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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“positioning tool” in claim 22, where the “tool” is the placeholder and the “positioning” is the functional language; and
“bridging portion” in claim 25, where the “portion” is the placeholder and the “bridging” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The term “for,” in line 2 of claim 16 clearly indicating that the “liquid solution” is not a positively recited element (the “liquid solution” is not part of the claimed invention). However, claim 29 further define the “liquid solution” is a disinfecting solution. Therefore, the dependent claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16-19 and 21-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakoneczny et al. (US 5242111. Nakoneczny hereinafter) in view of Arthur et al. (EP2376683. Arthur hereinafter).
With respect to claim 16, Nakoneczny discloses a dispensing system (Figs. 1-65, especially the embodiment in Figs. 1-10) for (capable of) dispensing a fluid (liquid fragrance or other VOCs) into the atmosphere, comprising: a container (28) for containing a liquid solution; a rigid support (30 and 44); and a capillary wick (32); wherein: a first section (at 62 and 44) of the support is positioned inside the container through an opening (at 42) of the container and a second section (elements of 30 above 28 in Fig. 4) of the support is positioned outside the container; the support is at least partially U-shaped (three locations: unconnected “U” at 68, upside down “U” at 48 and drip gutter 56. Fig. 7) or L-shaped by way of the second section of the support; and the capillary fabric is attached around the first section and second section of the support, such that the capillary fabric is configured to (capable of) draw up the liquid solution from the container by capillary attraction to dispense a gaseous fluid into the atmosphere outside the container by evaporation of the liquid solution ([0004]).
Nakoneczny fails to disclose the capillary wick is a capillary fabric.
However, Arthur teaches a capillary wick wherein the wick is a fabric material ([0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a capillary fabric, as taught by Arthur, to Nakoneczny’s wick, in order to release fragrance into the atmosphere with a synthetic biodegradable fiber fragrance wick ([0024]- [0025]).
With respect to claim 17, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein: the opening of the container is positioned in a top (upper) wall (at 42) of the container; the first section of the support has a length (height) extending between the opening and a bottom wall of the container; and the length of the first section of the support is at least 70% of a height measured between the top wall and the bottom wall of the container (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 18, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Arthur further teaches wherein the capillary fabric is made of a moisture-wicking (hydrophilic) material.
With respect to claim 19, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein the container is a portable container. Nakoneczny and Arthur fail to disclose wherein the container having a maximum volume of 75 dm3 and a minimum volume of 1 dm3.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the container having a maximum volume of 75 dm3 and a minimum volume of 1 dm3, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 21, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein: the opening is defined by an edge (capped by 48 and 44); and the edge and/or the support and the capillary fabric are adapted to be in contact with each other to mount and/or position at least the first section of the support in a substantially vertical orientation (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 22, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein: the system includes a positioning tool (48) in or over the opening of the container; and the positioning tool is adapted to (capable of) receive and hold the support and the capillary fabric to mount and/or position at least the first section of the support in a substantially vertical orientation (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 23, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein: the support is J-shaped (two upside down “J.” See Fig. 6 with additional annotations below), L-shaped, or U-shaped (two locations: unconnected “U” at 68 and drip gutter 56. Fig. 7); and a first leg (See Fig. 6 with additional annotations below) of the support is provided by the first section of the support.
With respect to claim 24, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein: when the support is L-shaped or J-shaped, a second leg (See Fig. 6 with additional annotations below) is shorter than the first leg; and the second leg is provided by the second section of the support.
With respect to claim 25, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein: the second portion of the U-shaped support (upside down “U” at 48) comprises a bridging portion (annular groove mate with top portion of 44) connecting the first leg with a second leg (See Fig. 6 with additional annotations below) of the support; and the bridging portion of the support is a curved (annular) bridging portion or a straight (axial wall) bridging portion.
With respect to claim 26, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses the dispensing system according to claim 16, further comprising a drip tray (drip gutter 56 and 48) positionable below an end portion (area) of the second section of the support, wherein the drip tray is releasably connectable to the container by a clamping force (via 42 to 44 to 48).
With respect to claim 27, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein the drip tray comprises a holder (48) configured to (capable of) receive the end portion of the second section of the support.
With respect to claim 28, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein the dispensing system is a power-free system configured to (capable of) dispense a gaseous fluid into the atmosphere outside the container in a continuous manner (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 29, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein the liquid solution is a disinfecting solution ([0003]) configured to (capable of) disinfect at least one of a clean room, an incubator, and a cooler.
With respect to claim 30, Nakoneczny discloses a system (Figs. 1-65, especially the embodiment in Figs. 1-10) comprising: a rigid support (30 and 44); and a capillary wick (32); wherein: a first section (at 62 and 44) of the rigid support is configured to (capable of) be positioned inside a container (28) through an opening (at 42) of the container, and a second section (elements of 30 above 28 in Fig. 4) of the support is configured to (capable of) be positioned outside the container; the rigid support is at least partially U-shaped (three locations: unconnected “U” at 68, upside down “U” at 48 and drip gutter 56. Fig. 7) or L-shaped by way of the second section of the rigid support; and the capillary fabric is attached around the first section and the second section of the rigid support, such that the capillary wick is configured to (capable of) draw up liquid solution from the container by capillary attraction to dispense a gaseous fluid into the atmosphere outside of the container by evaporation of the liquid solution ([0004]).
Nakoneczny fails to disclose the capillary wick is a capillary fabric.
However, Arthur teaches a capillary wick wherein the wick is a fabric material ([0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a capillary fabric, as taught by Arthur, to Nakoneczny’s wick, in order to release fragrance into the atmosphere with a synthetic biodegradable fiber fragrance wick ([0024]- [0025]).
With respect to claim 31, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny further discloses wherein: the opening of the container is positioned in a top (upper) wall (at 42) of the container; the first section of the support has a length (height) extending between the opening and a bottom wall of the container; and the length of the first section of the support is at least 70% of a height measured between the top wall and the bottom wall of the container (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 32, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Arthur further teaches wherein the capillary fabric is made of a synthetic ([0004]- [0009]) microfiber ([0023]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakoneczny in view of Arthur and further in view of Burgeson (US20150136871).
With respect to claim 20, Nakoneczny’s dispensing system modified by Arthur’s biodegradable fabric wick, Nakoneczny and Arthur fail to disclose wherein: the container is a plastic container including a threaded cap for closing the opening; and the threaded cap is removable to insert the first section with the capillary fabric through the opening.
However, Burgeson teaches a scent dispending system (Figs. 1-4) comprising a wick (5), a plastic container (10. [0020]) including a threaded cap (50) for closing the opening (45); and the threaded cap is removable to insert the first section (15) with the capillary wick through the opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a plastic container with a threaded cap, as taught by Burgeson, to Nakoneczny’s container, in order to a readily removable closure to the container (Figs. 1-4 and [0024]).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a dispensing system: Johnson, Van der Heijden, Furner et al., Vogt et al. Majerowski, Leonard and Christianson et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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 O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 December 3, 2025