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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on August 7, 2026. Claims 1-9, 11, 13-16, and 21-26 are pending. Claims 21-26 have been added. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 9, 11, and 13-16 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorecham et al. (US 2008/0279731 A1) in view of Juarez (US 9,345,800 B2).
With regard to claim 1, Goreham discloses a volatile material dispenser (2), comprising: a base (6) that houses a printed circuit board (28), the base defining a sidewall and a voltage port (29, Par. [0062]); a stand assembly (26) that is coupled with the base (6) and includes a platform (see annotated figure below) that is directly adjacent to and extends upward from the base (6), wherein the printed circuit board (28) is disposed between the base and the platform (Fig. 2); a shroud (8) having a sidewall that has a lower edge that extends from an upper edge of the base (Fig. 1), the shroud (8) defining a chimney (4); and a refill (36) comprising a wick (40), the refill (36) being removably coupled with the stand assembly (26).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gorecham further discloses the volatile material dispenser including at least one button 72), the at least one button that projects from the sidewall of the base F(g.3), except the at least one button is disposed about 180 degrees offset from the low voltage port.
However, Juarez teaches a volatile material dispenser including at least one button (32) and a low voltage port (22), the at least one button that projects from the sidewall of the base (Fig. 1) and a low voltage port (22), wherein the at least one button is disposed about 180 degrees offset from the low voltage port (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the volatile material dispenser of Gorecham, by rearranging the at least one button about 180 degrees offset from the low voltage port (Fig. 3) as taught by Juarez, since shifting the position of the switch button and the voltage port would not have modified the operation of the device and was held to be an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04).
With regard to claims 4-5, the dispenser of Gorecham as modified by Juarez discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gorecham does not disclose that the chimney defines a diameter (D1) and a widest portion of the shroud defines a diameter (D2), and wherein the diameter (D1) is between about 10% and about 45% of the diameter (D2), wherein the diameter (D1) is between about 15% and about 35% of the diameter (D2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of the dimension of chimney and shroud by having a diameter (D1) and a widest portion of the shroud defines a diameter (D2), and wherein the diameter (D1) is between about 10% and about 45% of the diameter (D2), wherein the diameter (D1) is between about 15% and about 35% of the diameter (D2), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.II. In the instant case, changing chimney dimension achieves the result of controlling outcome of the vapor appearance, and as such the dimension of chimney and the shroud is recognized in the art as a result effective variable. Further, a one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at modifying the chimney and shroud as changes to design, including dimensions, are well within the level of skill of the art. Finding the optimal maximum dimension would therefore be simply a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 6, the dispenser of Gorecham as modified by Juarez discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gorecham further discloses that wherein a plurality of light indicators (74) are visible through the base adjacent to the at least one button (Fig. 8b).
With regard to claim 8, the dispenser of Gorecham as modified by Juarez discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gorecham further discloses that wherein a portion of the sidewall of the shroud (8) comprises a frustoconical shape (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 21, the dispenser of Gorecham as modified by Juarez discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gorecham further discloses that the platform defines a slot, and wherein the refill is laterally insertable through the slot (see annotated figure below and Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
304
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 22, the dispenser of Gorecham as modified by Juarez discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gorecham further discloses that the platform is inset from the sidewall of the base (Fig. 4).
With regard to claims 23 and 24, the dispenser of Gorecham as modified by Juarez discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gorecham further discloses that a manifold of the stand assembly (Fig. 4) includes tabs (43/46) that engage an annular rim of the refill (Par. [0059]) and each of the tabs includes an inwardly-depending catch that engages the annular rim of the refill (Par. [0059]).
With regard to claims 25 and 26, the dispenser of Gorecham as modified by Juarez discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gorecham further discloses that the stand assembly includes a stand (53) that extends upward from the platform along a rear portion thereof and a wire tube guide (54) is disposed within the stand and is configured to retain a wire tube within the stand (“heat source 54 comprises two metal oxide resistors”, see Par. [0062]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorecham in view of Juarez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martens, III et al. (US 7,775,459 B2).
With regard to claim 2, the dispenser of Gorecham as modified by Juarez discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gorecham further discloses a manifold (Fig. 2) houses a piezoelectric assembly that includes a piezoelectric element (Par. [0022]).
They do not disclose that a spring within the manifold of the stand assembly, wherein the spring is operable to engage with the piezoelectric element to maintain continuous contact between the wick and the piezoelectric element, and wherein the spring has a spring wire with a diameter of between about 0.50 mm and about 0.60 mm.
Martens, III teaches a volatile material dispenser (20) comprising a spring (43) within a manifold of the stand assembly (Fig. 1B), wherein the manifold houses a piezoelectric assembly (34) that includes a piezoelectric element (35), wherein the spring (43) is operable to engage with the piezoelectric element to maintain continuous contact between the wick (56) and the piezoelectric element (35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dispenser of Gorecham, by incorporating the spring and the manifold of stand assembly, and the piezoelectric assembly as taught by Martens, for the purpose of providing the action of a spring would allow the orifice plate to move up and down according to the location of the wick in the replacement reservoir assembly so that the wick will suitably press against the underside of the orifice plate and/or the actuator element (Col. 6 lines 38-43).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of the spring wire by having the diameter between about 0.50 mm and about 0.60 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.II. In the instant case, changing wire dimension achieves the result of controlling compression factor such as compression force, and as such the spring wire dimension is recognized in the art as a result effective variable. Further, a one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at modifying the spring wire as changes to spring design, including dimensions, are well within the level of skill of the art. Finding the optimal maximum dimension would therefore be simply a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 3, the dispenser of Gorecham as modified by Juarez discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. They do not disclose that wherein the stand assembly houses a piezoelectric assembly that defines an array of apertures, wherein outermost apertures of the array of apertures define an array diameter (DA), wherein the wick defines a wick diameter (DW), and wherein a ratio of the wick diameter and the array diameter (DA/DW) is greater than 1.0.
Martens, III teaches a volatile material dispenser (20) comprising a piezoelectric assembly that defines an array of apertures (Col. 5 lines 55-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dispenser of Gorecham, by incorporating the office plate (37) including an array of apertures as taught by Martens, for the purpose of generating liquid droplets to be ejected through the minute orifices, out through opening, into the air (Col. 5 lines 55-60).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orifice plate by having the outermost apertures of the array of apertures define an array diameter (DA), wherein the wick defines a wick diameter (DW), and wherein a ratio of the wick diameter and the array diameter (DA/DW) is greater than 1.0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.II. In the instant case, changing arrange of apertures achieves the result of controlling size of droplets, and as such the array of apertures is recognized in the art as a result effective variable. Further, a one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at modifying the array of apertures as changes to orifice plate design, including dimensions, are well within the level of skill of the art. Finding the optimal maximum dimension would therefore be simply a matter of routine experimentation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenbacher in view of Juarez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tian (CN 303277649 S).
With regard to claim 7, the dispenser of Gruenbacher as modified by Juarez discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. They do not disclose that a plurality of ridges are provided along an outer surface of the shroud.
Tian teaches a dispenser comprising a plurality of ridges are provided along an outer surface of the shroud (figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the volatile material dispenser of Gruenbacher, by forming the surface the shroud with the plurality of ridges as taught by Tian, doing it would provide aesthetic effect to please the user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
