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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 10-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furner (US 2015/0060565) in view of Uesugi (US 2020/0297886) in view of Pitzen (US 6,126,707).
Regarding claim 1, Furner (US 2015/0060565) discloses –
An appliance air freshener (Title, and the device is well capable of being used in or with an appliance and is expected to do so - the preamble states merely a use and is not structurally limiting MPEP 2111.02 II) comprising:
an enclosure frame (Figs. 1-11 dispenser 102) having a top wall comprising one or more top wall openings defined therein (Figs. 1 and 2 show apertures 114a on wall 108), a bottom wall comprising one or more bottom wall openings defined therein (second wall 110 including apertures 114b; Paragraph [0025]), and side walls extending between the top and bottom walls (fig. 1 and 2 show this), wherein:
the side walls define an outer perimeter of the enclosure frame (Fig. 1 and 2 best show this, including sidewalls 116a-d) and comprise a first end wall (116a), a second end wall (116c), a front wall between the first and second end walls (116b), and a rear wall between the first and second end walls (116d), and
one or more front wall openings formed in the front wall (peripheral vent 118 extends all around the periphery see fig. 1; Paragraph [0025]) are located opposite one or more rear wall openings formed in the rear wall (peripheral vent 118 see figs. 1-2): and
an air freshener medium, located within the enclosure frame, comprising a sheet (Fig. 5 best shows substrate 104)
the one or more top wall openings substantially expose an entire top surface of the air freshener medium (much of the substrate 104 is exposed as there are many apertures 114a, and there is no concrete requirement for a minimum amount of substrate to be exposed in order to be considered substantially entirely, and the disclosure as filed provides support for the limitation in the form of Fig. 1 which similarly only shows much of the surface of the air freshener substrate exposed with some of the substrate not exposed by supports, which is analogous to the configuration of Fig. 1 of Furner).
Furner appears to be silent with regards to the sheet having a plurality of folds defining pleats, the folds about fold axes extending across the enclosure from the front to the rear wall.
Uesugi (US 2020/0297886) discloses a deodorizing air freshener medium comprising pleats (Paragraph [0143]), which necessarily and inherently have folds with respective fold axes extending across an enclosure frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Furner such that the air freshener medium comprises a pleated sheet with respective fold axes extending across the enclosure frame as disclosed by Uesugi. One would have been motivated to do so to construct the air freshener medium according to a known-effective structure for dispersing a deodorant in air, and furthermore to increase the surface area available to do so to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements for the same purpose together as separately, like air filter mediums and air treatment devices, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Further regarding the limitation that the fold axes extend across the enclosure from specifically the front wall to the rear wall: the pleated fragrance impregnated sheet when incorporated into the dispenser 102 disclosed by Furner must have some orientation such that the fold axes extend from one wall to another as that is the structure of a pleated sheet, and the claimed orientation would necessarily be arrived at because the particular configuration would be obvious to try. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The particular configuration is not significant and furthermore the designation of the walls of Furner as the front, back, first end wall, and second end wall is arbitrary as all the walls have one or more openings. Therefore, an ordinary artisan would be expected to arrive at the claimed configuration when incorporating the pleated sheet of Uesugi into the housing of Furner. MPEP 2143(I)(E). Assuming arguendo directed towards the limitation including top wall openings substantially exposing an entire top surface of the air freshener medium:
Pitzen (US 6,126,707) discloses a pleated air filter medium (corrugated sheet 59, figs. 7-8) one or more top wall openings substantially expose an entire top surface of the air freshener medium (Figs. 3 and particularly 5 show substantially all of the surface of the filter being exposed by the openings formed by the grid 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Furner such that the top openings substantially expose an entire top surface of the air freshener medium to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to allow for the greatest possible surface area of the pleated filter medium to facilitate better air treatment to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Furner appear to be silent with regards to the front and rear walls being longer than the end walls, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the front and rear walls respectively to be longer than the first and second end walls respectively as the change is not patentably significant and represents a mere change in size, proportion, or shape. The length of the sidewalls is not expected to affect performance and therefore the change is merely one of design preference. MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 3, modified Furner further teaches opposite edges of the air freshener medium sheet, located adjacent to interior surfaces of the front and rear walls, comprise peaks and valleys defined by the plurality of folds, as this is an inherent or at least obvious feature of a sheet that is pleated. A pleated sheet has pleats that necessarily comprise folds doubling back over the sheet and therefore includes peaks and valleys.
Regarding claim 4, modified Furner further teaches the air freshener medium is exposed by the one or more top wall openings, by the one or more bottom wall openings, by the one or more front wall openings, and by the one or more rear wall openings (Fig. 5 best shows how the medium is exposed to the openings on all the walls).
Regarding claim 5, modified Furner further teaches the enclosure frame and the air freshener medium define: a plurality of air flow channels from the one or more bottom wall openings, along the plurality of pleats, and out the one or more front wall openings, a plurality of air flow channels from the one or more bottom wall openings, along the plurality of pleats, and out the one or more rear wall openings, a plurality of air flow channels from the one or more top wall openings, along the plurality of pleats, and out the one or more front wall openings, and a plurality of air flow channels from the one or more top wall openings, along the plurality of pleats, and out the one or more rear wall openings. (Figs. 1-5 of Furner show openings on all sides where air can flow over the pleats and out another one of any one of the sides, and the air freshener medium as disclosed by Uesugi can be a fibrous or woven fabric and therefore include any number of air flow channels defining paths to and from all four walls).
Regarding claim 6, modified Furner further teaches each of the fold axes is perpendicular to the front and rear walls (the substrate 104 which is modified by Uesugi to be a pleated sheet is has peripheral edges that are perpendicular to the walls 116b and 116d and therefore the fold axes are expected to be perpendicular as well).
Regarding claim 7, modified Furner further teaches the sheet comprises a woven or nonwoven fabric (Paragraph [0122] of Uesugi).
Regarding claim 10, modified Furner appears to be silent with regards to the first and second end walls having concave curved outer surfaces, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end walls of Furner such that they have a concave curved outer surface to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so as this modification is a mere change in shape and does not affect the performance of the device, and therefore is a design choice that is within the skill of an ordinary artisan. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 11, modified Furner further teaches the enclosure frame comprises a unitary plastic structure (Fig. 1 shows the structure as unitary and paragraph [0035] discloses the housing 106 being made from plastic).
Regarding claim 12, modified Furner further teaches the enclosure frame comprises a housing portion and a lid portion (first wall 108 and second wall 110) that are configurable between a closed position in which the air freshener medium is retained in the enclosure frame, and an open position in which the air freshener medium is removable from the enclosure frame (Paragraph [0038] discloses a snap-locking attachment via flat ribs 132).
Regarding claim 14, Furner discloses –
An appliance air freshener comprising:
an enclosure frame having a top wall comprising one or more top wall openings defined therein, a bottom wall comprising one or more bottom wall openings defined therein, and side walls extending between the top and bottom walls, wherein: the side walls define an outer perimeter of the enclosure frame and comprise a first end wall, a second end wall, a front wall between the first and second end walls, and a rear wall between the first and second end walls, and one or more front wall openings formed in the front wall are located opposite one or more rear wall openings formed in the rear wall; and an air freshener medium, located within the enclosure frame (see the rejection of claim 1 above). Furner appears to be silent with regards to the sheet having a plurality of folds defining pleats, the folds comprising regions of the sheet folded about respective fold axes, the folds extending across the frame from the front to rear wall, the pleats extending from the bottom to top wall, and a length of a top wall opening being half the length of the enclosure frame and a width of the top wall opening being half a width of the enclosure frame.
Uesugi (US 2020/0297886) discloses a deodorizing air freshener medium comprising pleats (Paragraph [0143]), which necessarily and inherently have opposite edges comprising peaks and valleys defined by the folds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Furner such that the air freshener medium comprises a pleated sheet having a plurality of folds defining pleats, having opposite edges comprising peaks and valleys defined by the plurality of folds as disclosed by Uesugi such that when the sheet is placed in the enclosure of Furner the edges are located adjacent the interior surfaces of the walls. One would have been motivated to do so to construct the air freshener medium according to a known-effective structure for dispersing a deodorant in air, and furthermore to increase the surface area available to do so to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements for the same purpose together as separately, like air filter housings and pleated filter substrates, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Further regarding the limitation that the edges are located adjacent specifically the interior surfaces of the front and rear walls: the pleated fragrance impregnated sheet when incorporated into the dispenser 102 disclosed by Furner must have some orientation such that the edges are located adjacent two opposing walls, and the claimed orientation would necessarily be arrived at because the particular configuration would be obvious to try. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The particular configuration is not significant and furthermore the designation of the walls of Furner as the front, back, first end wall, and second end wall is arbitrary as all the walls have one or more openings. Therefore, an ordinary artisan would be expected to arrive at the claimed configuration when incorporating the pleated sheet of Uesugi into the housing of Furner. MPEP 2143(I)(E). Modified Furner appears to be silent with regards to the valleys are adjacent an interior surface of the bottom wall and the peaks are adjacent an interior surface of the top wall.
Pitzen (US 6,126,707) discloses a pleated air filter medium (corrugated sheet 59, figs. 7-8) where the pleats extend from an interior surface of the bottom wall to an interior surface of the top wall, and each fold axes extends across the enclosure frame from the front wall to the rear wall (Fig. 8 particularly shows the pleat extending the entire width of the body of the filter from an interior surface to an exterior one including sidewall portion 70 of frame 51, and the axes extending all the way across the filter body), and a length and width of top wall openings being approximately half a length and width of the enclosure frame (fig. 7 shows the openings 73 formed by grid like parts 72 extending approximately half the length and width of the enclosure frame 70 at the widest part of the openings 73). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Furner such that the air filter medium includes pleats extending from an interior surface of the bottom wall to an interior surface of the top wall and the fold axes extend across the enclosure frame from the front wall to the rear wall and such that the length and width of a top wall opening is approximately half the length and width of the enclosure frame as taught by Pitzen to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to allow for the greatest possible surface area of exposed pleated filter medium to facilitate more effective exposure for better air treatment to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 15, modified Furner appear to be silent with regards to the front and rear walls being longer than the end walls, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the front and rear walls respectively to be longer than the first and second end walls respectively as the change is not patentably significant and represents a mere change in size, proportion, or shape. The length of the sidewalls is not expected to affect performance and therefore the change is merely one of design preference. MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 16, modified Furner further teaches the air freshener medium is exposed by the one or more top wall openings, by the one or more bottom wall openings, by the one or more front wall openings, and by the one or more rear wall openings (Fig. 5 best shows how the medium is exposed to the openings on all the walls).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furner (US 2015/0060565) in view of Uesugi (US 2020/0297886) in view of Pitzen (US 6,126,707) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mauzerall (US 2020/0030470).
Regarding claim 13, modified Furner are set forth above with regards to claim 12 and disclose a unitary plastic structure (see the rejection of claim 11) but appears to be silent with regards to a hinge.
Mauzerall (US 2020/0030470) teaches a filter component comprising a housing and a lid configurable between an open and closed position (Figs. 46B-46F, Filter 432 with filter seal assembly 450 abutted against container 105, with a unitary hinge assembly; Paragraph [0156]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by modified Furner such that the frame comprises a unitary hinge as taught by Mauzerall to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully connect the two unitary pieces according to known means as desired to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A)-(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 and 25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, fail to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of independent claim 18. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Furner in view of Uesugi in view of Pitzen.
Furner in view of Uesugi in view of Pitzen teaches an air freshening filter with a plurality of pleats and a plurality of walls with a plurality of holes thereon, but is silent with regards to the air freshener medium comprising a sheet that is impregnated with one or more of sodium bicarbonate or activated charcoal. It would not have been obvious to modify the device disclosed by Furner to include that type of sheet because the device is an air freshener for releasing an activated material, and including sodium bicarbonate or activated charcoal would inhibit the devices functionality as an air freshening medium as those substances are understood absorb or destroy volatile components such as the ones Furner intends to distribute. Therefore claim 18 is allowable.
Claims 8-9, 17, 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.
Regarding claims 8, 17, and 24, these claims all include the same limitation as claim 18 above and are allowable for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 9, 24, and 25, The prior art, alone or in combination, fail to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of independent claims 9, and 24-25. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Furner in view of Uesugi in view of Pitzen.
Furner in view of Uesugi in view of Pitzen teaches an air freshening filter with a plurality of pleats and a plurality of walls with a plurality of holes thereon, but is silent with regards to passaging defined by a first passage opening in the top wall and a second passage opening in the bottom wall, the passage is located within and spaced apart from the outer perimeter, the passage extends from an outer face of the top wall to an outer face of the bottom wall, and the air freshener medium is absent from the passage. Therefore claims 9, 24, and 25 are allowable for reciting this limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks on pages 8-9 with respect to claim 1 arguing that Furner requires a passive dispenser with few replacements that is aesthetically pleasing, and therefore would not have been readily modified to enlarge the apertures 114a-b such that substantially all the top surface of the air freshener medium is exposed are not persuasive.
Firstly, the stated purpose for the device of Furner is to provide a passive diffuser for effectively distributing active ingredients (see par. 2). In that same paragraph, Furner describes the desire for the “improved airflow that does not trap the volatile inside”, which directly undermines Applicant’s line of reasoning in both the arguments and the Affidavit filed 11/19/25 that increasing the airflow rate of the device would somehow render the device unsuitable for its intended purpose. Even still, if Furner did desire to manage the vaporization rate of the active ingredient from the device as argued by Applicant and reasoned in the Affidavit, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the size or number of the holes on the device would not be solely responsible for the rate of vaporization from the device. The rate at which the device distributes active ingredients, and similarly the frequency with which the substrate would need to be replaced, would be affected by numerous different features of the device and its use including (as a non-exhaustive set of examples) the substrate material and configuration, the active ingredient itself, the placement of the device, the temperature of the environment the device is placed in, the ambient airflow around the device, and the exposure to sunlight of the device. It cannot be reasonably said then, that the size or number of the holes 114a-b would reasonably perfect or destroy the functionality of the device as argued by Applicant, and there is no disclosure in the reference that suggests this.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “substantially expose an entire top surface of the air freshener medium”, only requires that a reasonably large portion of the substrate is exposed, and not that the entire surface is free from obstruction. The combination of Furner and Pitzen teaches a large portion of the substrate being exposed, with only meager amounts of the substrate being obstructed for the purpose of retaining the substrate therein, which meets this limitation as claimed. Applicant’s arguments on page 9 in view of section 11 of the Affidavit that this modification render the device of Furner unsuitable for its intended purpose because it would foil the aesthetically pleasing aspect of the dispenser are further not perusasive, because what is or is not aesthetically pleasing is subjective and cannot be empirically determined by the size of holes on the device, and Furner does not attribute any of the aesthetically pleasing aspects of the device to the size or number of holes on the device. Furner, to the extent that the aesthetics of the device in relation to the apertures 114a-b are discussed in the reference at all, directs a person having ordinary skill in the art to have many different types of apertures in order to achieve different flow patterns and designs (par. 39), which further undermines Applicant’s arguments that these apertures are not modifiable in such a way to meet this claimed limitation. Furner teaches that the configuration of the apertures 114a-b is not rigid and unvarying, but rather adaptable and pliant. Claim 1 remains rejected.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards claim 8 are persuasive and the claim is indicated as allowable above.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards claim 14 are not persuasive and similar to the arguments of claim 1, the disclosure of Furner would readily allow the modification of the apertures to the claimed configuration. Claim 14 remains rejected.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards claim 18 are persuasive and the claim is indicated as allowable above.
The remaining claims, other than those indicated as allowable above, remain rejected as Applicant does not present any particular arguments directed towards the references used against the claims for any of the reasons that those references are relied upon in this rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758