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 is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to, because details of the claimed invention are difficult to discern, and the drawings are not of sufficient quality so that all details are reproducible in the printed patent. See MPEP 608.02; 37 CFR 1.84. Figure 1 appears to be a low quality scan of Figure 1 submitted with the parent PCT application. It is noted that Figure 1 in parent PCT application, i.e., PCT/EP2023/071101, constitutes sufficient quality.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “elastic material” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elastic material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (see the instant specification at page 5, lines 8-9).
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itano et al. (US 20190320652 A1), hereafter referred to as “Itano”.
Regarding claim 1, Itano discloses a device for evaporating volatile substances (abstract), comprising:
a porous element (claim 1 and paragraph [0017] teaching a wick) that is impregnated with a product including the volatile substances (claim 1 and paragraphs [0038], [0050]);
a heater (claim 5 and paragraphs [0017]-[0022]) that heats the porous element for evaporating the volatile substances (claim 5);
characterized in that the porous element and the heater have a cylindrical shape (paragraph [0056], claim 5, and paragraph [0017]), the heater being placed around the porous element (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Itano discloses the device for evaporating volatile substances according to claim 1, and further discloses that the porous element is mounted on a support that presses the porous element (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Itano discloses the device for evaporating volatile substances according to claim 5, and further discloses that the support is made from an elastic material (paragraph [0041] teaching that the porous element is inserted through a stopper sealing a liquid container).
Regarding claim 8, Itano discloses the device for evaporating volatile substances according to claim 1, and further discloses that the diameter of the porous element is comprised between 4 to 8 mm (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Itano discloses the device for evaporating volatile substances according to claim 1, and further teaches that there is an air gap between the porous element and the heater, the gap is comprised between 1 mm to 3 mm (claim 6 and paragraph [0019]).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deflorian et al. (US 20200147255 A1), hereafter referred to as “Deflorian”.
Regarding claim 1, Deflorian discloses a device for evaporating volatile substances (Fig. 3), comprising:
a porous element (1; fig. 3) that is impregnated with a product including the volatile substances (paragraphs [0012]-[0013], [0026]);
a heater (2; fig. 3) that heats the porous element for evaporating the volatile substances (paragraph [0026]);
characterized in that the porous element and the heater have a cylindrical shape (fig. 3; paragraph [0031]), the heater being placed around the porous element (fig. 3; paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Deflorian discloses the device for evaporating volatile substances according to claim 1, and further discloses that the device also comprises a reflective element (3) placed around the heater (1; fig. 3).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Itano discloses the device for evaporating volatile substances according to claim 1, and further teaches that the height of the porous element is greater than the height of the heater (claim 5 and paragraph [0018]), and the ratio between the heights of the heater and the porous element is approximately 18% (paragraphs [0021] and [0051], but does not explicitly teach that the ratio is 30-60%.
It is well settled, however, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Itano, such that the ratio between the heights of the heater and the porous element is 30-60%, in order to improve the sustainability of the pest control effect, as Itano teaches that increasing the porous element and heater facing region relative to the heater length would reduce variations in particle size providing more consistent thermal contact across more of the porous element surface (paragraph [0018] of Itano).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano, as modified, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Deflorian.
Regarding claim 3, Itano, as modified, teaches the device for evaporating volatile substances according to claim 2, but does not explicitly teach that the heater is placed in a centered position with respect to the height of the of the porous element.
Deflorian teaches a device for evaporating volatile substances (fig. 3) including a heater (2) placed in a centered position with respect to the height of the of the porous element (1; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Itano, such that the heater is placed in a centered position with respect to the height of the of the porous element, as taught by Deflorian, in order to mitigate general heating of the device that can raise the temperature of the surface by directing substantially all the heat provided by the heating element to the porous element (abstract and paragraphs [0008]-[0009] of Deflorian).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deflorian.
Regarding claim 4, Itano teaches the device for evaporating volatile substances according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the device also comprises a reflective element placed around the heater.
Deflorian teaches a device for evaporating volatile substances (figs. 1-4) including a reflective element (3) placed around a heater (2; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Itano to include a reflective element placed around the heater, as taught by Deflorian, in order to mitigate heating of the surface of the device, itself, and direct all the heat generated by the heating element to the porous element (paragraph [0010] of Deflorian).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harrell et al. (EP 3766524 A1), hereafter referred to as “Harrell”.
Regarding claim 7, Itano teaches the device for evaporating volatile substances according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the heater has a variable heating capacity, which is progressively increased.
Harrell teaches a device for evaporating volatile substances (abstract) including a heater that has a variable heating capacity (paragraph [0105]), which is progressively increased (paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Itano, such that the heater has a variable heating capacity, which is progressively increased, as taught by Harrell, in order to improve and compensate the substance output rate when the substance levels are depleting (paragraph [0105] of Harrell).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims. For example, US-4968487-A and US-20050186140-A1 teach devices for evaporating volatile substances with similar heater and porous element arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (571) 272-6891. 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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights