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 .
Status
Applicant’s response dated 03 September 2025 to the previous Office action dated 17 June 2025 is acknowledged. Pursuant to amendments therein, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 made in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 over O’Leary (US 6,631,852 B1; of record) made in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments, but new (modified) rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are made herein in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Fernandez Prieto et al. (US 2019/0022265 A1; of record) made in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 made in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments, but new (modified) rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are made herein in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The double patenting rejection made in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 13-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Leary (US 6,631,852 B1; issued 14 October 2003; of record).
O’Leary discloses a device for diffusion of an active volatile substance into ambient air or closed spaces (i.e., a dispenser), said device comprising a casing or housing and a solid carrier containing said volatile substance, wherein said solid carrier is arranged in at least one recess formed in the casing or housing, said recess having a depth and a width which are chosen in relation to the composition of the solid carrier containing the active substance so that the ratio of the evaporating surface of the solid carrier to the mass of the solid carrier is such that, during the active lifetime of the device, a substantially constant vapour release rate and total evaporation of said active volatile substance are obtained (claim 1) wherein the solid carrier is a polyether block amide thermoplastic elastomer or polyurethane or silicone or gel or polyester (i.e., elastomeric polymers) (claims 8-11) wherein the active volatile substance is a deodorizing agent (claim 16) wherein when the active substance evaporates the solid gel carrier shrinks thereby providing a visible end point cue indicating exhaustion of activity (column 6 lines 31-39) wherein the recesses of the housing can be filled up partially or entirely with the solid carrier (column 5 lines 47-50) wherein the housing has grooves in a wavy form (i.e., the solid carrier filled into the grooves has an undulating surface profile, i.e., textured surface) such as 10 grooves (column 7 lines 27-29; Figs. 1-2) wherein the carrier incorporates active substance of about 5-90 wt% of the total weight (column 3 lines 13-19) wherein the at least one recess has a surface area of from 10-50 cm2 (claim 18) wherein the amount of solid carrier depends, among others, on the size of the diffusion device, the properties of the material of the housing or casing, e.g., its porosity or how much active ingredient it can incorporate, and the desired effect of the device (column 5 line 65 to column 6 line 6) wherein the recesses of the device may be formed in geometric shapes so as to give a pleasant and aesthetic impression to the user (column 6 lines 10-30).
Regarding the recitation in claim 1 of “for concealing a visual indicator associated with a product life signal of the solid deodorizer before use”, such is an intended use of the product that requires no structure/element not already recited in the claim.
Regarding the recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the solid deodorizer comprises an evaporative surface having a textured region characterized by a Haze measurement of at least 40%”, such property is presumed inherent in the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that the structure recited in O’Leary is at least substantially identical to that of the claims and given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding the recitation in claim 2 of “wherein the Haze measurement is from 45% to 100%”, such property is presumed inherent in the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that the structure recited in O’Leary is at least substantially identical to that of the claims and given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding the recitation in claim 3 of “wherein the deodorizer is further characterized by a Total Transmittance of less than 80%”, such property is presumed inherent in the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that the structure recited in O’Leary is at least substantially identical to that of the claims and given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding the recitation in claim 13 of “wherein the Haze measurement is from 50% to 99%”, such property is presumed inherent in the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that the structure recited in O’Leary is at least substantially identical to that of the claims and given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding the recitation in claim 14 of “wherein the deodorizer is further characterized by a Total Transmittance of from 30% to 79.9”, such property is presumed inherent in the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that the structure recited in O’Leary is at least substantially identical to that of the claims and given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding claim 17, O’Leary discloses that when the active substance evaporates the solid gel carrier shrinks thereby providing a visible end point cue indicating exhaustion of activity as discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, O’Leary discloses that the recesses of the housing can be filled up partially with the solid carrier (i.e., a gap) as discussed above, which would enable shrinkage along a first dimension of the carrier at a faster rate relative to shrinkage along a second dimension of the carrier, as claimed.
Regarding the recitation in claim 19 regarding the visual indicator, O’Leary discloses that when the active substance evaporates the solid gel carrier shrinks thereby providing a visible end point cue indicating exhaustion of activity as discussed above (i.e., a visual indicator indicates an end of life of the dispenser).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Leary.
O’Leary discloses a device for diffusion of an active volatile substance into ambient air or closed spaces (i.e., a dispenser), said device comprising a casing or housing and a solid carrier containing said volatile substance, wherein said solid carrier is arranged in at least one recess formed in the casing or housing, said recess having a depth and a width which are chosen in relation to the composition of the solid carrier containing the active substance so that the ratio of the evaporating surface of the solid carrier to the mass of the solid carrier is such that, during the active lifetime of the device, a substantially constant vapour release rate and total evaporation of said active volatile substance are obtained (claim 1) wherein the solid carrier is a polyether block amide thermoplastic elastomer or polyurethane or silicone or gel or polyester (i.e., elastomeric polymers) (claims 8-11) wherein the active volatile substance is a deodorizing agent (claim 16) wherein when the active substance evaporates the solid gel carrier shrinks thereby providing a visible end point cue indicating exhaustion of activity (column 6 lines 31-39) wherein the recesses of the housing can be filled up partially or entirely with the solid carrier (column 5 lines 47-50) wherein the housing has grooves in a wavy form (i.e., the solid carrier filled into the grooves has an undulating surface profile, i.e., textured surface) such as 10 grooves (column 7 lines 27-29; Figs. 1-2) wherein the carrier incorporates active substance of about 5-90 wt% of the total weight (column 3 lines 13-19) wherein the at least one recess has a surface area of from 10-50 cm2 (claim 18) wherein the amount of solid carrier depends, among others, on the size of the diffusion device, the properties of the material of the housing or casing, e.g., its porosity or how much active ingredient it can incorporate, and the desired effect of the device (column 5 line 65 to column 6 line 6) wherein the recesses of the device may be formed in geometric shapes so as to give a pleasant and aesthetic impression to the user (column 6 lines 10-30).
Regarding the recitation in claim 1 of “for concealing a visual indicator associated with a product life signal of the solid deodorizer before use”, such is an intended use of the product that requires no structure/element not already recited in the claim.
Regarding the recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the solid deodorizer comprises an evaporative surface having a textured region characterized by a Haze measurement of at least 40%”, such property is presumed inherent in the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that the structure recited in O’Leary is at least substantially identical to that of the claims and given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding the recitation in claim 2 of “wherein the Haze measurement is from 45% to 100%”, such property is presumed inherent in the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that the structure recited in O’Leary is at least substantially identical to that of the claims and given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding the recitation in claim 3 of “wherein the deodorizer is further characterized by a Total Transmittance of less than 80%”, such property is presumed inherent in the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that the structure recited in O’Leary is at least substantially identical to that of the claims and given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding claim 9, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize deodorizing effectiveness of the device of O’Leary as discussed above by varying the size/volume of the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05(II), with a reasonable expectation of success, given that O’Leary suggests amount of solid carrier depends, among others, on the size of the diffusion device, the properties of the material of the housing or casing, e.g., its porosity or how much active ingredient it can incorporate, and the desired effect of the device.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, the device of O’Leary as discussed above has recesses of the housing filled up entirely with the solid carrier, and the at least one recess has a surface area of from 10-50 cm2, such as with 10 grooves as in Figs. 1-2 (i.e., a peripheral evaporative surface between two central evaporative surfaces), and thus the surface areas of the evaporative surfaces of the solid carrier in the recesses/grooves of O’Leary overlap the claimed ranges of greater than 2 cm2 and 3-150 cm2, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where prior art and claimed ranges overlap per MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the recitation in claim 13 of “wherein the Haze measurement is from 50% to 99%”, such property is presumed inherent in the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that the structure recited in O’Leary is at least substantially identical to that of the claims and given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding the recitation in claim 14 of “wherein the deodorizer is further characterized by a Total Transmittance of from 30% to 79.9”, such property is presumed inherent in the solid carrier of O’Leary as discussed above per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that the structure recited in O’Leary is at least substantially identical to that of the claims and given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding claim 17, O’Leary discloses that when the active substance evaporates the solid gel carrier shrinks thereby providing a visible end point cue indicating exhaustion of activity as discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, O’Leary discloses that the recesses of the housing can be filled up partially with the solid carrier (i.e., a gap) as discussed above, which would enable shrinkage along a first dimension of the carrier at a faster rate relative to shrinkage along a second dimension of the carrier, as claimed.
Regarding the recitation in claim 19 regarding the visual indicator, O’Leary discloses that when the active substance evaporates the solid gel carrier shrinks thereby providing a visible end point cue indicating exhaustion of activity as discussed above (i.e., a visual indicator indicates an end of life of the dispenser).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlin (US 2005/0267231 A1; published 01 December 2005).
Pavlin discloses an article such as an air freshener that contains a polymeric matrix and an immobilized active liquid therein (paragraph [0008]) wherein an example article is flexible, opaque, and rough on top, and has no water (Example 8; paragraph [0143]) wherein plasticizers such as polyester polyols are used therein to increase flexibility (paragraph [0068]) wherein the polymeric matrix may be crosslinked (paragraph [0029]) wherein the active liquid may be a deodorizer (paragraph [0021]) wherein the active liquid may be volatile (paragraph [0052]) wherein the volatile liquid evaporates from the article (paragraph [0019]) wherein the solid air freshener can be transparent or near transparent such as frosted (paragraph [0020]) wherein the air freshener may be transparent or opaque, and the support material of the article within which the liquid is fixed may be a non-aqueous gel (paragraph [0128]) wherein the article may be formed into any desired shape appealing to a potential customer such as a sheet (paragraphs [0019], [0127]) wherein the volatile liquid may be 10-55 wt% of the article (paragraph [0056]) wherein the article may shrink to indicate end-of-life (paragraph [0020]) wherein the article may be in a container (paragraph [0019]).
Although Pavlin does not disclose a specific example containing all elements of instant claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Pavlin as discussed above and to make the article of Pavlin as a solid with deodorizer volatile active liquid and polymeric matrix that is flexible (i.e., elastomeric) and with polyester polyol (i.e., elastomeric polymer material; a chemically cross-linked polyol or derivative thereof) and wherein the article is opaque (i.e., a Haze measurement of 100%, a total transmittance of 0%) and rough on top (an evaporative surface having a textured region) and is in a container and can shrink to indicate end-of-life, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the recitation in claim 1 of “for concealing a visual indicator associated with a product life signal of the solid deodorizer before use”, such is an intended use of the product that requires no structure/element not already recited in the claim. Nevertheless, as the article of Pavlin as discussed above shrinks it exposes more of the container it is in to indicate end-of-life, and thus before use the article conceals a visual indicator (i.e., amount of container that is unexposed versus exposed by the article) associated with a product life signal of the solid deodorizer as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Pavlin as discussed above and to make the article of Pavlin as discussed above as a gel, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Pavlin as discussed above and to make the article of Pavlin as discussed above formed as a sheet, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the article of Pavlin as discussed above in any volume, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that limitations relating to size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 12, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Pavlin as discussed above and to make the article of Pavlin as discussed above without water, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Pavlin as discussed above and to make the article of Pavlin as discussed above with an appearance anywhere in a range from opaque to frosty to transparent, with a reasonable expectation of success. Such range encompasses a Haze measurement from 0-100% which overlaps the claimed range of 50-99%, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where prior art and claimed ranges overlap per MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Pavlin as discussed above and to make the article of Pavlin as discussed above with an appearance anywhere in a range from opaque to frosty to transparent, with a reasonable expectation of success. Such range encompasses a total transmittance from 0-100% which overlaps the claimed range of 30-79.9%, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where prior art and claimed ranges overlap per MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 16, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Pavlin as discussed above and to make the article of Pavlin as discussed above with 10-55 wt% deodorizer volatile liquid, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above, as the article of Pavlin as discussed above shrinks it exposes more of the container it is in to indicate end-of-life, and thus before use the article conceals a visual indicator (i.e., amount of container that is unexposed versus exposed by the article) associated with a product life signal of the solid deodorizer. Thus, the container (i.e., dispenser) has a first configuration where the visual indicator (i.e., the part of the container covered by the article) is not visually perceptible, and a second configuration wherein the visual indicator is visually perceptible upon shrinkage of at least a portion of the solid deodorizer from an initial size to a reduced size for indicating end-of-life (i.e., a state of use of the dispenser) as claimed.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlin as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Harris et al. (WO 02/066084 A1; published 29 August 2002).
Pavlin is relied upon as discussed above.
Pavlin does not disclose characters or symbols as in claim 20.
Harris et al. discloses air fresheners (title) wherein a gel is in a container having grooves on a bottom wall to provide an attractive effect and wherein the gel may be opaque (page 16 last paragraph to page 17 second paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pavlin and Harris et al. by including on the container (i.e., dispenser) behind the article of Pavlin as discussed above grooves as suggested by Harris et al., with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so to provide an attractive effect as suggested by Harris et al. Such grooves are graphical symbols with would be a visual indicator that would indicate end-of-life of the deodorizer as the article shrinks in use as discussed above and the grooves thereby become visible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the prior art rejections above.
Applicant argues that O’Leary does not disclose that an evaporative surface of the solid carrier itself has a textured region (remarks page 6). In response, the housing of O’Leary has grooves in a wavy form, and thus the solid carrier filled into the grooves has an undulating surface profile, which is a textured surface, from which the volatile deodorizing agent would evaporate thereby causing shrinkage.
Applicant argues that the Haze measurement varies based on the texture and is not a characteristic that necessarily flows from the teachings of O’Leary (remarks page 7). In response, the claims recite a textured region, and O’Leary discloses undulating grooves in the solid carrier, which is a textured region, and thus the disclosure of O’Leary is at least substantially identical to the claims and therefore properties, which include Haze measurements, are properly presumed inherent in the product of O’Leary per MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I) given that compositions that are physically the same must have the same properties per MPEP 2112.01(II).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 MICHAEL B. PALLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/MICHAEL B. PALLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617