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 .
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 1-4 and 6-8 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 1 discloses that at least one of process parameter is selected to create a porosity within the porous device, wherein the at least one process parameter comprises at least one of a thickness of layers of the loose powder, a surface tension, a pH level, a drying rate, and an adhesion strength of the binder. It is unclear how selecting one of these parameters could create a porosity within the porous device. Also, these parameters are inherent properties of the powder/forming product, and any of the sintering powder/forming product would have these properties.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (2008/0279729) in view of Pugh et al. (10,981,326).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 8, Chen discloses an aroma porcelain wall deco, wherein the microelement breathable and permeable body having fine pores evenly and densely formed on the interior and the external surface thereon is equipped with a porous property, and can absorb the aromatic agent on a complete scale so as to increase the contact area with the atmosphere outside; whereby, via each fine porous cell of the microelement breathable and permeable body, the fragrant scent is evenly diffused into the air in a long-lasting and continuous manner till the aroma agent is used up without the inconvenience of the aforementioned conventional press-type or burning-type aroma diffusers [0004].
The wall deco is made by sintering powder material of SiO2(35.96%), Al2O3(59.5%), Fe2O3(0.1%), TiO2(0.04%), CaO(0.25%), MgO(0.02%), K2O(0.82%), Na2O(0.7%), Lg loss(2.61%) and into a molded liquid-permeable and air-ventilating special porcelain wicking head with fine pores evenly and densely formed on the interior and the external surface. The raw material with the fine air pores formed on the crystal boundaries is also utilized to provide a porous property for the absorption of essential oils and the release of the fragrant scents [0011].
Pugh et al. (10,981,326) discloses a 3D printing method with optimized porcelain particles 122 for sintering and controlled porosity, comprising the steps of providing porcelain material with a plurality of elongated particles to promote porosity control – see abstract, Fig. 1, step 12, and 3D printing melting/sintering the powder material into a product – Fig. 1, 14-18; 300 – to create linear pathways via the elongated particles can make it easier for gases to travel through the structure than by just following paths along particles and/or gaps between adjacent particles – col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve Chen’s powder sintering method by 3D printing porcelain particles and adjusting the amount of elongated particles and/or binders or other components as taught by Pugh et al. in order to control different levels of porosity to create linear pathways via the elongated particles can make it easier for gases to travel through the structure than by just following paths along particles and/or gaps between adjacent particles, which would greatly improve the porosity of the forming device and the diffusing of the fragrance.
Regarding the newly added limitation that one process parameter is an adhesion strength of the binder, Pugh discloses that the amount of binder is selected depending on different factors, such as the desired level of fluid flow during printing; the amount to be burned off later; the ratio of solids to the binder precursor fluid needed to achieve an appropriate level of photo-blocking; and/or the amount needed to get the desired level of green-state bonding, which determine an adhesion strength of the binder – col. 6, lines 4-18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to regulate the amount and the adhesion strength of the binder as taught by Pugh et al. depending on the product being formed in order to optimize the powder material, the binder and to control porosity.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Pugh et al. further discloses that the amount of powder material and the amount of elongated particles are selected for different intended use of the forming product – see col. 3, lines 46-59, and by varying the quantity of elongated particles in the resin material, the porosity of the printed object can be controlled – col. 4, lines 2-9.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the loose powder comprises at least one of ceramic, metal, glass, and composites – see col. 5, lines 29-38.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Chen discloses that the aroma porcelain wall deco is filled with a fragrance, [0002], [0009].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (2008/0279729) in view of Pugh et al. (10,981,326) as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-8 above, and further in view of Ma (2017/0157281).
Ma discloses an aroma diffuser, comprising an outer cover 1, a hollow diffuser body 2 and a base 3, wherein the outer cover 1 covers the outside of the hollow diffuser body 2 to achieve a decoration effect.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Chen and Pugh’s diffuser with an outer cover 1 as taught by Ma in order to provide additional protection to the diffuser and the fragrance oil and to prevent the fragrance oil from uncontrolled vaporization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments
filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued that Pugh discloses 3D printing a green-state structure, but fails to disclose a porous product for fragrance diffusion, and that Pugh teaches controlling porosity by varying the quantity of elongated particles in the resin material and does not disclose selecting thickness of layers of loose powder, surface tension, pH level, drying rate, or adhesion strength of a binder to create porosity.
First, any of the process parameters such as a thickness of layers of the loose powder, a surface tension, a pH level, a drying rate, and an adhesion strength of the binder, a viscosity, a shape of the loose powder, an average particle size of the loose powder, a size distribution of the loose powder, a sintering temperature, and a sintering time would be an inherent property of the powder material and/or the forming product. By selecting any of these parameters doesn’t change the porosity of the forming porous device, what to do with them could. However, this method step is not in the claims.
Secondly, Pugh et al. also discloses that the amount of binder is selected depending on different factors, such as the desired level of fluid flow during printing; the amount to be burned off later; the ratio of solids to the binder precursor fluid needed to achieve an appropriate level of photo-blocking; and/or the amount needed to get the desired level of green-state bonding, which determine an adhesion strength of the binder – col. 6, lines 4-18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to regulate the amount and the adhesion strength of the binder as taught by Pugh et al. depending on the product being formed in order to optimize the powder material, the binder and to control porosity.
Further, Pugh et al. further discloses that:
… to improve the outgassing capability of the green-state (e.g., pre-fired) structure, the green-state structure can incorporate a secondary material in the form of elongated particles (i.e., particles that are significantly longer than they are wide and/or thick) that can remain substantially intact at least through the binder burn-off and/or decomposition stage. Such elongated particles can help with outgassing in at least a couple of manners, e.g., by creating linear pathways along which gases can be channeled; and/or by promoting a reduced maximum possible packing (relative to that possible using only primary particles). The improved outgassing effects may permit a density to be achieved that is within 99% or greater of the theoretical density for a given member. In some embodiments, adjusting the amount of elongated particles and/or other components may provide some control over the porosity, e.g., facilitating a lesser density (i.e., relative to theoretical), purposefully yielding a particular level of porosity. See column 2, lines 42-65.
Although Pugh et al. discloses a density to be achieved within 99% or greater of the theoretical density, which can be different than a maximum density for a given member, Pugh et al. also discloses that by adjusting the amounts of elongated particles and/or other component to control the porosity – to a lesser density can also be achieved. Therefore, depending on the desired forming product, one of ordinary skill in the art could apply similar method to control porosity of the forming products to yield predictable results.
Therefore, the combination Chen, Pugh and Ma would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to use a 3D printing method as taught by Pugh to form a porous structure with a desired porosity, and to provide a cover/body/housing as taught by Ma form Chen’s aroma porcelain wall deco with a proper porous property for the absorption of essential oils and the release of the fragrant scents.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights