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 .
This Office Action is in response to the reply filed on June 8, 2026 wherein: claim(s) 1, 7-12, 15, 17-18 were amended, claim(s) 6, 16 canceled, and claim(s) 20-21 are new. Examiner notes amendments in claims are directed to overcome their objections and rejections under 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-22 are pending and will be examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the following informalities:
DRAWINGS
The drawings filed JUNE 8, 2026 (i.e., FIG. 1 - FIG. 4) [see FIG. 3 below], are objected because of the following reasons:
Identifying text for features of the invention appears to be unclearly written.
Geometrical features of the invention appears to be unclearly pictured.
Charts portrays unclear attributes such as legend, etc.
Examiner suggests applicant to resubmit the drawing sheets with the required “Replacement Sheet” label to overcome the objection.
Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawing. Drawings submitted to the Office must be made on paper which is flexible, strong, white, smooth, non-shiny, and durable. All sheets must be reasonably free from cracks, creases, and folds. See MPEP 608.02 Drawing.
Appropriate correction required.
PNG
media_image1.png
537
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenoehrl et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20170319732A1) hereinafter HASENOEHRL, in view of Fischbach (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO2019125146A1) hereinafter FISCHBACH.
Regarding claim 1, HASENOEHRL teaches (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 below) a cartridge 30 for a volatile composition dispenser (page 12, para. [0004], “... dispenser ...”), the cartridge 30 comprising:
a reservoir 32 containing a volatile composition 31 in liquid form and having an opening H3-01;
a membrane 39 enclosing the opening H3-01 of the reservoir 32, the membrane 39 configured to allow evaporation (page 13, para. [0034], lines 5-9, “... evaporation ...”) of the volatile composition 31; and
a sealing substrate 33 enclosing the opening H3-01 of the reservoir 32.
HASENOEHRL fails to teach wherein the membrane 39 comprises one or more markings obtainable by laser marking and the one or more markings:
comprise alterations to a structure of the membrane 39 through from 0.1% to 20% of a thickness of the membrane 39,
do not cause leakage of the volatile composition 31 through the membrane 39, and
result in the cartridge 30 having a volatile composition evaporation rate greater than that of a corresponding cartridge 30 without the one or more markings when measured over 28 days at 234°C and 60% relative humidity.
However, FISCHBACH teaches (see Fig. 1 below) a container 1, wherein the membrane 20 comprises one or more markings 22 obtainable by laser marking (page 15, lines 16-17, “… laser marked …”), and the one or more markings 22:
comprise alterations to a structure of the membrane 20 through from 0.1% to 20% of a thickness of the membrane 20 for identification purposes,
alterations do not cause leakage of the food through the membrane 20.
FISCHBACH fails to teach results in the container 1 having a volatile composition evaporation rate greater than that of a corresponding container 1 without the one or more markings 22 when measured over 28 days at 234°C and 60% relative humidity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified membrane 39 in the cartridge 30 of HASENOEHRL with membrane 20 as taught in the container 1 of FISCHBACH for identification purposes.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have cartridge 30 of HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH having a volatile composition evaporation rate greater than that of a corresponding cartridge 30 without the one or more markings (when measured over 28 days at 234°C and 60% relative humidity) since a POSITA would recognize a smaller thickness in the structure of the membrane 20 would conform accordingly to Fick’s Law of Diffusion.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
538
966
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
757
595
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HASENOEHRL further teaches (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) cartridge 30, wherein the membrane 39 comprises polyethylene.
HASENOEHRL fails to teach polyethylene having a molecular mass of from about 3.5 million to about 7.5 million amu.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the polyethylene (i.e., with molecular mass from 3.5 million to 7.5 million amu) in the cartridge 30 of HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HASENOEHRL further teaches (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) cartridge 30, wherein the membrane 39 has a thickness of from about 0.1 mm to about 1 mm.
Regarding claim 4, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 3 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HASENOEHRL further teaches (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) cartridge 30, wherein the thickness is from about 0.2 mm to about 0.4 mm.
Regarding claim 5, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HASENOEHRL further teaches (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) cartridge 30, wherein the membrane 39 is formed from a single sheet of material.
Regarding claim 7, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) fails to teach cartridge 30, wherein the one or more markings 22 comprise alterations to the structure of the membrane 39 structure through from 0.5%, to 15% of a thickness of the membrane 39.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified alterations to the structure (i.e., from 0.5% to 15% of a thickness of the membrane 39) in the cartridge 30 of HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH since the recited range is regarded as result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 8, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) fails to teach cartridge 30, wherein the one or more markings 22 comprise alterations to the structure of the membrane 39 through from 2%, to 7% of a thickness of the membrane 39.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified alterations to the structure (i.e., from 2% to 7% of a thickness of the membrane 39) in the cartridge 30 of HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH since the recited range is regarded as result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 9, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) fails to teach cartridge 30, wherein the one or more markings 22 comprise alterations to the structure of the membrane 39 through from 3%, to 5% of a thickness of the membrane 39.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified alterations (i.e., from 3% to 5% of a thickness of the membrane 39) in the cartridge 30 of HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH since the recited range is regarded as result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 10, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches cartridge 30, wherein the one or more markings 22 cover from 0.5% to 40% of an evaporative surface area of the membrane 39.
Regarding claim 11, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches cartridge 30, wherein the one or more markings 22 cover from 4% to 20% of an evaporative surface area of the membrane 39.
Regarding claim 12, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 11 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches cartridge 30, wherein the one or more markings 22 cover from 6% to 15% of an evaporative surface area of the membrane 39.
Regarding claim 13, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches cartridge 30, wherein the laser marking 22 comprises laser charring, laser coloration, or laser dark marking.
Regarding claim 14, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches cartridge 30, wherein the laser marking 22 comprises laser charring.
Regarding claim 15, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches cartridge 30, wherein the one or more markings 22 comprise instructions to a user.
Regarding claim 17, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 16 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches cartridge 30, wherein the volatile composition evaporation rate is at least 5% higher than that of the corresponding membrane 39.
Regarding claim 18, HASENOEHRL teaches (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) [albeit different phraseology] a method of making a volatile composition 31 cartridge 30, comprising:
(i) providing a membrane 39; and
(ii) manufacturing a volatile composition 31 cartridge 30 that comprises the membrane 39,
wherein the volatile composition 31 cartridge 30 comprises a volatile composition 31 that is configured to evaporate through the membrane 39.
HASENOEHRL fails to teach membrane 39 comprising one or more markings obtained by laser marking.
HASENOEHRL fails to teach wherein the one or more markings:
comprise alterations to a structure of the membrane 39 through from 0.1% to 20% of a thickness of the membrane 39,
do not cause leakage of the volatile composition 31 through the membrane 39, and
result in the cartridge 30 having a volatile composition evaporation rate greater than that of a corresponding cartridge 30 without the one or more markings when measured over 28 days at 234°C and 60% relative humidity.
However, FISCHBACH teaches (see Fig. 1 above) a container 1, wherein the membrane 20 comprises one or more markings 22 obtainable by laser marking (page 15, lines 16-17, “… laser marked …”), and the one or more markings 22:
comprise alterations to a structure of the membrane 20 through from 0.1% to 20% of a thickness of the membrane 20 for identification purposes,
alterations do not cause leakage of the food through the membrane 20.
FISCHBACH fails to teach results in the container 1 having a volatile composition evaporation rate greater than that of a corresponding container 1 without the one or more markings 22 when measured over 28 days at 234°C and 60% relative humidity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified method of making a volatile composition 31 cartridge 30 of HASENOEHRL with membrane 20 as taught in the container 1 of FISCHBACH for identification purposes.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have method of making a volatile composition 31 cartridge 30 of HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH having a volatile composition evaporation rate greater than that of a corresponding cartridge 30 without the one or more markings (when measured over 28 days at 234°C and 60% relative humidity) since a POSITA would recognize a smaller thickness in the structure of the membrane 20 would conform accordingly to Fick’s Law of Diffusion.
Regarding claim 19, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 18 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches [albeit different phraseology] method, wherein the membrane 39 in step (i) has been marked with a laser (page 15, lines 16-17, “… laser marked …”) using laser charring, laser coloration, or laser dark marking.
Regarding claim 20, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 18 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches [albeit different phraseology] method, wherein the membrane 39 in step (i) has been marked with a laser (page 15, lines 16-17, “… laser marked …”) using laser charring.
Regarding claim 21, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 18 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HASENOEHRL further teaches (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) cartridge 30, wherein the membrane 39 comprises polyethylene.
HASENOEHRL fails to teach polyethylene having a molecular mass of from about 3.5 million to about 7.5 million amu.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the polyethylene (i.e., with molecular mass from 3.5 million to 7.5 million amu) in the cartridge 30 of HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 22, HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH (as applied to claim 16 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HASENOEHRL (see FIG. 1, FIG. 3 above) and FISCHBACH (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches cartridge 30, wherein the volatile composition evaporation rate is at least 10% higher than that of the corresponding cartridge 30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments / amendments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 filed on June 8, 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues HASENOEHRL and FISCHBACH does not teach depth (or range of depth) of scannable code 22 (via laser marking” is a range effective variable.
Contrary to Applicant’s argument a POSITA would recognize range of depth to be optimizable to meet engineering requirements during manufacturing to improve readability.
Applicant argues controlled laser marking of a portion of the membrane increases evaporation rate of a volatile composition.
Contrary to Applicant’s argument increase in evaporation rate of volatile composition (via laser marking of a portion of the membrane) is an expected result of Fick’s Law of Diffusion through membrane 20.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Govindan Radhakrishnan et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20240058499A1): Teaches a “dispenser” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
VYAS et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20230321301A1): Teaches a “device” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Ishida et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20210106710A1): Teaches a “product” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights