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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The response filed on July 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 16-18, 20-24, 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the reservoir contains only fluid contents” in lines 4-5. The specification, as originally filed, does not disclose the reservoir containing only fluid contents.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the fluid contents comprise a liquid perfume composition” in lines 5-6. The specification, as originally filed, discloses the perfume composition (genus). The specification does not disclose a liquid perfume composition (species).
Claim 33 recites the limitation “wherein the reservoir contains only fluid contents” in line 4. The specification, as originally filed, does not disclose the reservoir containing only fluid contents.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the fluid contents comprise a liquid perfume composition” in line 5. The specification, as originally filed, discloses the perfume composition (genus). The specification does not disclose a liquid perfume composition (species).
Claims 16-24 and 26-32 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 16 recites the limitation “and wherein the total headspace volume of at least 25% of the total internal reservoir volume (Vr)” in lines 22-23. The recitation is idiomatically and grammatically incorrect. The thought of the phrase is incomplete. For example, the phrase lacks a verb.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 16, 17, 26-31 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martens, III et al. (7,213,770).
Martens, III et al. disclose a volatile composition dispenser comprising:
a container 26 having a bottom wall 28 and side walls 30 extending circumferentially around the bottom wall to define a reservoir having a total internal reservoir volume (Vr), wherein the side walls have a circumferential inner edge (bottom end of wall 30 in figure 7 that joins the inner edge of peripheral flange 20) defining a planar reservoir opening (opening defined by walls 30, i.e., opening defined by flange 20), and wherein the reservoir contains only fluid contents (liquid volatile material, col. 1, ll. 7-8; volatile material 32, essential oils, dye, thickener, air), and the fluid contents comprise a liquid perfume composition (essential oils, col. 7, l. 4) having a total perfume fill volume (VFILL) (volume of volatile material 32);
a vapor impermeable substrate 22 attached to the dispenser, wherein the vapor impermeable substrate covers the planar reservoir opening and is a peelable vapor impermeable substrate (col. 5, l. 21);
a porous membrane 24 attached to the dispenser, wherein the porous membrane covers the planar reservoir opening and is disposed between the peelable vapor impermeable substrate and the planar reservoir opening;
a headspace (space between volatile material 32 and membrane 24 when dispenser 12 is oriented with the bottom wall 28 in the down position, i.e., figure 7 rotated 180 degrees; volatile material 32 does not completely fill the void within the blister 18, col. 5, ll. 8-13) between the planar reservoir opening and the liquid perfume composition, the headspace being present before the volatile composition dispenser is activated by peeling or rupturing the vapor impermeable substrate and having a total headspace volume (volume of the air); and
a center longitudinal axis (Yc) (axis bisecting flange 20; horizontal axis in page of figure 7 bisecting the opening into a portion that extends into the page and another portion that extends out of the page) of the planar reservoir opening, wherein the center longitudinal axis (Yc) extends along a length (L) (length of the opening defined by flange 20) of the planar reservoir opening through a first portion (left edge of opening defined by flange 20 and sidewall 30 in figure 7) of the circumferential inner edge, a centroid (center of the opening defined by flange 20) of the planar reservoir opening, and a second portion (right edge of opening defined by flange 20 and sidewall 30 in figure 7) of the circumferential inner edge;
wherein the total internal reservoir volume (Vr) equals the total perfume fill volume (VFILL) plus the total headspace volume, and wherein the total perfume fill volume (VFILL) is up to 75% of the total internal reservoir volume (Vr) of the reservoir, and wherein the total headspace volume of at least 25% of the total internal reservoir volume (Vr) (during use, the volatile material 32 will eventually/inherently be depleted to 75% of the total internal reservoir volume which will also result in 25% headspace volume; in the alternative, see the rejection of claim 16 below);
wherein the vapor impermeable substrate is releasably attached to an outer periphery (flange 20) of the container to form a removeable cover for the dispenser;
wherein the peelable vapor impermeable substrate is made of a material selected from the group consisting of polymeric film, webs, foil, composite material, or combinations thereof (col. 4, ll. 22-26);
wherein the porous membrane comprises polyethylene (col. 4, ll. 13-14);
wherein the porous membrane has a thickness of from about 0.01 mm to about 1 mm (0.05 to 0.06 mm, col. 5, ll. 26-27);
wherein the porous membrane has an evaporative surface area of about 2 cm2 to about 100 cm2 (based on the smallest bottom wall 28 dimension and the largest cup 26 dimension, the evaporative surface area must be within 23.04 cm2 to 36 cm2; col. 4, ll. 35-44);
wherein the porous membrane has an evaporative surface area of about 10 cm2 to about 45 cm2 (based on the smallest bottom wall 28 dimension and the largest cup 26 dimension, the evaporative surface area must be within 23.04 cm2 to 36 cm2; col. 4, ll. 35-44);
wherein the porous membrane has an evaporative surface area of about 15 cm2 to about 35 cm2 (based on the smallest bottom wall 28 dimension and the largest cup 26 dimension, the evaporative surface area must be within 23.04 cm2 to 36 cm2; col. 4, ll. 35-44).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 16, 18, 20-24, 27-31, 33 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martens, III et al. (7,213,770).
Regarding claim 18, Martens, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the total perfume fill volume being about 2 ml to 50 ml. The container of Martens, III et al. inherently has a total perfume fill volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have sized the container/total perfume fill volume to about 2 ml to 50 ml for optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, Martens, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the total perfume fill volume being 75% of a total internal reservoir volume of the reservoir, wherein the headspace comprises a headspace volume of at least 25%, of the total internal reservoir volume. The container of Martens, III et al. inherently has a total perfume fill volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have sized the container/total perfume fill volume such that the total perfume fill volume is 75% of a total internal reservoir volume of the reservoir, wherein the headspace comprises a headspace volume of at least 25%, of the total internal reservoir volume for optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, Martens, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the total perfume fill volume being 70% of a total internal reservoir volume of the reservoir, wherein the headspace comprises a headspace volume of at least 30%, of the total internal reservoir volume. The container of Martens, III et al. inherently has a total perfume fill volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have sized the container/total perfume fill volume such that the total perfume fill volume is 70% of a total internal reservoir volume of the reservoir, wherein the headspace comprises a headspace volume of at least 30%, of the total internal reservoir volume for optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, Martens, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the total perfume fill volume being 60% of a total internal reservoir volume of the reservoir, wherein the headspace comprises a headspace volume of at least 40%, of the total internal reservoir volume. The container of Martens, III et al. inherently has a total perfume fill volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have sized the container/total perfume fill volume such that the total perfume fill volume is 60% of a total internal reservoir volume of the reservoir, wherein the headspace comprises a headspace volume of at least 40%, of the total internal reservoir volume for optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22, Martens, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the total perfume fill volume being about 2 ml to 20 ml. The container of Martens, III et al. inherently has a total perfume fill volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have sized the container/total perfume fill volume to about 2 ml to 20 ml for optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 23, Martens, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the total perfume fill volume being about 2 ml to 8 ml. The container of Martens, III et al. inherently has a total perfume fill volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have sized the container/total perfume fill volume to about 2 ml to 8 ml for optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 24, Martens, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the total perfume fill volume being about 2 ml to 6 ml. The container of Martens, III et al. inherently has a total perfume fill volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have sized the container/total perfume fill volume to about 2 ml to 6 ml for optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 33, see explanation for claims 16, 19, 22 and 26.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martens, III et al. (7,213,770) in view of Furuuchi et al. (4,582,635).
Martens, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the perfume composition. Furuuchi et al. discloses a perfume being benzaldehyde (col. 3, ll. 63-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used benzaldehyde perfume in the device of Martens, III et al. as taught by Furuuchi et al. to add color (Furuuchi et al., col. 3, ll. 61-62).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 7, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Numbers 11/554,192 and 11/833,276 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the new matter rejections, Applicant argues the disclosure of the prior art, i.e., conventional liquid air freshener. Disclosure of conventional liquid air freshener is not a disclosure of Applicant’s invention. Additionally, it is knowledge within one of ordinary skill in the art that perfume composition/volatile material can contain gels and solids. An exclusionary limitation where the perfume composition and/or the volatile material only contains liquid or fluid, respectively, was not disclosed in the originally filed application.
Regarding Applicant’s argument to Martens, III et al., Martens, III et al., discloses, in column 7, lines 44-60, the volatile material ranging from full, empty and at any point in between. Therefore, it is obvious that at some point of use, the volatile material will reach 75% of the reservoir volume, resulting in a 25% headspace. The claims do not limit the headspace to be between the reservoir and the permeable membrane. Alternatively, the optimization of range is based on Martens’ disclosure that the volatile material 32 does not completely fill the void within the blister 18 (col. 5, ll. 8-13).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached on (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
Prosecution Insights