should be. Therefore, this renders the claim as indefinite.
In response to applicant’s argument that Buschmann does not anticipate the present claimed invention, see Remarks, pg. 6-7, Buschmann does disclose the features of independent claim 1. Specifically, Buschmann does disclose a condensate forming in the device. Buschmann states volatile material 54 is moved to the top portion 102 of the wick 58 through capillary action and is evaporated through the channel 26 to the annotated exhaust port (Paragraphs 0031-0032). As the volatile material is evaporated, it will condense back into liquid as the vapor cools down or becomes saturated, as widely known in the art. Furthermore, volatile material 54 is stored at the bottom of the device 20. The volatile material 54 moves upwards through capillary action through wick 58 to the top portion 102 of wick 58. From the top portion 102, the volatile material evaporates through channel 26 to the annotated exhaust port in Fig. 6 above. As known in the art, when the volatile material is evaporated, it will condense back into liquid as the vapor cools down or becomes saturated. This can occur as the volatile material is being evaporated to the annotated exhaust port from channel 26, which allows condensate to flow towards the annotated exhaust port.
PNG
media_image1.png
693
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to an insect repellant device: Boyd, Adair, Wingo, Ketcha, Bartsch, Bonnema, Bonnema, Hasegawa, Napierski, van Lit, Butler, and Brown.
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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 O Hall can be reached at (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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752