SPARKLER BIRTHDAY CANDLE

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 Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that candle art is mature and crowded, and therefore small changes may constitute invention. The examiner points out that the standards of patentability applied in the examination of claims must be the same throughout the Office. In every art, whether it be considered "complex," "newly developed," "crowded," or "competitive," all of the requirements for patentability (e.g., patent eligible, useful, novel, nonobvious, enabled, and clearly described as provided in 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112 must be met before a claim is allowed. The mere fact that a claim recites in detail all of the features of an invention (i.e., is a "picture" claim) is never, in itself, justification for the allowance of such a claim. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case the applicant points out that Takahashi discloses an assembled candle and sparkler as opposed to the claimed apparatus including a package, candle body, and separate sparkler piece. The examiner points out that Takahashi is relied upon for discloses an apparatus including a candle body and sparkler piece while Downing is relied upon for teaching an apparatus including a package, candle body, and separate supplementary piece for the purpose of customization. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not need to “feel inclined to do the exact opposite” of what Takahashi discloses to recognize the merit of providing the candle body and entertainment element separately. The applicant additionally argues that in O’Connor the sparkler rod forms the center of the candle. The examiner points out that O’Connor is only relied on for teaching a lower projection. The applicant points out a previous interpretation. Specifically, that an intermediate product of Takahashi (before the sparkler piece is inserted) would be the same as the claimed finished product. The examiner points out that this interpretation was overcome by the amendment to the claims introduced 4/11/2026. In response to applicant's argument that Downing does not teach sparkler pieces, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Takahashi discloses sparkler pieces as a secondary entertainment element. Downing teaches providing a kit with separate candle and secondary entertainment element. The combined teachings would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to separately provide the candle body and sparkler piece. 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. 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 1-3, 5, and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP H09324193 A), hereinafter Takahashi, in view of O’Connor (US 2570841 A), hereinafter O’Connor, and further in view of Downing (US 20200239183 A1), hereinafter Downing. Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a sparkler candle apparatus, comprising: a candle body (Figure 6) with a candle wick (18), the candle body further having an insertion hole at an upper portion of the candle body, the insertion hole being close to the candle wick (15); and a sparkler piece, which at the lower end is provided with an insertion portion adapted to be assembled on site into the insertion hole (“The present invention relates to the production of candle services at weddings, the production of various event industries and home parties such as birthdays” and “a hole (15) different from the core is opened in a candle, and the solid fireworks are inserted into the candle” and “A safe and efficient explosive component in which a small amount of sparks rise vertically” all citations are provided from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference). PNG media_image1.png 374 450 media_image1.png Greyscale Takahashi does not disclose: a package; a lower portion of the candle body having a projection at a lower end of said lower portion, the projection being adapted for insertion into an object; the candle body and the sparkler piece being separate in the package. However, O’Connor teaches wherein a lower portion of the candle body is provided with a projection at a lower end of said lower portion (“a reinforcing stick 11 which may be made either of metal or wood. The stick desirably projects by an end well beyond the bottom end” column 1, line 45) for insertion into an object (“Especially when applied to a cake for a birthday party, the instant candles have a captivating attraction for children” column 4, line 7). PNG media_image2.png 458 302 media_image2.png Greyscale In view of the teachings of O’Connor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein a lower portion of the candle body is provided with a projection at a lower end of said lower portion for insertion into an object as is taught in O’Connor, in the sparkler birthday candle disclosed by Takahashi because O’Connor states “Especially when applied to a cake for a birthday party, the instant candles have a captivating attraction for children.” Therefore, providing means for inserting the candle into a cake will improve visual appeal. Takahashi, as modified by O’Connor, does not disclose: a package; the candle body and the sparkler piece being separate in the package. However, Downing teaches: a package (“kit 40 is contained within an outer package 100” paragraph [0029]); the candle body and the auxiliary piece being separate in the package (“Kit 40, FIG. 1, includes a box 10 of candles, a box 14 of blank slips of paper as storage media, and a bag 18 of tubes such as cylinders” paragraph [0029]). PNG media_image3.png 572 254 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 478 762 media_image4.png Greyscale In view of Downing’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include: a package; the candle body and the auxiliary piece being separate in the package as is taught in Downing, in the apparatus disclosed by Takahashi because Downing states “Another object of the present invention is to provide such a kit and method which may accommodate multiple events and/or multiple users” (paragraph [0007]) and “When different types of candles are included in the kit, a user can select his or her candle to have at least one visually perceptible indicia such as a color or type of striping that is unique to the user” (paragraph [0034]). Therefore, including the candles and auxiliary pieces separately will accommodate multiple events and/or users and enable customization. Regarding claim 2, Takahashi, as modified by O’Connor and Downing, discloses the apparatus, according to claim 1, wherein the insertion hole is a tapered hole with a large upper portion and a smaller lower portion (Figure 6b). Regarding claims 3 and 5, Takahashi, as modified by O’Connor and Downing, discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the central axis of the insertion hole and the central axis of the candle wick are parallel (Figure 6b). Takahashi, as modified by O’Connor and Downing, does not explicitly disclose the distance between the two central axes is not greater than 2.5 mm. However, the court has held a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the figures of Takahashi suggest that the central axes of the wick and insertion hole are in close proximity. Additionally, the wick and pyrotechnics are ostensibly intended to be ignited either simultaneously or else one ignited by the other. Therefore, the distance disclosed in Takahashi will be close to the claimed range. Regarding claim 7, Takahashi discloses a sparkler candle apparatus comprising: a candle body, and a sparkler piece (Figure 6); the candle body having a candle wick (18); an upper portion of the candle body is provided with an insertion hole close to the candle wick (15); and the sparkler piece being adapted to be assembled on site into the insertion hole (“The present invention relates to the production of candle services at weddings, the production of various event industries and home parties such as birthdays” and “a hole (15) different from the core is opened in a candle, and the solid fireworks are inserted into the candle” and “A safe and efficient explosive component in which a small amount of sparks rise vertically” all citations are provided from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference). Takahashi does not disclose: a package; wherein a lower portion of the candle body is provided with a projection at a lower end of said lower portion to be inserted into an object; the candle body and the sparkler piece being separate in the package. However, O’Connor teaches wherein a lower portion of the candle body is provided with a projection at a lower end of said lower portion to be inserted into an object (“a reinforcing stick 11 which may be made either of metal or wood. The stick desirably projects by an end well beyond the bottom end” column 1, line 45) to be inserted into a birthday cake (“Especially when applied to a cake for a birthday party, the instant candles have a captivating attraction for children” column 4, line 7). In view of the teachings of O’Connor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein a lower portion of the candle body is provided with a projection at a lower end of said lower portion to be inserted into an object as is taught in O’Connor, in the sparkler birthday candle disclosed by Takahashi because O’Connor states “Especially when applied to a cake for a birthday party, the instant candles have a captivating attraction for children.” Therefore, providing means for inserting the candle into a cake will improve visual appeal. Takahashi, as modified by O’Connor, does not disclose: a package; the candle body and the sparkler piece being separate in the package. However, Downing teaches: a package (“kit 40 is contained within an outer package 100” paragraph [0029]); the candle body and the auxiliary piece being separate in the package (“Kit 40, FIG. 1, includes a box 10 of candles, a box 14 of blank slips of paper as storage media, and a bag 18 of tubes such as cylinders” paragraph [0029]). In view of Downing’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include: a package; the candle body and the auxiliary piece being separate in the package as is taught in Downing, in the apparatus disclosed by Takahashi because Downing states “Another object of the present invention is to provide such a kit and method which may accommodate multiple events and/or multiple users” (paragraph [0007]) and “When different types of candles are included in the kit, a user can select his or her candle to have at least one visually perceptible indicia such as a color or type of striping that is unique to the user” (paragraph [0034]). Therefore, including the candles and auxiliary pieces separately will accommodate multiple events and/or users and enable customization. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, in view of O’Connor, in view of Downing, and further in view of Namiki (JP H1055709 A), hereinafter Namiki. Regarding claims 4 and 6, Takahashi, as modified by O’Connor and Downing, discloses the apparatus according to claim 2. Takahashi, as modified by O’Connor and Downing, does not explicitly disclose wherein the angle of intersection between the central axis of the insertion hole and the central axis of the candle wick is 0.5 to 5 degrees (The examiner initially notes that an angle of 0.5° would potentially be within manufacturing tolerances of the device shown by Takahashi). However, Namiki teaches an angle of intersection between the central axis of the sparkler piece and the central axis of the candle wick (Figure 4). PNG media_image5.png 448 320 media_image5.png Greyscale In view of Namiki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an angle of intersection between the central axis of the sparkler piece and the central axis of the candle wick as is taught in Namiki, in the sparkler birthday candle disclosed by Takahashi because angling the sparkler piece toward the wick will bring the wick and sparkler piece closer further enabling co-ignition of the wick and sparkler piece. Takahashi, as modified by O’Connor, Downing, and Namiki, does not disclose an angle of 0.5 to 5 degrees. However, there is a trigonometric relationship between the ignition point, the distance between the wick and insertion hole, and the angle between the wick axis and sparkler piece. For instance, a greater distance will require a greater angle to achieve the same proximity of wick and sparkler piece as compared to a smaller distance. Since the distance between the wick and insertion hole of Takahashi is small, only a small angle will be required. The court has held a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the combined teachings of Takahashi as modified suggest a small angle. Therefore, the angle taught by the combination will be close to the claimed range. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Crasper (US 20120082947 A1) “The various components of the various candle assemblies described herein may be packaged as an assembled unit, as an unassembled kit including all or a portion of the components, as individual components, and in any combination thereof” paragraph [0040] Min (US 20180201874 A1) “The candle of the inventive concept may also be packaged and marketed as a kit. FIG. 9 depicts a custom candle kit 60 in accordance with one embodiment... All the above components of the kit may be packaged in a bag or a box” paragraph [0028] Friedrich (US 20050163649 A1) “A candle kit, comprising: a wax candle body, the wax candle body having a top and a bottom, the wax candle body having at least one reservoir defined therein, said at least one reservoir having an open top end, a closed bottom end, and a hollow interior; and a scenting material adapted for placement into said at least one reservoir” claim 19 Campbell (US 20180312778 A1) “The candle body 12 and scent elements 31 can be sold in kit form or separately, and the user can configure the candle 11 in any desired configuration” paragraph [0030] PNG media_image6.png 516 454 media_image6.png Greyscale Go (KR 200260303 Y1) “an insertion groove 102 for inserting the sparklers, etc. are formed” PNG media_image7.png 600 176 media_image7.png Greyscale Welter (US 0910755 A) PNG media_image8.png 374 174 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 192 116 media_image9.png Greyscale Kornfeind (CH 674770 A5) PNG media_image10.png 426 500 media_image10.png Greyscale Vincent (FR 2796708 A1) “this suspension wire may be coated with coloring substance (for example a pigment) to color the flame, with an odoriferous substance (incense for example) for perfuming, and / or with a chemical substance delivering, for example, sparks in contact with the flame, such as the "sticks" of fireworks (sparklers for example)” PNG media_image11.png 328 506 media_image11.png Greyscale Yoshida (JP 2002025332 A) “The present invention ignites fireworks such as sparklers under the influence of flames igniting and burning candles” PNG media_image12.png 280 176 media_image12.png Greyscale PNG media_image13.png 162 130 media_image13.png Greyscale Yoshida (JP 2002030296 A) “A candle with fireworks, wherein fireworks are attached to an arbitrary position on the surface of the candle” PNG media_image14.png 226 250 media_image14.png Greyscale Pearson (US 20040163289 A1) “Also included in the list; firework candle (a sparkler next to the wick to cause the emission of sparks while the candle is burning)” Litten-Brown (US 20110045424 A1) “In a particular embodiment, the inclusions are associated with the candle wick. By "associated" is meant that they are retained in close proximity to the wick” PNG media_image15.png 384 434 media_image15.png Greyscale Schroder (US 20170175034 A1) “FIG. 4 is a simplified perspective view of yet another embodiment of the candle assembly 410. The candle assembly 410 again includes a container 412 and a candle body 414 that can be substantially similar to the previous embodiments. However, in this embodiment, the cavity 422 extends from the top surface 414A of the candle body 414 downward at an angle into the candle body 414. It is appreciated that the cavity 422 can extend down to any desired depth and the cavity 422 can extend downward into the candle body 414 at any desired angle” PNG media_image16.png 354 436 media_image16.png Greyscale 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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST. 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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. /LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762