DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 1 April 2026. Claims 1, 32, 37, 47 and 56-71 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 32 and 37, as well as the cancellation of claims 39-46 and 48-55, and the addition of claims 56-71.
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 Objections
3. Claims 1, 32 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 10 of claim 1, “the more or more” should apparently read --the one or more--; at line 12 of claim 1, “command to the device” should apparently read --command to the device;--; at line 2 of claim 32, “as being empty;” should apparently read –as being empty; and--; at line 5 of claim 32, “the more or more” should apparently read --the one or more--; at line 4 of claim 37, “as being empty;” should apparently read –as being empty; and--; at line 7 of claim 37, “the more or more” should apparently read --the one or more--;. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 32, 37, 64-66 and 68-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a method/apparatus for detecting and identifying an empty scent cartridge, and further indicating that the empty cartridge is no longer available. In claims 32 and 37, the step of “detecting one or more scent cartridges inserted into a device as being empty…indicat[ing] that a respective scent is no longer available…identifying the respective scent” can be performed by someone simply observing the device, determining that the scent cartridge is empty, and indicating the scent that is no longer available.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 32 only recites one additional element – using a GUI to indicate the scent cartridge is empty/not available and indicate the respective scent no longer available. Accordingly, the GUI in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a GUI performing a generic computer function of presenting/displaying an image and a selectable icon which issues a command) such that it amounts to no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (GUI). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 37 recites one additional element – computer readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a processor system to perform the steps of detection and presenting the GUI. The computer readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a processor system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of executing instructions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computer component/processor system to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 64-66 and 68-70 merely further limit the generic elements of a GUI, which is the provision of a selectable icon that issues a command to a generic computer.
While claim 71 does recite the use of an optical sensor for the detection step, such a sensor for volume detection is well-understood and conventional in the art as suggested by: Conroy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/029779) at [0115] and Bahabri (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0361334) at [0062].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. 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.
8. Claims 32, 37, 64-66 and 68-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lima (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0119918). Regarding claim 32, Lima teaches a method comprising: detecting one or more scent cartridges inserted into a device as being empty [0157]; and based on the detection of the one or more scent cartridges inserted into the device as being empty, present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the GUI comprising an indication that a respective scent is no longer available that is associated with a respective one of the one or more scent cartridges detected as empty (Fig. 20A and [0107]), the GUI also identifying the respective scent (“lavender”; - Fig. 20A; [0157], [0170]), the GUI comprising one or more selectors that are each selectable to issue a different command to the device (as shown in Fig. 20A and described in [0107]: “insert new scent” or “the scent application 108 may provide the user with instructions on how to swap out the old/empty vial with a new vial 250 and/or provide the user with options to purchase additional scent vials”).
Regarding claim 37, Lima teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1A) comprising:
at least one computer readable storage medium (CRSM) that is not a transitory signal ([0072] and [0078]);
the at least one CRSM comprising instructions executable by a processor system ([0072] and [0078]) to:
detect one or more scent cartridges inserted into a device as being empty [0157]; and based on the detection of the one or more scent cartridges inserted into the device as being empty, present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the GUI comprising an indication that a respective scent is no longer available that is associated with a respective one of the one or more scent cartridges detected as empty (Fig. 20A and [0107]), the GUI also identifying the respective scent (“lavender”; - Fig. 20A; [0157], [0170]), the GUI comprising one or more selectors that are each selectable to issue a different command to the device (as shown in Fig. 20A and described in [0107]: “insert new scent” or “the scent application 108 may provide the user with instructions on how to swap out the old/empty vial with a new vial 250 and/or provide the user with options to purchase additional scent vials”).
Regarding claim 64, the GUI comprises a first selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to use another scent in lieu of the respective scent that is no longer available ([0101]-[0102] of Lima).
Regarding claim 65, the GUI comprises a first selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to launch an online portal through which more of the respective scent that is no longer available can be ordered ([0093]-[0094], [0097]-[0098] and Figs. 18A-18M of Lima).
Regarding claim 66, the GUI comprises a first selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to use another scent in lieu of the respective scent that is no longer available ([0101]-[0102] of Lima), and wherein the GUI comprises a second selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to launch an online portal through which more of the respective scent that is no longer available can be ordered, the second selector being different from the first selector ([0093]-[0094], [0097]-[0098] and Figs. 18A-18M of Lima).
Regarding claim 68, the GUI comprises a first selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to use another scent in lieu of the respective scent that is no longer available ([0101]-[0102] of Lima).
Regarding claim 69, the GUI comprises a first selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to launch an online portal through which more of the respective scent that is no longer available can be ordered ([0093]-[0094], [0097]-[0098] and Figs. 18A-18M of Lima).
Regarding claim 70, the GUI comprises a first selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to use another scent in lieu of the respective scent that is no longer available ([0101]-[0102] of Lima), and wherein the GUI comprises a second selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to launch an online portal through which more of the respective scent that is no longer available can be ordered, the second selector being different from the first selector ([0093]-[0094], [0097]-[0098] and Figs. 18A-18M of Lima).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
10. Claims 1, 47, 56-60, 63 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lima (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0119918) in view of Fateh (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0286351). Regarding claims 1 and 47, Lima teaches a device (Fig. 1A), comprising:
a wearable client device [0078];
at least one processor ([0072] and [0078]); and
storage accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor ([0072] and [0078]) to:
detect one or more scent cartridges inserted into the device as being empty [0157];
based on the detection of the one or more scent cartridges inserted into the device as being empty, present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display ([0077], [0080] and Figs. 14A-20B), the GUI comprising an indication that a respective scent is no longer available that is associated with a respective one of the one or more scent cartridges detected as empty (Fig. 20A and [0107]), the GUI also identifying the respective scent (“lavender”; - Fig. 20A; [0157], [0170]), the GUI comprising one or more selectors that are each selectable to issue a different command to the device (as shown in Fig. 20A and described in [0107]: “insert new scent” or “the scent application 108 may provide the user with instructions on how to swap out the old/empty vial with a new vial 250 and/or provide the user with options to purchase additional scent vials”);
identify a trigger (such as a schedule/time: [0102] and [0168]); and
based on the identification of the trigger, control the device to release a particular scent ([0102] and [0168]).
However, Lima fails to disclose explicitly that the wearable client device is a facial covering, wherein the scent is released into a space between the facial covering and an area where a user's nose is disposed while wearing the facial covering.
Fateh teaches a wearable client device (HMD; [0093], [0081] and [0064]-[0066]), comprising: a facial covering (glasses frame of Fig. 2B); at least one processor (“one or more processors”) – [0082]); and storage (memory) accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor to deliver a particular scent to the user of the HMD/glasses [0082], into a space between the facial covering and an area where a user's nose is disposed while wearing the facial covering (Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a device for delivering a particular scent to a user as taught by Lima, to release the scent into a space between a facial covering and an area where a user’s nose is disposed while wearing the facial covering as taught by Fateh, as Lima recognizes that the scent-releasing technology of the device may be utilized on a smart, wearable client device [0078], and Fateh teaches that a head-mounted wearable apparatus or smart glasses [0062] enables release of a scent to a user to evoke emotional response ([0149]-[0150]) in addition to access to a browser which facilitates visual experiences [0064] and scent purchase selection ([0109]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 56, the GUI comprises a first selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to use another scent in lieu of the respective scent that is no longer available ([0101]-[0102] of Lima).
Regarding claim 57, the GUI comprises a first selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to launch an online portal through which more of the respective scent that is no longer available can be ordered ([0093]-[0094], [0097]-[0098] and Figs. 18A-18M of Lima).
Regarding claim 58, the GUI comprises a first selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to use another scent in lieu of the respective scent that is no longer available ([0101]-[0102] of Lima), and wherein the GUI comprises a second selector that is selectable to issue a command to the device to launch an online portal through which more of the respective scent that is no longer available can be ordered, the second selector being different from the first selector ([0093]-[0094], [0097]-[0098] and Figs. 18A-18M of Lima).
Regarding claim 59, the instructions are executable to: responsive to the detection of the one or more scent cartridges inserted into the device as being empty, present the GUI on the display ([0077], [0080] and Figs. 14A-20B of Lima).
Regarding claim 60, the instructions are executable to use a proximity sensor to detect the one or more scent cartridges inserted into the device as being empty ([0147]-[0158] of Lima).
Regarding claim 63, Lima teaches identify a trigger (such as a schedule/time: [0102] and [0168]); and
based on the identification of the trigger, control the device to release a particular scent ([0102] and [0168]).
However, Lima fails to disclose explicitly that the wearable client device is a facial covering, wherein the scent is released into a space between the facial covering and an area where a user's nose is disposed while wearing the facial covering.
Fateh teaches a wearable client device (HMD; [0093], [0081] and [0064]-[0066]), comprising: a facial covering (glasses frame of Fig. 2B); at least one processor (“one or more processors”) – [0082]); and storage (memory) accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor to deliver a particular scent to the user of the HMD/glasses [0082], into a space between the facial covering and an area where a user's nose is disposed while wearing the facial covering (Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a device for delivering a particular scent to a user as taught by Lima, to release the scent into a space between a facial covering and an area where a user’s nose is disposed while wearing the facial covering as taught by Fateh, as Lima recognizes that the scent-releasing technology of the device may be utilized on a smart, wearable client device [0078], and Fateh teaches that a head-mounted wearable apparatus or smart glasses [0062] enables release of a scent to a user to evoke emotional response ([0149]-[0150]) in addition to access to a browser which facilitates visual experiences [0064] and scent purchase selection ([0109]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 67, Lima teaches wherein the instructions are executable to: identify a trigger (such as a schedule/time: [0102] and [0168]); and
based on the identification of the trigger, control the device to release a particular scent ([0102] and [0168]).
However, Lima fails to disclose explicitly that the wearable client device is a facial covering, wherein the scent is released into a space between the facial covering and an area where a user's nose is disposed while wearing the facial covering.
Fateh teaches a wearable client device (HMD; [0093], [0081] and [0064]-[0066]), comprising: a facial covering (glasses frame of Fig. 2B); at least one processor (“one or more processors”) – [0082]); and storage (memory) accessible to the at least one processor and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor to deliver a particular scent to the user of the HMD/glasses [0082], into a space between the facial covering and an area where a user's nose is disposed while wearing the facial covering (Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a device for delivering a particular scent to a user as taught by Lima, to release the scent into a space between a facial covering and an area where a user’s nose is disposed while wearing the facial covering as taught by Fateh, as Lima recognizes that the scent-releasing technology of the device may be utilized on a smart, wearable client device [0078], and Fateh teaches that a head-mounted wearable apparatus or smart glasses [0062] enables release of a scent to a user to evoke emotional response ([0149]-[0150]) in addition to access to a browser which facilitates visual experiences [0064] and scent purchase selection ([0109]-[0112]).
11. Claims 61 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lima (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0119918) in view of Fateh (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0286351) and further in view of Freeman (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0083719). Regarding claims 61 and 62, Lima and Fateh disclose the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however the combination fails to disclose that the proximity sensor is an optical/infrared (IR) proximity sensor. Freeman teaches a fragrance diffuser, as likewise disclosed by Lima, wherein a proximity sensor such as an infrared (optical) sensor is incorporated into the spout or housing of the docking station to detect the amount of fragrance/fluid remaining in a vial and to calculate whether or not the fragrance fluid is running out [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a proximity sensor such as an IR sensor as taught by Freeman, in a system for selectively dispersing particular fragrances to a user as taught by Lima and Fateh, as Lima recognizes that a proximity sensor will detect when one of the selected scent cartridges utilized into the device is empty ([0147]-[0158] of Lima) and Freeman further teaches that an infrared (IR) proximity sensor detects whether or not a vial is empty, in addition to calculating the amount of fragrance/fluid remaining in a vial [0078].
12. Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lima (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0119918) in view of Freeman (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0083719). Regarding claim 71, Lima discloses use of a proximity sensor to detect the one or more scent cartridges inserted into the device as being empty ([0147]-[0158]); however Lima fails to disclose that the proximity sensor is an optical proximity sensor. Freeman teaches a fragrance diffuser, as likewise disclosed by Lima, wherein a proximity sensor such as an infrared (optical) sensor is incorporated into the spout or housing of the docking station to detect the amount of fragrance/fluid remaining in a vial and to calculate whether or not the fragrance fluid is running out [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a proximity sensor such as an IR (optical) sensor as taught by Freeman, in a system for selectively dispersing particular fragrances to a user as taught by Lima, as Lima recognizes that a proximity sensor will detect when one of the selected scent cartridges utilized into the device is empty ([0147]-[0158] of Lima) and Freeman further teaches that an infrared/optical proximity sensor detects whether or not a vial is empty, in addition to calculating the amount of fragrance/fluid remaining in a vial [0078].
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments filed 1 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 41-43 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
14. Applicant’s arguments filed 1 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 32, 37, 39-43, 47-49 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Kwok in view of Fateh; and claims 45, 46, 51, 52 and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Kwok in view of Fateh and further in view of Edwards; and claims 44, 50 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Kwok in view of Fateh and further in view of Kvietok have been fully considered, however new grounds of rejection are presented above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) citing Lima (‘918) and 35 U.S.C. 101 (due to effective broadening of claims 32 and 37); and 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Lima (‘918) in view of Fateh in light of the amendments; see rejection supra.
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 CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights