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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed 7/6/2023 are accepted.
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 1-3 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.
With regards to claim 1, said claim is held to be indefinite because it is unclear how “said piece” can “consists of a bottom piece, a tiered side wall, and a top opening” yet further comprise “a bottom”. The transitional phrase “consists of” limits the piece to the enumerated parts and excludes the presence of additional parts such as a bottom.
Said claim is further held to be indefinite because it is unclear if “a bottom piece” is different from the claimed “a bottom.” For examination purposes, “a bottom” is read as,“said bottom piece.”
Furthermore, with regards to claim 1, it is believed “an top opening” should read “a top opening” and “whereas” said continuous symmetric ridge should read “wherein”.
Furthermore, with regards to claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “outwardly” protruding centrally positioned button or bubble-outwardly relative to what.
Said claim is further held to be indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “button or bubble.” Said terms are not defined in the specification and do not have an art-accepted meaning.
Claim 1 is further held to be indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “ smaller than said elevated center portion and not protruding past the limits of said ridge.” The examiner initially notes there is no antecedent basis for the term “the limits of said ridge” or said “elevated center portion.” It also is not clear how it is determined if the button/bubble is “smaller than the elevated center portion” or “protruding past” the limits of said ridge.
Claim 1 is further held to be indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for the term,“said top.” For examination purposes, said term is understood to read, “said top opening.”
Claim 2 is held to be indefinite because it does not clearly contain all the limitations of claim 1, from which it depends. For examination purposes, claim 2 is understood to read as “the wax warmer liner of claim 1 wherein said polymer is of clear, colorless, and translucent grade….” Said claim is further held to be indefinite because it is unclear how to determine if a grade of polymer is “clear, colorless, and translucent”. Furthermore, it is unclear what the term “translucent” adds to the claim since the claim requires the polymer to be “clear.” Said claim is further held to be indefinite because it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art objective determines if the polymer is “able to withstand temperatures up to 250 degrees for extended amounts of time.” What is meant by “extended amounts of time” and under what conditions is the polymer’s ability to withstand said terms evaluated. It also isn’t clear if the temperature is in Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin.
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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakilinki (US 2019/0359386) in view of (a) Luellen (US 1,256,913), (b) Belongia (US 2017/0238364), and (c) Rost (US 3,730,385).
Jakilinki teaches a liner (herein understood to read on the claimed “liner”), acting as a containment device for the purpose of holding scented wax within the receiving portion, or reservoir, of a wax-warming mechanism (abstract). Said liner consists of a bottom portion, connected side portions and having a top opening (see Figure 1). The liner is unitary (claim 4-herien understood to read on the claimed “single piece”) and may consists of a polymer (0014). The walls may be perpendicular to the bottom or inclined outward. The top opening of the liner may have wings/extensions (0029)-herein understood to read on the claimed flange. Said wings are taught to “extend out from either side of the article” sidewalls (0029; Figure 1)-herein understood to read on the “top edge” limitations. Alternatively, Jakilinki teaches the liner may have a rim- herein understood to anticipate the claimed top edge and the “flange formed continuously and outwardly from said edge and wherein said flange is parallel to said center portion of said bottom”.
Jakilinki does not teach the liner should further comprise a raised, rigid structure around the bottom piece of the liner thus creating an offsetting center or bottom piece. However, Luellen teaches including such a ridge structure on the bottom perimeter of a stackable cup as a spacing projection for engaging the bottom of the cup, thus preventing adherence to an adjacent stacked cup (page 1, lines 54+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a raised, ridge structure on the bottom perimeter of the liner disclosed in Jakilinki in order to prevent adherence to adjacent cups when said liner is stacked for packaging. The bottom comprising said ridge is understood to necessarily comprise a “center portion elevated above said continuous, symmetric, downward ridge”.
Jakilinki teaches that the shape of the liner should be made to resemble/mimic the shape of the wax warmer, but does not teach the liner should comprise a tiered side wall consisting of a single tier, a bottom section located below said single tier, and an upper section located above said single tier, said upper section and said lower section being angled outward from said outer perimeter of said bottom and said single tier consisting of a section extending parallel to said center portion of said bottom. However, Belongia teaches a wax warmer comprising side walls wherein a tiered side wall consisting of a single tier, a bottom section located below said single tier, and an upper section located above said single tier, said upper section and said lower section being angled outward from said outer perimeter of said bottom and said single tier consisting of a section extending parallel to said center portion of said bottom (see Figure 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the side walls of the liner disclosed in Jakilinki such that they consists of a tiered side wall consisting of a single tier, a bottom section located below said single tier, and an upper section located above said single tier, said upper section and said lower section being angled outward from said outer perimeter of said bottom and said single tier consisting of a section extending parallel to said center portion of said bottom. The motivation for doing so would have been that Jakilinki teaches the liner should be shaped to resemble the wax warmer, and Belongia teaches that wax warmers having such tiered side walls are known in the art.
Jakilinki also does not teach “the center portion” should contains an outwardly protruding centrally positioned button or bubble smaller than said elevated center portion and not protruding past the limits of said ridge. However, Rost teaches a nestable container comprising an indent (18) in the center of the bottom thereof. Rost teaches the indent 18 aids in alignment and provides a surface which slide over each other during the process of engagement (col 3, lines 1+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include “n outwardly protruding centrally positioned button or bubble smaller than said elevated center portion and not protruding past the limits of said ridge” on the bottom of the liner disclosed in Jakilinki. THE motivation for doing would have been to improve engagement and alignment of the liners when stacked.
With regards to claim 3, none of the cited reference explicitly teach the liner should have a circumference up to 4 inches at the top opening. However, the courts have held, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787