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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 21–30, in the reply filed on 29 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11–20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs. 4A–4C, 5C, 5D, 6C, 7A–7C, 7E, and 7F show a sectional view without the required hatching. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(3).
The drawings are objected to because fig. 4D has a photograph, but it does not seem justified as the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(1).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Hheater (fig. 4C).
The drawings are objected to for not showing the housing being configured to measure and report a fluid level as required by claims 25 and 26. Figure 6A only shows the measurement device 19c on the support arm 19b.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 52 of the submitted specification, “recycling shield 16d” should be “recycling shield 16c.”
In ¶ 54 of the submitted specification, “cap 16a” should be “cap 16b.”
In ¶ 65 of the submitted specification, “support arm 19a” should be “support arm 19b” (twice).
In ¶ 66 of the submitted specification, “slot 148b” should be “slot 150,” and “alterative” should be “alternative.”
The use of the terms “Thermacell” and “WiFi” (which should be “Wi-Fi”), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, ℠, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 21–30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “bottle support” (l. 8), but it appears this recitation is incomplete and should be “bottle support structure.”
Claim 23, “align” is misspelled as “algin.”
In both claims 29 and 30, “reservoir cap” on line 2 should be “a reservoir cap,” and “fluid contents is” on line 3 should be “fluid contents are.”
Claims 22 and 24–28 are objected to due to dependency upon objected-to claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Comment: The limitation “a removable sealing means” in claim 30 is understood under § 112(f) (no structure clearly discernable from the disclosure).
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.
Claims 22, 25–27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites that “the support arm is connected to a lower section.” The claim is indefinite because it doesn’t expound what the lower section is of. Based on the disclosure, the lower section is of the insect repeller station itself, and the claim will be understood in that way.
Claim 25 recites that “one of the support arm or the housing is configured to measure and report a fluid level of fluid contents of the reservoir to a controller.” The claim is indefinite because a “support arm” or “housing” are structural items with no ability to measure and report a fluid level of fluid contents of a reservoir, leaving a reader in doubt as to what would actually accomplish that. The specification discloses a “fluid level detection device,” and suggests this would measure by “monitoring a bottle weight by one of a load cell, a strain gauge, or a weight scale.” This indefiniteness carries through, at least in part, to the limitations of claim 27, since the controller would not be able to generate a signal proportional to the fluid level without working with an element like the fluid level detection device.
Claim limitation “a removable sealing means” (claim 30) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although the disclosure has numerous mentions of seals, it only recites “removable sealing means” once, and the word “removable” (and variants) only that one time with respect to any seal. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasik et al. (US Pub. 2021/0086220) in view of Jaworski et al. (US Pub. 2014/0037273).
Claim 21: Hasik discloses an insect repeller station comprising:
an upper section (54) defining an interior volume (see fig. 13);
a housing (126, see fig. 7), the housing extending from a support arm (120) into the interior volume of the upper section (appreciable from fig. 13), the housing including at least one bottle support structure (122, 150); and
a fluid bottle (170) including a bottle attachment point (152, see ¶ 50), a reservoir (210), and a wick (188), the bottle attachment point configured to form a snap fit engagement with the bottle support structure to secure the fluid bottle to the housing (the way that flexible tabs 150 interact with annular rim 152 qualifies as a snap fit), a portion of the bottle support contacting the housing to align the wick in a generally concentric orientation (evident from figs. 19 and 20), the reservoir positioned adjacent to the support arm (best shown in fig. 24).
Hasik does not disclose a heating element supported in the housing and including an aperture that receives a wick. Instead, Hasik uses a piezoelectric assembly 110 (best shown in figs. 15 and 17), which has apertures 268 on a piezoelectric plate (see fig. 18B), though the wick does not go through these apertures because they are too small.
However, Hasik grants that, in the art, heaters are also known as diffusion elements, just like piezoelectric elements (¶ 2).
Furthermore, in the art, heating elements including an aperture that receive a wick are well-known, as for example shown in Jaworski (heater arrangement 200, heater or resistor 202, wick 60, see e.g. fig. 9). Jaworski itself grants that heaters and piezoelectric elements are diffusion elements (¶ 5).
The advantages and disadvantages of piezoelectric assemblies and heating elements are generally known in the art. A piezoelectric heater is safer, but also diffuses less. A heating element has greater diffusion output, but is less safe.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the piezoelectric assembly and wick arrangement of Hasik with the heating element, aperture, and wick arrangement of Jaworski to provide increased diffusion output.
Claim 22: Hasik modified by Jaworski discloses that the support arm is connected to a lower section (Hasik: 118, see ¶ 50 and fig. 7) and cantilevered into the interior volume (ibid.), the support arm housing electrical and/or communication connections to the heating element (this is shown with first and second wires 226 in Hasik, see fig. 15, which would work similarly with the heating element of Jaworski installed).
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasik in view of Jaworski as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Triplett et al. (US Pub. 2006/0022064).
Claim 29: Hasik discloses that the fluid bottle includes a reservoir cap (186, which is structured similarly to the reservoir cap 48 in the present disclosure) and a bottle lid (146).
Hasik does not disclose its reservoir cap having a venting structure to prevent vacuum formation within the reservoir as fluid contents is drawn by the wick, and the bottle lid forms a seal with the vent to contain the fluid contents.
However, Triplett discloses a similar apparatus with a reservoir cap (450) having a venting structure (470) to prevent vacuum formation within the reservoir as fluid contents is drawn by a wick (see ¶ 42), and a bottle lid (490) that forms a seal with the vent to contain the fluid contents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the venting structure taught by Triplett into the reservoir cap of Hasik to prevent any inhibition of capillary action due to a vacuum within the reservoir.
Claim 30: Hasik discloses that the fluid bottle includes reservoir cap (186, which is structured similarly to the reservoir cap 48 in the present disclosure) and a removable sealing means to contain the fluid contents (490).
Hasik does not disclose its reservoir cap having a venting structure to prevent vacuum formation within the reservoir as fluid contents is drawn by the wick, nor its removable sealing means closing the vent to contain the fluid contents.
However, Triplett discloses a similar apparatus with a reservoir cap (450) having a venting structure (470) to prevent vacuum formation within the reservoir as fluid contents is drawn by the wick (see ¶ 42), and a removable sealing means (490) closing the vent to contain the fluid contents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the venting structure taught by Triplett into the reservoir cap of Hasik to prevent any inhibition of capillary action due to a vacuum within the reservoir.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 24, and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 25–27 would inherit the allowability of claim 23 if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 23, although detents and attachment bosses are generally well-known as attachment means, claim 23 has too many other specifics that render the claim unobvious in view of the prior art, particularly given how these are laid out on top of the specifics provided for in independent claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flashinski et al. (US Pub. 2008/0197213) and Michaels et al. (US Pub. 2008/0315005) both discloses similar apparatuses with a support arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761