DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-10 should refer to “The device for diffusing volatile substances” for the best antecedent basis in each case.
Claim 10 should recite “s with respect to the sealing element” for the best antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the activation element" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the element is the same or different as the actuation element in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pagani (EP 1442754).
Regarding claim 1, Pagani (EP 1442754) (cited on IDS, already present in File Wrapper) discloses –
A device diffusing volatile substances (Fig. 1, diffuser vessel 20 par. 1), comprising
a refill in which a liquid containing the volatile substances is housed (bottle 10, par. 16),
characterized in that the refill comprises:
- a hole for the passage of the liquid (Figs. 2A-B exit hole 12, par. 16);
- a sealing element (Figs. 3A-B valve 30 including valving element 31, par. par. 29) movable between
a closed position in which it prevents the passage of liquid (par. 29) and
an open position in which it allows the passage of liquid through the hole (par. 33, the valve is actuated between an open and closed position as claimed); and
- an elastic element which presses the sealing element into its closed position (spring means 33, par. 31 disclosing these means bias the valve towards the closed position), wherein
the sealing element comprises
a housing (Fig. 3A-4B plug 13 and lower plug wall 13a allow the rod 32 to protract and extend from within and therefore forms a housing for the rod) for
housing an actuation element (rod 32) which moves the sealing element from the closed position to the open position against the action of the elastic element (pars. 32-33 disclose the rod 32 is acted on by the wall 21 of the diffuser to compress the spring and change the position of the valve to open).
Regarding claim 2, Pagani further teaches the housing extends in the direction of a central axis of the sealing element (the plug 13 and the valve 30 extend in a vertical direction about a shared axis).
Regarding claim 3, Pagani further teaches he activation element comprises a protrusion (the rod 32 is a protrusion) complementary with a recess of the sealing element (the valve 30 has a recessed annular wall at hole 12, the flared opening of which is best seen in fig. 3B reading on the limitation of a recess of the sealing element).
Regarding claim 6, Pagani further teaches the hole for the passage of the liquid is arranged in a partition (wall 13a reads on this) of the refill (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 7, Pagani further teaches the partition comprises a cavity (the valve 30 is behind the wall 13a in a space defined by the plug 13 reading on a cavity) for the sealing element (valving member 31 is in this space in the open configuration, shown in fig. 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagani (EP 1442754) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above and further in view of Wang (US 2018/0117610).
Regarding claim 4, Pagani is set forth above with regards to claim 3 but appears to be silent with regards to threads.
Wang (US 2018/0117610) discloses a diffuser (abstract) including a valve with an activation element that comprises threads complimentary with threads of a sealing element (see fig. 4 valve threads 21 are complimentary with threads of the receiving cavity, par. 34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Pagani such that the protrusions and recesses are threads as taught by Wang to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known and conventional connection structures of protrusions and complimentary recesses to arrive at a successful device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including valve structures and threads, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Pagani is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to threads.
Wang (US 2018/0117610) discloses a diffuser (abstract) including a valve with an activation element that comprises threads complimentary with threads of a sealing element (see fig. 4 valve threads 21 are complimentary with threads of the receiving cavity, par. 34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Pagani such that there are protrusions and recesses that are threads as taught by Wang to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known and conventional connection structures of protrusions and complimentary recesses to arrive at a successful device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including valve structures and threads, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagani (EP 1442754) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yu (CN 108721676A).
Regarding claim 5, Pagani is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to the elastic element comprising membranes.
Yu (CN 108721676) teaches a diffuser (title) comprising a valve structure including an elastic element comprising an elastic membrane (Fig. 2 elastic film 130 holds projection 112 against air hole 131 to prevent leakage, p. 4 par. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Pagani such that the elastic element comprises a membrane as taught by Yu to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully implement an elastic element for the purpose of biasing a valve structure to a blocked position as required by Pagani to arrive at a successful device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding the limitation that the membranes are plural: this modification is merely the duplication of parts and therefore would be obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagani (EP 1442754) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wu (US 2004/0223895).
Regarding claim 8, Pagani further teaches the sealing element is cylindrical (the middle part of valving element 31 is cylindrical, Fig. 2A) but appears to be silent with regards to a flange which, in the closed position, is in contact with the hole (2).
Wu (US 2004/0223895) teaches a diffusing device (title, abstract) including a sealing element that is cylindrical (Figs. 1 and 4-5 valve flap 41 includes annular flange 43) and comprises a flange (valve flap 41) in contact with a hole in the closed position (par. 17, in a closed potion the flap 41 is in contact with seat 35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Pagani such that the sealing element is cylindrical with a flange that is in contact with the hole in the closed position as taught by Wu to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Pagani is set forth above with regards to claim 1 and further teaches the elastic element is a spring (spring means 33, fig. 3A) where rods extend from an end of the sealing element (the top-most portion of valve 30 has abutments) but appears to be silent with regards to abutments and a helical spring.
Wu further teaches a helical spring (fig. 2 spring 5) and extending from a sealing element an abutment (fig. 2 flange 43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Pagani such that the rods of Pagani’s sealing element include abutments in contact with the spring at a distal end thereof and such that the spring is helical as taught by Wu to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better seal the valve member with a conventional spring type and connection means for the spring to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758