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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 7/6/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 should recite “extend from the wall member to of each wall member and wherein the ribs narrow” or something equivalent for the best antecedent basis.
Claim 11 should recite “forming the removable decorative body to include [[a]] the warming dish further comprises” for the best antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-4 are 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 3 is rejected for reciting “removing the removable decorative body from the base”. It is not clear how the body being removed from the base can be part of a method of assembling the scent warmer because this is a step of disassembly. It cannot be determined from the claim how this step would result in the assembly of the scent warmer as required by claim 1 from which claim 3 depends, and therefore the scope of what the method necessarily accomplishes or requires cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the decorative body is removably positioned.
Claim 4 is rejected for depending on claim 3.
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 5 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.
Claim 5 recites “positioning the removable decorative body around the elastomeric sleeve comprises at least partially deforming the ribs of the elastomeric sleeve” however claim 1 from which claim 5 depends already recites the limitation “positioning a removable decorative body around the elastomeric sleeve on the stem and deforming the ribs of the elastomeric sleeve”. There are no limitations in claim 5 that are not already claimed in claim 1, and therefore claim 5 fails to properly further limit claim 1.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (US 2011/0110118) in view of Hsiao (US 2019/0247531).
Regarding claim 1, Hsiao (US 2011/0110118) teaches –
A method of assembling a scent warmer (Figs. 2-4 show a scent warmer 20 having been assembled, pars. 39-40 teaching the method of assembly), comprising:
positioning an elastomeric sleeve (retainer 15, which is rigid but deformable; par. 40) on a stem (first top cover 16) extending upwardly from a base (lamp socket 11) of the scent warmer such that the elastomeric sleeve surrounds at least a portion of the stem (fig. 4 shows the retainer 15 surrounding the cover 16; par. 39),
the elastomeric sleeve comprising:
a wall member sized and configured to abut against the stem (ring 151 includes an inner wall abutting the cover 16); and
ribs extending radially outward from the wall member (hooked portion 1531 extends radially outward); and
positioning a removable decorative body around the elastomeric sleeve on the stem and deforming the ribs of the elastomeric sleeve (par. 40 discloses the placing of the shade 23, which is transmissive to light and provides some soothing lighting effect, onto the retainer 15 by applying force to deform the pawls 153),
the elastomeric sleeve applying a retention force between the removable decorative body and the stem (par. 40).
Should it be found that Hsiao fails to teach this method with sufficient specificity from the explicit disclosure: 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 that is disclosed in Fig. 4 of Hsiao such that the device is assembled by positioning the decorative body around the elastomeric sleeve on the stem and deforming the ribs of the elastomeric sleeve and the elastomeric sleeve applying a retention force between the removable decorative body and the stem to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully assemble and use the device shown in fig. 4. All the structure of the claimed invention is disclosed and is taught to be assembled in a substantially identical manner in the prior art, and therefore the claimed method is obvious. MPEP 2113.
Hsiao appears to be silent with regards to specifically the sleeve being made of an elastomeric material.
Hsiao (US 2019/0247531) (hereinafter referred to as “Ming”) teaches a fragrance delivery device including a support loop 50 that is made of silicone which is a known elastomeric material. 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 method disclosed by Hsiao such that sleeve is made from specifically an elastomeric material such as silicone as taught by Ming to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully implement the sleeve according to a known effective material. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Hsiao further teaches positioning the removable decorative body around the elastomeric sleeve comprises pressing the removable decorative body toward the base with a force greater than a weight of the removable decorative body (pars. 39-40 discloses the pressing of the shade 23 onto the retainer 15 which would inherently or at least obviously require the pressing with a force greater than a weight in order to successfully mount the device against the force of gravity).
Regarding claim 3, Hsiao further teaches removing the removable decorative body from the base by pulling the base and the removable decorative body in opposite directions (the retainer 15 is attached by threads on a threaded flange 116, and is removably positioned on the base 11, and using this threaded attachment by twisting and pulling the shade 23 would similarly be an inherent or at least obvious manner in which the device is used; MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 4, Hsiao further teaches positioning the removable decorative body around the elastomeric sleeve further comprises positioning a warming dish of the removable decorative body opposite of the elastomeric sleeve (Fig. 4 shows that the heater 21 which is shaped as a warming dish is placed opposite the sleeve 15).
Regarding claim 5, Hsiao further teaches positioning the removable decorative body around the elastomeric sleeve comprises at least partially deforming the ribs of the elastomeric sleeve (par. 40).
Regarding claim 6, Hsiao further teaches at least partially deforming the ribs further comprises deforming the ribs more as they extend from the wall member to their tips and wherein the ribs narrow as they extend from the wall member to their tips (Fig. 4 shows the cross section of pawls 153 narrowing as the hooked portion 1531 extends from the recessed portion 1533 that the hooked portion 1531 is connected to, the recessed portion 1533 being the wall member and the hooked portion being the ribs). The placing requires more deformation of the hooked portion 1531 further away from the recessed portion 1533 because of the beveled top of the hooked portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-19 are allowed.
The prior art, alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of claim 7. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Hsiao. Hsiao teaches the ribs include a beveled edge on a top side (Fig. 6 shows this), but fails to teach or fairly suggest the wall member including a beveled edge on a top side. Further, an ordinary artisan would not be motivated to modify the wall member to include a beveled edge towards a top as that would interfere with the components ability to reliably retain the lampshade rendering the component insufficient for its intended purpose. Therefore, Hsiao fails to teach each and every limitation of the claimed invention and the claim is therefore indicated as allowable herein.
The remaining claims are allowed for depending on claim 7.
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