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 claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 9/29/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 should read “wherein the dispenser comprises [[a]] the releasable mechanical interlock” as the releasable mechanical interlock is already set forth in claim 11 from which claim 12 depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-15 are 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a releasable chemical interlock” and it is not clear what a “chemical interlock” is much less a releasable one. It is understood what a mechanical interlock is, but it is not clear how a chemical means would perform the function of interlocking as claimed. The specification does not provide any examples or further description of the feature, and the limitation is not a known and conventional term of the art. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 12 is rejected under 112(b) as it is not clear from the claim whether or not the anchor is the mechanical interlock, part of the mechanical interlock, or some distinct component from the mechanical interlock. From Figs. 5-7 and par. 1 on page 13 of the instant specification, it appears the anchor 18 interlocks with the anchor receiving component 17 to interlock the two components together, as is set forth in claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. Claim 12 recites the limitation as being separate from the mechanical interlock (“ wherein the dispenser comprises a releasable mechanical interlock, … at least a portion of the dispenser comprises an anchor”). It cannot be determined from the claim whether the mechanical interlock and anchor components are the same structure or different structures, or if the anchor is a structure that performs the claimed function of interlocking. The specification does not provide sufficient clarity to the claim language to establish the scope of the claim as definite. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that there is some interlocking mechanism, and the anchor is a part of that mechanism or distinct from it.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, both claims recite “the anchor” and there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the anchor is a part of the interlock mechanism or distinct from it.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on one of the claims above for the reasons set forth above.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzalez (GB 2531044).
Regarding claim 1, Gonzalez (GB 2531044) discloses –
A flexible solid deodorizer for releasably interlocking to a volatile composition dispenser (Figs. 3-4 and 6, cartridge 14; p. 14 pars. 2-3 the body is a porous foam, which is a flexible solid as described in the instant specification), the solid deodorizer comprising:
a first central evaporative surface (Fig. 4, the top flat surface at projections 28),
a second central evaporative surface (Fig. 4 the tapered surface radially interior to the logo 32), and
a peripheral evaporative surface (surface regions 29 on projections 28), wherein
the peripheral evaporative surface circumscribes at least a part of the first central evaporative surface and the second central evaporative surface to define a side of the deodorizer (Fig. 4 shows the regions 29 encompassing the other two surfaces which are radially interior to the region 29); wherein
the deodorizer is configured for releasably interlocking to the dispenser (Figs. 3 and 6 both show the cartridge 14 being reversibly coupled to a dispenser 10 and 50, respectively), wherein
at least a portion of the deodorizer is configured to releasably interlock with at least a portion of the dispenser to form a solid surface substantially free of an opening (figs. 3 and 6 both show the central hole 30 of cartridge 14 corresponding with portions of dispensers 10 and 50, including plug 56, to form a solid surface substantially free of an opening).
Regarding claim 2, Gonzalez further teaches a shape of an outer profile of the solid deodorizer corresponds to an inner profile of the dispenser (Figs. 3 and 6 both show the cartridge 14 having an outer profile that corresponds to an inner surface of dispensers 10 and 50).
Regarding claim 3, Gonzalez further teaches the at least a portion of the deodorizer is configured for releasably locking to the at least a portion of the dispenser by one of:
interference fit, pressure fit, friction fit, and combinations thereof (p. 14 par. 3 discloses at least a friction fit).
Regarding claim 4, Gonzalez further teaches a shape of the at least a portion of the deodorizer corresponds to a shape of the at least a portion of the dispenser, wherein the at least a portion of the deodorizer comprises an anchor receiving component (central aperture 30), and the at least a portion of the dispenser comprises an anchor (plug 56 reads on the limitation of an anchor, and fig. 6 shows the deodorizer shape corresponding to the dispenser).
Regarding claim 5, Gonzalez further teaches the solid deodorizer is capable of shrinkage relative to the peripheral evaporative surface from an initial size to a reduced size smaller than the initial size upon exposure to the environment in an interior space (the cartridge 14 is well capable of shrinking when exposed to an environment of a colder temperature, as materials must do as the molecules that make up the material lose energy, see MPEP 2114, II).
Regarding claim 6, Gonzalez further teaches he solid deodorizer is non- aqueous, and comprises less than 1% by weight of water (the cartridge 14 is a solid polymer foam, which is not made of water and therefore does not comprise more than 1% by weight of water; p. 14 par. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Gonzalez further teaches A volatile composition dispenser comprising the solid deodorizer according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1, dispenser 50); and
a releasable interlock for releasably interlocking the solid deodorizer to the dispenser (plug 56), wherein each of the first and second central evaporative surfaces are substantially free of contact with surfaces in the dispenser (the top surface 28 of cartridge 14 and the tapered radial surface proximate aperture 30 are both substantially free of contact with surfaces of the dispenser, or could at least be used in such a way that the surfaces are not in contact; MPEP 2114, II).
Regarding claim 10, Gonzalez further teaches the dispenser comprises an inner profile having a shape corresponding to the outer profile of the solid deodorizer (Fig. 6 shows the dispenser 50 having an inner space 18 corresponding the outer profile of the cartridge 14).
Regarding claim 11, Gonzalez further teaches a releasable mechanical interlock, a releasable chemical interlock, and combinations thereof (the plug 56 is a friction fit, and reads on the limitation of a releasable mechanical interlock; p. 14 par. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Gonzalez further teaches a releasable mechanical interlock (plug 56 locks the cartridge 14 in place; p. 14 par. 3), wherein
the at least a portion of the dispenser comprises an anchor disposed within the dispenser (the plug 56 is an anchor analogous to the anchor 18 of the instant disclosure set forth in fig. 5, and also in par. 1 on page 13); and the at least a portion of the deodorizer comprises an anchor receiving component located at the proximal end or distal end of the deodorizer (the central aperture 30 receives the plug 56 as claimed). Fig. 5 also shows an anchor at the lid 52 surrounding aperture 58 for securing the cartridge 14 in its entirety, a portion of which for example the tapered periphery, reading on an anchor receiving component.
Regarding claim 13, Gonzalez further teaches a size and a shape of the anchor is configured to corresponding to a size and a shape of the anchor receiving component (plug 56 and lid 52 surrounding aperture 58 both correspond to the cartridge 14 aperture 30 and the tapered outer surface of the cartridge 14).
Regarding claim 14, Gonzalez further teaches the dispenser comprises a housing comprising a housing inner surface (Fig. 6 shows cap 54 with an interior surface that is radially interior to the cap 54), wherein the anchor is disposed on the housing inner surface (the plug 56 is disposed on the inner surface of the cap 54).
Regarding claim 15, Gonzalez further teaches the dispenser comprises an article holder (Fig. 6 cap 54),
wherein the article holder comprises an opening (when the nozzle 52 is open as shown in fig. 6, an open top is formed) characterized by a size corresponding to a size of the solid deodorizer (the opening receives the cartridge 14 and therefore corresponds to the size of the solid deodorizer), wherein
the anchor is disposed on an inner surface of the opening (when the nozzle 52 is open as shown in fig. 6, the plug 56 is disposed on an inner surface of the opening formed at the top of cap 54).
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.
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 7-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (GB 2531044) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wheatley (US 2004/0169091).
Regarding claim 7, Gonzalez discloses the solid deodorizer comprises a polymer, but appears to be silent with regards to the deodorizer comprising a gel composition including an ethyl cellulose polymer, a chemically cross-linked polyol or derivative thereof, and mixtures thereof.
Wheatley (US 2004/0169091) discloses an air freshener where the deodorizer comprises a gel formed of a polyester polyol that is cross-linked (claims 58-59, par. 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gonzalez such that the deodorizer includes a polymer that includes a cross-linked polyester polyol as taught by Wheatley to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to use a polymer body that has the advantages of substantially constant scent release and containment as well as esthetics, flexibility, and longevity as set forth in Wheatley (par. 31) to arrive at an improved device. The simple substitution of familiar prior art elements for the same purpose, including different deodorizing compositions, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(B)
Regarding claim 8, modified Gonzalez further teaches the chemically cross-linked polyol comprises polyester polyol (claims 58-59, par. 37),
Regarding claim 16, modified Gonzalez further teaches the solid deodorizer comprises a polyol derivative comprising polyester polyol (claims 58-59, par. 37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758