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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. Applicant recites “wherein the fragrance additive comprises a fragrance selected from one or more of citrus, fruity, floral, powdery, aromatic, oriental, green and woody.” The terms used to describe the scents are unclear to the Examiner, particularly the use of “green and woody”, “powdery”, and “oriental”. A review of the specification has not clarified or defined any of these terms. For examination purposes, claim 10 will be treated as “wherein the fragrance additive comprises a fragrance selected from one or more of citrus, fruity, and floral.”
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8205351 (Howe hereinafter) in view of US 2017/0028090 (Thompson hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Howe teaches a clothes dryer additive delivery device that discloses a body (Figures 1-7 body being 10), a fragrance additive (Additive within core 12 including fragrance or deodorizing materials per Column 6 Lines 42-56), wherein the shape of the body allows the dryer delivery device to slide freely throughout one or more materials placed in a clothes dryer (Column 9 Lines 11-16). Howe in Column 6 Lines 42-56 does disclose the use of a durable material to form 14 which is part of 10.
Howe is silent with respect that said body being formed of a first thermoplastic material, the first thermoplastic material comprising a polymer including a fragrance additive.
However, Thompson teaches a fragrance delivery system based on heat that discloses body being formed of a first thermoplastic material (¶ 28-30), the first thermoplastic material comprising a polymer including a fragrance additive (¶ 28-30 of Thompson as applied to the body 14 of Howe to reduce the need for the inner core 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the body of Howe with the fragrance loaded body of Thompson to reduce the number of components required to form the device of Howe.
Regarding claim 4, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Howe and Thompson would further disclose that the first thermoplastic material comprises high density polyethylene (HDPE) (Thompson in ¶ 30 discloses the use of HDPE).
Regarding claim 5, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Howe and Thompson would further disclose that the first thermoplastic material comprises ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) (Thompson ¶ 28 details the use of EVA).
Regarding claim 8, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Howe and Thompson would further disclose that the fragrance additive is about 20% to about 60% by weight of the composition of the thermoplastic material (¶ 29 of Thompson).
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Howe and Thompson would further disclose that the fragrance additive comprises a fragrance and a solvent (¶ 31 of Thompson).
Regarding claim 11, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Howe and Thompson would further disclose that the first thermoplastic material is one or more materials selected from the group consisting of polypropylene (PP); nylon; polycarbonate (PC); polystyrene (PS); styrene acrylonitrile (SAN); acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS); high density polyethylene (HDPE); low density polyethylene (LDPE); acetal; polyacetal; polyoxymethylene (POM); polysulfone (PSU); polybutylene terephthalate (PBT); polyethylene terephthalate (PET); ester-based thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer (TPUR); ether-based thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer (TPUR); polyphenylene sulfide (PPS); polyethersulfone (PES); polyether-ester block copolymer thermoplastic Elastomer (TEEE:; modified polyphenylene oxide (PPO); acrylic; poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA); polycarbonate/acrylic alloy (PC/PMMA); polyetherimide (PEI); polyolefin; polycarbonate/polyester (PC/PBT); polyetheretherketone (PEEK); polyetherketone (PEK); rigid thermoplastic polyurethane (RTPU); polycarbonate/ABS alloy (PC/ABS); styrenic block copolymer thermoplastic elastomer (SBC); thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV); polymethylpentene (PMP); polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF); fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP); polyetherketoneetherketoneketone (PEKEKK); polyphthalamide (PPA); polyetherketoneketone (PEKK); thermoplastic polyimide (TPI); polysulfone/polycarbonate alloy (PSU/PC), high temperature nylon (HTN); polyketone (PK); syndiotactic polystyrene (SPS); thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) and thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) (¶ 30 of Thompson discloses at least ABS).
Regarding claim 12, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Howe and Thompson would further disclose that the fragrance additive is released over time from the dryer additive delivery device (Inherent of Howe as modified by Thompson).
Regarding claim 13, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Howe and Thompson would further disclose that the body has a disc, oval or circular shape (Evident from Figures 1-7 of Howe).
Regarding claim 16, Howe teaches a clothes dryer additive delivery device and method of using that discloses the steps of: placing one or more dryer additive delivery devices in a clothes dryer before or after loading of the one or more materials into the clothes dryer (Column 8 Lines 5-7 of Howe), and tumbling the one or more dryer additive delivery devices with the one or more materials in the clothes dryer (Column 8 Lines 7-11 of Howe), wherein the dryer additive delivery device comprises a body (Figures 1-7 body being 10), a fragrance additive (Additive within core 12 including fragrance or deodorizing materials per Column 6 Lines 42-56), wherein the shape of the body allows the dryer delivery device to slide freely throughout one or more materials placed in a clothes dryer (Column 9 Lines 11-16). Howe in Column 6 Lines 42-56 does disclose the use of a durable material to form 14 which is part of 10.
Howe is silent with respect that said body being formed of a first thermoplastic material, the first thermoplastic material comprising a polymer including a fragrance additive.
However, Thompson teaches a fragrance delivery system based on heat that discloses body being formed of a first thermoplastic material (¶ 28-30), the first thermoplastic material comprising a polymer including a fragrance additive (¶ 28-30 of Thompson as applied to the body 14 of Howe to reduce the need for the inner core 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the body of Howe with the fragrance loaded body of Thompson to reduce the number of components required to form the device of Howe.
Regarding claim 17, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 where the combination of Howe and Thompson would further disclose that the one or more materials are fabrics or clothing (Inherent of the dryer device of Howe).
Regarding claim 20, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 where the combination of Howe and Thompson would further disclose that the first thermoplastic material is one or more materials selected from the group consisting of polypropylene (PP); nylon; polycarbonate (PC); polystyrene (PS); styrene acrylonitrile (SAN); acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS); high density polyethylene (HDPE); low density polyethylene (LDPE); acetal; polyacetal; polyoxymethylene (POM); polysulfone (PSU); polybutylene terephthalate (PBT); polyethylene terephthalate (PET); ester-based thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer (TPUR); ether-based thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer (TPUR); polyphenylene sulfide (PPS); polyethersulfone (PES); polyether-ester block copolymer thermoplastic Elastomer (TEEE:; modified polyphenylene oxide (PPO); acrylic; poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA); polycarbonate/acrylic alloy (PC/PMMA); polyetherimide (PEI); polyolefin; polycarbonate/polyester (PC/PBT); polyetheretherketone (PEEK); polyetherketone (PEK); rigid thermoplastic polyurethane (RTPU); polycarbonate/ABS alloy (PC/ABS); styrenic block copolymer thermoplastic elastomer (SBC); thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV); polymethylpentene (PMP); polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF); fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP); polyetherketoneetherketoneketone (PEKEKK); polyphthalamide (PPA); polyetherketoneketone (PEKK); thermoplastic polyimide (TPI); polysulfone/polycarbonate alloy (PSU/PC), high temperature nylon (HTN); polyketone (PK); syndiotactic polystyrene (SPS); thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) and thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) (¶ 30 of Thompson discloses at least ABS).
Claims 2, 3, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8205351 (Howe) in view of US 2017/0028090 (Thompson) and further in view of 2018/0362896 (Perfetti hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the first thermoplastic material includes a wax.
However, Perfetti teaches a fragrance emitter that discloses a first thermoplastic material that includes a wax (¶ 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Howe/Thompson with the included wax of Perfetti to add fabric care components to the laundry device.
Regarding claim 3, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Howe, Thompson, and Perfetti would further disclose that the wax is hydrogenated tallow fatty acid (Perfetti ¶ 58).
Regarding claim 18, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 but are silent with respect that the first thermoplastic material includes a wax.
However, Perfetti teaches a fragrance emitter that discloses a first thermoplastic material that includes a wax (¶ 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Howe/Thompson with the included wax of Perfetti to add fabric care components to the laundry device.
Claims 6, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8205351 (Howe) in view of US 2017/0028090 (Thompson) and further in view of US 9272062 (Heflin hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the fragrance additive is infused in a second thermoplastic material, the second thermoplastic material is combined or blended with the first thermoplastic material.
However, Heflin teaches an air fragrance emitter that discloses a fragrance additive is infused in a second thermoplastic material (Column 2 Lines 8-16 and Column 4 Lines 29-46 disclose the use of mixtures of polymers), the second thermoplastic material is combined or blended with a first thermoplastic material (Column 2 Lines 8-16 and Column 4 Lines 29-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thermoplastic of Howe with the teachings of Heflin to allow for additional structure and fragrance additives to the laundry treating device.
Regarding claim 7, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Howe, Thompson, and Heflin would further disclose that the first thermoplastic material is high density polyethylene (HDPE) (¶ 30 of Thompson) and the second thermoplastic material is ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) (Column 2 Lines 8-16 and Column 4 Lines 29-46 of Heflin).
Regarding claim 19, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 but are silent with respect that the fragrance additive is infused in a second thermoplastic material, the second thermoplastic material is combined or blended with the first thermoplastic material.
However, Heflin teaches an air fragrance emitter that discloses a fragrance additive is infused in a second thermoplastic material (Column 2 Lines 8-16 and Column 4 Lines 29-46 disclose the use of mixtures of polymers), the second thermoplastic material is combined or blended with a first thermoplastic material (Column 2 Lines 8-16 and Column 4 Lines 29-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thermoplastic of Howe with the teachings of Heflin to allow for additional structure and fragrance additives to the laundry treating device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8205351 (Howe) in view of US 2017/0028090 (Thompson) and further in view of US 2015/0196677 (Vlad hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the fragrance additive comprises a fragrance and a solvent. Howe and Thompson discloses the use of a fragrance as noted above in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
However, Vlad teaches an air fragrance device that discloses a fragrance additive comprises a fragrance and a solvent (¶ 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fragrance of Howe and Thompson with the fragrance/solvent of Vlad to improve the fragrance performance per Vlad ¶ 24.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8205351 (Howe) in view of US 9272062 (Heflin).
Regarding claim 14, Howe teaches a dryer fragrance additive delivery device and method of forming it that discloses the steps of blending a material with a fragrance additive to form a blended compound (Column 6 Lines 42-56)
Howe is silent with respect to the step of forming a blended polymer and the step of injection molding the blended polymer compound into a shape of the dryer delivery device.
However, Heflin teaches forming an air fragrance device that discloses a blended polymer (Column 4 Lines 29-64) and the step of injection molding the blended polymer compound into a shape of the dryer delivery device (Column 4 Lines 29-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material and formation method of Howe with the teachings of Heflin to allow for easy manufacturing of the fragrance device of Howe.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8205351 (Howe) in view of US 9272062 (Heflin) and further in view of US 2015/0196677 (Vlad).
Regarding claim 15, Howe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where Heflin further discloses that the blended polymer compound comprises one or more of polyurethane, polyethylene, polypropylene and ethylene-vinyl acetate (Column 4 Lines 29-46 of Heflin).
Howe, per Heflin, is silent with respect that the fragrance additive comprises a fragrance and a solvent.
However, Vlad teaches an air fragrance device that discloses a fragrance additive comprises a fragrance and a solvent (¶ 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fragrance of Howe and Heflin with the fragrance/solvent of Vlad to improve the fragrance performance per Vlad ¶ 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762