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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the PCT international search report by the Applicant (Filed on 06/23/2023) have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08 form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “Ceramic Disk 46” and “Housing Wall 56” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "42" and "48" have both been used to designate “gap”. [Specification, pg. 11]. It is suggested Applicant redefine the gap 42 and gap 48, as the first gap 42 and second gap 48, or the like. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “36” has been used to designate both “substance discharge area” and “substance delivery area”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the capillary element region of the capillary element” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the language “that least a partial area of the electrical heating element is embedded,” will be construed to mean “that at least a partial area of the electrical heating element is embedded.”
Regarding claims 8, 10, 11 and 16, the limitations “the gap 42 and gap 48” need to be redefined for clarity. While it is apparent from the part numbers (which are crossed out in the claims) that they are distinct structures, they should be renamed to a first and second gap or the like.
In Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, the limitation “the substance delivery region” is used instead of “the substance discharge region.” In the interest of compact prosecution, these terms will be construed to refer to the same element of the claimed structure. Nonetheless, the claim language is needs to be amended or cancelled to be consistent.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “viewed in the circumferential direction” in a manner that suggests it is meant to be interpreted as being “viewed in a longitudinal direction.” This is contrary to the claim language provided. It seems that Applicant means viewing a circumferential cross section of the device, or viewing from the longitudinal direction (top view looking down), as the cover (41) and/or gap (42) would appear to surround the substance discharge region as claimed in a longitudinal view or circumferential cross-sectional view. Please clarify the claim language to more clearly reflect the applicant’s intended viewpoint.
Claims 1-25 are further objected to because they omit the claim status identifiers (Currently Amended, etc.) and need to be included.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Limitations Interpreted to be Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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) are the air flow generation device in claim 2 and the power supply device in claim 5
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 Claim 2, the claimed limitation “air flow generation device” 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 generating 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the claimed limitation “power supply device” 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 energy supply may be a battery or accumulator. Plug or cable solutions, for example for an energy supply via a socket, are of course also possible at any time.” Accordingly, the power supply device will be understood to describe battery or cable-plug-in, and any equivalents thereof.
Limitations NOT Interpreted to be Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) “the electrical heating device” of claim 1, and the “control device” of claims 1 and 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Regarding Claim 1, the claimed limitation “electrical heating device” will not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim provides sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Accordingly, the limitation “electrical heating device” in claim 1 will be met by any structure in the housing interior with an electrical heating element.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “control device by means of which the actuation of the at least one electrical heating device (30) is controlled during operation of the device,” provides sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and thus interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation. Under MPEP 2811-II-B, “[t]he corresponding structure is … the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm,” and thus the programming is interpreted as part of the structure. As such, a device configured to control a heating element provides sufficient structure to perform the function of actuating the heating element. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, is any device capable of actuating a heating device, such as a power switch, or a controller.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “control device [that] controls the actuation of the at least one air flow generation device (49) during operation of the device,” provides sufficient structure to perform eh claimed function, and thus interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation. Under MPEP 2811-II-B, “[t]he corresponding structure is … the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm,” and thus the programming is interpreted as part of the structure. As such, a device configured to actuate the air flow generation provides sufficient structure to perform the function of actuating the fan. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, is any device capable of actuating a heating device and air flow generation device, such as a power switch, or a controller.
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.
Claims 7-12, 16, 17 and 22-25 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.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the capillary element region of the capillary element,” is indefinite because the scope of the region is unclear from the plain meaning. From its plain meaning, “the capillary element region” of the capillary element could be the entire element. Based on the Specification, this limitation will be construed to mean an upper region of the first capillary element region (34). [Specification, p. 10 L 16-24] Nonetheless, the claim language is indefinite and needs to be amended or cancelled.
The term “approximately tower-like manner” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The current claim language is unclear with regard to the requisite degree of resemblance must a prior art structure have with a tower to satisfy this limitation. The term will be construed to mean, the structure of the capillary element region is an upright/vertical rectangular shape.
Regarding the limitation “viewed in the vertical axis” in Claims 7 and 8, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “viewed in the vertical axis” in claim 7, and 8 is used by the claim to mean “viewed in the horizontal axis direction” while the accepted meaning is “top-down or bottom-up view.” It appears that the applicant means looking from the side of the device (i.e. viewed in the horizontal direction), as the claimed relationships are apparent from the horizontal axis view. This ambiguity is further amplified by the defining X-axis as the vertical axis, so it is not clear what is really meant by the specific perspective views claimed.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the cover element” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is referencing “the covering element,” or a different distinct element. In the interest of compact prosecution, these terms will be construed to refer to the same element of the claimed structure. Nonetheless, the claim language is indefinite and needs to be amended or cancelled to be consistent.
Regarding Claim 11, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “adjacent to the capillary element”, and the claim also recites “especially adjacent to the substance delivery region of the capillary element,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. This term will be construed to be disclosed when the inner side of the cover element is adjacent to either of the claimed structures.
The following claims have insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim:
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the container” “the air flow generating device” “the gap 42” “the cover element 41.” Claim 16 depends from Claim 1, and these limitations are not in claim 1.
Claim 17: recites the limitations “the air flow generation device”, and “the container.”
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the air flow generation device.” Claim 22 depends from Claim 1, and this limitation is not in claim 1.
Claim 23 recites the limitations "the air flow generation device" and “the control device” (wherein it is configured to control both the air flow generation device and electrical heating device). Claim 22 depends from Claim 1, and this limitation is not in claim 1.
Dependent claims 9-12, 24 and 25 are also rejected for inherited deficiencies of the rejected claims.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yamamoto et al. (DE 3737272), and further in view of Colombo et al. (WO 2009/006582).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses
Device for dispensing and/or diffusing volatile substances, in particular for dispensing and/or diffusing fragrances and/or active substances, [Fig. 2A (21)] (Examiner Note: When the body of the claim defines a structurally complete invention, the preamble is considered to be a mere statement of intended use, and not limiting the scope of the claim. [MPEP 2111.02-I]).
said device [Fig. 2A (21)] comprising:
a housing [Fig. 2a (22)] that surrounds a housing interior [Fig. 2A] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses a device with a main body surrounding the interior of the device.),
at least one storage tank [Fig. 2A (212)] containing a substance to be released into the environment [Para. 74, Fig. 1 (2)] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the fumigation device has a container (212) with a liquid chemical agent (2) that is evaporated into the environment by the device, and thus teaches this limitation.),
at least one electrical heating device [Fig. 2A (221)] which is accommodated in the housing interior by means of which heat is generated for heating and evaporating the substance to be emitted [Paras. 76-82, Fig. 2a (221)] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses an electric fumigation device with an annular heating device (221) accommodated in the housing interior and heats the upper section of the wick (216) upon activation such that the volatile substance is evaporated into the air and emitted into the environment, and thus teaches the electrical heating device as claimed.)
at least one capillary element [Fig 2A (216)], which is coupled to the heating element in a direct or indirect heat-transferring manner (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses an indirect heat-transferring coupling as the heating element is arranged in the central part of the annular heating device, and provides heat to the upper section of the wick to induce evaporation of the liquid chemical agent, but not in direct contact with the heating element.) wherein the capillary element has at least one substance-receiving area which is in contact with the substance received in the storage tank [Fig. 2A (216), paras. 80-81] (Examiner Note: Functional language in an apparatus claim is anticipated when the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus (MPEP 2114-I). Yamamoto discloses a lower portion of the wick is in contact with the liquid chemical agent in the container, where by absorption, the liquid chemical agent is received in the wick and thus teaches this limitation.), so that the substance is conveyed from the substance-receiving area by means of capillary action to a substance- discharging area [Fig. 2A (216), para. 80-81] of the capillary element, at which the substance is discharged (Examiner Note: Functional language in an apparatus claim is anticipated when the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus (MPEP 2114-I). Yamamoto discloses the upper end of the wick draws the liquid chemical agent up the wick via capillary action, where it is evaporated and discharges the substance with the pure air flow, and thus teaches this limitation.),
at least one air inlet on the housing side ([Fig 2A (220)], Examiner Note: The limitation “housing side” will be interpreted to mean the inlet/outlet is on the housing as opposed to disposed in the housing interior.), by means of which ambient air enters from outside the housing and forms a pure air flow in the housing interior (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the ambient air from the environment flows into the body from the lower vent holes (220) disposed on the housing (22) and forms a pure air flow through the housing interior that is enriched at the substance-discharge area of the wick, and thus, discloses this limitation.),
at least one air duct [Fig. 2A (220-229-226), para. 81] which, starting from the at least one air inlet [Fig. 2A (220)], is guided to the substance-discharging area of the capillary element [Fig. 2B (229)], 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 [Fig. 2A (226)] on the housing side, via which the substance air flow is discharged to the environment, [Para. 81] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the ambient air flows into the body from the inlets (220) where the pure air travels through the housing to the circumferential gap (229) where the pure air flow mixes at the substance-discharge area of the wick, and then out of the housing via the vent openings (225,226) and the evaporation opening (223). This will be construed as an air duct, and thus, Yamamoto teaches the air duct as claimed.)
Yamamoto does not disclose at least one control device by means of which the actuation of the at least one electrical heating device is controlled during operation of the device.
However, Colombo teaches at least one control device [Colombo: Fig. 10 (11)] by means of which the actuation of the at least one electrical heating device is controlled during operation of the device. [Colombo: Paras. 140, Fig. 10] (Examiner Note: Colombo discloses a diffuser device with a control circuit board configured to control the application of heat, and thus, discloses this limitation.) Colombo further teaches that the, “controller provides the consumer with greater flexibility with regards to room size and delivery rate preferences.” [Colombo: Para. 140]
Colombo is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related 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 Yamamoto with the control device taught in Colombo in order to improve functionality of the actuation of the diffuser. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that some manner of controlling of the electrical heating element is necessary in order to prevent thermal damage to internal components. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the controller taught in Colombo because the controller provides the consumer with greater flexibility with regards to room size and delivery rate preferences, helps prevent overheating the device, and extends the service life of the heating device. [Para. 140] Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as obvious over Yamamoto, further in view of Colombo.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto in view of Colombo as modified per claim 1 discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Yamamoto does not disclose an air flow generation device, by means of which ambient air is drawn in from outside the housing via the at least one air inlet and the pure air flow is generated.
However, Colombo further teaches an air flow generation device [Colombo: Fig. 2 (10)], by means of which ambient air is drawn in from outside the housing via the at least one air inlet [Colombo: Fig. 2 (8)] and the pure air flow is generated. [Colombo: Para. 127, Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: Colombo teaches a diffuser device wherein, “[t]he air supply enters the enclosure through air inlet 8 as shown in Fig. 2 and generated by the fan 10 and mounted within item 3 below the air tunnel 11.” Referring to 112(f) interpretation of air flow generation device above, the fan disclosed in Colombo is within the interpreted scope of the claimed limitation.)
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 Yamamoto with the air flow generation device taught in Colombo in order to improve efficiency and delivery rate of the diffuser. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Colombo can be incorporated into Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to diffuser devices and air generation devices are routinely used in heated diffusers to further increase evaporation of the diffused substance. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the fan taught in Colombo because the fan helps drive pure air, and increases the delivery rate of diffused substances, and overall improves the diffuser efficiency by reducing the thermal load required to effectively evaporate substances from the wick. Therefore, Claim 2 is rejected as obvious over Yamamoto, further in view of Colombo.
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Colombo as modified per claim 2 discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yamamoto does not disclose wherein the at least one control device also controls the actuation of the at least one air flow generation device during operation of the device.
However, Colombo further teaches wherein the at least one control device [Colombo: Fig. 10 (11)] also controls the actuation of the at least one air flow generation [Colombo: Fig. 10 (6)] device during operation of the device. [Colombo: Para. 140, Fig. 10] (Examiner Note: Colombo discloses a microcontroller on a control circuit board that can execute, “a variety of delivery rates dependent on the on/off sequence, fan speed, application of heat and additional features controlled by the micro-controller.” Therefore, Colombo is construed to teach a control device that is configured to control both the heater and the fan.)
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 Yamamoto with the teachings of Colombo in order to provide control of the actuation of the fan device. The coupling of fan and heating elements in diffusers to increase evaporation of substances and diffusion into the air are well known in the art, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this improvement could be applied with Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to diffuser devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the controller taught in Colombo because actuation of both the heating and air flow generation devices provides more precise control of the delivery rate and greater flexibility for the user. [Colombo: Para. 140] Therefore, Claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Yamamoto, further in view of Colombo.
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamoto in view of Colombo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamoto further discloses wherein the housing includes a heating area in which the electric heating device is accommodated [Fig. 2B, (222), para. 75-77] (Examiner Note: The claimed “heating area” is construed as a space provided for the heating device within the housing. Yamamoto discloses an annular space (222) is formed between the cover (23) and annular heating device (221) where the heater is attached to the upper section (24c) of the housing interior and, thus, discloses a heating area for the heating device.), wherein the capillary element forms part of the electric heating device [216, para. 74-76] (Examiner Note: This limitation will be understood to mean that the capillary element is used in the operation of the heating device, and arranged within the heating device. Yamamoto discloses the wick (216) is arranged in the annular heating device, where heat is applied to the upper section of the wick during the heating operation, and thus forms part of the electrical heating device.) and is, with its substance receiving area, in direct or indirect contact with the substance in the storage tank [Fig. 2B (216), para. 76] (Examiner Note: Yamato discloses the lower section of wick (216) is immersed in a liquid chemical agent in the bottle (212), and thus discloses this limitation.), 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. [Fig. 2B (229), para. 81] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses an air duct with a circumferential gap (229) disposed around the upper section of the wick such that the pure air flow mixes with the evaporated substance from the wick and diffuses from the outlets into the environment, and thus, reads onto this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Yamamoto further discloses, wherein the capillary element region of the capillary element [Fig. 2B (216)] which includes the substance delivery region projects upwards in an approximately tower-like manner, as viewed in a vertical axis direction. [Fig. 2B, paras. 74, 76] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses a wick that is a vertical rectangular shape, that projects upwards when viewed from the horizontal axis direction (Figs. 2A/B), and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 8, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamoto further discloses, wherein the capillary element region is covered from above by a covering element [Fig. 2B (23)] which, viewed in a vertical axis direction, forms an upper housing wall and/or closes the housing at the top [Fig. 2B (23), paras. 75-76] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses a cover (23) attached to the upper section (24) that closes the housing and provides an upper housing wall, and thus discloses this limitation.), wherein the covering element defines a gap between the substance delivery region and the covering element, [Fig. 2B (222), para. 76] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the cover (23) forms an annular space (22) between the cover and the heating device, where the substance delivery region is arranged within the heating device, and thus, discloses a gap.) with said gap being a component of the air duct [Fig, 2B (222), para. 83] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the air duct directs air from the circumferential gap (229) into the annular space (222) where it exits through the vent openings, and thus discloses this limitation.), and wherein the cover element has at least one opening [Fig. 2B (223, 225, 226)] forming the housing-side air outlet. [Fig. 2B, paras. 76-83] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the cover element has a plurality of vent openings (223, 225, 226) that form an outlet from which the substance-enriched air exits from the housing interior, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 9, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Yamamoto further discloses, wherein the cover element has at least one air outlet [Fig. 2B (226)] in the region above the tower top of the tower-like capillary element region. [Fig. 2B (222)] (Examiner Note: The vent openings (226, 223, 225) disclosed in Yamamoto are disposed above the entire wick in the annular space (222), and thus, discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 10, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Yamamoto further discloses, wherein the cover element [Fig. 2C (23)] and/or the gap between the cover element and the substance delivery region [Fig. 2B (222)] surround(s) the substance delivery region [Fig. 2C (216)] at least partially, as viewed in a circumferential direction (Examiner Note: This limitation will be understood to mean that viewed in from the top-down view of the device, the circumference of the cover element and/or the gap between the cover element and substance delivery region surrounds, at least partially, the circumference of the substance delivery region.) of the substance delivery region. (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the cover element (23) completely surrounds the substance delivery region of the wick (216) in the top-down view. Yamamoto specifically defines the annular gap (222) as the annular space formed between the cover and annular heating device. As the cover completely surrounds the substance delivery region of the wick (216), the annular space between the cover and wick (216) will also entirely surround the substance delivery region of the wick, and therefore, Yamamoto discloses both alternatives of the claimed limitation.)
Regarding Claim 11, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Yamamoto further discloses, wherein at least an inner side of the cover element [Fig. 2B (224)], building the gap (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses a heating device receiver (224) attached to the lower section of the evaporation opening (223) on the cover (23) where the annular space (222) between the receiver (224) and substance delivery region. As the heating receiver forms part of the annular gap (222), it can be said to build the gap, and thus discloses this limitation.) and/or being adjacent to the capillary element, especially adjacent to the substance delivery region of the capillary element, (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, the heating receiver (224) is disposed in the annular gap, and in the vicinity of the capillary element (216) and thus discloses this limitation.) has a nozzle shape tapering in the direction of the opening [Fig. 2B (224), para. 95] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses a heat receiver (224) provided with a rib that tapers in the direction of the vent opening in order to accelerate the upward airflow. This will be understood to be a nozzle shaped tapering in the direction of the opening, and thus discloses this limitation.) with a central opening as an air outlet on the housing side. [Fig. 2B (226)] (Examiner Note: The central vent opening (226) is arranged in the middle of the heat receiver, and forms an outlet from which the substance-enriched air exits from the housing interior, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 15, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamoto further discloses, wherein the storage tank is formed by a container, which is detachably held in a holding device arranged in the interior of the housing. [Fig. 2B (214), para. 78] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses a bottle holder that is used for detachably securing the container for the storage tank to the housing.)
Regarding Claim 16, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Yamamoto further discloses, wherein the container 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 gap [Yamamoto: Fig. 2B (219)] therebetween, [Yamamoto: Para. 76, 82] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the container is arranged in a recess (26) wherein the annular space (219) is arranged “between the circumferential wall of the lower, large-diameter section (212c) and the lower ventilation holes (220)” and thus discloses a gap between the housing wall and container. Furthermore, Yamamoto specifically discloses a space so that “ambient air flows around the bottle (212) [and] it is cooled.”) and in that the gap is a component of the air duct, via which the pure air flow flows to the substance discharging region, [Yamamoto: Para. 82] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses that the air flow path is designed so that ambient air flows around the bottle (212), and thus discloses this limitation.) so that the pure air flow sucked in via the at least one housing-side air inlet [Yamamoto: Fig. 2B (220), para. 81] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses that pure air flow is sucked in via the housing side air inlet (220) and flows into a lower housing area, but does not disclose an air flow generation device.] in a lower housing area [Yamamoto: Fig. 2B (219), para. 80-81] flows upwards along the container [Yamamoto: Fig. 2B (218-228-229), para. 80-82] to the substance discharging area of the capillary element [Yamamoto: Fig. 2B (216), para. 80-82] and from there flows as a substance-enriched substance air flow across the gap between the cover element and the capillary element area [Yamamoto: Fig. 2B (222), para. 80-82] to the opening of the cover element forming the housing-side air outlet and further into the environment. [Yamamoto: Fig. 2B/2C (226), para. 80-82] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the substance enriched air travels through the annular space (222) to the central vent opening (226) that forms an outlet from which the substance-enriched air exits the housing interior, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Yamamoto, does not disclose the at least one air flow generating device.
However, Colombo further teaches the at least one air flow generation device. [Colombo: Para. 127, Fig. 2(10)] (Examiner Note: Colombo teaches a diffuser device wherein, “[t]he air supply enters the enclosure through air inlet 8 as shown in Fig. 2 and generated by the fan 10 and mounted within item 3 below the air tunnel 11.” Referring to 112(f) interpretation of air flow generation device above, the fan disclosed in Colombo is within the interpreted scope of the claimed limitation.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the fan taught in Colombo with the Yamamoto in view of Colombo, for the same reasons as applied to claim 2. Accordingly, Claim 16 is obvious over Yamamoto, in view of Colombo.
Regarding Claim 17, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Yamamoto further discloses a power supply device. [Fig. 2A (235), paras. 79-80] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses a supply line connected to the power supply that turn on the heater. Noting the 112(f) discussion above, Yamamoto will be understood to disclose a cable plug-in power supply device and thus discloses the immediate limitation.)
Yamamoto, does not disclose wherein the at least one air flow generation device and/or the control device and/or a power supply device is or are arranged in the area below the container, viewed in a vertical axis direction.
However, Colombo further teaches the at least one air flow generation device [Colombo: Fig. 2 (10)] and/or the control device [Colombo: Fig. 2 (7)] and/or a power supply device [Colombo: Fig. 2 (9)] is or are arranged in the area below the container, viewed in a vertical axis direction. [Colombo: Para. 127, Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: Colombo further discloses that, “[t]he fan 10 is preferably mounted below the fragrance supply bottle 12 so as to provide directed air upward through the enclosure,” and that the power supply (9) and the circuit board (7) are mounted below the fan, and thus teaches this limitation.)
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 Yamamoto with the arrangement taught in Colombo to improve the upward flow of air. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Colombo could be incorporated with Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed to diffuser devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate this arrangement as Colombo specifically teaches that arranging the fan under the container has the benefit of increasing upward air flow. [Colombo: Para. 123] Accordingly, Claim 17 is rejected as obvious over Yamamoto, further in view of Colombo.
Regarding Claim 18, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamoto further discloses, wherein the housing has a bottom wall which closes the housing downwards [Fig. 2B (25b)] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the lower body (25) is formed integrally with bottom wall (25b).) and/or which is removable for access to the interior of the housing [Fig. 2B (25b), para. 75] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the upper (24) and lower body (25) are detachably connected for access to the housing interior. As the bottom wall (25b) is attached to the lower body, it reads onto this limitation.) and/or which comprises at least one housing side air inlet [Fig. 2B (220), para. 76] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the lower ventilation holes (220) are on the bottom section of the lower body (25b) and thus reads onto this limitation.).
Regarding Claim 19, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamoto in view of Colombo further discloses wherein the control device is part of a printed circuit board (PCB) accommodated in the housing. [Colombo: Fig. 2 (11), para. 140] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto modified as per claim 1 by Colombo discloses a control circuit board, and thus necessarily is part of a PCB.)
Regarding Claim 20, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yamamoto in view of Colombo does not disclose wherein the electric heating device is mounted in the housing in an exchangeable manner. [Paras. 75-77] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the electric heating device is exchangeable because it is mounted to the cover, and the cover is removably attached, so the heating device can be exchanged by exchanging the entire cover. However, it does not specifically disclose the heating device is removeable from the housing.)
However, under MPEP 2144.04-V-C, the making a structure separable is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious to modify the controller system disclosed by Yamamoto in view of Colombo such that the electrical heating device is detachable because making separable is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-V-C]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a detachable electrical heating device will function equally as well as an integral heating device for providing heat to the capillary elements. A person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that detachable components are well known in the diffuser arts, and allows for the replacement of individual parts instead of a whole control system, simplifying operation and maintenance and reducing operational costs. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the electrical heating device to work equally as well as the integral electrical heating device disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 21, Yamamoto in view of Colombo, further discloses, wherein the capillary element is made from material selected from the group consisting of a porous ceramic and a porous plastic. [para. 43] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses polymer or ceramics (kaolin etc.) can be used to make the main material of the wick.)
Regarding Claim 22, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yamamoto in view of Colombo, as modified per claim1 does not disclose, wherein the airflow generation device is selected from the group consisting of a fan or an air pump.
However, Colombo further teaches the airflow generation device is a fan [Colombo: Fig. 2 (10)]. [Colombo: Para. 127, Fig. 2(10)] (Examiner Note: Colombo teaches a diffuser device wherein, “[t]he air supply enters the enclosure through air inlet 8 as shown in Fig. 2 and generated by the fan 10.” Referring to 112(f) interpretation of air flow generation device above, the fan disclosed in Colombo is within the interpreted scope of the claimed limitation.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the fan taught in Colombo with the Yamamoto in view of Colombo, for the same reasons as applied to claim 2. Accordingly, Claim 22 is obvious over Yamamoto, in view of Colombo.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (DE 3737272) in view of Colombo (WO 2009/006582) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dycher (US 2019/0117817).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1
Yamamoto in view of Colombo as applied to claim 1 does not disclose, wherein the electrical heating device forms a structural unit which comprises the electrical heating element and the capillary element in such way that the electrical heating element is in direct contact with the capillary element and/or that least a partial area of the electrical heating element is embedded in the capillary element.
However, Dycher discloses wherein the electrical heating device forms a structural unit [Fig. 9 (5)] which comprises the electrical heating element and the capillary element [Fig. 6 (15)] in such way that the electrical heating element is in direct contact with the capillary element and that at least a partial area of the electrical heating element is embedded in the capillary element [Dycher: Para. 9-10, Figs. 6, 9] (Examiner Note: Dycher discloses “the at least one heating element is now a constituent part of the container itself,” where the heating element is “directly adjoining the capillary element such that said capillary element is able to be heated in a capillary element region to be heated in an effective manner as a result of heat conduction, as a result of which optimized vaporization of the substance to be dispensed is achieved at comparatively lower temperatures overall.” As the structural heating device has the heating element in direct contact with the capillary element, and partially embedded into it, it reads onto both alternatives.)
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)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Dycher with Yamamoto in view of Colombo, to create a compact design and optimize heating of the capillary element. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Dycher could be combined with Yamamoto in view of Colombo with a reasonable expectation of success as they all relate to diffuser devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the heating device in Dycher because Dycher teaches that the design produces “new structural degrees of freedom,” and provides conductive heating which increases the devices efficiency by achieving vaporization at comparatively lower temperatures. [Dycher: Para. 10] Accordingly, Claim 4 is rejected as obvious over Yamamoto in view of Colombo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dycher.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (DE 3737272) in view of Colombo (WO 2009/006582), and further in view of Luque Vera et al. (US 2017/0347640).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamoto in view of Colombo as applied to claim 1 further discloses, wherein the electric heating element is coupled to a power supply device, which supplies the electric heating element with power and heats it, controlled by means of the control device. [Paras. 79-81, Fig. 2A (235)] (Examiner Note: Notably, the power device does not heat the electrical heating element, it supplies power to the heating element that heats it. As discussed in claim 1 above, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses an electrical heating element powered by a cable plug-in power supply and controlled by a control device. Yamamoto further discloses a supply line (235) connected to the power supply and the electrical heating device to power the heating device.)
Yamamoto in view of Colombo does not disclose, wherein the electric heating element is formed by a heating coil with several turns or windings.
However, Luque Vera discloses the electric heating element [Luque Vera: Fig. 2b (3)] is formed by a heating coil with several turns or windings. [Luque Vera: Para. 34, Figs. 1b, 2b] (Examiner Note: Luque Vera discloses a device for evaporating volatile substances wherein the resistive heating element (3) is a coiled wire of more than 1 winding that is “compressed and in contact with the second end 9 of the wick 5 when the container 2 is mounted in the housing 6." Luque Vera further teaches that the direct contact of the resistor element (3) with the wick (5) “improves the heat transfer from the resistor element 3 to the liquid volatile substances 4 contained in the container 2, increasing the rate of evaporation of the volatile substances 4, and generating a quicker response to changes in the input power.” [Luque Vera: Para. 36]
Luque Vera 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 of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Luque Vera in order to increase the evaporation rate and response rate of the heater to the power input. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the heating element taught in Luque Vera could be incorporated into Yamamoto in view of Colombo, as they are all related to diffuser devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the heating element taught in Luque Vera, as Luque Vera teaches that the coiled heater in direct contact increase the rate of evaporation of volatile substances and generates a quicker response to changes in input power. [Luque Vera: Para. 36] Therefore, Claim 5 is rejected as obvious over Yamamoto in view of Colombo, and further in view of Luque Vera.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (DE 3737272) in view of Colombo (WO 2009/006582) and further in view of Demarest (WO 2009/058872).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Yamamoto in view of Colombo, does not disclose wherein the cover element providing the nozzle shape is surrounded by a circumferential collar on an outer side facing away from the capillary element. (Examiner Note: Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses the cover element is nozzle shaped, but not that the nozzle shaped element is surrounded by a collar.)
However, Demarest discloses wherein the cover element providing the nozzle shape is surrounded by a circumferential collar on an outer side facing away from the capillary element. [Demarest: Figs. 1-2(40), 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 Yamamoto in view of Colombo in order 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 Yamamoto in view of Colombo 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 Yamamoto in view of Colombo, and further in view of Demarest.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (DE 3737272) in view of Colombo (WO 2009/006582) and further in view of Brown (US 2008/0203185).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yamamoto in view of Colombo does not disclose wherein the capillary element 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.
However, Brown teaches wherein the capillary element includes a first capillary element [Brown: Fig. 4 (25)] that cooperates with a further, second capillary element [Brown: Fig. 4 (22)] 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 [Fig. 4(23)] with a free end of the second capillary element. [Brown: Paras. 28-29, Fig. 4] (Examiner Note: Brown discloses a volatile liquid disseminating device with “a cylindrical wick 22, which leads to a planar diffusion member 23. The wick sits on the bottom of the reservoir, such that the planar diffusion member … define[s] a secondary capillary channel 26 between the two.” Brown further discloses that “[i]n operation, a liquid moves from the reservoir via the wick 22 to the secondary capillary channel 26… until it reaches the ends of the primary capillary channels 25 … [and] evaporates into the atmosphere.” Accordingly, Brown discloses the primary capillary channels (25) of the curved plate (24) are in operative connection with the wick via the planar diffusion member (23) and thus teaches this limitation.)
Brown 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 Yamamoto in view of with the teachings of Brown in order to increase the evaporative efficiency of the device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Brown could be combined with Yamamoto in view of Colombo with a reasonable expectation of success as they all relate to diffuser devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the arrangement of the capillary elements in Brown to implement the planar transfer member taught in Brown. Brown teaches that the interposition of the transfer member between capillary elements increases the evaporative surface area, and overall evaporative efficiency of the device, and thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adapt the capillary elements in order to implement the transfer member taught in Brown. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected as obvious over Yamamoto in view of Colombo, and further in view of Brown.
Regarding Claim 14, Yamamoto in view of Colombo discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Yamamoto in view of Colombo does not disclose wherein the first capillary element and the second capillary element are in operative connection with the interposition of a porous ceramic disc.
However, Brown further teaches the first capillary element and the second capillary element are in operative connection with the interposition of a porous ceramic disc. [Brown: Para. 9, 28] (Examiner Note: Brown further discloses that the planar diffusion member may be made of ceramic and has a diameter less than the internal diameter of the cap, and thus will be construed to teach a ceramic disc-shaped diffusion member. The diffusion member is positioned between the wick, and primary capillary channels of the curved plate, and allows transfer of the liquid between the two capillary elements, and thus can be construed as a transfer member.)
Brown 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 Yamamoto in view of with the teachings of Brown in order to increase the evaporative efficiency of the device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Brown could be combined with Yamamoto in view of Colombo with a reasonable expectation of success as they all relate to diffuser devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the arrangement of the capillary elements in Brown because Brown teaches that the interposition of the planar member increases the evaporative surface area of the capillary elements, therefore, increasing the evaporation rate of the device, and reducing the power required to facilitate evaporative flow. [Brown: Paras. 4-6] Therefore, Claims 13 and 14 are rejected as obvious over Yamamoto in view of Colombo, and further in view of Brown.
Claims 23 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (DE 3737272) in view of Colombo (WO 2009/006582) and further in view of Bae et al. (KR 101319994).
Regarding Claim 23, Yamamoto in view of Colombo, as modified per claim 1, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamoto further discloses the at least one electrical heating device [Yamamoto: Fig. 2B (221)].
Yamamoto in view of Colombo does not disclose, wherein the at least one electrical heating device and the at least one air flow generation device are controlled in intervals by means of the 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 Yamamoto in view of 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: Fig. 2 (28)] and the at least one air flow generation device [Bae: Fig. 2 (30/31/33)] are controlled in intervals by means of the control device [Bae: 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 Yamamoto in view of Colombo 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 Yamamoto in view of Colombo 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 Yamamoto in view of Colombo and further in view of Bae.
Regarding Claim 24, Yamamoto in view of Colombo and further in view of Bae discloses all of the limitations of claim 23. Yamamoto further discloses, wherein a maximum temperature of the heating element of the electrical heating device is between 100° C. and 280° C. [Yamamoto: para. 89] (Examiner Note: Yamamoto discloses the operating temperature of the device ranges from 70 to 450° C, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (DE 3737272) in view of Colombo (WO 2009/006582) and Bae (KR 101319994) 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, Yamamoto in view of Colombo and Bae discloses all of the limitations of claim 23.
Yamamoto in view of Colombo and Bae does not disclose, wherein the size of the substance particles released and diffused into the environment is 20 to 80 nm.
However, Berthelon discloses 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)]
Therefore, 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 ranged disclosed by Berthelon, and Applicant provides no evidence of criticality of the range. Accordingly, Claim 25 is rejected as obvious over Yamamoto in view of Colombo, and further in view of Berthelon.
Conclusion
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.
JMC
Examiner, AU 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights