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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on August 3, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 12 ,13, 16, 22 and 23 are amended, Claims 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are cancelled and Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 12-25 remain pending.
The amended drawings overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 3, 2026, and thus withdrawn.
The amended Specification overcomes each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 3, 2026, and thus withdrawn.
The amended claims overcome each and every 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action, and thus withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, the previously indicated grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn. Further grounds of rejection and 112(f) claim interpretation, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 3, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Specifically, all of the arguments regarding Yamamoto and Dycher are persuasive. However, in light of the amended claim language, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Colombo, and Deacon, with an explanation of the newly combined references following in the 103 rejections below. An explanation of the new interpretation of Colombo that rebuts any remaining arguments follows directly below.
Applicant's arguments Colombo (Applicant’s Remarks p. 23-24). have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
While Examiner agrees with the Applicants interpretation that Colombo teaches an, “upper enclosure may have an aerodynamic or generally tapering shape and terminates in an upper outlet,” but disagrees that, “Colombo does not disclose that the inner surface of that enclosure and the substance-discharging area of wick 13 directly and jointly define the helical airflow channel. Rather, the airflow path around wick 13 is structurally established by baffle 16 and enclosure 2, 3.” (Applicant’s Remarks p. 23 para. 3). A gap is defined as an empty space between structures, and thus, can be defined by any structures that create the space. Furthermore, as the air duct directs the pure air flow vertically, the gap is understood to be defined by vertical structures of the diffuser. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is understood to merely define the gap by different structures to differentiate from prior art. Colombo discloses that the wick is to be aligned with the fan, such that air rotates around the exterior surface of the wick, and it is clear from the illustrations (Fig. 6) that the baffle is not in direct contact with the wick (paras. 28, 35) Thus, the wick forms a surface between the enclosure item 2 and wick, and the helical baffle is merely a protrusion on the interior of the enclosure item that imparts rotation to the air flow. Accordingly, the enclosure item (2) and wick (13) are understood to define the first gap.
Applicant’s argument (Applicant’s Remarks p. 24 #4) that, “arranging the nozzle-shaped inner side of an upper covering element as the opposing boundary of that same gap,” is not persuasive for 2 reasons. First, the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant merely claims that the nozzle shaped inner cover “defines” the gap, as it forms a boundary that directs the pure air flow. Similarly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the enclosure item 2 that forms a nozzle shaped tapering certainly forms an opposing boundary for the gap. Without the enclosure item it would be a fan with an open wick and little to none of the air would be directed over the substrate discharge area of the wick and effectively diffuse the substance, which is specifically the function of the “aero-dynamic shape,” of the enclosure item disclosed in Colombo. (para. 30)
Applicant’s arguments (Applicant’s Remarks p. 24 Bullets 1-3). that Colombo does not define a gap that, “is directly bounded on one side by the substance-discharging area of the wick; extends around that substance-discharging area; is bounded on the opposite side by a nozzle-shaped inner surface of an upper covering element; and tapers toward the outlet opening,” are not persuasive because the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Notably, being “adjacent” to the substrate discharge area has a much broader scope than “directly bounding” the same area.
Similarly, Applicant’s arguments (Applicant’s Remarks p. 24 #1-2, and #4). that Colombo does not disclose “leaving the heated substance-discharging area exposed as one direct boundary of the airflow gap; or tapering that same circumferential gap toward the outlet opening,” are not persuasive because the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s remaining arguments that Colombo does not supply the missing heating-unit relationship are unpersuasive, because it is not relied upon (in the previous Office Action, or the current Action) for those claimed features. Colombo is understood to teach heating of the wick generally, but is not relied upon to teach the structural heating unit as claimed.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior 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 flow generation device in claims 1-3, 16 and 17.
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.
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.
Regarding the claimed limitation "air flow generation device" in Claims 2-3, 16 and 17 does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and must rely on the Specification to disclose further structure that will perform the recited function. In the Specification, Applicant discloses, "the air generation device is formed by at least one fan, for example a fan wheel at least one air pump can be used, for example in the form of a piezo-controlled air pump." [Specification, p. 9 L 15-20] Accordingly, the air flow generation device will be understood to describe an air fan or air pump and any equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 15-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo (US 20100269826) in view of Deacon (US 8897629).
Regarding Claim 1, Colombo discloses A device for dispensing and/or diffusing volatile substances, in particular for dispensing and/or diffusing fragrances and/or active substances, said device comprising [Liquid evaporative delivery device 1, Fig. 2]:
a housing [Enclosure Items 2, 3, Fig. 2] that surrounds a housing interior [Interior of Housing, Fig. 2],
at least one storage tank [Fragrance Supply Bottle 12, Fig. 2] containing a substance to be released into the environment [Fragrance 6, Fig. 2],
at least one electrical heating device [Strip heater 15, Fig. 2] which is accommodated in the housing interior and has an electrical heating element [Strip heater 15, Fig. 2] by which heat is generated for heating and evaporating the substance to be emitted [Para. 47],
at least one capillary element, [Wick 13, Fig. 2] which is coupled to the heating element in a heat-transferring manner [Para. 47] (Examiner Note: Colombo discloses that the strip heater 15 is in close proximity to the fragrance supply bottle such that the heat applied by the heater causes evaporation of the fragrance, and thus discloses a heat-transfer coupling.), wherein the capillary element has at least one substance-receiving area [Wick 13 disposed inside Fragrance bottle 12, Fig. 2] which is in contact with the substance [Fragrance 6, Fig. 2] received in the storage tank [Fragrance Supply Bottle 12, Fig. 2] so that the substance is conveyed from the substance-receiving area by capillary action to a substance-discharging [Substrate Discharge Area, Annotated Fig. 2] area of the capillary element, at which the substance is discharged,
at least one air inlet on the housing side [Inlet 8, Fig. 2], by which ambient air enters from outside the housing and forms a pure air flow in the housing interior [Para. 32],
at least one air duct [Air tunnel 11, Fig. 2] which, starting from the at least one air inlet [Inlet 8, Fig. 2], is guided to the substance- discharging area of the capillary element, at which the pure air flow is enriched with the substance and a substance air flow enriched with substance is generated, and which, starting from the substance-discharging area, is guided to at least one air outlet on the housing side, via which the substance air flow is discharged to the environment [Para. 32] (Examiner Note: Colombo specifically discloses that air supplied by the inlet 8 is introduced into the air tunnel 11, “and put into motion by the fan 10 and directionally guided upward by the air tunnel 11 leading into the helical channel 14.” Thus the air tunnel is understood as the air duct and discloses this limitation.), and
at least one control device [Circuit Board 7, Fig. 2] by which the actuation of the at least one electrical heating device is controlled during operation of the device [Para. 47] (Examiner Note: Colombo specifically, “strip heater may optionally be in communication with a circuit board 7 and receive input based on the shape of the fragrance supply bottle, which is also in communication with the circuit board 7,” and thus discloses this limitation.),
wherein the substance-discharging area of the capillary element [Top end of wick 13, Fig. 2] is covered from above by a covering element [Enclosure item 2, Fig. 2],
wherein an inner side of the covering element [Inside of Enclosure item 2, Fig. 2] and the substance-discharging area together define a first gap [First Gap, Annotated Fig. 2 below] which forms part of the air duct and extends around at least part of a circumference of the substance-discharging area [Paras. 32-33] (Examiner Note: As discussed in the argument above, Colombo discloses this limitation as the gap is understood to be defined between the wick (13) and enclosure item (2).),
wherein the covering element has at least one opening [Outlet, Annotated Fig. 2] forming the housing-side air outlet, and wherein the inner side of the covering element defining the first gap and being adjacent to the substance-discharging area has a nozzle shape tapering toward the opening. [Nozzle Shaped Tapering, Annotated Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: As discussed in the argument above, Colombo is understood to disclose this limitation.)
PNG
media_image1.png
770
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Colombo does not disclose wherein the electrical heating device forms a structural unit comprising the electrical heating element and the capillary element, the electrical heating element being in direct contact with the capillary element and/or at least a partial area of the electrical heating element is embedded in the capillary element, (Examiner Note: Although Colombo discloses a heating element, it does not disclose a structural heating unit.)
However, Deacon teaches wherein the electrical heating device forms a structural unit [Scent Provisioning Apparatus 112, Fig. 1, Col. 5 L 13-17] (Examiner Note: Deacon teaches a scent provisioning apparatus including a reservoir, capillary and filament. As the capillary and filament form a singular structure within the scent provisioning apparatus, it is understood to teach this limitation.) comprising the electrical heating element [Filament 206, Fig. 2] and the capillary element [Capillary 204, Fig. 2], the electrical heating element being in direct contact with the capillary element and/or at least a partial area of the electrical heating element is embedded in the capillary element. [Col. 5 L 46-51] (Examiner Note: Deacon specifically teaches, “filament 206 may be disposed at least partially within capillary 204. In some implementations, filament 206 may be coiled within capillary 204, such as in a coaxial manner. The filament 206 may be configured to heat substance 208 within capillary 204 by way of resistive heating.” Accordingly, Deacon is understood to teach both alternative limitations.)
Deacon is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to scent delivery apparatuses, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Colombo teaches a wick and heater structure that differs from the claimed electrical heater device because the strip heater does is not in direct contact and/or embedded in the capillary element. The wick and heater of Colombo and the integral filament-capillary structure of Deacon both perform the function of extracting and heating the diffused fragrance. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the wick and heater of Colombo with the integral filament-capillary structure of Deacon to achieve predictable results because both references deal with capillary heating that function in the same manner in the environment of a diffusive heating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Colombo by replacing the wick and heater structure of Colombo with the integral filament-capillary structure of Deacon because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Colombo further discloses an air flow generation device [Fan 10, Fig. 2], by which ambient air is drawn in from outside the housing via the at least one air inlet [Inlet 8, Fig. 2] and the pure air flow is generated. [Paras. 32-33]
Regarding Claim 3, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2. Colombo further teaches wherein the at least one control device [Control circuit board 11, Fig. 10] also controls the actuation of the at least one air flow generation device during operation of the device. [Para. 45] (Examiner Note: Colombo specifically teaches a separate embodiment where, “a micro-controller, located on the control circuit board 11, is connected to the fan 6 and drives the fan at a predetermined time-on and time-off sequence.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Colombo with the control circuit board taught in an alternate embodiment to provide logic control of the fan. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the controller taught in Colombo because it allows for control of the amount of fragrance delivered into the atmosphere by controlling the operation of the fan. Accordingly, Claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Colombo in view of Deacon.
Regarding Claim 5, Colombo in view of Deacon disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Colombo discloses wherein the electric heating element is coupled to a power supply which supplies the electric heating element with power and heats it, controlled by the control device.
Colombo does not disclose wherein the electric heating element is formed by a heating coil with several turns or windings.
Deacon further teaches wherein the electric heating element is formed by a heating coil with several turns or windings [Filament 206, Fig. 2, Col. 5 L 46-49] (Examiner Note: Deacon specifically teaches that the filament 206 may be coiled within the capillary)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the heater of Deacon with a coil to improve the thermal response of the heater. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Deacon could be combined with Colombo as they both relate to scent diffusing apparatuses. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Deacon because coiling allows the heater to reach target temperature faster by increasing the thermal density of the heater. Accordingly, Claim 5 is rejected as obvious over Colombo in view of Deacon.
Regarding Claim 6, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Colombo as modified per Deacon further discloses wherein the housing includes a heating area in which the electric heating device is accommodated [Colombo: Wick 13, Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: As the wick is understood to be replaced with the capillary element of Deacon, the area occupied by the wick (13) in Colombo is understood as the heating area.), wherein the capillary element forms part of the electric heating device [Deacon: Capillary element 206, Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: As the capillary element of Deacon is inside the capillary element it discloses this limitation.) and is, with its substance receiving area, in direct or indirect contact with the substance in the storage tank [Colombo: Para. 7] (Examiner Note: Colombo specifically discloses that the wick 13 has a first end disposed within the fragrance bottle. As the wick of Colombo is modified with the capillary-filament wick of Deacon, it occupies the space of wick (13).), and wherein the capillary element is, with its substance discharging area, located in the flow path of the pure air flow flowing over the air duct, so that the pure air flow is enriched with the substance as it flows over the substance discharging area (Examiner Note: The wick in Colombo is located in the path of pure air flow such that air flow is enriched over the substrate discharge area and thus discloses this limitation.) .
Regarding Claim 9, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses the cover element has at least one air outlet [Colombo: Outlet, Annotated Fig. 2] in a region above a tower top of a tower-like capillary element region [Colombo: Tower-like Capillary Element Region, Annotated Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 15, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, the storage tank is formed by a container [Colombo: Fragrance Supply Bottle 12, Fig. 2], which is detachably held in a holding device [Colombo: Bottle Support Mount 4, Annotated Fig. 2] arranged in the interior of the housing [Colombo: Para. 43]. (Examiner Note: Colombo discloses the fragrance bottle is removably attached to the housing through a bottle support mount (4), and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 16, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 15, wherein the container [Fragrance Supply Bottle 12, Fig. 2] is accommodated in the interior of the housing in such a way that the container, viewed in a circumferential direction, is spaced apart from the housing wall defining a second gap therebetween [Air tunnel 11, Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: Colombo specifically discloses that the bottle is held by a bottle support mount (4) that is spaced away from the housing, such that an air tunnel (11) is disposed below. Accordingly, the air tunnel (11) is understood to disclose the second gap and meet this limitation.), and
in that the second gap [Air tunnel 11, Fig. 2] is a component of the air duct, via which the pure air flow flows to the substance-discharging area, so that the pure air flow sucked in by the-at least one air flow generation device via the at least one housing-side air inlet in a lower housing area flows upwards along the container to the substance discharging area of the capillary element [Paras. 32-33] (Examiner Note: Colombo discloses, “[a]ir is introduced into the air tunnel 11 through its lower openings and put into motion by the fan 10 and directionally guided upward by the air tunnel 11 leading into the helical channel 14,” and thus discloses this limitation. As the inlet, air tunnel, first gap and outlet are in fluid communication allowing pure air flow across the wick, they are understood to form an air duct.) and
from there flows as a substance-enriched substance air flow across the first gap between the covering element and the substance-discharging area to the opening of the covering element forming the housing-side air outlet and further into the environment. (Examiner Note: Colombo further discloses that from the air tunnel, it enters the enclosure item (2) where the first gap is defined, and then through the outlet to disperse fragrance into the air, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 17, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 16, and further discloses wherein the at least one air flow generation device [Fan 5, Fig. 2] and/or the control device [Circuit Board 7, Fig. 2] and/or a power supply device [Battery 9, Fig. 2] is or are arranged in the area below the container [Fragrance Supply Bottle 12, Fig. 2], viewed in a vertical axis direction.
Regarding Claim 18, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the housing has a bottom wall which closes the housing downwards and/or which is removable for access to the interior of the housing and/or which comprises at least one housing side air inlet [Inlet 7 in Enclosure Item 3, Fig. 2]. (Examiner Note: As the following limitations are listed in the alternative, only one of them need to be met to disclose the claim. As Colombo discloses an enclosure item 3 that closes the housing downwards and comprises at least 1 air inlet, it discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 19, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the control device is part of a printed circuit board (PCB) [Circuit Board 7, Fig. 2] accommodated in the housing.
Regarding Claim 22, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 16, and further discloses wherein the at least one airflow generation device is selected from the group consisting of a fan [Fan 5, Fig. 2] or an air pump.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Deacon as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Demarest et al. (WO 2009058872)
Regarding Claim 12, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Colombo and Deacon do not disclose wherein the covering element providing the nozzle shape is surrounded by a circumferential collar on an outer side facing away from the capillary element.
However, Demarest teaches wherein the cover element providing the nozzle shape is surrounded by a circumferential collar [Open mouth 42, Figs. 1-2] on an outer side facing away from the capillary element. [Demarest: Figs. 1-2, paras. 33] (Examiner Note: Demarest discloses "the outer vase 24 extends radially outward from the bottom rim 37 in a bulbous fashion which then tapers back radially inward into a constricted neck 40 [and] then flares outwardly into an open mouth 42." Demarest further teaches that this design that will cause the substance to be diffused to disperse more quickly as it mixes more air flow with the substance enriched air. [Para. 51])
Demarest is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to diffuser devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the circumferential collar taught in Demarest with Colombo in view of Deacon to increase the rate of dispersed substance in the device. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Demarest could be incorporated into Colombo in view of Deacon with a reasonable expectation of success as they are all related to diffuser devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Demarest because Demarest teaches that the circumferential collar design will increase the dispersion rate of diffused substance, and thus increasing the efficacy of the device. Accordingly, Claim 12 is rejected as obvious over Colombo in view of Deacon and Demarest.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Deacon as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Dycher (US 2019/0117817)
Regarding Claim 20, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Colombo and Deacon do not disclose wherein the electrical heating device is mounted in the housing in an exchangeable manner.
However, Dycher teaches wherein the electrical heating device is mounted in the housing in an exchangeable manner. [Paras. 98-15, 124-125, Fig. 9] (Examiner Note: Dycher teaches a, “heating element is a constituent part of said container and said container can be releasably connected to said electrical connection element. An electrical contact device is provided for electrically connecting said heating element to said electrical connection element in a releasable manner.” (Abstract) As the heater in Dycher is a constituent part of the container, it is construed as a structural heating unit with an exchangeable connection with the housing, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Dycher is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to diffuser devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dycher with Colombo in view of Deacon to provide easy replacement of the heater. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Dycher could be incorporated into Colombo in view of Deacon with a reasonable expectation of success as they are all related to diffuser devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate an exchangeable heater because it allows for eas maintenance and repair of the device, and extends the lifetime of the device. Accordingly, Claim 20 is rejected as obvious over Colombo in view of Deacon and Dycher.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Deacon as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Hsiao (US 20190247533)
Regarding Claim 21, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Colombo and Deacon do not disclose wherein the capillary element is made from material selected from the group consisting of a porous ceramic and a porous plastic.
However, Hsiao teaches wherein the capillary element is made from material selected from the group consisting of a porous ceramic and a porous plastic. [Para. 38] (Examiner Note: Hsiao specifically teaches a “scent carrier 5 is porous and is made of any one of ceramic, plastic, plaster, foam, wood, fabric, and fiber, thus diffusing the aroma molecules of the aromatic liquid 51 toward the external environment.”)
Hsiao is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to diffuser devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
Under MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. [MPEP 2144.06-II] see also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327 (1945)
It would have been obvious to select a porous ceramic or polymer for the capillary element because it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for intended use. [MPEP 2144.07] One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a porous ceramic or plastic could be selected for the capillary element because they are known materials suitable for the purpose of providing capillary action. [Hsiao, para. 38] Thus, selecting a porous plastic or ceramic for a capillary element is merely selection of a known material based on suitability for intended use, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Accordingly, Claim 21 is rejected as obvious over Colombo in view of Deacon and further in view of Hsiao.
Claims 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Deacon as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Bae et al. (KR 101319994)
Regarding Claim 23, Colombo in view of Deacon discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Colombo in view of Deacon do not disclose wherein the at least one electrical heating device and the at least one air flow generation device are controlled in intervals by a control device so that during each interval a quantity of substance is delivered by the device which is equal or smaller than the quantity of substance temporarily stored in the capillary element, and wherein the capillary element accumulates in the time between the individual intervals with a quantity of substance which is equal or larger than the quantity of substance delivered in the next interval. (Examiner Note: While Colombo discloses a control device that can control a heater on predetermined intervals, it does not specifically disclose actuating both a heater and fan to control the amount of the substance stored in the wick. It is worth noting that the quantity of substance absorbed in a given interval is an inherent property of the capillary element. The absorbing capacity of material is finite, so once it reaches maximum saturation, it can only absorb as much substance as it diffused by the device, and therefore, the capillary element can at most, deliver all of the substance stored in the capillary element.)
However, Bae teaches wherein the at least one electrical heating device [Bae: Evaporator 28, Fig. 2] and the at least one air flow generation device [Bae: Drive motors 30, 31, 33, Fig. 2] are controlled in intervals by means of the control device [Bae: Control unit 40, Fig. 3] so that during each interval a quantity of substance is delivered by the device which is equal or smaller than the quantity of substance temporarily stored in the capillary element, and wherein the capillary element accumulates in the time between the individual intervals with a quantity of substance which is equal or larger than the quantity of substance delivered in the next interval. [Bae: Figs. 2-3, paras. 57, 60] (Examiner Note: Bae specifically teaches a control unit (40) that "automatically regulates the amount of insecticidal active ingredients ejected," by providing "a control signal so that the evaporator (28) and the drive motor (33) can repeatedly operate and stop at periodic intervals." The volume of substance absorbed in a wick is finite, so the largest quantity of substance that can be delivered in any given interval is the entire substance stored in the wick. A diffuser controlled on any time interval will necessarily disperse equal to or less than the entire substance stored in the wick, and will absorb, at least as much substance is required for the next interval. Accordingly, Bae is construed to teach this limitation. Bae further teaches that this control unit makes it, "possible to maximize the economic efficiency and the efficiency of use of the product by reducing the consumption amount of electric power together with the consumption amount." [Bae: Para. 60])
Bae is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to diffuser devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to modify Colombo in view of Deacon with the control device disclosed in Bae to increase the efficiency of the diffuse device. Control devices operating in intervals are commonplace in the art, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this improvement could be applied to Colombo in view of Deacon with a reasonable expectation of success as they all relate to devices for evaporating volatile substances. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the controller taught in Colombo because the controller taught in Bae makes it "possible to maximize the economic efficiency and the efficiency of use of the product by reducing the consumption amount of electric power together with the consumption amount." [Bae: Para. 60] Therefore, Claim 23 is rejected as obvious over Colombo in view of Deacon and further in view of Bae.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Deacon and Bae, as applied to claim 23, and further in view of Mironov (TW I666992)
Regarding Claim 24, Colombo in view of Deacon and Bae discloses all the limitations of claim 23.
Colombo, Deacon and Bae do not disclose wherein a maximum temperature of the heating element of the electrical heating device is between 100°C and 280°C.
However, Mironov teaches wherein a maximum temperature of the heating element of the electrical heating device is between 100°C and 280°C. [Para. 107] (Examiner Note: Mironov teaches an aerosol generating device where the capillary element has a thermal decomposition temperature of at least 160 degrees Celsius, preferably 250 degrees, and the device is designed to heat the capillary elements below the decomposition temperature to prevent damage to the capillary elements. Accordingly, it discloses a maximum heater temperature between 100 and 280 degrees Celsius.)
Mironov is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to aerosol generating devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for a maximum temperature of 100 to 280 degrees celsius. Under MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art." [MPEP 2144.05-I] The claimed range of 100 to 280 overlaps with the range disclosed by Mironov, and Applicant provides no evidence of criticality of the range. Accordingly, Claim 24 is rejected as obvious over Colombo in view of Deacon and Bae, and further in view of Mironov.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Deacon and Bae, as applied to claim 23, and further in view of Berthelon et al. [Particle Sizes of Aerosols Produced by Nine Indoor Perfumes and Deodorants, International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Analysis (Published Dec. 7, 2015)].
Regarding Claim 25, Colombo in view of Deacon and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 23.
Colombo, Deacon and Bae do not disclose wherein the size of the substance particles released and diffused into the environment is 20 to 80nm.
However, Berthelon teaches wherein the size of the substance particles released and diffused into the environment is 20 to 80 nm. [Abstract, Berthelon et al., Particle Sizes of Aerosols Produced by Nine Indoor Perfumes and Deodorants, International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Analysis (Published Dec. 7, 2015)] (Examiner Note: Berthelon discloses that of the particle sizes of various indoor deodorants and/or perfumes, "82 to 99% of the total number of particles have sizes of less than 0.3 µm." Berthelon discloses a range of less than 30 nm, and teaches this limitation.)
Berthelon is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to diffuser devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for a substance particle size of 20 to 80 nm to be released and diffused in the environment. Under MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art." [MPEP 2144.05-I] The claimed range of 20 to 80 nm overlaps with the range disclosed by Berthelon, and Applicant provides no evidence of criticality of the range. Accordingly, Claim 25 is rejected as obvious over Colombo in view of Deacon and Bae, and further in view of Berthelon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 13, and 14
The primary reference Colombo (US 20100269826) discloses a diffuser device with a first gap defined by the housing and substrate discharge area of the wick allowing pure air flow across the wick, with an nozzle shaped tapering towards the inlet of the housing. It further teaches a second gap defined between the housing and fragrance container that is a part of an air duct and directs pure air flow to the first gap. It does not disclose a structural heating unit that is in operative connection with a second capillary element or a ceramic porous disc disposed between.
Deacon (US 8897629) discloses a scent provisioning apparatus with a heater embedded in a capillary element and in direct contact with the capillary element that comprises a coil element, and in direct contact with pure air flow. Furthermore, Deacon teaches that the heating element is at least in partial connect with the substance to be diffused, and thus, seemingly inoperable with interposition of additional capillary elements, or a ceramic disc.
However, the claims as recited are allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims, including the further limitations:
Claim 13: “wherein, the capillary element as includes a first capillary element that cooperates with a further, second capillary element arranged in the storage tank, which conveys the substance to be dispensed from the storage tank by means of capillary action, so that a substance-receiving area of the first capillary element is in operative connection with a free end of the second capillary element.”
Claim 14 would be allowable for at least its dependence on claim 13.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
