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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18887117 filed 9/17/24.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 9/17/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim list (a}; claim should use the same annotation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim list “a” and “c” with no corresponding “b”; proper sequence is required. Appropriate correction is required
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DELCOTTO ET AL. (US PG PUB 20200208079) in view of DECKER (US PG PUB 20110024945), and as evidence by www.wood-database.com (1996) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as DELCOTTO, DECKER and WOOD-DATABASE.
Regarding claims 1-20:
DELCOTTO teaches in the abstract a wooden wick for use in a wax candle comprising a strip of a predetermined wood (planar strip of wood) having each of a first predetermined length, a first predetermined width and a first predetermined thickness. Such wick further includes a wood booster member (secondary planar member) having each of a second predetermined length, a second predetermined width and a second predetermined thickness adhered to the strip of wood.
DELCOTTO claim 1 also teaches a wooden wick for use in a wax candle, said wooden wick comprising: (a) a planar strip of a predetermined wood having each of a first predetermined length, a first predetermined width and a first predetermined thickness; (b) a planar booster member having each of a second predetermined length, a second predetermined width and a second predetermined thickness.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0010] an important benefit to having two wood pieces as a wick is that this allows for optimization of the wick's burning properties by selecting different sizes and species of wood for the wick and booster components. The wood can be any combination of species depending on the heat output that is desired. Cherry, oak, birch, maple (can be known as koa), balsa, and rosewood species are examples of woods that could be used in constructing the wick.
DELCOTTO teaches a wooden wick for use in a wax candle and methods of making as disclosed above; however DELCOTTO does not explicitly state that wherein the figured grain is curly; however it is within the scope of DELCOTTO disclosing in para [0010] that the wood can be any combination of species depending on the heat output that is desired. Cherry, oak, birch, maple, balsa, and rosewood species are examples of woods that could be used in constructing the wick; and as evident by WOOD-DATABASE. WOOD-DATABASE discloses that maple is called curly maple because the ripples in the grain pattern create a three dimensional effect that appears as if the grain has curled along the length of the board (meets the limitation figured grain is curly).
Again, WOOD-DATABASE is considered a teaching reference, not a modifying reference. See MPEP 2112.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0008] that the method includes the steps of selecting a type of wood to be formed into a strip of wood to be used in a booster member, then cutting such wood selected into such strip having each of a first predetermined length, a first predetermined width and a first predetermined thickness and adhering such booster member to the strip of wood forming the wick. Para [0041] teaches adhesive 20 is preferably applied in an S pattern as shown in FIGS. 7 and 8. The strip of wood 12 is then mated with booster member 14 as directed by directional arrow 22. This configuration has been shown keep the strip of wood 12 and booster member 14 closely bound to each other while still allowing gases, steam and air to move between the strip of wood 12 and booster member 14. Other means for adhering the booster member to strip of wood 12 could comprise at least one fastener, clip, band, rivet, epoxy, cement, or the like.
DELCOTTO teaches in [0009] that the wicks and booster are constructed of all natural components. The booster is a very important part of the wick, which enables the wick to burn in natural candle wax. A single piece of wood will not burn well in natural wax. Also an untreated wood will not bum consistently through a natural wax. Natural waxes should be considered as any waxes derived from animal or plant sources. Preferably a vegetable wax, such as soy wax, jojoba wax, bayberry wax, candelilla wax, carnauba wax, castor wax or a combination thereof, is used.
DELCOTTO teaches in [0018] that such method further includes an addition step of ensuring that the strip of wood is clean before such strip of wood is adhered to the booster member and further that such strip of wood is treated with a liquid wax and that the wooden wick is cured, preferably by baking, prior to use in such candle. It is further preferred that the booster member be soaked in a soy oil prior to adhering it to said strip of wood. Thereafter said booster member is coated with a wax type material.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize DELCOTTO wooden wick for use in a wax candle and method of making, to operate and function as the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated from the disclosure of the method and product of wooden wicks including a booster for a candle to be used according to the claimed invention.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0040] that the first predetermined length of such strip of wood 12 will generally be between about 4.375 and about 5.125 inches. The first predetermined width of the strip of wood 12 will generally be between about 0.70 inch and about 0.80 inch. The second predetermined length of such booster member 14 will generally be between about 3.45 and about 3.55 inches and the second predetermined width of the booster member 14 will generally be between about 0.70 inch and about 0.80 inch. Further, in this embodiment such first and second predetermined thickness will be substantially identical.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0020] that the wooden wick 10 further includes a coloring agent to stain the wooden strip 12 for enhancing a visual appearance thereof. Preferably, such coloring agent is a vegetable type coloring agent.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0014] that the wood is then wrapped in a plastic wrap or the like to protect the moisture level of the wicks. DELCOTTO is concern with protecting the moisture levels of the wick; although DELCOTTO does not disclose the amount of moisture in the wick; the Examiner is of the position that a moisture content of less than 6 percent, also includes low amounts and/or trace amounts; thereby met by the disclosure of DELCOTTO; also the moisture content does not impart additional patentability when it is known in the art that wicks have some degree of moisture as disclosed in DELCOTTO.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0011] that the wood is cut into sheets or strips of a desired thickness. Once cut the wood of the wick and the booster are treated. The wood is sprayed with a coating of a solution of soy oil.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0007] that in a second aspect, provides a method of manufacturing a wooden wick for use in a wax candle, the method includes the steps of selecting a type of wood to be formed into a strip of wood to be used in the wooden wick. Thereafter, cutting such wood selected into such strip having each of a first predetermined length, a first predetermined width and a first predetermined thickness. Para [0008] teaches that the method includes the steps of selecting a type of wood to be formed into a strip of wood to be used in a booster member, then cutting such wood selected into such strip having each of a first predetermined length, a first predetermined width and a first predetermined thickness and adhering such booster member to the strip of wood forming the wick. Para [0018] teaches that the method further includes an addition step of ensuring that the strip of wood is clean before such strip of wood is adhered to the booster member and further that such strip of wood is treated with a liquid wax and that the wooden wick is cured, preferably by baking, prior to use in such candle. It is further preferred that the booster member be soaked in a soy oil prior to adhering it to said strip of wood. Thereafter said booster member is coated with a wax type material.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0010] an important benefit to having two wood pieces as a wick is that this allows for optimization of the wick's burning properties by selecting different sizes and species of wood for the wick and booster components.
DELCOTTO teaches a wooden wick for use in a wax candle and methods of making as disclosed above; however DELCOTTO does not explicitly state that wherein the figured grain is curly; however it is within the scope of DELCOTTO disclosing in para [0010] that the wood can be any combination of species depending on the heat output that is desired. Cherry, oak, birch, maple, balsa, and rosewood species are examples of woods that could be used in constructing the wick; and as evident by WOOD-DATABASE. WOOD-DATABASE discloses that maple is called curly maple because the ripples in the grain pattern create a three dimensional effect that appears as if the grain has curled along the length of the board (meets the limitation figured grain is curly).
Again, WOOD-DATABASE is considered a teaching reference, not a modifying reference. See MPEP 2112.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0011] that the wood is cut into sheets or strips of a desired thickness. Once cut the wood of the wick and the booster are treated. The wood is sprayed with a coating of a solution of soy oil.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0014] once the glue is applied to the wood pieces, they can be placed on presser boards to dry and keep the wood flat. Low heat is applied to assist in the drying process of the wood wicks.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0012] after treatment with the above solution the wood is then placed into a plastic bag and placed into a vacuum to pull the solution into the wood.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0041] adhesive 20 is preferably applied in an S pattern as shown in FIGS. 7 and 8. The strip of wood 12 is then mated with booster member 14 as directed by directional arrow 22. This configuration has been shown keep the strip of wood 12 and booster member 14 closely bound to each other while still allowing gases, steam and air to move between the strip of wood 12 and booster member 14. Other means for adhering the booster member to strip of wood 12 could comprise at least one fastener, clip, band, rivet, epoxy, cement, or the like.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0010] that the wood can be any combination of species depending on the heat output that is desired. Cherry, oak, birch, maple, balsa, and rosewood species are examples of woods that could be used in constructing the wick; and as evident by WOOD-DATABASE. WOOD-DATABASE discloses that maple is called curly maple because the ripples in the grain pattern create a three dimensional effect that appears as if the grain has curled along the length of the board.
DELCOTTO does not explicitly teach at least one wood selected from the group consisting of koa, walnut, ash and ebony; however it is within the scope of DELCOTTO as taught by DECKER does.
DECKER teaches in para [0070] although testing has shown that some woods, such as walnut, ash, birch, pearwood, sapele, pommele, zebrawood, lacewood, mahogany, pine, teak, ebony, and various burls, are not as effective, these woods are still useful in forming a wick element.
DELCOTTO teaches in para [0010] that the wood can be any combination of species depending on the heat output that is desired. Cherry, oak, birch, maple, balsa, and rosewood species are examples of woods that could be used in constructing the wick; and as evident by WOOD-DATABASE. WOOD-DATABASE discloses that maple is called curly maple because the ripples in the grain pattern create a three dimensional effect that appears as if the grain has curled along the length of the board. Therefore one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize the various wood disclosure as overlapping teaching; as DECKER teaches the same wood as DELCOTTO for candle wicks.
Therefore, from the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
Further, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Additionally, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Again, WOOD-DATABASE is considered a teaching reference, not a modifying reference.
See MPEP 2112
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights