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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed grooves “do not pass entirely through the substrate” and are thus different than the slits disclosed by Hammer. The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found it to be persuasive. The Examiner notes that the instant specification states that “[i]t should be indicated that said grooves are grooves or through-holes, i.e. they fully pass through said substrate.” See page 2, lines 15-16. Therefore, the instant specification clearly defines “grooves” to include through-holes and Applicant’s argument is, therefore, not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hammer does not disclose the claimed grammage range and “more or less ignores this limitation as allegedly being ‘routine optimization’ of the broad range disclosed by Hammer.” Applicant argues that “the unexpected result of using this particular range is explained page 4 (sic) of the specification in that the claimed grammage provides the same diffusion regardless of temperature and air flow.” The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found to be persuasive. It is noted that Hammer discloses a range which includes the entire claimed range. The teaching of the instant specification that the claimed grammage range provides the same diffusion regardless of temperature and air flow is not a showing of unexpected results as no evidence has been provided in support of the statement. It is not clear that a different grammage would result in a different amount of diffusion relative to temperature and air flow as no evidence or results have been provided to show that the recited grammage works differently that other grammages. Thus, the Office maintains the argument that routine optimization of the grammage of Hammer would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that Colon does not disclose “a fastening clip extending perpendicular to a central portion of a rear surface of the casing” as claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 12 clearly depicts such a structure in connecting means 148 as the means extend perpendicularly outward from the rear surface of the casing. In the instance that Applicant does not view the connecting means of Colon to constitute a clip, the fastening clips 46 of Hang are viewed to be analogous to the recited fastening clips and can be substituted for the connecting means of Colon at the central location disclosed by Colon.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to have modified Hammer to include the fastening clip of Hang or Colon as Hammer discloses a fastener for a home air register and such a modification would render the device of Hammer unsatisfactory for the intended purpose. The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found it to be persuasive. The Examiner has not combined the prior art references to modify the home air register device as argued by Applicant, but to show that the recited volatile substance evaporation device for vehicles is obvious in light of the teachings of the prior art as Hammer discloses the structure of the recited substrate which would also be capable for use in an apparatus intended for use in vehicles. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “Examiner then argues that he is using the teachings of Hammer for volatile substance dispensers for housing registers and applying it to volatile substance dispenser (sic) for vehicles. This is not the argument that the Examiner has made.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner argues that the argument was indeed made by the Examiner as it would have been obvious to have modified the teachings of Hammer for volatile substance dispensers for housing registers and apply it to volatile substance dispensers for vehicles.
Applicant argues that Hammer “explains that the design and structure of the connector used in this device is critical, which teaches away from modification.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that no citation to the teachings of Hammer has been provided. If Applicant wishes to maintain this argument, could a citation to the disclosure of Hammer be provided? Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the connector on the apparatus of Hammer in order to allow for the apparatus to be usable in a different configuration such as for a vehicle as taught by Hang and Colon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 4-5 and 13 are rejected for failing to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 as claim 1 was amended to wholly recite the subject matter of each of claims 4-5 and 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammer (US 2014/0161673) in view of Hang et al. (US 2018/0264916; hereinafter “Hang”) and Colon (US 5,422,078).
In regard to claims 1, 4-6 and 13, Hammer discloses a volatile substance evaporation device capable of being used in a vehicle comprising a casing (accessory 1) provided with an evaporation surface (inner side 13 of accessory 1) formed by a grid (vent openings 10) as recited in claim 6, said casing housing inside it a substrate (scented fabric 2) impregnated with volatile substances (“air freshening agent”; [0047]), wherein said substrate is a sheet made of non-woven fabric (“[n]onwoven fabrics are broadly defined as sheet or web structures”; [0043]) and comprises a plurality of grooves (“one or more slits”; [0042]) formed therein which are placed parallel to one another, as recited in claims 1 and 4, and in two rows (see Figure 2 and [0055]) as recited in claims 1, 5 and 13. Hammer discloses wherein a grammage (“weight” as expressed in oz/ft2) of the non-woven fabric can be between 0.05 to 4.55 oz/ft2 which is equivalent to 15.25 to 1388 g/m2. Hammer teaches that the scented fabric is preferably thin and must be sturdy enough to withstand typical flows without being torn. As the instant specification does not disclose any criticality to the claimed grammage range of 30 to 40 g/m2, it is viewed that the disclosure of Hammer anticipates the claimed range as the entirely of the range is disclosed by Hammer. Hammer discloses wherein the casing (accessory 1) includes a fastening mechanism 3 for securing the casing to a ventilation outlet. The fastening mechanism can be a magnetic tape strip, hook and loop fastener, screws/bolts, or attachment extensions (i.e. a “fastening clip”) that extend inward from the inner surface 13 of the accessory 1. See [0037]-[0047] and [0097] and Figures 1-9, 15, 18 and 18A.
Hammer is silent in regard to the claimed casing having a fastening clip extending perpendicular to a central portion of a rear surface of the casing and including an upper portion and a lower portion spaced from each other for receiving a ventilation rib of a ventilation outlet of a vehicle between the upper portion and the lower portion.
Hang discloses a dispensing device 10 comprising a casing (housing 12) for holding a pad 40 proximal to an air ventilation outlet in a vehicle such that a substance (substrate 42) can be dispensed from the pad into the airflow from the vent. The device includes fastening clips 46 extending perpendicular to a rear surface of the casing and including an upper portion and a lower portion spaced from each other for receiving a ventilation rib (“louvre”) of the vent of the vehicle. It is noted that Hang does not teach wherein the clips 46 extend from a central portion of a rear surface of the casing as Hang teaches that the clips are positioned from a bottom 48 of the rear surface of the casing. See [0017]-[0026] and Figures 3-5.
Colon discloses volatile substance evaporation device (10c or 10f) for vehicles (see col. 3, line 68 through col. 4, line 5) having a casing for holding a substrate in the form of a sheet (card 20b) impregnated with volatile substances, wherein the casing includes a fastening clip (connecting means 148; see col. 6, lines 55-58) extending perpendicular to a central portion of a rear surface (see Figures 12 and 13) of the casing and including an upper portion and a lower portion spaced from each other capable of receiving a ventilation rib of a ventilation outlet of the vehicle between the upper portion and the lower portion. See Figures 12-13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the casing of Hammer to include a rear surface with a centrally located fastening clip as disclosed by Colon and the fastening clip design of Hang for the fastening the casing to a ventilation rib of a vehicle as disclosed by Hang and Colon for the purpose of enabling the device to be used to provide scent to a vehicle interior. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimal or workable range of substrate grammage through routine experimentation and in the absence of new or unexpected results. “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In regard to claim 8, Hammer depicts the grooves (slits) as being placed parallel to one another. See Figure 2. Hammer does not explicitly disclose the distance between the slits but does teach that the slits are used to allow for sufficient airflow to flow through the scented fabric. See [0042]. Therefore, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to have determined the optimum or workable range of the distance between the slits in the scented fabric of the above combined apparatus through routine experimentation for the purpose of allowing for sufficient airflow to flow through the scented fabric and without creating any new or unexpected results. It is noted that the instant specification does not provide a showing of the criticality of the claimed range of distances. “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regard to claim 9, Hammer discloses the use of fastening clips (“clips”; see [0097]) or other connectors such as clasps, button snaps, or any other type of connector that allows for securement of the scented fabric insert to the register accessory. It is viewed that at least the connector type of button snaps necessarily include a plurality of fixing holes on both the scented fabric insert and the register accessory for placing the buttons. It would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have used connectors which require matching plurality of fixing holes on the scented fabric and casing for respective attachment thereto such that the scented fabric can be fixedly attached to the casing without producing any new or unexpected results. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
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 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 TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774