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 1-8 in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“air displacement mechanism” in claim 2. In particular, the claim limitation “air displacement mechanism” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “causing air to flow out of the volatile material dispenser” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder “an air displacement mechanism” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In this case, in para 0007, the specification states: In some embodiments, the air displacement mechanism is an air pump. In some embodiments, the air displacement mechanism is a fan, therefore, the air displacement mechanism encompasses an air pump or fan, any other structures in the disclosure which positively perform the function, and functional equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US7629001B2) in view of Banco (US9855361B2).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a method of emitting a volatile material (68, 69) from a volatile material dispenser (60), comprising the steps of:
Identifying a first fragrance characteristic of the volatile material (68, Col. 14 lines 45-60 faster acting);
Identifying a second fragrance characteristic of the volatile material (69, Col. 14 lines 45-60 slower acting);
heating the volatile material to a first temperature associated with the first fragrance characteristic (Col. 10 line 30-55 a first region 68 impregnated with a first volatile material, first region 68 may be selected to rapidly evaporate at the lower temperatures) and
heating the volatile material to a second temperature associated with the second fragrance characteristic that is different than the first temperature (Col. 10 line 30-55 a second region 69 impregnated with a second volatile material, second region 69 may be selected to slowly evaporate at the steady operating temperature of the heating plate).
Davis is silent on identifying a first vapor pressure of a first fragrance characteristic of the volatile material and identifying a second vapor pressure of a second fragrance characteristic of the volatile material that is different than the first vapor pressure.
Banco teaches identifying a first vapor pressure of a first fragrance characteristic of the volatile material (Col. 6 lines 1-15 Col. 11 line 60- Col. 12 line 15 first composition 30 may be a water-based composition, identified by an indicator, having a vapor pressure);
identifying a second vapor pressure of a second fragrance characteristic of the volatile material that is different than the first vapor pressure (Col. 6 lines 1-15 Col. 11 line 60- Col. 12 line 15 second composition 32 may be an oil-based fragranced composition known to have a different vapor pressure than a water-based composition, identified by an indicator).
Davis and Banco are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of volatile material dispensers. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Davis to incorporate the teachings of Banco to have a step of identifying a vapor pressure of the volatile material as vapor pressure affects the delivery rate of individual components in a fragrance, where higher vapor pressure has a faster delivery rate, so it is desired to have a material with a suitable vapor pressure (Banco Col. 5 lines 60-67).
Regarding claim 7, Davis and Banco teach the method of claim 1 and Davis teaches further comprising the step of: heating the volatile material to the first temperature for a first amount of time (Col. 10 lines 30-55 first region 68 may be selected to rapidly evaporate at the lower temperatures of the heating plate warm up period) and the second temperature to a second amount of time that is different than the first amount of time (Col. 10 lines 30-55 insecticide in the second region 69 may be selected to slowly evaporate at the steady operating temperature of the heating plate).
Regarding claim 8, Davis and Banco teach the method of claim 1 and Davis teaches wherein the first fragrance characteristic is associated with a first composition that is not a fragrance (Col. 10 lines 35-50 two regions 68, 69 with two different volatile materials such as two insecticides), and the second fragrance characteristic is associated with a second composition that is a fragrance (Col. 13 lines 40-60 thermally volatilizable materials include air scents (e.g. fragrances)).
Claims 2-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US7629001B2) and Banco (US9855361B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becker (US10814028B2).
Regarding claim 2, Davis and Banco teach the method of claim 1, but are silent on further including the step of: causing air to flow out of the volatile material dispenser by an air displacement mechanism.
Becker teaches causing air to flow out of the volatile material dispenser by an air displacement mechanism (Col. 16 lines 30-50 diffusion device, air pump, fan).
Davis, Banco, and Becker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of volatile material dispensers. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Davis and Banco to incorporate the teachings of Becker to have an air displacement mechanism to cause air to flow in order to enable uniform dispersion of vaporized fragrance oil throughout an environment using dispersion technologies that require minimal heat (Becker Col. 16 lines 30-50).
Regarding claim 3, the combination Davis, Banco, and Becker teaches all of the elements of the current invention as described in claim 2 above. Becker further teaches wherein the air displacement mechanism is an air pump (Col. 12 lines 35-40 air pump).
Regarding claim 4, the combination Davis, Banco, and Becker teaches all of the elements of the current invention as described in claim 2 above. Becker further teaches wherein the air displacement mechanism is a fan (Col. 16 lines 40-50 fan).
Regarding claim 5, Davis, Banco, and Becker teach the method of claim 4, but Davis and Banco are silent on further comprising the step of: controlling a speed of the air displacement mechanism to achieve varied fragrance intensities.
Becker teaches controlling a speed of the air displacement mechanism to achieve varied fragrance intensities (Col. 16 lines 45-50 speed control air pump).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Davis and Banco to incorporate the teachings of Becker to control a speed of the air displacement mechanism in order to be able to vary the output of the diffusion device advantageously, for example, in relation to a size of the environment the diffuser is set (Becker Co. 10 lines 50-67).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US7629001B2) and Banco (US9855361B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bleloch (US 20150320116).
Regarding claim 6, Davis and Banco teach the method of claim 1 and Davis teaches heating the volatile material to the first temperature (Col. 10 line 30-55 lower temperatures) and the second temperature (Col. 10 line 30-55 steady operating temperature), but is silent on using pulse with modulation.
Bleloch teaching heating the volatile material using pulse with modulation ([0088] Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) control signals to the induction heater power supply 1515).
Davis, Banco, and Bleloch are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of volatile material dispensers. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Davis and Banco to incorporate the teachings of Bleloch to heat the volatile material using pulse width modulation so that the device may start at a high power to get up to temperature but then reduces to an optimal power before the temperature overshoots (Bleloch [0012]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/11/2026
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights