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. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepinay et al. (US Regarding claim s 1, 16, 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 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 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 claim s 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 3 , Lepinay discloses wherein more than one of the candle tests of the plurality of candle tests in the database correspond to the same 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 claim s 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 C andle (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 claim s 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 claim s 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). 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2971 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 February 21, 2026 /DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685