DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/07/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8 of the claim, “movable between a first and a second positions” is grammatically incorrect and should be corrected to “movable between a first and second position” or “movable between first and second positions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caserta et al. (EP 1736177 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 02/02/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Caserta teaches a device for evaporating volatile substances (1, Fig. 1-5), comprising:
a casing (7, Fig. 1);
a container containing volatile substances (bottle 3, Fig. 1);
an elongated wick defining a longitudinal axis (wick 2 having a longitudinal axis along the length of the wick, Fig. 1), which is partially inserted into the container and which is impregnated with the volatile substances ([0018]);
a heater (4, Fig. 1), which heats the wick for evaporation of the volatile substances ([0020]); and
an evaporation rate regulator (pipe 5, Fig. 1), provided with an outlet channel for the volatile substances (pipe 5, Fig. 1), the regulator being movable between a first (Fig. 5a) and a second positions (Fig. 5b) for regulating the area of the outlet channel (evaporation rate is manipulated, [0020]);
characterized in that the regulator is connected to a rotating disc (annular protuberance 9, Fig. 1), so that the rotation of the rotating disc causes the regulator to move between the first (Fig. 5a) and second positions (Fig. 5b), this movement being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the wick (the circular movement is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of wick 2, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Caserta teaches wherein the regulator (pipe 5, Fig. 1) comprises a projection (lip 10, Fig. 1) which is housed in a slot (slot of lip 10, Fig. 1 and see drawing below) complementary to the rotating disc (protuberance 9, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Caserta teaches wherein the outlet channel (pipe 5, Fig. 1) has an elongated cross-sectional shape (it is vertically elongated).
Regarding claim 6, Caserta teaches wherein the rotating disc (9, Fig. 1) comprises a central cylindrical wall (the protuberance 9 is circular and hollow in the middle, thus defining a “cylindrical wall”, see Fig. 1) provided with a window (circular exit window for the evaporated substance to exit from protuberance 9, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Caserta teaches wherein the heater (4, Fig. 1) is arranged in a fixed position with respect to the wick (2, Fig. 1, where neither move relative to each other).
Regarding claim 8, Caserta teaches wherein the casing (7) comprises a partition (see drawing below) provided with a hole (circular hole that pipe 5 fits into, Fig. 1), the hole being located above and in front of the heater (the hole is in front and above the heater 4, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Caserta teaches wherein the casing (7, Fig. 1) comprises two partitions (two partition walls, see drawing below), which define a space for the heater (4, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
334
513
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caserta et al. (EP 1736177 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Caserta teaches wherein the slot (see drawing above) extends from substantially the center of the rotating disc to its edge (slot of lip 10 extends from around the center of the protuberance 9 to its edge, given the horizontal length of the slot, Fig. 1), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the slot (slot of lip 10, Fig. 1) of the rotating disc (9, Fig. 1) is curved (i.e., there is no defined cross-sectional shape of the slot of the lip).
However, the housing is curved and non-circular at a cross-sectional view (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the cross-sectional shape of the lip slot of Caserta as desired, including a curved and non-circular shape such as an oval (e.g., Caserta’s cross-sectional housing shape) according to decorative preferences or to more closely mirror the shape of the lip (thus conforming to Caserta’s cross-sectional housing shape), because the configuration of the slot “is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04.B).
Regarding claim 4, modified Caserta teaches wherein the slot (slot of lip 10, Fig. 1) of the rotating disc (9, Fig. 1) is curved with a non-constant radius (modified slot shape being non-circular such as an oval but curved means the radius is non-constant as well, see claim 3 rejection above).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights