DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 December 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 28, 61, 90, 91. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
4. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length of 44 words falls short of the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 19 line 7: “INOES” should read --INEOS--.
Page 24 line 8, page 25 line 22, and page 29 lines 24 and 33: “Ohaus” should read --Ohaus® --.
Page 24 line 11 and page 30 ln 3: “3M Scotch Weld” should read --3M Scotch-WeldTM--.
Page 25 line 23: “a standard vernier calipers” should read --a standard Vernier caliper--.
Page 26 line 5: “Quantachrome stereopycnometer” should read --Quantachrome StereopycnometerTM--
Page 30, the disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The use of terms which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted above in this application. Each term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 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.
9. Regarding claim 1, the preamble recitation of an “apparatus for delivering a volatile material comprising a delivery engine comprising:” is indefinite because it is unclear which components comprise which other components. For instance, does the apparatus comprise the delivery engine along with everything that follows, or does the delivery engine comprise everything that follows? Examiner recommends positively reciting the delivery engine structure, e.g., as --apparatus for delivering a volatile material, the apparatus comprising: a delivery engine comprising:-- or as -- apparatus for delivering a volatile material, the apparatus comprising: a delivery engine;--, depending on whether the delivery engine is intended to comprise the rest of the claim or not, respectively.
10. Claims 2-20 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenbacher et al (US 20100308130 A1).
13. Regarding claim 1, Gruenbacher discloses an apparatus for delivering a volatile material (apparatus for delivering a volatile material, Abstract, FIGS. 1-2) comprising a delivery engine (apparatus includes a delivery engine, Abstract) comprising:
a reservoir for containing a volatile material (reservoir 110 for holding a volatile material, par 0035); and
a microporous membrane enclosing said reservoir (FIG. 2, breathable membrane 140 enclosing the rupturable substrate 120, reservoir 110, and collection basin 112, par 0032; microporous membrane, pars 0007 and 0059-0064).
Although Gruenbacher does not explicitly teach the range wherein the microporous membrane has a volume average pore diameter of from 0.065 µm to 0.15 µm, Gruenbacher teaches that a volume average diameter of the pores of the microporous membrane may range from 0.02 to 0.5 micrometers, or from 0.04 to 0.3 micrometers, or from 0.05 to 0.25 micrometers (par 0129). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected a pore diameter within the range of 0.065 to 0.15 microns to behave similarly as a diffusion selective membrane, as Gruenbacher discloses the wider ranges as suitable for this application. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose a microporous membrane with a volume average pore diameter from 0.065 µm to 0.15 µm because this pore diameter would predictably enable selective vapor permeability to meet the fragrance releasing application with a reasonable expectation of success.
14. Regarding claim 2, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the delivery engine (pars 0031-0033) further comprises:
a rupturable substrate secured to said reservoir (FIG. 2, rupturable substrate 120 heat sealed to the body 104, par 0033); and
a rupture element positioned adjacent to said rupturable substrate (rupture element 130 positioned adjacent to the rupturable substrate 120, par 0032), and
the microporous membrane encloses said rupturable substrate and said rupture element (FIG. 2, breathable membrane 140 secured to the lip 102 and enclosing the rupturable substrate 120, reservoir 110, and collection basin 112, par 0032).
15. Regarding claim 3, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane has a surface area of from 2 cm2 to 100 cm2 (evaporative surface area of the microporous membrane may be about 2 cm2 to about 100 cm2, par 0134).
16. Regarding claim 4, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein pores may constitute from 60 to 75 percent by volume of the microporous membrane (par 0125). Although Gruenbacher does not specifically teach wherein the microporous membrane has a porosity of from 45 to 70%, a prima facie obviousness case exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected the similar but slightly lower porosity membrane of the claim to similarly select for vapor permeability in view of the range of possible membrane porosities of 35 to 95 percent by volume presented by Gruenbacher (par 0125), thus the porosity is not considered critical over the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose a microporous membrane with a porosity of from 45% to 70% because this porosity would predictably enable selective vapor permeability through the membrane to meet the fragrance releasing application with a reasonable expectation of success.
17. Regarding claim 5, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane has a density of at least 0.7 g/cm3 to less than or equal to 1.0 g/cm3 (par 0069), and the porosity of the microporous membrane is taught as preferably 60-75% (par 0125).
Although Gruenbacher does not specifically teach that the microporous membrane would have a total pore volume of from 0.6 to 2 cm3/g, a density of 0.8 g/cm3 (1.25 cm3/g)
with a porosity of 60% would yield a total pore volume of 0.75 cm3/g and with a porosity of 75% would yield a total pore volume of 0.9375 cm3/g, both well within the claimed range. Accordingly, the ranges overlap and a person having ordinary skill in the art could readily obtain the claimed range of total pore volumes by routine optimization of membrane density and porosity, which are both considered noncritical over broader ranges from less than 0.7 g/cm3 to at least 1.5 g/cm3 (pars 0069 and 0079-0080) and 35% to 95% (par 0125), respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose a microporous membrane with a total pore volume of from 0.6 to 2 cm3/g because this pore volume would predictably correlate with membrane density to enable selective vapor permeability through the membrane and could readily be obtained through routine optimization.
18. Regarding claim 6, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane has a bulk density of at least 0.7 g/cm3 to less than or equal to 1.0 g/cm3 (pars 0069-0071). Although Gruenbacher does not specifically teach wherein the microporous membrane has a bulk density of from 0.3 to 0.8 g/cm3 , a prima facie obviousness case exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected the similar but slightly lower density membrane of the claim to similarly select for vapor permeability in view of the range of possible membrane densities inclusive of values less than 0.7 g/cm3 with a suitable supportive coating as presented by Gruenbacher (pars 0079-0080), thus the porosity is not considered critical over the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose a microporous membrane with a bulk density of from 0.3 to 0.8 g/cm3 because this density would predictably correlate with porosity to enable selective vapor permeability through the membrane to meet the fragrance releasing application with a reasonable expectation of success.
19. Regarding claim 7, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane has a thickness of from 0.2 to 0.4 mm (microporous membrane may have a thickness of about 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm…alternatively about 0.25 mm, par 0133).
20. Regarding claim 8, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane has a density of at least 0.7 g/cm3 to less than or equal to 1.0 g/cm3 (par 0069), and the porosity of the microporous membrane is taught as preferably 60-75% (par 0125).
Although Gruenbacher does not specifically teach that the microporous membrane would have a porosity of from 45 to 60%, a total pore volume of from 0.65 to 1.5 cm3/g, and a bulk density of from 0.35 to 0.75 g/cm3, these variables are related as the inverse of density is equal to the pore volume divided by the fractional porosity. As an example, a density of 0.8 g/cm3 (1.25 cm3/g) with a porosity of 60% would yield a total pore volume of 0.75 cm3/g and with a porosity of 75% would yield a total pore volume of 0.9375 cm3/g, both well within the claimed range. Accordingly, the ranges of all three variables overlap and a prima facie obviousness case exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05(I). A person having ordinary skill in the art could readily obtain the claimed range of total pore volumes by routine optimization of membrane density and porosity, which are both considered noncritical over broader ranges from less than 0.7 g/cm3 to at least 1.5 g/cm3 (pars 0069 and 0079-0080) and 35% to 95% (par 0125), respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose a microporous membrane with a bulk density of 0.35 to 0.75 g/cm3, a porosity of from 45 to 60%, and a total pore volume of from 0.65 to 1.5 cm3/g because this combination of bulk density, porosity, and pore volume would predictably enable selective vapor permeability through the membrane in a similar manner and could readily be obtained through routine optimization.
21. Regarding claim 9, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane has a surface area of from 2 cm2 to 100 cm2 (evaporative surface area of the microporous membrane may be about 2 cm2 to about 100 cm2, par 0134), and a thickness of from 0.22 to 0.37 mm (microporous membrane may have a thickness of about 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm…alternatively about 0.25 mm, par 0133). Gruenbacher further teaches that the microporous membrane has a density of at least 0.7 g/cm3 to less than or equal to 1.0 g/cm3 (par 0069), and the porosity of the microporous membrane is taught as preferably 60-75% (par 0125).
Although Gruenbacher does not specifically teach that the microporous membrane would have a porosity of from 45 to 70%, a total pore volume of from 0.65 to 1.6 cm3/g, and a bulk density of from 0.35 to 0.75 g/cm3, these variables are related as the inverse of density is equal to the pore volume divided by the fractional porosity. As an example, a density of 0.8 g/cm3 (1.25 cm3/g) with a porosity of 60% would yield a total pore volume of 0.75 cm3/g and with a porosity of 75% would yield a total pore volume of 0.9375 cm3/g, both well within the claimed range. Accordingly, the ranges of all three variables overlap and a prima facie obviousness case exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could readily obtain the claimed range of total pore volumes by routine optimization of membrane density and porosity, which are both considered noncritical over broader ranges from less than 0.7 g/cm3 to at least 1.5 g/cm3 (pars 0069 and 0079-0080) and 35% to 95% (par 0125), respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose a microporous membrane with a bulk density of 0.35 to 0.75 g/cm3, a porosity of from 45 to 70%, and a total pore volume of from 0.65 to 1.6 cm3/g because this combination of bulk density, porosity, and pore volume would predictably enable selective vapor permeability through the membrane in a similar manner and could readily be obtained through routine optimization.
22. Regarding claim 10, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane has a surface area of from 2 cm2 to 35 cm2 (evaporative surface area of the microporous membrane may be alternatively about 2 cm2 to about 35 cm2, par 0134), and a thickness of from 0.25 to 0.35 mm (microporous membrane may have a thickness of about 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm…alternatively about 0.25 mm, par 0133). Gruenbacher further teaches that the microporous membrane has a density of at least 0.7 g/cm3 to less than or equal to 1.0 g/cm3 (par 0069), and the porosity of the microporous membrane is taught as preferably 60-75% (par 0125).
Although Gruenbacher does not specifically teach that the microporous membrane would have a porosity of from 45 to 60%, a total pore volume of from 0.7 to 1.5 cm3/g, and a bulk density of from 0.4 to 0.7 g/cm3, these variables are related as the inverse of density is equal to the pore volume divided by the fractional porosity. As an example, a density of 0.8 g/cm3 (1.25 cm3/g) with a porosity of 60% would yield a total pore volume of 0.75 cm3/g and with a porosity of 75% would yield a total pore volume of 0.9375 cm3/g, both well within the claimed range. Accordingly, the ranges of all three variables overlap and a prima facie obviousness case exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could readily obtain the claimed range of total pore volumes by routine optimization of membrane density and porosity, which are both considered noncritical over broader ranges from less than 0.7 g/cm3 to at least 1.5 g/cm3 (pars 0069 and 0079-0080) and 35% to 95% (par 0125), respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose a microporous membrane with a bulk density of 0.4 to 0.7 g/cm3, a porosity of from 45 to 60%, and a total pore volume of from 0.7 to 1.5 cm3/g because this combination of bulk density, porosity, and pore volume would predictably enable selective vapor permeability through the membrane in a similar manner and could readily be obtained through routine optimization.
23. Regarding claim 11, Gruenbacher discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane is not laminated (the volatile material contact surface and the vapor release surface of the microporous membrane each may be free of a coating material thereon, par 0070).
24. Regarding claim 12, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane comprises polyethylene (matrix of the microporous membrane is composed of substantially water-insoluble thermoplastic organic polymer…include high density polyethylene, low density polyethylene, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene, pars 0097-0098).
25. Regarding claim 13, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the polyethylene comprises ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (suitable substantially water-insoluble thermoplastic organic polymers include ultra high molecular weight polyethylene, par 0098).
26. Regarding claim 14, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane:
comprises polyethylene (matrix of the microporous membrane is composed of substantially water-insoluble thermoplastic organic polymer…include high density polyethylene, low density polyethylene, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene, pars 0097-0098);
has a thickness of from 0.2 to 0.4 mm (microporous membrane may have a thickness of about 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm…alternatively about 0.25 mm, par 0133); and
is not laminated (the volatile material contact surface and the vapor release surface of the microporous membrane each may be free of a coating material thereon, par 0070).
27. Regarding claim 15, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The recitations wherein the reservoir contains a volatile material and the volatile material is liquid at 25°C refer to an intended use of the apparatus, which is given limited patentable weight per MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the Gruenbacher reservoir is intended for use with a volatile composition (reservoir containing a volatile material, Abstract) and that example compositions would have a viscosity and a vapor pressure i.e. be a liquid at 25 degrees Celsius (pars 0156-0157), thus the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed intended use.
28. Regarding claim 16, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the volatile material has a vapor pressure of at least 8 Pa [0.06 torr] at 25°C (volatile materials each having a VP at 25°C of about 0.1 torr to about 0.325 torr, par 0157).
29. Regarding claim 17, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the composition comprises a percentage of volatile materials each having a VP at 25°C of about 0.1 torr to about 0.325 torr (par 0157), which overlaps significantly with the claimed vapor pressure range of at least 30 Pa [0.225 torr] at 25°C such that a prima facie obviousness case exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Vapor pressure is not considered critical within the claimed range as the Tables 2-3 exhibit sample mixtures that have volatile components with upper limit vapor pressures of 0.325 torr.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose a volatile material composition with a vapor pressure of at least 30 Pa/0.225 torr at 25°C as this level of volatility would predictably provide sufficient vapor flow through the membrane in a similar manner and could readily be obtained through routine optimization.
30. Regarding claim 18, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the delivery engine (pars 0031-0033) further comprises:
a rupturable substrate secured to said reservoir (FIG. 2, rupturable substrate 120 heat sealed to the body 104, par 0033), and
a rupture element positioned adjacent to said rupturable substrate (rupture element 130 positioned adjacent to the rupturable substrate 120, par 0032);
the microporous membrane encloses said rupturable substrate and said rupture element (FIG. 2, breathable membrane 140 secured to the lip 102 and enclosing the rupturable substrate 120, reservoir 110, and collection basin 112, par 0032).
The recitation wherein the reservoir contains a volatile material refer to an intended use of the apparatus, which is given limited patentable weight per MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the Gruenbacher reservoir is intended for use with a volatile composition (reservoir containing a volatile material, Abstract) thus the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed intended use.
Gruenbacher teaches that the apparatus is configured such that activation of the rupture element allows contact between the volatile material and the microporous membrane (rupturable substrate 120 may be configured in any manner that prevents the volatile material in the reservoir 110 from contacting the breathable membrane 140 prior to activating or rupturing the delivery engine, par 0039); and the apparatus is configured such that after activation of the rupture element, the apparatus releases at least 80 wt. % of the volatile material within a time period of 8 weeks at a temperature of 25°C (Example 1, pars 0163-0164, RJJ-577 composition in identical air freshening delivery engines with microporous membrane at 25°C demonstrates flatline and at least 4800 mg of 6000 mg [80%] evaporation within 18 days, FIG. 10).
31. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenbacher et al (US 20100308130 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al (US 20030089791 A1) as evidenced by Habekost (International Circular of Graphic Education and Research, No. 6, 2013, 20-33, <www.internationalcircle.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ICJ_06_2013_02_069.pdf> accessed 16 July 2026).
Regarding claim 19, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a see-through material for the housing permits observation of the liquid and end-of life (par 0033) such that the membrane would also be visible therethrough. Gruenbacher does not teach that the membrane has a first visible state when dry, and a second visible state when wetted with volatile material, and where a CIE2000 Delta E value between the first visible state and second visible state is greater than or equal to 5.
Chen teaches an analogous microporous membrane that can be used in a fragrance emanator device (Abstract, par 0001) wherein a color change is produced due to physical or chemical reaction of the volatile material with a component of the membrane or film covering the reservoir (par 0072). Although Chen does not specifically teach that the color difference between the wet and dry states would constitute a CIE2000 delta E value of at least 5, this value range is representative of a color difference that is readily perceptible as different by the human eye (see Habekost Table 1, Figure 2). Thus, because the extent of color change of a wettable membrane is considered non-critical to the function of the membrane in this fragrance releasing apparatus, a person having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably obtain a workable range for CIE2000 delta E values of greater than or equal to 5 between the wet and dry states of the membrane through routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the membrane of Gruenbacher such that a CIE2000 Delta E value between the first visible state and second visible state is greater than or equal to 5 as suggested by Chen, because such a visible color change would advantageously indicate to the user that the membrane is wet during use and dry before use or at end of life (Chen pars 0072 and 0077) in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
32. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenbacher et al (US 20100308130 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al (US 20030089791 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Gruenbacher teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a see-through material for the housing permits observation of the liquid and end-of life (par 0033) such that the membrane would also be visible therethrough. Gruenbacher does not teach that the membrane has a first visible state when dry, and a second visible state when wetted with volatile material, and where a difference between a luminous transmittance value for the first visible state and a luminous transmittance value for the second visible state, as measured by ISO 13468-2:2021, is greater than or equal to 25%.
Chen teaches an analogous microporous membrane that can be used in a fragrance emanator device (Abstract, par 0001) wherein the membrane is normally opaque when dry and turns to clear when saturated during use (par 0001). This is quantified in FIG. 6 wherein a percent haze is calculated by ASTM method D1003 such that the ratio of Y diffuse transmission to Y total transmission decreases from about 80% to about 12-15% (pars 0075-0077), representing a substantial increase in the luminous transmittance through the membrane as measured by this analogous method. As the luminous transmittance through the membrane is considered non-critical to the function of the membrane in this fragrance releasing apparatus, a person having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably obtain a workable range of greater than or equal to 25% increase in transmittance between the wet and dry states of the membrane through routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the microporous membrane of Gruenbacher such that a difference between a luminous transmittance value for the dry state and a luminous transmittance value for the wetted state is greater than or equal to 25% as suggested by Chen, because such an opacity change would advantageously indicate to the user that the membrane is wet during use and dry before use or at end of life (Chen par 0077) in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Conclusion
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights