CTNF 18/754,253 CTNF 82789 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-05 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. As such, the claim limitation “diffusion assistance means” in claim 16 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a non-structural term “diffusion assistance means” coupled with functional language “generates airflow directed at the evaporative chamber” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 16 is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: The diffusion assistance means for claim 16 equaling a fan . If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is also noted that the diffusion assistance means recited in claims 15, 17 & 18 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because said diffusion assistance means recited in claims 15, 17 & 18 recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function. As such, claims 15-18 will be examined accordingly. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 19 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 19 recites the limitation " the fan " in line 2 to line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 10-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Bleloch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0320116) . Bleloch discloses a dispenser for a volatile liquid composition, the dispenser comprising: A housing (Figures 1-3 & 8-11); A reservoir (803/909/115) holding the liquid composition (Figures 8-11); A transport member for the liquid composition (505); and An evaporative member (503) in fluid communication with the transport member wherein the evaporative member comprises a wickable mesh (paragraphs 59-61). Concerning claims 2, 3, 10 and 11, Bleloch continues to disclose that the mesh is a woven wire mesh comprising warp and weft wires, wherein the mesh is metallic stainless steel (paragraphs 59 & 60). Regarding claims 12-14, Bleloch also discloses that the evaporative member (503) has a cylindrical configuration (paragraph 60), and that the transport member (505) comprises a wick made of metal (paragraph 60). With respect to claims 15 & 18, Bleloch further discloses a heating element diffusion assistance means (903/1003/1103/1203) that further comprises an energy source (paragraphs 43, 45, 46, 65 and 75-78). Concerning claim 20, the reference also discloses that the dispenser is battery operated (paragraph 65) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 7 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleloch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0320116) in view of Butenkemper et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0082650) . Bleloch is relied upon as set forth above. Bleloch does not appear to disclose that the warp and wefts have a substantially circular cross section to produce a mesh that is not see-through with a pore size of from about 5-250 microns. Butenkemper discloses a dispenser for a volatile liquid composition, wherein the dispenser is provided with a housing (405), a reservoir (430/435), and an evaporative member comprising a wickable mesh (paragraphs 126-131 & 140-142). The reference continues to disclose that the mesh is a wire mesh comprising warp and weft wires (paragraphs 34-37, 58 and 140) a substantially circular cross section (i.e., tube; disclosure of diameter in relating to wires; paragraphs 43-45 and 53) to produce a mesh that is not see-through (arbitrary term in which Butenkemper meets with the disclosed pore size) with a pore size of from about 5-250 microns (paragraphs 41-45) in order to provide a more consistent evaporative wickable mesh between a heating element of the mesh and the wicking material (paragraphs 3-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the evaporative member of Bleloch with warps and wefts that have a substantially circular cross section to produce a mesh that is not see-through with a pore size of from about 5-250 microns in order to utilize a more consistent evaporative wickable mesh between a heating element of the mesh and the wicking material as exemplified by Butenkemper. As such, claims 4, 7 & 8 are not patentable over Bleloch in view of Butenkemper . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleloch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0320116) . Bleloch is relied upon as set forth above. Bleloch does not appear to disclose that the mesh is an off-count mesh (i.e. length greater than width creating more openings in length than width, or vice versa), or that the mesh has a porosity of about 10-60%. Nonetheless, such are considered result effective variables to one of ordinary skill. More specifically, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). As such, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an off-count mesh and/or a mesh with a porosity of about 10-60%, in order to create a successful and effective mesh for a particular application that diffuses/dispenses a certain liquid over a specific period of time (i.e., optimizing evaporation rate) based on environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity, air speed etc.; as such are considered result effective variables that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill during routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained. Thus, claims 5 & 9 do not create a patentable distinction over Bleloch . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleloch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0320116) in view of Kurz (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0247927) . Bleloch is relied upon as set forth above. Bleloch does not appear to disclose that the mesh is a plain Dutch weave. Kurz discloses meshes that are utilized in the wicking of a liquid (paragraphs 1-3 and 13), wherein the mesh is a wire mesh comprising warp and weft wires (paragraphs 50-53). The reference continues to disclose that the mesh is a plain or twilled Dutch weave because plain or twilled Dutch weave meshes are known for their increased strength and durability when compared to plain weave meshes alone (paragraphs 29 and 52-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plain or twilled Dutch weave as the mesh in Bleloch because plain or twilled Dutch weave meshes are known for their increased strength and durability when compared to plain weave meshes alone as exemplified by Kurz. Thus, claim 6 is not patentable over Bleloch in view of Kurz . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleloch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0320116) in view of Cameron (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0330999) . Bleloch is relied upon as set forth above. While Bleloch discloses that the housing comprises at least one inlet for attracting air and at least one outlet opening for directing the airflow to the environment (Figures 1-3), the reference does not appear to disclose a fan diffusion assistance means to move the air from the inlet to the outlet. Cameron discloses a dispenser for a volatile liquid composition, the dispenser including a housing (Figures 1-8; paragraphs 48 & 72). The reference continues to disclose a fan diffusion assistance means to move the air from an inlet to an outlet of the housing in order to assist in transporting the air through the housing (paragraphs 56 & 87). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dispenser of Bleloch with a fan diffusion assistance means to move the air from an inlet to an outlet of the housing in order to assist in transporting the air through the housing as exemplified by Cameron. Therefore, claims 16, 17 and 19 are not patentable over Bleloch in view of Cameron. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM. 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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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. /KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/754,253 Page 2 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/754,253 Page 3 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/754,253 Page 4 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/754,253 Page 5 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/754,253 Page 6 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/754,253 Page 7 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/754,253 Page 8 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/754,253 Page 9 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/754,253 Page 10 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/754,253 Page 11 Art Unit: 1799
Prosecution Insights