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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0030] of the specification as filed recites “… Referring for example to Fig. 12, …” but there is not a Fig. 12; therefore, the recitation should be corrected to read “… Referring for example to Fig. 11, …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 11 are objected to because of the informalities discussed below. Consistent with MPEP § 608.01(m), the examiner recommends using “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” throughout and therefore the following corrections in the discussion of each claim should be made to overcome the objections. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1:
the recitation “the pour table” in lines 15, 17 and 19 should read "the pouring table" as introduced in line 2 of the claim – one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce "the pour table" was intended to reference the pouring table" and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language;
the recitation “the floor of the cavity” in line 7 should read “the floor of each of the cavities” – one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce "the floor of the cavity" was intended to reference “the floor of each of the cavities” and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language; and
the recitation “harden the wax” in line 17 should read “harden the melted wax” as introduced in line 15 of the claim – one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce "harden the wax" was intended to reference “harden the melted wax” and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language.
Regarding claim 2:
the recitation “the pour table” in lines 2-3 and 6 should read "the pouring table" as introduced in line 2 of claim 1;
the recitations “the height of a top surface” in lines 1-2 and “the height of the horizontal surface” in line 2 recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced – while this recitation is not ambiguous because there is inherent basis for such subject matter, the recitations should read “a ” and “a ” to overcome this objection;
the recitations “the open volume” in line 3 recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced – while this recitation is not ambiguous, the recitation should read “an ” to overcome this objection; and
the recitations “the molding cavity” in lines 3-4, “the mold core” in line 4 and “the volume” in lines 4-5 should each be corrected to read “each ”, “each ” and “the open volume” – one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce these recitations are equivalents to how they were previously introduced and therefore do not result in ambiguous claim language.
Regarding claim 3:
the recitation “the pour table” in line 5 should read "the pouring table" as introduced in line 2 of claim 1; and
the recitation “the mold core” in line 2, line 4 and line 5 should be corrected to read “each ”.
Regarding claim 4:
the recitation “the molding cavity” in line 8 and line 9 should read “each ”; and
the recitation “the mold core” should read “each ”
Regarding claim 5: the recitation “the bottom surface of each mold core included a threaded hole” in lines 3-4 should read “the bottom surface of each mold core includes a threaded hole”;
Regarding claim 6:
the recitation “the pour table” in line 3 should read "the pouring table" as introduced in line 2 of claim 1; and
the recitation “the mold core” in line 2 should be corrected to read “each ”.
Regarding claim 7:
the recitation “wherein the entire sustainer” in lines 1-2 should read “wherein an entirety of the sustainer”;
the recitation “the wax bottom of the candle after it is hardened” in line 2 should read “the wall of the self-filling candle after the wax is hardened”; and
the recitation “the molding cavity” in lines 2-3 should read “each ”.
Regarding claim 8: the recitation “the pour table” in line 3 should read "the pouring table" as introduced in line 2 of claim 1;
Regarding claim 9: the recitation “the mold core” in line 2 should be corrected to read “each ”.
Regarding claim 11: the recitation “the excess layer” in line 2 should be corrected to read “the
excess layer of wax” as introduced in claim 10.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are 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) is/are: “means for affixing a removable mold core to a floor of the molding cavity” in claim 4 (see paragraph [0008] & [0028]-[0029], FIGs. 1A-1B & 2B, and claim 5 for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function).
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.
[AltContent: rect]Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4-5 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 4: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the base" in line 2, line 5 and line 7. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which does not include a base; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a base making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 4.
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.
[AltContent: rect]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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrhammer (DE 19525789 C1; herein referred to as Herrhammer; made of record in the 07/08/2024 IDS, citations drawn to the translated version provided herewith) in view of Patton et al. (US 2016/0298055 A1; herein referred to as Patton) and further in view of Daiber et al. (US 2002/0041055; herein referred to as Daiber; made of record in the 07/08/2024 IDS) and McWilliams (US 9,033,701; herein referred to as McWilliams; made of record in the 02/01/2024 IDS).
As to claim 1: Herrhammer discloses the claimed method of forming a candle (Herrhammer at [0001], Fig. 2) comprising the steps of:
providing a pouring table (i.e., casting box 1) with a horizontal surface and a plurality of
molding cavities extending downward from the horizontal surface of the pouring table, each said molding cavity including an outer mold (Herrhammer at [0001], [0012], [0015], Fig. 2 – see annotated version below);
g) preheating the pouring table and the outer molds (i.e., casting box 1 and the molds are
preheated) (Herrhammer at [0001], [0014], Fig. 2);
h) flooding the pour table with melted wax to completely fill the plurality of molding cavities
(i.e., once the operating temperature in the casting box 1 is reached, the candles are poured into the molds) (Herrhammer at [0015], Fig. 2); and
i) cooling the pour table and the outer molds to cool and harden the wax in the molding cavities
(i.e., the cast candles are cooled by the inflow of cold water via cold water inlet 6) (Herrhammer at [0016], Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
525
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Herrhammer discloses a method for casting candles in a candle-casting machine (Herrhammer
at [0001], Fig. 2); though, Herrhammer fails to disclose the claimed candle being a self-filling candle, and the claimed steps:
b) providing an insertable and removable mold core for each molding cavity;
c) providing a lifting ring at the bottom of each cavity, each said lifting ring being configured to
lower to the floor of the cavity and to raise;
d) releasably attaching a first wick made from a cord ad wrapping the first wick around each mold core;
e) placing each of the lifting rings in a fully down position at the floor of the molding cavity;
f) affixing each mold core with an attached, wrapped first wick in a respective molding cavity;
h) containing the mold cores, each with an attached, wrapped first wick
j) removing excess wax on the pour table above and around the molding cavities; and
k) raising the lifting rings to push the hardened wax with the wrapped first wicks substantially
from the respective molding cavities.
However, Patton teaches a method, system and apparatus for forming wax or wax-like shells or
housings via injection molding (Patton at [0008], [0010]). Patton further teaches the system 300 for forming a plurality of wax shells simultaneously by using a set of devices for forming wax shells; where each device 100 has sleeves 102 and an interior space 104 between the sleeves 102, and a removable core 110 that is disposed within the interior space 104 such that removable core 110 defines an interior of the wax shell and provides a hollow space in the space once formed (i.e., b) providing an insertable and removable mold core for each molding cavity), and a flame element coupled to the plastic core is properly aligned with respect to an upper surface of the shell (i.e., d) releasably attaching a first wick made from a cord ad wrapping the first wick around each mold core and f) affixing each mold core with an attached, wrapped first wick in a respective molding cavity) (Patton at Abstract, [0030], [0031], [0034], Figure 1, Figure 3).
Moreover, Patton teaches hot wax being inserted into the interior spaces 304 through wax conduits 334 through which wax can flow into the interior spaces 304 via gate 322 (i.e., h) flooding the pour table with melted wax to completely fill the plurality of molding cavities containing the mold cores, each with an attached, wrapped first wick) (Patton at [0034], Figure 1, Figure 3). Patton further teaches excess wax being removed via vents 224/324 as needed (i.e., j) removing excess wax on the pour table above and around the molding cavities) (Patton at [0033], Figure 2, Figure 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the invention to utilize the removable plastic core with a flame element coupled to the plastic core as such is known in the art of systems and methods for forming wax candles/shells given the discussion of Patton above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so eliminating the need to later drill and remove an interior portion of the shell, saving time and cost in the manufacturing process (as recognized by Patton at [0031]).
Herrhammer, modified by Patton, still fails to disclose the claimed candle being a self-filling
candle, and the claimed step:
c) providing a lifting ring at the bottom of each cavity, each said lifting ring being configured to
lower to the floor of the cavity and to raise;
e) placing each of the lifting rings in a fully down position at the floor of the molding cavity; and
k) raising the lifting rings to push the hardened wax with the wrapped first wicks substantially from the respective molding cavity.
However, Daiber teaches a candle making apparatus for molding a candle, the apparatus including a container 12 and a plate 20 with a rod or stem 22; the plate 20 having a circumference slightly smaller than the inner circumference of the container 12 so that the plate 20 can be placed within the container 12 and rest on the bottom 14 of the container 12 but can also be easily removed (i.e., c) providing a lifting ring at the bottom of each cavity, each said lifting ring being configured to lower to the floor of the cavity and to raise) (Daiber at [0008], [0021], [0023], Fig. 2, Fig. 3).
Additionally, Daiber further teaches the plate 20 being placed within the container 12 with the rod 22 extending above the rim 18 of the container 12 and the plate 20 resting on the bottom 14 of the container 12 (i.e., e) placing each of the lifting rings in a fully down position at the floor of the molding cavity); then, hot wax 26 is poured into the container 12 and the wax is allowed to cool, and once the wax has cooled, the rod 22 is grasped and the plate 20 and rod 22 are removed from the container 12 and the molded wax is then removed from the plate 20 (i.e., k) raising the lifting rings to push the hardened wax with the wrapped first wicks substantially from the respective molding cavity) (Daiber at [0023], Figs. 2-5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the lifting plate as such is known in the art of candle molding given the discussion of Daiber above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Herrhammer, modified thus far, fails to disclose the claimed candle being a self-filling candle. However, McWilliams teaches a self-filling candle having a hollow candle body 20 with a cavity 24 extending therein from an upper opening 23 (McWilliams at column 2, lines 32-43; FIG. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the self-filling aspect of the candle as such is known in the art of candle molding given the discussion of McWilliams above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, with the added advantage of doing so enabling a self-filling candle for which fills itself with melted wax to form a second candle for additional burning (as recognized by McWilliams at column 1, lines 36-39).
Allowable Subject Matter
(i) Claims 2-3 and 6-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the self-filling candle is deemed novel and non-obvious because the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed wherein the height of a top surface of each mold core is sunken compared to the height of the horizontal surface of the pour table, and the flooding of the pouring table in step h) also fills the open volume in the molding cavity above the sunken top surface of the mold core with wax; wherein the hardened wax in the volume above the sunken top surface of the mold core and below the height of the horizontal surface of the pour table forms a bottom wall of the respective self-filling candle. Claims 3 and 6-8 are indicated allowable due to their dependency on claim 2.
Moreover, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest using a wax adhesive to releasably attach a first wick to a mold core; and while the prior art discloses removing excess wax, the prior art fails to disclose the claimed wherein flooding the pouring table with melted wax further comprises flooding the melted wax to a level in which an excess layer of wax is provided above the horizontal surface, and removing excess wax on the pouring table above and around the molding cavities includes scraping the excess layer of wax after it has hardened. Thus, claims 9-12 are indicated allowable.
(ii) Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the self-filling candle is deemed novel and non-obvious because the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed wherein the base of each mold core includes an annular beveled edge, and a bottom circular surface; each molding cavity includes a circular recess with matching beveled side surfaces configured to receive the annular beveled edge of the base of the respective mold core and means for affixing a removable mold core to a floor of the molding cavity; the base of each mold core is lowered into the respective molding cavity and removably affixed to the floor of the molding cavity such that the annular beveled edge of the mold core seats on the matching beveled side surfaces of the circular recess of the molding cavity; and the lifting ring for each molding cavity is located annularly around the affixed mold core. Claim 5 is indicated allowable due to its dependency on claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743