FINAL ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Thus, the rejections are maintained as noted below. Nonetheless:
Applicant specifically argues that:
Kleemis does not teach a household product, much less an electrically powered air freshener dispenser device.
The Examiner would respectfully respond that:
A fragrance is a household product as broadly defined and taught by Kleemis in the examples and particularly noted just before the examples on page 4, line 8. Furthermore, Kleemis is not provided in order to show an electrically power air freshener dispenser device. Ivri is provided for this limitation (see below as well as pages3 & 4 of the previous Office Action filed on March 31st, 2025).
The Applicant also argues that:
Ivri’s intention is that the liquid (i.e. the fragrance) emerging from the device would be (re)applied on a person (i.e. on the skin or clothes) and not in the air. Ivri does not teach or suggest a household product, much less a household product that is an electrically powered air freshener dispenser device which delivers a perceived warming and tingling sensation in the air.
Accordingly, the combination of Kleemis and Ivri does not teach or suggest an electrically powered air freshener dispenser device which delivers a perceived warming and tingling sensation in the air. Indeed, there is no suggestion in either Kleemis or Ivri that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these two documents to obtain a device for dispensing a fragrance composition that delivers a perceived warming and tingling sensation in the air. The feature of “delivering a perceived warming and tingling sensation in the air”, which lies at the very heart of the claimed household product, is never taught or suggested in either Kleemis or Ivri.
The Examiner would respectfully respond that:
It is first noted that the Applicant appears to be severely limiting the definition of a household product. Both Kleemis and Ivri disclose a fragrant as noted below. Furthermore, Ivri discloses dispensing the fragrant to provide a pleasing smell as noted below as well. Such is considered, and can certainly be utilized as a household product. Thus, this portion is not persuasive.
Still further, as specifically denoted below, Ivri discloses an electrically powered air freshener device comprising a heating element (104) because said electrically powered air freshener device allows for the automatic, unobtrusive dispensing of the perfume without the need for interaction by a user (paragraphs 31, 34, 44 and 45); and is not provided for the warming and tingling sensation that is produced by the fragrance composition. The composition of Kleemis will provide the warming and tingling sensation when dispensed from the dispenser of Ivri because the composition of Kleemis includes products that produce a warming and tingling sensation (most notably isopulegol and elemol in Example 6). Thus, dispensing the fragrance composition of Kleemis that comprises 0.01-5% by weight based on the total weight of the fragrance composition of isopulegol, and 0.01-5% by weight of based on the total weight of the fragrance composition of elemol (Example 6); from the electrically powered air freshener device comprising a heating element of Ivri (paragraphs 31, 34, 44 and 45) will produce an electrically powered air freshener dispenser device that delivers a perceived warming and tingling sensation in the air. One of ordinary skill would combine the two because, starting claimed fragrance composition of Kleemis (see below), one would turn to the prior art in order to determine a possible way of dispensing said fragrance; in which Ivri discloses dispensing fragrances from electrically powered air freshener devices comprising a heating element because said electrically powered air freshener device allows for the automatic, unobtrusive dispensing of the perfume without the need for interaction by a user (paragraphs 31, 34, 44 and 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize an electrically powered air freshener device as set forth in Ivri to dispense the perfume fragrance composition of Kleemis because Ivri discloses that said electrically powered air freshener device allows for the automatic, unobtrusive dispensing of the perfume without the need for interaction by a user. Thus, the combination is proper and meets all of the limitations of the claims. As such, this response is not persuasive as well.
It is also noted that the limitation of “a perceived warming and tingling sensation in the air” is highly dependent upon the person perceiving said sensations. Thus, the fragrances of both Kleemis and Ivri are able to meet these limitations dues to the overly broad nature of such a limitation. Therefore, this response is not persuasive for this reason as well.
The Applicant further argues that:
Regarding independent claim 15 using the transition phrase “consisting of’, the Examiner states that Kleemis discloses that the fragrance composition consists of from about 0.01 to less than 10% by weight of isopulegol (Example 6), elemol (Example 6), and a C8-C18 hydrocarbon of limonene (Example 6). However, as shown above, Example 6 of Kleemis also includes at least α-bergamotene that falls outside the scope of claim 15. Accordingly, claim 15 is patentable over Kleemis and Ivri for this additional reason. In view of the above, the present claims are not obvious and are patentable over Kleemis and Ivri, either alone or in combination. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection based on Kleemis and Ivri are respectfully requested.
The Examiner would respectfully respond that:
Claim 15 has not been recited in which the fragrance composition only consists of those components listed. Claim 15 discloses that the fragrance composition consists of from about 0.01 to less than 10% of at lest one chemaesthetic agent. Claim 15 includes at least one tingling agent. Claim 15 includes at least one perfume ingredient and mixtures of the at least one perfume ingredient. Claim 15 recites optional support materials…Claim 15 recites optional complimentary compounds… Stated plainly, claim 15 has not been recited in a manner in which the fragrance composition is provided with only the materials consistent with “consists of” claim language. As such this response is not persuasive.
The Applicant continues to argue that:
With respect to claims 3 & 4, at pages 4-10, Ichikawa teaches numerous examples of the perfume. There is no apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to particularly pick isopulegol, elemol, vanillyl ethyl ether, and cinnamaldehyde from the laundry list of perfumes taught by Ichikawa, and combine them in the manner as asserted by the Examiner. Accordingly, the Examiner’s position is based on improper hindsight.
The Examiner would respectfully respond that:
Both Kleemis and Ichikawa disclose the use of a fragrant composition utilizing isopulegol and/or elemol as noted below. Ichikawa discloses the use of particular aromatic scents that can be utilized with isopulegol and/or elemol in order to give the preferred aromatic scent to a fragrance that one of ordinary skill would easily recognize and understand, two of which being vanillyl ethyl ether and cinnamaldehyde. One of ordinary skill would easily recognize that an aromatic of vanillyl ethyl ether and cinnamaldehyde provides particular vanilla and cinnamon fragrants to a fragrance composition that are particularly preferred and more appealing to a user. Ichikawa is merely providing examples of aromatic scents that are appealing to users. As such, one of ordinary skill, beginning with the teachings of Kleemis, would look to Ichikawa and understand that vanillyl ethyl ether and cinnamaldehyde are components that provide particularly preferred scents of vanilla and cinnamon that a user may find appealing. As such, dependent upon the particular scent desired, one of ordinary skill would utilize vanillyl ethyl ether and cinnamaldehyde to provide particular vanilla and cinnamon fragrants to the fragrance composition because Ichikawa discloses that vanillyl ethyl ether and cinnamaldehyde provide those desirable fragrances. Therefore, the combination is proper and is not based off impermissible hindsight. Thus, this response is not persuasive.
The Applicant finishes by arguing that:
Concerning claim 6, in paragraphs [0029]-[0045], Meine teaches numerous examples of the perfume oil. There is no apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to particularly pick isopulegol, elemol, and citral from the laundry list of perfume oil taught by Meine, and combine them in the manner as asserted by the Examiner. Accordingly, the Examiner’s position is based on improper hindsight.
The Examiner would respectfully respond that:
Both Kleemis and Meine disclose the use of a fragrant composition utilizing isopulegol and/or elemol as noted below. This shows the analogous relationship between the two fragrances of Kleemis and Meine. Furthermore, paragraph 34 of Meine only discloses a few particularly preferred and readily available volatile fragrances, one of which being citral; wherein citral is a known component to provide a pleasing citrus smell to a user. Thus, Meine has not provided a laundry list of components to pick from, but merely a small list of components; wherein one of the components is citral (paragraph 34). As such, one of ordinary skill readily identify citral from the teachings of Meine and incorporate citral in the fragrance composition of Kleemis in order to provide a pleasing citrus smell to said composition. As such, the combination is proper, and this response is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleemis (Document Identification No. DE 4236887 A1) in view of Ivri et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0142624).
It is first noted that the English translation of Kleemis will be referenced herein.
Concerning claims 1, 2 and 11, Kleemis discloses a household product comprising a perfuming fragrance composition comprising:
0.01-5% by weight based on the total weight of the fragrance composition of isopulegol (Example 6); and
0.01-5% by weight of based on the total weight of the fragrance composition of elemol (Example 6);
Wherein the household product is a non-ingested and non-topically applied product (Abstract; page 2, lines 1-5).
Kleemis does not appear to disclose how the perfuming fragrance composition is dispensed however. Ivri discloses a household product comprising a perfume fragrance composition, and a dispenser for dispensing said perfume fragrance composition (Abstract; Figures 1-16). The reference continues to disclose that the dispenser is an electrically powered air freshener device comprising a heating element (104) because said electrically powered air freshener device allows for the automatic, unobtrusive dispensing of the perfume without the need for interaction by a user (paragraphs 31, 34, 44 and 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an electrically powered air freshener device as set forth in Ivri to dispense the perfume fragrance composition of Kleemis because Ivri discloses that said electrically powered air freshener device allows for the automatic, unobtrusive dispensing of the perfume without the need for interaction by a user. Such a modification of dispensing the perfuming fragrance composition of Kleemis from the dispenser device of Ivri will deliver a perceived warming and tingling sensation in the air.
Thus, claims 1, 2 and 11 are not patentable over Kleemis in view of Ivri.
Concerning claim 15, Kleemis continues to disclose that the fragrance composition consists of from about 0.01 to less than 10% by weight of isopulegol (Example 6), elemol (Example 6), and a C8-C18 hydrocarbon of limonene (Example 6).
Therefore, claim 15 is unpatentable over Kleemis in view of Ivri as well.
Claims 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleemis (Document Identification No. DE 4236887 A1) in view of Ivri et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0142624) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ichikawa (Document Identification No. JP 2009292735 A).
It is first noted that the English translation of Ichikawa will be referenced herein as well.
Kleemis is relied upon as set forth above. Kleemis does not appear to disclose that the chemaesthetic agent is vanillyl ethyl ether combined with cinnamaldehyde. Ichikawa discloses a perfuming and air freshening fragrance composition (page 10, paragraph 3) comprising isopulegol and/or elemol (page 7, last paragraph). The reference continues to disclose that perfuming and air freshening fragrance composition can be additionally provided with, or substituted with vanillyl ethyl ether combined with cinnamaldehyde because such are aromatic aldehydes that provide a particular vanilla and cinnamon fragrant that may be more appealing to a specific user (page 8, last paragraph). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the perfuming and air freshening fragrance composition of Kleemis with vanillyl ethyl ether combined with cinnamaldehyde because such are aromatic aldehydes that provide a particular vanilla and cinnamon fragrant that may be more appealing to a specific user as exemplified by Ichikawa.
Thus, claims 3 & 4 are not patentable over Kleemis in view of Ivri and Ichikawa as well.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleemis (Document Identification No. DE 4236887 A1) in view of Ivri eta l. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0142624) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meine et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0207481).
Kleemis is relied upon as set forth above. Kleemis does not appear to disclose that the perfuming and air freshening fragrance composition comprises citral. Meine discloses a perfuming and air freshening fragrance composition (Abstract) that includes isopulegol (paragraph 116) and/or elemol (paragraph 84). The reference continues to disclose that the perfuming and air freshening fragrance composition can be provided with a complimentary compound of citral in order to provide the fragrance composition with an aesthetically pleasing citrus smell (paragraphs 29 and 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the perfuming and air freshening fragrance composition with citral in order to provide the fragrance composition with an aesthetically pleasing citrus smell as exemplified by Meine.
As such, claim 6 is not patentable over Kleemis in view of Ivri and Meine.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleemis (Document Identification No. DE 4236887 A1) in view of Ivri et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0142624) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frankenbach et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0089462).
Kleemis in view of Ivri is relied upon as set forth above. While Kleemis in view of Ivri discloses that the product is an electrically powered air freshener dispenser device including a heater, the reference does not appear to disclose that said device is an evaporative passive plug or piezo-electric device that is electrically powered comprising a heating element. Frankenbach discloses household products that includes perfumes and compounds for freshening air (abstract; table 1), wherein the product is dispensed from a dispenser. The reference continues to disclose that the dispenser is an air freshening heat diffuser that is electrically powered by plugging said device into a wall, because such are known successful dispensing devices for delivering air freshening perfumes and fragrances into an environment (paragraph 86). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an air freshening heat diffuser that is electrically powered by plugging said device into a wall to disperse the product of Kleemis because such are known successful dispensing devices for delivering air freshening perfumes and fragrances into an environment as exemplified by Frankenbach.
Therefore, claim 10 is not patentable over Kleemis in view of Ivri and Frankenbach.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799