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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 40, 45, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Decker (WO 2019204290 A1).
Regarding claim 40, Decker teaches a colored planar wick (FIG. 1A, wick 101), comprising: a planar member (FIG. 1A, the sheet from which the wick 1A is cut) comprising a wick material; and a dye impregnated into the wick material (paragraph 263, the wicks may be dyed); wherein: the dye is present through an entirety of a thickness of the wick material (paragraph 263); the wick exhibits an improved burning parameter relative to an undyed wick formed of the same material and having the same dimensions (paragraph 268, the dye may alter wick characteristics), when the wick and the undyed wick are evaluated by burning in candles having identical structure and composition; and the improved burning parameter is at least one selected from the group consisting of higher burning temperature, higher flame height (paragraph 268), greater wax pool growth, and reduced acoustic crackling.
Regarding claim 45, Decker teaches that the planar member comprises wood (paragraph 233, the wick 101 may be made of wood).
Regarding claim 46, Decker teaches that the wood is a hardwood having substantially straight grains (Decker paragraph 232).
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker in view of Thomas (US 20120148967 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Decker teaches a colored wick (FIG. 1A, wick 101), comprising: a sheet (FIG. 1A, the sheet from which the wick 1A is cut) comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of wood (paragraph 233, the wick 101 may be made of wood), a wood-like substance, and cellulose fiber; wherein: the sheet is treated with a dye or color pigment (paragraph 263, the wicks may be dyed); the sheet is laser cut (paragraph 269, the wicks may be laser-cut).
Decker fails to teach that the sheet cut to form interlocking sheets; and the colored wick comprises at least two interlocking sheets assembled together to form an X-shape or +-shape when viewed from above when provided in a candle.
However, Thomas teaches that the sheet cut to form interlocking sheets; and the colored wick comprises at least two interlocking sheets assembled together to form an X-shape or +-shape when viewed from above when provided in a candle (FIGS. 2A and 2B, the parts of wick 214 are cut to form an interlocking x-shaped wick).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Decker by making it so the wick of Decker is made of interlocking sheets forming an x-shaped wick, as taught by Thomas, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Decker with these aforementioned teachings of Thomas with the motivation of providing a more even burn (i.e., forming a circular heated area instead of an oval-shaped heated area).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, the combination of Decker and Thomas teaches that a height of the wick is 1 to 8 inches (Decker, paragraph 237); a width of the wick is 0.125 to 6 inches (Decker, paragraph 264); and a thickness of the wick is 0.010 to 0.040 inches (Decker, paragraph 237).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, the combination of Decker and Thomas teaches that the sheet comprises a hardwood having substantially straight grains (Decker paragraph 232).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Decker and Thomas teaches a body of meltable fuel (Decker, paragraph 226, the wick is held in wax).
Claim(s) 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker in view of Curto (US 5942008 A).
Regarding claim 13, Decker teaches that the process is for preparing a colored wick (abstract) ; and cutting the pressed sheet of wick material to obtain the colored planar wick (paragraph 269, the wicks may be laser-cut).
Decker fails to teach a process, comprising: pretreating a sheet of wick material (); dyeing the pretreated sheet of wick material; pressing the dyed sheet of wick material.
However, Curto teaches a process (FIG. 2), comprising: pretreating a sheet of wick material (claim 1, (b), placing the strips of veneer in a heated solution of dye); dyeing the pretreated sheet of wick material (claim 1, (b), letting the dye penetrate); pressing the dyed sheet of wick material (claim 1, (c), applying pressure).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Decker by making it so the wick is pressure treated to ensure deeper dye penetration, as taught by Curto, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Decker with these aforementioned teachings of Curto with the motivation of ensuring a deep penetration of dye.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Decker and Curto teaches that the sheet of wick material comprises a sheet of wood (Curto, abstract).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Decker and Curto teaches that the sheet of wick material has a thickness of 0.010 to 0.040 inches (Decker, paragraph 237).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Decker and Curto teaches that the wood is a hardwood having substantially straight grains (Decker paragraph 232).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Decker and Curto teaches that the wood is poplar (Decker, paragraph 232, the wood may be poplar).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker and Curto as applied to claims 13 and 16-19 above, and further in view of Grantham (US 6235349 B1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Decker and Curto fails to teach that drying the dyed sheet of wick material before pressing.
However, Grantham teaches that drying the dyed sheet of wick material before pressing (“Prior art pressure treatment methods require that the wood products to be dry before treatment.”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Decker by making it so the wick is dried before being pressure treated, as taught by Grantham, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Decker with these aforementioned teachings of Grantham with the motivation of saving dye liquid.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker and Curto as applied to claims 13 and 16-19 above, and further in view of Leysenne (US 20190358137 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Decker and Curto fails to teach that pretreating the sheet of wick material comprises bleaching the sheet of wick material.
However, Leysenne teaches that pretreating the sheet of wick material comprises bleaching the sheet of wick material (paragraph 107, the system may employ bleach activators as part of the dying process).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Decker by making it so the process employs bleach activators as part of the dying process, as taught by Leysenne, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Decker with these aforementioned teachings of Leysenne with the motivation of employing a dyeing catalyst to ensure the process only begins when the user desires it to begin.
Claim(s) 41 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker as applied to claims 40, 45, and 46 above, and further in view of Hartigan (US 20170292817 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Decker fails to teach that the improved burning parameter is higher burning temperature; and the wick exhibits an increase of at least 20% in burning temperature relative to the undyed wick.
However, Hartigan teaches that the improved burning parameter is higher burning temperature (paragraph 93, the wood that contains an organic dye has a higher burn temperature than undyed wood).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Decker by making it so the dye increases burn temperature, as taught by Hartigan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Decker with these aforementioned teachings of Hartigan with the motivation of allowing a manufacturer to determine a burn temperature using its dyeing process.
Hartigan fails to teach that the wick exhibits an increase of at least 20% in burning temperature relative to the undyed wick.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the burning parameter increase by 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Hartigan teaches the burn temperature increasing), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the burn parameter is a result effective variable because it affects the look, smell, and sound of the candle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the burning parameter increase by 20%, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 43, Decker fails to teach that the improved burning parameter is greater wax pool growth; and the wick exhibits decrease of at least 20% in amount of time to reach a target wax pool width relative to the undyed wick.
However, Hartigan teaches that the improved burning parameter is greater wax pool growth (paragraph 93, the wood that contains an organic dye has a higher burn temperature than undyed wood, and would therefore produce a faster-liquefying and larger wax pool).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Decker by making it so the dye increases burn temperature, as taught by Hartigan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Decker with these aforementioned teachings of Hartigan with the motivation of allowing a manufacturer to determine a burn temperature using its dyeing process.
Hartigan fails to teach that the wick exhibits an increase of at least 20% in burning temperature relative to the undyed wick.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the burning parameter increase by 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Hartigan teaches the burn temperature increasing), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the burn parameter is a result effective variable because it affects the look, smell, and sound of the candle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the burning parameter increase by 20%, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker as applied to claims 40, 45, and 46 above, and further in view of Decker.
Regarding claim 42, Decker teaches that the improved burning parameter is higher flame height (paragraph 268).
Decker fails to teach that the wick exhibits an increase of at least 20% in flame height relative to the undyed wick.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the burning parameter increase by 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Decker teaches the flame height increasing), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the burn parameter is a result effective variable because it affects the look, smell, and sound of the candle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the burning parameter increase by 20%, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 44 is 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. The claim is allowable because the Examiner was unable to find art teaching a dye that reduces crackling in a wick.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights