DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one secondary reservoir portion is” is believed to be in error for --the at least one secondary reservoir portion is--. 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 and 15-20 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “(a) the primary reservoir portion and at least one secondary reservoir portion are in fluid communication, or (b) the delivery engine is configured such that after an activation step is performed, the primary reservoir portion and at least one secondary reservoir portion are in fluid communication”. Limitations (a) and (b) are a broad and narrow limitation respectively, such that when (b) is true, (a) is also true. It is unclear under what condition only (b) can be selected from the alternatives claimed, rendering the claim vague and indefinite. Additionally, changing the limitation “or” to –and-- would result in both a narrow and broad limitation in the same claim that would be rejected according to MPEP 2173.05 (c).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the volatile material is configured to evaporate from the primary reservoir portion or where the volatile material is configured to evaporate from the primary reservoir portion after an activation step is performed”. The alternative limitations are a broad and narrow limitation similar to claim 3. It is unclear under what condition only the narrower limitation can be selected from the alternatives claimed, rendering the claim vague and indefinite. Additionally, changing the limitation “or” to –and-- would result in both a narrow and broad limitation in the same claim that would be rejected according to MPEP 2173.05 (c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruenbacher 2011/0180621.
In regards to Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 2, Gruenbacher teaches a delivery engine (100) for delivering a volatile material (abstract), the delivery engine comprising: a primary reservoir portion (110) containing an initial volume of the volatile material (6 mL, paragraph [0029]), wherein the volatile material is configured to evaporate from the primary reservoir portion after an activation step is performed (130 ruptures 120 to activate system); and at least one secondary reservoir portion (112); wherein when the delivery engine is oriented for use (position as shown in exploded view in figure 2): at least one secondary reservoir portion (112) is gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion (as shown in figure 2, paragraph [0082]); and a total volume of the at least one secondary reservoir portion that is gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion is at least 4% of the initial volume of volatile material (1.5 ml, paragraph [0045], resulting in volume of 25% of the initial volume).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Gruenbacher teaches the delivery engine is configured such that after an activation step is performed (130 pierces 120), the primary reservoir portion (110) and at least one secondary reservoir portion (112) are in fluid communication (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Gruenbacher teaches when: the delivery engine is oriented such that at least one secondary reservoir portion is gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion (as shown in figure 3), and the primary reservoir portion (110) is in fluid communication with at least one secondary reservoir portion (120 pierced to connect 110 and 112), then the at least one secondary reservoir portion is able to hold a volume of volatile material that is at least 4% of the initial volume of volatile material in a state that is gravitationally below the primary reservoir (1.5 ml, paragraph [0045], resulting in volume of 25% of the initial volume of 6 mL).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Gruenbacher teaches the delivery engine is a single-use delivery engine and/or wherein the delivery engine is not refillable (100 is single-use, paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Gruenbacher teaches the volatile material is configured to simultaneously evaporate from both the primary reservoir portion and the at least one secondary reservoir portion after an activation step is performed (when 120 is pierced, material in 110 and 112 are exposed to breathable membrane 140, paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Gruenbacher teaches the delivery engine (100) comprises a microporous membrane (140) enclosing the primary and secondary reservoir portions (as shown in figure 5), where the microporous membrane is configured to allow evaporation of volatile material contacting the microporous membrane (paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Gruenbacher teaches after an activation step is performed (piercing 120 with 130), the microporous membrane (140) is configured to allow evaporation of volatile material (paragraph [0053]) present in both the primary reservoir portion and at least one secondary reservoir portion (material from 110 flows into 112 and contacts 140, paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Gruenbacher teaches the delivery engine is for use in a housing (200), and the at least one secondary reservoir portion (112) is configured to be at least partially obscured by the housing (100 is inserted into 200, such that 112 is at least partially obscured as best shown in figures 1 and 8).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Gruenbacher teaches the delivery engine is configured to release a volatile material to a surrounding environment without an artificially generated airflow (paragraph [0021]).
In regards to Independent Claim 14, Gruenbacher teaches a delivery engine (100) for delivering a volatile material (abstract), the delivery engine comprising: a primary reservoir portion (110) containing a volatile material (paragraph [0026]), where the volatile material is configured to evaporate from the primary reservoir portion after an activation step is performed (paragraph [0050]); and at least one secondary reservoir portion (112); wherein when the delivery engine is oriented for use (orientation shown in figure 2): at least one secondary reservoir portion is gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion (112 below 110 in figure 2, paragraph [0082]); and a total volume of the at least one secondary reservoir portion that is gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion is at least 0.24 mL (1.5 mL, paragraph [0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenbacher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deflorian 2017/0319734.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Gruenbacher teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gruenbacher further teaches a housing (200). However, Gruenbacher does not teach a window in the housing for viewing the primary reservoir portion of the delivery engine. Deflorian teaches a housing (100) with a window (101) for viewing a cartridge (30) with a volatile composition (31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a window in the housing of Gruenbacher to view the reservoir of Gruenbacher, as taught by Deflorian, in order to view the amount of volatile composition left within the cartridge (paragraph [0032]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenbacher as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Barlics 4,928,881.
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Gruenbacher teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Gruenbacher does not teach that the primary reservoir portion is translucent. Barlics teaches using a diffuser (figure 1) with a translucent reservoir (20, Col. 2, ll. 46-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to make the primary reservoir portion of Gruenbacher translucent, as taught by Barlics, in order to allow the level of the liquid to be visually observed (Col. 2, ll. 46-50).
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Kippersluis 2007/0057086.
In regards to Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 12, Van Kippersluis teaches a delivery engine (10) for delivering a volatile material (paragraph [0001]), the delivery engine comprising: a primary reservoir portion (30) containing an initial volume of the volatile material (20), wherein the volatile material is configured to evaporate from the primary reservoir portion after an activation step is performed (device turned over to evaporate through emanator 40, paragraph [0038]); and at least one secondary reservoir portion (two tubular elements 50 at the bottom of either side of 30 when inverted, abstract); wherein when the delivery engine is oriented for use: at least one secondary reservoir portion is gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion (when inverted, 50 is below 30, abstract). However, Van Kippersluis does not teach a total volume of the at least one secondary reservoir portion that is gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion is at least 4% of the initial volume of volatile material. Van Kippersluis teaches that the dimensions of the secondary reservoir portions (tubular elements 50) to control the flow from the primary reservoir portion to the emanator (paragraph [0037]). Therefore, the volume of the secondary reservoir portions is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that reducing the size of the secondary reservoir portions reduces the flow rate from the primary reservoir portion to the emanator. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the volume of the secondary reservoir portions can be changed, was disclosed in the prior art by Van Kippersluis, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to select a volume of the secondary reservoir portion that is more than 4% of the volume of the initial volume of volatile material in order to control the flow rate from the primary reservoir portion to the emanator of Van Kippersluis. It has been held that “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenbacher in view of Deflorian.
In regards to Independent Claim 15, Gruenbacher teaches an apparatus (10) for delivering a volatile composition (abstract), the apparatus comprising: a housing (200) having a front part (forward portion of 200 without holes 260), a back part (portion of 200 with holes 260 in figure 8); and a delivery engine (100) located within the housing (as shown in figure 1), the delivery engine comprising: a primary reservoir portion (110) containing a volatile material (paragraph [0026]), where the volatile material is configured to evaporate from the primary reservoir portion or where the volatile material is configured to evaporate from the primary reservoir portion after an activation step is performed (evaporate after activation with 130 piercing 120, paragraph [0027]); and at least one secondary reservoir portion (112); wherein the housing is configured such that when the apparatus is oriented for use (orientation shown in figure 5): at least one secondary reservoir portion (112) of the delivery engine is gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion of the delivery engine (112 below 110 as shown in figure 5, paragraph [0082]); and one or both of (i) and (ii) apply: (i) the at least one secondary reservoir portion that is gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion is at least partially obscured by the front part of the housing (100 is inserted into 200, such that 112 is at least partially obscured as best shown in figures 1 and 8); (ii) the at least one secondary reservoir portion that is gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion is formed from an opaque material. However, the primary reservoir portion of the delivery engine is visible through the front part of the housing. Deflorian teaches a housing (100) with a window (101) for viewing a cartridge (30) with a volatile composition (31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a window in the housing of Gruenbacher to view the reservoir of Gruenbacher, as taught by Deflorian, in order to view the amount of volatile composition left within the cartridge (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Gruenbacher in view of Deflorian teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gruenbacher further teaches the housing (200) comprises a plurality of apertures (260) for exposing an evaporative portion (140) of the delivery engine (100).
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Gruenbacher in view of Deflorian teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gruenbacher further teaches a microporous membrane (140) enclosing the primary and secondary reservoir portions (140 covers 110 and 112 as shown in figure 2), where the microporous membrane is configured to allow evaporation of liquid volatile material (paragraph [0053]), and where the evaporative portion of the delivery engine is the microporous membrane (140).
Regarding Dependent Claim 18, Gruenbacher in view of Deflorian teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gruenbacher further teaches the housing is openable (paragraph [0072]) and the delivery engine is replaceable (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, Gruenbacher in view of Deflorian teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gruenbacher further teaches a releasable locking mechanism for releasably closing the housing (clicking mechanism to mate shell and core, paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Gruenbacher in view of Deflorian teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gruenbacher further teaches the apparatus is oriented for use a total volume of the at least one secondary reservoir portions that are gravitationally below the primary reservoir portion is at least 4% of an initial volume of volatile material (1.5 ml, paragraph [0045], resulting in volume of 25% of the initial volume of 6 ml, paragraph [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights