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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the deformable overhang button portion" in lines 1 and 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted some portion is reverting from a first to a second state.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibbs (US 5,752,658).
Regarding claim 1, Gibbs (US 5,752,658) teaches –
A housing for holding a cartridge containing a volatile composition (abstract, Col. 1 lines 56-60 Figs. 1-3, housing 14), the housing comprising
a front frame (first dish 16) and
a rear frame (second dish 18) that are capable of moving away from or toward each other for opening and closing the housing (Col. 2 lines 40-56), wherein:
the front frame comprises a window configured to receive a part of the cartridge (vent openings 22 constitute a window or many windows);
at least a part of a perimeter of the window is bordered by a wall portion protruding from the window towards an interior of the housing (ribs 33, Fig. 2 showing the ribs 33 being adjacent to the perimeters of the window),
the wall portion configured to support the cartridge within the housing without adhesion (Col. 2 lines 57-59);
the rear frame comprises one or more apertures configured to allow an airflow into the housing (vents 22); and
the housing is configured to hold the cartridge between the front and rear frames so as to allow the volatile composition to evaporate from the cartridge (Col. 3 lines 35-38).
Regarding claim 2, Gibbs further teaches the housing holds the cartridge and is oriented for use, a part of the cartridge rests on a part of the wall portion (Col. 2 lines 57-59, the pad 36 rests on the ribs 33).
Regarding claim 3, Gibbs further teaches the wall portion comprises a solid wall; and/or the wall portion comprises one or both of an interrupted wall and a series of protrusions (the ribs 33 are both solid wall parts and also are a series of protrusions).
Regarding claim 4, Gibbs further teaches he wall portion and rear frame are together configured to support the cartridge without adhesion (col. 2 lines 53-56 teaches the latch member 26 which is used to secure the frames together).
Regarding claim 5, Gibbs further teaches the housing enables removal of the cartridge from the housing without the cartridge being touched by a user (Figs. 1-3 show the pad 36 and the wall portions 33, and the pad 36 could be removed for example by gravity when the housing is turned horizontally – this limitation only being an intended use of the device, and all the required structure is taught by Gibbs, see MPEP 2114, II).
Regarding claim 6, Gibbs further teaches the front and rear frames are connected via a hinge (Fig. 1 hinge 20); and the housing comprises a locking structure for releasably locking the housing in a closed state (Fig. 1 latch member 26; Col. 2 lines 48-56 teach the locking feature).
Regarding claim 7, Gibbs further teaches the hinge is located at a first end portion of the housing, and the locking structure is located at an opposing end portion of the housing (Fig. 1 shows the hinge and lock on opposing ends of the housing).
Regarding claim 8, Gibbs further teaches the front and rear frames may be opened to an angle of at least 90° with respect to one another (Fig. 2 shows the frames open to about 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 14, the locking structure taught by Gibbs is well capable of performing the function of producing a sound of at least 50 dB upon closing the housing and engaging the locking structure. All of the claimed structure is taught and the prior art is well capable of performing this function and therefore all the limitations of the claim are met. MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 15, the locking structure taught by Gibbs is well capable of performing the function of producing the sound as the locking portion deforms from one state to another. All of the claimed structure is taught and the prior art is well capable of performing this function and therefore all the limitations of the claim are met. MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 16, the locking structure taught by Gibbs is well capable of performing the claim function of requiring a force required to close the housing, when said force is applied substantially perpendicular to a centre point of the rear frame of the housing, is from 20 N to 120 N for at least 10 locking cycles. All of the claimed structure is taught, and the housing of Gibbs is made from the same material as the instant specification discloses as the housing material (Col. 4 lines 40-46 discloses polypropylene, the instant specification teaches plastics such as polypropylene being used to form the housing on p. 10 lines 14-15). The same structure and material is taught by the prior art, and therefore the claimed physical characteristics cannot be said to be distinct from the prior art, and the burden shifted to Applicant to provide evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 17, Gibbs further teaches the rear frame comprises one or more rib elements (Fig. 2 the elongated strips between openings 22 read on the limitation of rib elements). The ribs are well capable of performing the claimed function of being configured to exert a compressive force on the cartridge when the housing is in a closed state and the cartridge is positioned within the housing and are reasonably expected to do so, especially since the cartridge is not positively recited as being part of the claimed invention. The housing 14 is well capable of applying this force to a sufficiently large enough scent cartridge. MPEP 2114, II.
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs (US 5,752,658) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Springs (US 2014/0096717).
Regarding claim 9, Gibbs is set forth above with regards to claim 6 but appears to be silent with regards to a button latch.
Springs (US 2014/0096717) teaches a fragrance-containing device (par. 19 discloses the device including a deodorizing compartment for holding a deodorizing agent and perfuming agent) including a housing (container 105, figs. 1-3) where two portions of the housing are attached by a hinge (hinge catch 205) and a button-latch (par. 18 discloses that the lid latch 315 can be a button latch or a push-to-open latch). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gibbs such that the latching mechanism is a button latch that releasably attaches the front frame to the rear frame as claimed to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the ease of use and convenience of button-type latch to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known latching mechanism, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs (US 5,752,658) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gruenbacher (US 2010/0308126).
Regarding claim 18, Gibbs teaches –
A volatile composition dispenser comprising: a housing as defined in claim 1 (see fig. 1 and the rejection of claim 1 above); and a
cartridge configured to be positioned inside the housing (scented pad 36), the cartridge comprising:
a reservoir containing at least one liquid volatile composition (the pad 36 acts as a reservoir for containing a fragrant and evaporative liquid, Col. 3 lines 35-39);
the cartridge is held within the housing without adhesion (Figs. 1-3 show that the pad is resting on ribs 33 and no adhesive is mentioned);
the cartridge is supported by the wall portion (Col. 2 lines 57-59, the pad 36 rests on the ribs 33); and
the cartridge may be removed from the housing without the cartridge being touched by a user (Figs. 1-3 show the pad 36 and the wall portions 33, and the pad 36 could be removed for example by gravity when the housing is turned horizontally – this limitation only being an intended use of the device, and all the required structure is taught by Gibbs, see MPEP 2114, II).
Gibbs appears to be silent with regards to a membrane.
Gruenbacher (US 2010/0308126) teaches a fragrance dispenser (title, Figs. 1-2) including a cartridge including a reservoir and membrane (pars. 31-32, membrane 140 with reservoir 110). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gibbs such that the cartridge includes a membrane for enclosing the reservoir as taught by Gruenbacher to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to more controllably release the fragrance to arrive at a longer lasting and improved scent emitting device.
Regarding claim 19, modified Gibbs appears to be silent with regards to a maximum movement distance, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Gibbs such that a maximum movement distance within a plane of the window is less than 4 mm. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure a snug and secure fit of the cartridge to avoid damage or rattling noises from the device, and this modification is merely the change of relative dimensions of the claimed device which is nothing more than obvious. MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Regarding claim 20, modified Gibbs further teaches the housing and cartridge are configured such that when a cartridge located within the housing has reached end of life, the cartridge may be removed from the housing by the steps: (i) opening the housing; and (ii) upending the housing, without a step of disengaging or disadhering the cartridge from the housing (Figs. 1-3 show the pad 36 being able to be removed by opening the housing and upending the housing; all the claimed structure is taught and the prior art device is reasonably capable of performing this claimed function, MPEP 2114, II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention set forth in claim 10. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Gibbs in view of Springs.
Gibbs in view of Springs teaches a housing for a fragrance cartridge (Figs. 1-3 of Gibbs) including a button latch for separably attaching portions of the housing (par. 18 of Springs). Gibbs in view of Springs is silent with regards to the button latch comprising a deformable overhang button connected to a latch that has a t-shape comprising stem portion. Therefore claim 10 is allowable over the prior art. The remaining claims 11-13 are allowable for depending on claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights