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 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 1-2, 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepinay et al. (US 2021/0404980) in view of Decker (US 2024/0110127).
Regarding claims 1, 16, 21, Lepinay discloses a candle analysis system (page 6, [0072], comprising:
a camera (page 6, [0075]); and a testing system including a record module and a testing module, the
record module stores a plurality of candle tests in a database, each of the candle tests is stored in the
database in correspondence with a plurality of candle data and a plurality of test data for a candle that
was tested in each of the candle tests, the testing module is connected to the camera and stores a
video data from the camera (page 6, [0075]).
Lepinay discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose the candle data includes a wax type for the candle, the candle in a burning state as part of the test data for the one of the candle tests corresponding to the candle in the video data.
However, Decker discloses the candle data includes a wax type for the candle (page 6, [0060]), the candle in a burning state as part of the test data for the one of the candle tests corresponding to the candle in the video data (page 8, [0170]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
first filed to incorporate the features of Decker within the system of Lepinay in order to accurately
perform characteristics of a candle thereby improving the reliability of the system.
Regarding claims 2, 17, Lepinay discloses wherein the test data for the one of the candle tests
includes a plurality of different video data, each video data is taken at a different check-in of a
plurality of check-ins in a testing period of the candle (page 6, [0075]).
Regarding claim 4, Lepinay discloses wherein the test data includes a flame height and a
melt pool size of the candle (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Lepinay discloses wherein the melt pool size and the flame height are depicted in the
video data stored in the test data (fig. 2; page 6, [0075]).
Regarding claims 6, 18, Lepinay discloses wherein the test data includes a room temperature of an
environment in which the candle is tested and a container temperature of a container of the
Candle (abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Lepinay discloses a plurality of sensors including a room temperature sensor and a
container temperature sensor, the testing module retrieves the room temperature from the room
temperature sensor and the container temperature from the container temperature sensor (abstract).
Regarding claims 8, 19, Lepinay and Decker disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Decker
further discloses wherein the testing module has a burn time calculator that determines a burn time of
the candle at each of the check-ins, the burn time is a duration that the candle was in the burning state
at a time of the check-in (page 8, [0170]).
Regarding claims 9, 20, Lepinay and Decker disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Decker
further discloses wherein the testing module has a check-in unit that transmits an alert signal to
conduct the check-ins at a check-in interval while the candle is in the burning state (page 8, [0170]).
Regarding claim 10, Lepinay discloses wherein the alert signal prompts the recording of
the video data by the camera and the storing of the video data in the test data (page 6, [0075]).
Regarding claim 11, Lepinay discloses wherein the record module differentiates the
plurality of candle tests between a tests in progress category, a passed category, and a failed
category (page 6, [0075]).
Regarding claim 12, Lepinay discloses wherein the testing module has an evaluation
unit that indicates to the record module whether the candle tests belong in the passed category or
the failed category (page 6, [0075]).
Regarding claim 13, Lepinay discloses wherein the candle data includes a container type,
a wax type, and a wick data for the candle (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Lepinay discloses wherein the candle data include a fragrance data
including a fragrance load (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Lepinay discloses wherein the wick data includes a wick material
and a wick size (fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
According to Applicant’s argument on page 6, Lepinay and Decker do not disclose “a wax type of the candle”. The examiner strongly disagrees with the Applicant because Decker clearly discloses “ a wax type of the candle” (page 6, [0060]). It is a 103 rejection.
According to Applicant’s argument on page 7, Lepinay does not disclose a record module that differentiates the plurality of candles tests between a tests in progress category”. The examiner firmly disagrees with the Applicant because Lepinay clearly discloses record module that differentiates the plurality of candles tests between a test in progress category (page 6, [0075-0077]).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lepinay and Decker are directed to the same field of endeavor, therefore the combination is indeed proper.
For at least the above reason, the rejection of the claims is sustained.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Greene et al. (US 2008/0169910) discloses implementation method.
St. John (US 2001/0056349) discloses voice crossing.
Petrushin (US 2002/0002464) discloses system feedback.
Hoffberg (US 2007/0087756) discloses multifactorial method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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,
Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
June 4, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights