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 .
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 2, 6, 7 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation of at least 87.5℃, and the claim also recites at least 95℃ which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites a broad range of between 1 and 10%, and narrower ranges of from 4 to 6% or 2 to 4%.
Claim 7 recites a broad range of more than 1 wick, and a narrower range of 2 or 3 or 4.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geno et al. (WO 2021/216965)
In regards to claim 1, Geno teaches candles having a wick, a wax composition and a gel composition, and wherein the candle can be burned (abstract). The gel composition comprises from 20 to 97% of a fragrance, and 0 to 90% of a solvent such as C6-C12 alcohols etc. (page 2 lines 15 – 22). After the addition of wax at 1:99 to 99:1 with the gel, the fragrance can be present at from 0.1 to 30% of the candle (page 2 lines 28 – 30). The candles can have fragrance oils which high flash points of higher than 175F (79℃) with the addition of flame-retardant additives (page 10 lines 25 – 34). The flame retardant can be present at from 5 to 10% (page 11 line 15). In the examples, the gel composition can have flash points of 185 to 199.2℉ (85 to 92.8℃) (Table 7). Therefore, the flashpoint of the claimed fragrance would be expected. Also, the composition can comprise an alcohol which similarly provides the claimed limitation. By providing the formulation, the method of manufacturing the candle comprising the claimed ingredients is provided.
In regards to claims 2 – 4, Geno provides the method and teaches the composition having the claimed limitations. Geno does not teach the presence of lactones in the fragrance.
In regards to claims 5 – 10, Geno teaches the scented candle having the claimed limitations and wherein more than 1 week, such as two, three or more can be used in the candle (page 3 lines 5 – 8). The candle does not comprise formaldehyde, and VOCs such as benzene are desirably low and thus makes the claimed emission amounts obvious (page 6 lines 5 – 20). Also, Geno recites that the VOCs are benzene, naphthalene or a combination and thus the absence of benzene in the emissions is obvious (page 3 lines 16, 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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 at 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 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights