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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 08/27/2026
Claim 1 has been amended, claims 4-6 and 14 have been canceled and claims 20-25 have been added
Claims 1-2, 7-13 and 15-25 are presented for examination
This action is Non-Final
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 4-6 and 13-18 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Seshadri et al. (US 2020/0306404). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 8-13, 15-18, 20 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2003/0089791) in view of Seshadri et al. (US 202/0306404).
Claims 1, 13, 20. Chen discloses a container 10 for releasing volatile substances, comprising:
- a container body 20 that contains a liquid 30 with volatile substances and that is provided with an aperture (opening at T1) ([0048]; fig. 1);
- a porous membrane 40 that closes the aperture of the container body (fig. 1); and
characterized in that the porous membrane is transparent when it is in contact with the liquid in the container body ([0056-0057]).
Chen discloses a transparent porous membrane with the ability for both stored liquids and embossed indicia to be seen but fails to disclose a message or pattern on the container. Seshadri teaches a dispensing container 100 that comprises a viewable message or pattern ([0034]);
the message or pattern is configured to be viewed by the user through the porous membrane 140 when the porous membrane is transparent [0020-0022]; and
the message or pattern is printed on a side of the porous membrane [0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the membrane of Chen to include the printable indicia Seshadri to assist easily identifying the removable sections of the dispenser.
Claims 8, 16, 22. Chen-Seshadri discloses container for releasing volatile substances according to claim 1, wherein the container body is transparent (Chen; [0021]).
Claims 9-11: Chen-Shi discloses a container for releasing volatile substances according to claim 1, wherein the container body comprises a liquid residue area (Seshadri; middle 2 apertures running between receptacles 112; fig. 5).
Claims 12, 15, 17, 23. Chen-Seshadri discloses the container for releasing volatile substances according to claim 1, wherein the porous membrane is opaque when it is not in contact with the liquid in the container body (Chen; abstract), and
the message or pattern is configured so that the user cannot see the message or pattern when the porous membrane is opaque (Chen; abstract).
Claims 18, 24. Chen-Seshadri discloses container for releasing volatile substances according to claim 20, wherein the container body comprises a liquid residue area (Seshadri; fig. 5).
Claim(s) 2, 7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2003/0089791) in view of Seshadri et al. (US 2020/0306404) in view of Santini et al. (US 10,814,029).
Claims 2, 7, 21. Chen-Seshadri discloses container where Chen discloses a container including a porous membrane 40 for releasing volatile substances coupled to a container body 20 according to claim 5, but fails to include a barrier layer. Santini teaches the printed support 18A placed between the membrane 23 (acting as a sealing membrane) and the barrier layer 18B (fig. 1B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the layers of Chen to include the printed support of Santini to maintain adhesion of the barrier while presenting an aesthetically pleasing product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and applied, and a new rejection has been made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights