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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on August 18, 2025. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The newly added limitations “a base that includes a front wall that is entirely rounded and uninterrupted … wherein the uninterrupted, entirely round front wall of the base is rounded about longitudinal axis of the wick when the refill has been coupled with the housing” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification is devoid to provide any written description corresponding to the new limitations. In addition, the new limitations cannot be found in the drawings together with. For example, as shown in Fig. 8, the uninterrupted, entirely round front wall asserted by the applicant is interrupted by the air inlets 116 and the sidewalls of the base 106. As a result, claims 1, 14, and 18 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph because of dependency on claims 1, 14, and 18.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The newly added limitation “is attachable to and detachable from the base” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification is devoid to provide any written description corresponding to the new limitation. In addition, the new limitation cannot be found in the drawings together with.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The newly added limitation “ a means in the piezoelectric assembly that is configured to counteract a force that the wick exerts on the coil compression spring when the refill and the overhanging cover of the housing are coupled with one another” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification is devoid to provide any written description corresponding to the new limitation. In addition, the new limitation cannot be found in the drawings together with.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “means” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “wire” in light of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al. (US 7,854,394 B2) in view of Helf et al. (US 6,896,193 B2) and Michaels et al. (US 7,824,627 B2).
With regard to claims 1, 14, and 18, Powell discloses a piezoelectric dispenser (100), comprising: a refill (102), comprising: a container having a neck and defining a fluid reservoir and an outermost surface (Fig. 11), a wick holder (Fig. 16) affixed to the neck, and a wick (1900) retained by the wick holder that has a lower end disposed within the fluid reservoir (102) and an upper end that is in communication with a piezoelectric assembly (1002), the wick defining a longitudinal axis, a housing (101), comprising: a base (Fig. 2) an overhanging cover (Fig. 2) that defines a fluid outlet (103) and extends inward from the base at a shoulder (Fig. 2), toward the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2), the overhanging cover being disposed around and above the upper end of the wick and housing the piezoelectric assembly (Fig. 2); wherein the base is provided on a rear side of the refill with left, right, and front sides of the refill being exposed to a surrounding environment after the refill has been coupled with the overhanging cover of the housing (Fig. 2).
However, Powell does not disclose that the piezoelectric dispenser includes a coil compression spring that is disposed above a piezoelectric actuator; wherein the piezoelectric assembly further includes a wire that is configured to counteract a force that the wick exerts on the coil spring when the refill and the piezoelectric assembly are coupled with one another.
Helf teaches a piezoelectric dispenser comprising a piezoelectric assembly includes a coil compression spring (42) that is disposed above a piezoelectric actuator (30); wherein the piezoelectric assembly further includes a wire (26 that is configured to counteract a force that the wick exerts on the coil spring when the refill and the piezoelectric assembly are coupled with one another (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric dispenser of Powell, by incorporating the piezoelectric assembly with the coil compression spring and the wire as taught by Helf, for the benefit of providing an improved atomizing assembly support which is easier to manufacture and assemble in the atomizing device and which eliminates the need to weld a wire to form a support loop (Col. 1 lines 30-33).
However, Powell does not disclose that the base that includes a front wall that is entirely rounded and uninterrupted, wherein the uninterrupted, entirely round front wall of the base is rounded about longitudinal axis of the wick when the refill has been coupled with the housing.
Michaels teaches a piezoelectric dispenser comprising a base that includes a front wall that is entirely rounded and uninterrupted (302a), wherein the uninterrupted, entirely round front wall of the base is rounded about longitudinal axis of the wick when the refill (326) has been coupled with the housing (Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Powell, by changing the shape of the front wall of the base of Powell to entirely rounded, uninterrupted shape as taught by Michaels, since the modification would provide an ergonomic grip shape for the user to handle the device.
With regard to claim 2, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Powell further discloses that the overhanging cover is attachable to and detachable from the base (by screws 201, Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Powell further discloses that a sensor (105) is disposed within the base and is configured to interact with the refill (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Helf further discloses that a plurality of posts (22) are disposed directly below the overhanging cover (Fig. 1 and 2) and around the fluid outlet (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Helf further discloses that a receiving aperture (24) is disposed below the fluid outlet and is configured to receive the wick of the refill when the refill is coupled with the piezoelectric dispenser (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Powell further discloses that the base includes an electrical input (1010) that is disposed below the piezoelectric assembly (Fig. 10).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Helf further discloses that the piezoelectric assembly comprises a retainer and a coil compression spring (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Helf further discloses that the coil compression spring (42) is configured to facilitate contact between the wick of the refill and the piezoelectric assembly (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 9, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Helf further discloses that means (26) in the piezoelectric assembly that is configured to counteract a force that the wick exerts on the coil compression spring when the refill and the overhanging cover of the housing are coupled with one another (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 10, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Helf further discloses that the means comprises a wire (26).
With regard to claim 11, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Powell further discloses that the refill is removably coupled with the housing (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Helf further discloses that the piezoelectric assembly further includes an orifice plate (32).
With regard to claim 13, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 12 above. Helf further discloses that the piezoelectric actuator (30) and the orifice plate (32) are a unitary component (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 15, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Helf further discloses that a plurality of posts (22) are disposed beneath the overhanging cover (Fig. 2) and below the fluid outlet (38 Fig. 1), and wherein a receiving aperture of the housing (24) is configured to receive the wick of the refill when the refill is coupled with the housing (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 16, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Helf further discloses that the piezoelectric assembly further includes a wire (26) that is configured to counteract a force that the wick exerts on the coil spring (42) when the refill and the piezoelectric device are coupled with one another (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 17, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Powell further discloses that the overhanging cover and the base are integral with one another (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 19, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 18 above. Helf further discloses that the piezoelectric assembly further includes an orifice plate (32), and the piezoelectric actuator and the orifice plate are a unitary component (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 20, the device of Powell as modified by Helf and Michaels discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 18 above. Powell further discloses that the overhanging cover and the base are integral with one another (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752