Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/547,844

SELF-EXTINGUISHING CANDLE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 24, 2023
Examiner
BASICHAS, ALFRED
Art Unit
3762
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The Yankee Candle Company, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
893 granted / 1239 resolved
+2.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§102
36.5%
-3.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1239 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Earl (US 2015/0282587), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Earl shows: 1. A lid comprising: an inner housing which includes an inner housing aperture 11; an iris 41 including an iris guide section 3 and at least two blades 4; the iris guide section having a respective blade guide slot for each of said at least two blades (fig. 2-4): each of the at least two blades having opposing ends, and having at least one bolt aperture 7 at each of the opposing ends (fig. 2-4); a respective bolt 9 (a pin satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of a bolt – “pin for fastening objects” BOLT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster) extending through each at least one blade guide slot 10 and each bolt aperture thereby engaging the at least two blades with the iris guide section (fig. 2-4); the iris having an open position 45 and a closed position 47 (fig. 1), wherein: in the open position the inner housing aperture of the lid being open: and in the closed position, the blades of the iris extending over the inner housing aperture thereby closing the inner housing aperture (fig. 1). 4. The lid of claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least two blades being curved along its length (fig. 4). 5. The lid of claim 4, wherein movement of the bolts within the blade guide slots causes the iris to move from its closed to its open position, and vice versa (para. 0025-0032). 6.The lid of claim 5, wherein rotation of the iris guide section causes movement of the bolts within the blade guide slots (para. 0025-0032). 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 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. 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. Claims 3, 7-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston (US 2023/0220997) in view of Earl (US 2015/0282587). Houston discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations including: A self-extinguishing container system comprising: a lid 48 and a vessel 20; the lid comprising: an inner housing having an inner housing aperture 56; an iris including an iris guide section and at least two blades (para. 0031); the vessel comprising: a base and a sidewall 24 extending around the perimeter of the base and away from the base, thereby creating a cavity within the vessel, wherein the lid and the vessel being selectively engageable with each other (fig. 1-5): wherein the iris having an open position and a closed position (fig. 6; para. 0033), wherein: in the open position, oxygen is able to enter the cavity of the vessel through the inner housing aperture of the lid; and in the closed position, the blades of the iris extend over the inner housing aperture thereby substantially preventing oxygen from entering into the cavity (inherent – para. 0033) , wherein the lid further includes a reset button for the closure of the iris (para. 0046), further including a biasing spring 104 to bias the iris guide section toward the closed position of the iris (para. 0032), wherein manual rotation of the iris guide section in a direction toward the open position of the iris opens the iris, and a latch 100 secures the iris in the open position once reached (para. 0032), wherein release of the latch causes a biasing spring to move the iris to its closed position (para. 0032,0033). Houston teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the claimed details of the iris structure and arrangement. Earl, in the same or related field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to provide the claimed details of the iris structure and arrangement as discussed above. Earl teaches that such an arrangement provides for convenient use (para. 0002). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention incorporate the claimed details of the iris structure and arrangement as taught by Earl into the invention disclosed by Houston, so as to provide for convenient use. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2, 11, and 20 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. While, in general, a spring and muscle wire combination is well known, combining such an arrangement with the prior art made of record would result in the use of improper hindsight. Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours. To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700. October 27, 2025 /ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 24, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601504
HEATING COOKING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601495
FIREPLACE SCREEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575697
OUTDOOR COOKING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571535
FLAME OUT CANDLE SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571541
FIRE PIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+3.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1239 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month