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 .
Claim amendments filed 3/16/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patton et al. (US 2021/0379230).
With regards to claim 1, Patton teaches a volatile dispensing device comprising: a housing having first and second walls (top cover 110 and base 102) that are joined along their peripheries to one another, wherein each of the first and second walls has at least one aperture (opening in bottom for inlet airflow and opening in the top for outlet airflow) and defining a cavity (cavity that received the scent cartridge 130) for receiving a solid article comprising a volatile composition (scent cartridge 130) (fig 1-2 and 4; para [0027]); and a dispenser mount (bottom projection) located at a center of one of the first and second wall (bottom)and extending from an exterior surface of the wall wherein the dispenser mount comprises a planar mount surface (flat portion of the bottom of the projection), having a minimum height greater than a thickness of the one of the first and second wall, and a maximum height less than a thickness of the housing, wherein the minimum height and maximum height are measured between the planar mount surface and an exterior surface of the one of the first and second wall (fig 1-2 and 4; see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
491
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 3, the planar mount surface is characterized by a mount surface area (surface area of the mount), and the one of the first wall and second wall comprises a peripheral wall region surrounding the dispenser mount (area of the wall around the mount), wherein the peripheral wall region is characterized by a peripheral wall region area (the region by definition has an area). The claim does not require the mount surface area or the peripheral wall region to be all of the mount or all of the wall. Thus, the region and area can be selected to be a portion of either or both. The ratio of the wall region area to the mount surface area is within the claimed range when the peripheral region and the mount surface area are chosen to be regions with the claimed ratio.
With regards to claim 10, Patton teaches a solid article in the device (cartridge 130 is solid and has scented beads; para [0037]).
With regards to claim 16, the planar mount surface is characterized by a mount surface area (surface area of the mount), and the one of the first wall and second wall comprises a peripheral wall region surrounding the dispenser mount (area of the wall around the mount), wherein the peripheral wall region is characterized by a peripheral wall region area (the region by definition has an area). The claim does not require the mount surface area or the peripheral wall region to be all of the mount or all of the wall. Thus, the region and area can be selected to be a portion of either or both. The ratio of the wall region area to the mount surface area is within the claimed range when the peripheral region and the mount surface area are chosen to be regions with the claimed ratio.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patton et al. (US 2021/0379230).
With regards to claim 2, Patton et al. does not specify that the dispenser mount has a height of 1 to 20mm. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sized the dispenser mount as desired in order to provide a mount for the device that positions it in the desired place. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
With regards to claim 3, the planar mount surface is characterized by a mount surface area (surface area of the mount), and the one of the first wall and second wall comprises a peripheral wall region surrounding the dispenser mount (area of the wall around the mount), wherein the peripheral wall region is characterized by a peripheral wall region area (the region by definition has an area). The claim does not require the mount surface area or the peripheral wall region to be all of the mount or all of the wall. Thus, the region and area can be selected to be a portion of either or both. The ratio of the wall region area to the mount surface area is within the claimed range when the peripheral region and the mount surface area are chosen to be regions with the claimed ratio.
It is additionally and alternatively presented that the planar mount surface is characterized by a mount surface area (surface area of the mount), and the one of the first wall and second wall comprises a peripheral wall region surrounding the dispenser mount (area of the wall around the mount), wherein the peripheral wall region is characterized by a peripheral wall region area (the region by definition has an area). Patton does not specify the ratio of these two areas.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sized the device and its components as desired motivated by an expectation of successfully providing the desired dispenser and fragrance dispensing. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV. A
With regards to claim 4, the dispenser mount is characterized by a thickness corresponding to a thickness of the one of the first and second wall (whatever the thickness is there is some mathematical relationship between them and thus some correspondence).
Patton further teaches that the dispenser mount is secured to the wall (fig 4 and 10-11). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made two components that are attached integral motivated by an expectation of successfully providing a dispenser housing with a mount.
With regards to claim 16, the planar mount surface is characterized by a mount surface area (surface area of the mount), and the one of the first wall and second wall comprises a peripheral wall region surrounding the dispenser mount (area of the wall around the mount), wherein the peripheral wall region is characterized by a peripheral wall region area (the region by definition has an area). The claim does not require the mount surface area or the peripheral wall region to be all of the mount or all of the wall. Thus, the region and area can be selected to be a portion of either or both. The ratio of the wall region area to the mount surface area is within the claimed range when the peripheral region and the mount surface area are chosen to be regions with the claimed ratio.
It is additionally and alternatively presented that the planar mount surface is characterized by a mount surface area (surface area of the mount), and the one of the first wall and second wall comprises a peripheral wall region surrounding the dispenser mount (area of the wall around the mount), wherein the peripheral wall region is characterized by a peripheral wall region area (the region by definition has an area). Patton does not specify the ratio of these two areas.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sized the device and its components as desired motivated by an expectation of successfully providing the desired dispenser and fragrance dispensing. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Claim(s) 5-8, 11-14, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patton et al. (US 2021/0379230) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of D’Amico (US 2016/0022858).
With regards to claim 5, Patton et al. does not teach that the first and second walls have a plurality of apertures as claimed. D’Amico teaches a volatile dispensing device (fig 10-11) having a housing (1) having opposing first and second walls (the walls forming compartments 102 and 104) that are joined along their peripheries to one another (in the closed configuration such as in fig 10A) wherein each of the first and second walls has at least one aperture (holes 9; para [0058]).
D’Amico teaches that the apertures can be of any number or size (para [0026]) and that a user may select the number of apertures uncovered (para [0029]) which adjusts the amount of fragrance released (para [0017] uncovering varies flow of fragrance). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have varied the size and number of holes in Patton in order to achieve the desired fragrance release. This results in the claimed percentage of the device exposed by the apertures.
With regards to claim 6, A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have varied the size and number of holes in order to achieve the desired fragrance release. Thus at least 60% has the claimed size.
With regards to claim 7, Patton does not teach a hinge. D’Amico teaches the first and second walls are hingedly connected to form a unitary housing piece (by hinge 106l para [0048] and fig 10B). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a hinge in order to allow the housing to open without fully separating the components (could be lost etc.).
With regards to claim 8, Patton does not teach the material of the walls as claimed. D’Amico teaches forming a scent dispensing housing out of plastic (para [0048], [0023]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the walls out of plastic motivated by an expectation of successfully forming a scent dispensing housing.
With regards to claim 11, Patton teaches using a plurality of scented beads instead of a single article (para [0012]). Patton does not require beads and is generally non limiting on the scented article (para [0012]).
D’Amico teaches a scent dispenser that comprises not more than a single solid article (shown and described with one carrier 7), preferably wherein a shape of an inner profile of the device corresponds to a shape of an outer profile of the solid article (both are taught as generally rectangular; para [0050], see figs). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted a single scented article as taught by D’Amico motivated by an expectation of successfully still providing a scented article for a scent dispenser.
With regards to claim 12, Patton is silent as to the specifics of the scent composition. It is thus necessary and therefore obvious to look to known scent article compositions. D’Amico teaches the solid article comprises a volatile composition can be a perfume, a deodorizing agent, an insect repellant, or a malodor reduction agent (teaches using fragrances, odor neutralizers or insect repellants; para [0035]), and wherein the volatile composition is present in a level of 3 wt% to 85 wt% of the solid article (give multiple examples of the fragrance being in the claimed range in para [0031] and in example 1/para [0044] of 33.4%).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a scented article as taught by D’Amico motivated by an expectation of successfully dispensing a desired scent/volatile compound.
With regards to claim 13, Patton is silent as to the specifics of the scent composition. It is thus necessary and therefore obvious to look to known scent article compositions. D’Amico teaches the solid article is non aqueous having less than 1% by weight water (para [0044]-[0046]). The article is described as 33.4% by weight fragrance compound, 0.7% antioxidant, 0.7% hindered amine, and 0.2% color solution in 65% by weight EVA polymer. While it is not clear if the color solution has water or not things that are definitely not water take up more than 99% of the composition.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a scented article as taught by D’Amico motivated by an expectation of successfully dispensing a desired scent/volatile compound.
With regards to claim 14, Patton does not teach a cellulosic substrate as claimed. D’Amico teaches the solid article comprises a cellulosic substrate (pressed cellulose (blotter); para [0034]) impregnated with and/or coated with the volatile composition (applying the fragrance to the support results in both impregnating the cellulosic blotter and coating it).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a scented article as taught by D’Amico motivated by an expectation of successfully dispensing a desired scent/volatile compound.
With regards to claim 17, Patton is silent as to the specifics of the scent composition. It is thus necessary and therefore obvious to look to known scent article compositions. D’Amico teaches the solid article comprises a volatile composition can be a perfume, a deodorizing agent, an insect repellant, or a malodor reduction agent (teaches using fragrances, odor neutralizers or insect repellants; para [0035]), and wherein the volatile composition is present in a level of 3 wt% to 85 wt% of the solid article (give multiple examples of the fragrance being in the claimed range in para [0031] and in example 1/para [0044] of 33.4%).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a scented article as taught by D’Amico motivated by an expectation of successfully dispensing a desired scent/volatile compound.
With regards to claim 20, Patton et al. does not teach that the first and second walls have a plurality of apertures as claimed. D’Amico teaches a volatile dispensing device (fig 10-11) having a housing (1) having opposing first and second walls (the walls forming compartments 102 and 104) that are joined along their peripheries to one another (in the closed configuration such as in fig 10A) wherein each of the first and second walls has at least one aperture (holes 9; para [0058]).
D’Amico teaches that the apertures can be of any number or size (para [0026]) and that a user may select the number of apertures uncovered (para [0029]) which adjusts the amount of fragrance released (para [0017] uncovering varies flow of fragrance). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have varied the size and number of holes in Patton in order to achieve the desired fragrance release. This results in wherein each of the first and second walls have a plurality of apertures spaced apart by a plurality of spaced apart solid portions (solid portions between apertures), wherein at least one of the plurality of spaced apart solid portions extends from the periphery of the one of the first wall and the second wall to the dispenser mount (one can draw a path of a solid portion that extends from the periphery avoiding apertures to the middle where the mount is).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patton et al. (US 2021/0379230) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Moore (US 5,935,526).
With regards to claim 9, Patton does not teach an anchor as claimed. Moore teaches an air freshener device with a solid fragrance body (cake 32) in container (20). The cake can be retained in place using an anchor (securing means 40) (fig 2a and column 4, line 58 to column 5, line 7). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added an anchor as taught by Moore in order to hold the solid article in place between the first and second walls.
Claim(s) 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patton et al. (US 2021/0379230) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Endo JP 2010/088824 (English machine translation).
With regards to claim 15, Patton teaches that the solid article can be a gel (para [0012]) and has a peripheral evaporative surface (outer surface from which fragrance can evaporate). Patton, however, does not teach that the solid article shrinks as claimed. Endo teaches using a molded gel body containing the volatile substance and teaches that it shrinks and peels overtime, thus increasing the evaporative area so that the fragrance continues to output a consistent amount as when new (abstract; “in patent document 1” in background; Disclosure “Tech Problem”; fig 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to have used a solid gel article that shrinks as taught by Endo in order to have consistent fragrance output over time.
Endo does not specify the amount that the gel shrinks. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of shrink and peel in order to achieve the desired fragrance release over time.
The combination results in the claimed shrinkage away from the edge of the solid article and the edges of the walls.
With regards to claims 18 and 19, Patton teaches that the solid article can be a gel (para [0012]). Patton, however, does not teach that the gel is a cross-linked polyol as claimed. Endo teaches using a molded gel body containing the volatile substance and teaches that it shrinks and peels overtime, thus increasing the evaporative area so that the fragrance continues to output a consistent amount as when new (abstract; “in patent document 1” in background; Disclosure “Tech Problem”; fig 1). The gel body can be made out of polyol and crosslinking can vary the peelability as needed depending on the material for the container used (“As a gel molded object, it forms from the gel which melt | dissolves and hold | maintains a volatile substance. Known gels such as gelatin, carrageenan, agar, starch, CMC (carboxymethylcellulose), oil gel, water-absorbing polymer, polyfunctional acid and polyol polycondensation gel are used as the gel component for forming such a gel molded body. However, the aqueous gel which melt | dissolves and hold | maintains a volatile substance in water is preferable. Any of the above gels can be made strippable without special treatment when filled in a low adhesion container such as polyolefin, but a gel with high adhesion like gelatin, By performing the treatment for reducing the adhesiveness such as cross-linking, the container having high adhesiveness can be made peelable.” And claim 5). Endo teaches elsewhere in the disclosure that a crosslinking agent can be used to cross link a gel.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to have used a solid gel article that shrinks as taught by Endo in order to have consistent fragrance output over time. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a polyol containing gel motivated by an expectation of successfully forming the desired gel fragrance body. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have chemically crosslinked the polyol containing gel in order to adjust the peelability as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights