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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 13-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 11/03/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al., US20190216967 (hereafter Turner).
Regarding claim 1,
A fragrance dispenser comprising: (Fig. 2 in Turner)
a housing having a socket portion (Fig. 2)
and defining a single receptacle configured to receive a single bottle (Fig. 2)
having a fragrance-producing liquid therein (Fig. 2 teaches volatile composition 32 inside bottle 28. Paragraph [27] teaches “The terms “volatile materials,” “aroma,” “fragrance,” and “scents,” as used herein, include, but are not limited to pleasant or savory smells, and, thus, also encompass materials that function as insecticides, air fresheners, deodorants, aromacology, aromatherapy, insecticides, or any other material that acts to condition, modify, or otherwise charge the atmosphere or to modify the environment.”)
and a wick extending therefrom; (Fig. 2)
a single heater disposed proximate to the single receptacle so that, when the single bottle is received within the single receptacle, the single heater is disposed proximate to the wick, (Fig. 2)
wherein the single heater has a variable power output; (Fig. 8 teaches power of the heater varies from a minimum of 30% to a maximum of about 55% with time. )
and a controller in electrical communication with the single heater, (Paragraph [83] teaches “The volatile composition dispenser may comprise a microprocessor” )
wherein the controller is configured to control the power output of the single heater; (Paragraph [84] teaches “The evaporative assistance elements, such as a heater or fan, may be programmed to operate in various operational conditions.”)
and a user input device, (Paragraph [83] teaches “If desired, the microprocessor may be connected to a user interface.”)
wherein the controller is configured to receive an input from the user input device (Paragraph [83] teaches “The microprocessor can allow the user to program and control the temperature profile by modulation to alter performance. If desired, the microprocessor may be connected to a user interface.”)
that is indicative of a selected heat profile of a plurality of heat profiles, (Paragraph [76] teaches “LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH settings, for example, that a user can set either directly on the volatile composition dispenser or remotely through a remote control (computer, phone, etc). A device may have one, two, three, four, five, six, or more different intensity settings. The settings may be labeled as an intensity (i.e. HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, etc.) or room-type (i.e. bathroom, bedroom, living, kitchen, etc.).”)
each heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles including a respective power output sequence in which power outputs are provided by the single heater; (Paragraph [84] teaches “the evaporative assistance elements may be configured to have various discrete emission periods, gaps in emission of any evaporative assistance elements, varying energy profiles over time, randomized energy profiles, simultaneous emission periods, and combinations thereof.”)
wherein the controller is configured to control the power output of the single heater in accordance with the selected heat profile, (Paragraph [96] teaches “In order to achieve constant, substantially constant, increasing, or variable evaporation rates, the energy applied to the evaporative surface by the evaporative assistance element can be varied to achieve the desired evaporation profile over the total emission program.” Here evaporative assistance element corresponds to the heater.)
and wherein the plurality of heat profiles comprises: a first heat profile consisting of a first power output and a second power output that is greater than the first power output, wherein the power output sequence of the first heat profile is: the second power output followed by the first power output followed by the second power output followed by the first power output; (Paragraph [156] of the original disclosure describes “Thus, in various exemplary aspects, each heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles can include a respective power output sequence (which can be associated with a corresponding voltage sequence). In some aspects, the power output sequence can be repeated. In addition to the exemplary power output sequences depicted in FIGS. 38A-38C, it is contemplated that other power output sequences (and corresponding temperature and/or voltage output sequences) can be used within a given heat profile.” Paragraph [156] further describes “In various aspects, it is contemplated that the power output sequence for a given heat profile can be selectively modified by a user to make use of any number of different power outputs. More generally, it is contemplated that the power output sequence of one or more heat profiles can include or consist of, starting from an initial power output, a sequence of an increased power output (and increased temperature and/or voltage) followed by a decreased power output (and decreased temperature and/or voltage), with repeats (if any) producing an up and down pattern. Similarly, it is contemplated that the power output sequence of one or more heat profiles can comprise or consist of, starting from an initial power output, a sequence of a decreased power output (and decreased temperature and/or voltage) followed by an increased power output (and increased temperature and/or voltage), with repeats (if any) producing a down and up pattern.” Thus, the original disclosure does not describe any criticality associated with the claimed heat profile.
The claim is interpreted as a heat profile with a sequence of higher power followed by lower power.
Paragraph [84] in Turner teaches “The evaporative assistance elements, such as a heater or fan, may be programmed to operate in various operational conditions. As will be discussed in more detail below, the evaporative assistance elements may be configured to have various discrete emission periods, gaps in emission of any evaporative assistance elements, varying energy profiles over time, randomized energy profiles, simultaneous emission periods, and combinations thereof. Each of these methods of operation, either alone or in combination, may promote user noticeability of the volatile composition and/or reduce the likelihood of short-term or long-term habituation of the volatile composition.” Fig. 18 in Turner teaches heater power is varied with respect to time. Here power of heater corresponds to heat profile in the instant claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
340
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 18 in Turner
Even though Turner is silent about a sequence consisting of the second power output followed by the first power output followed by the second power output followed by the first power output, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heat profile as taught in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to operate “the evaporative assistance elements with varying energy over a total emission program, including energy boost periods, and extended emission periods of decreased or maintained energy” as taught in abstract in Turner. It is further noted that the original disclosure does not describe any criticality of the claimed profile.
MPEP 2144.05-II teaches ““[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)”.)
“a second heat profile consisting of the first power output, the second power output, and a third power output that is greater than the second power output, wherein the power output sequence of the second heat profile is: the third power output followed by the first power output followed by the second power output followed by the third power output; (Paragraph [156] of the original disclosure describes “Thus, in various exemplary aspects, each heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles can include a respective power output sequence (which can be associated with a corresponding voltage sequence). In some aspects, the power output sequence can be repeated. In addition to the exemplary power output sequences depicted in FIGS. 38A-38C, it is contemplated that other power output sequences (and corresponding temperature and/or voltage output sequences) can be used within a given heat profile.” Paragraph [156] further describes “In various aspects, it is contemplated that the power output sequence for a given heat profile can be selectively modified by a user to make use of any number of different power outputs. More generally, it is contemplated that the power output sequence of one or more heat profiles can include or consist of, starting from an initial power output, a sequence of an increased power output (and increased temperature and/or voltage) followed by a decreased power output (and decreased temperature and/or voltage), with repeats (if any) producing an up and down pattern. Similarly, it is contemplated that the power output sequence of one or more heat profiles can comprise or consist of, starting from an initial power output, a sequence of a decreased power output (and decreased temperature and/or voltage) followed by an increased power output (and increased temperature and/or voltage), with repeats (if any) producing a down and up pattern.” Thus, the original disclosure does not describe any criticality associated with the claimed heat profile.
The claim is interpreted as a heat profile with a sequence of higher power and lower power.
Paragraph [84] in Turner teaches “The evaporative assistance elements, such as a heater or fan, may be programmed to operate in various operational conditions. As will be discussed in more detail below, the evaporative assistance elements may be configured to have various discrete emission periods, gaps in emission of any evaporative assistance elements, varying energy profiles over time, randomized energy profiles, simultaneous emission periods, and combinations thereof. Each of these methods of operation, either alone or in combination, may promote user noticeability of the volatile composition and/or reduce the likelihood of short-term or long-term habituation of the volatile composition.” Fig. 18 in Turner teaches heater power is varied with respect to time. Here power of heater corresponds to heat profile in the instant claim.
Even though Turner is silent about a sequence consisting of the third power output followed by the first power output followed by the second power output followed by the third power output, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heat profile as taught in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to operate “the evaporative assistance elements with varying energy over a total emission program, including energy boost periods, and extended emission periods of decreased or maintained energy” as taught in abstract in Turner. It is further noted that the original disclosure does not describe any criticality of the claimed profile.
MPEP 2144.05-II teaches ““[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)”.)
and a third heat profile consisting of the second power output and the third power output, wherein the power output sequence of the third heat profile is: the third power output followed by the second power output followed by the third power output followed by the second power output. (Paragraph [156] of the original disclosure describes “Thus, in various exemplary aspects, each heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles can include a respective power output sequence (which can be associated with a corresponding voltage sequence). In some aspects, the power output sequence can be repeated. In addition to the exemplary power output sequences depicted in FIGS. 38A-38C, it is contemplated that other power output sequences (and corresponding temperature and/or voltage output sequences) can be used within a given heat profile.” Paragraph [156] further describes “In various aspects, it is contemplated that the power output sequence for a given heat profile can be selectively modified by a user to make use of any number of different power outputs. More generally, it is contemplated that the power output sequence of one or more heat profiles can include or consist of, starting from an initial power output, a sequence of an increased power output (and increased temperature and/or voltage) followed by a decreased power output (and decreased temperature and/or voltage), with repeats (if any) producing an up and down pattern. Similarly, it is contemplated that the power output sequence of one or more heat profiles can comprise or consist of, starting from an initial power output, a sequence of a decreased power output (and decreased temperature and/or voltage) followed by an increased power output (and increased temperature and/or voltage), with repeats (if any) producing a down and up pattern.” Thus, the original disclosure does not describe any criticality associated with the claimed heat profile.
The claim is interpreted as a heat profile with a sequence of lower power and higher power.
Paragraph [84] in Turner teaches “The evaporative assistance elements, such as a heater or fan, may be programmed to operate in various operational conditions. As will be discussed in more detail below, the evaporative assistance elements may be configured to have various discrete emission periods, gaps in emission of any evaporative assistance elements, varying energy profiles over time, randomized energy profiles, simultaneous emission periods, and combinations thereof. Each of these methods of operation, either alone or in combination, may promote user noticeability of the volatile composition and/or reduce the likelihood of short-term or long-term habituation of the volatile composition.” Fig. 18 in Turner teaches heater power is varied with respect to time. Here power of heater corresponds to heat profile in the instant claim.
Even though Turner is silent about a sequence consisting of third power output followed by the second power output followed by the third power output followed by the second power output , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heat profile as taught in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to operate “the evaporative assistance elements with varying energy over a total emission program, including energy boost periods, and extended emission periods of decreased or maintained energy” as taught in abstract in Turner. It is further noted that the original disclosure does not describe any criticality of the claimed profile.
MPEP 2144.05-II teaches ““[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)”.)
Regarding claim 2,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 1, wherein each heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles differs from every other heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles in at least one of: number of different power outputs within the heat profile; average power output over the course of the heat profile; power output at the end of the heat profile; total duration of the heat profile; duration of respective power outputs within the heat profile; or sequence of power outputs within the heat profile. (The claim is interpreted as the power level and duration are varied in a heat profile.
Fig. 18 in Turner teaches an energy profile wherein power to the heater is varied with time. Paragraph [98] teaches “The energy applied to the evaporative surface can either be increased; decreased, or maintained at any given point within the total emission program. It has been found that a total emission program having a combination of extended emission periods of increased energy (“energy boost”), decreased energy, and/or maintained energy provides improved consumer acceptance of a volatile composition dispenser over commercially available volatile composition dispensers.” )
Regarding claim 6,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 1, wherein, within each heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles, each of the respective power outputs has a duration ranging from 90 minutes to four hours. (Paragraph [90] in Turner teaches “The discrete emission period for each evaporative assistance element in a volatile composition dispenser may be in the range of 2 minutes to 48 hours, alternatively 5 minutes to 48 hours, alternatively 10 minutes to 48 hours, alternatively 15 minutes to 48 hours, alternatively 20 minutes to 24 hours, alternatively 30 minutes to 8 hours, alternatively 45 minutes to 4 hours.” Here the claimed range of 90 minutes to 4 hours overlaps the range taught in prior art, and thus obvious.
MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth that “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”
Regarding claim 7,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 6, wherein, within each heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles, each of the respective power outputs has an equal duration. (Paragraph [156] of the original disclosure describes “Thus, in various exemplary aspects, each heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles can include a respective power output sequence (which can be associated with a corresponding voltage sequence). In some aspects, the power output sequence can be repeated. In addition to the exemplary power output sequences depicted in FIGS. 38A-38C, it is contemplated that other power output sequences (and corresponding temperature and/or voltage output sequences) can be used within a given heat profile.” Paragraph [156] further describes “In various aspects, it is contemplated that the power output sequence for a given heat profile can be selectively modified by a user to make use of any number of different power outputs. More generally, it is contemplated that the power output sequence of one or more heat profiles can include or consist of, starting from an initial power output, a sequence of an increased power output (and increased temperature and/or voltage) followed by a decreased power output (and decreased temperature and/or voltage), with repeats (if any) producing an up and down pattern. Similarly, it is contemplated that the power output sequence of one or more heat profiles can comprise or consist of, starting from an initial power output, a sequence of a decreased power output (and decreased temperature and/or voltage) followed by an increased power output (and increased temperature and/or voltage), with repeats (if any) producing a down and up pattern.” Thus, the original disclosure does not describe any criticality associated with the claimed heat profile.
Paragraph [84] in Turner teaches “The evaporative assistance elements, such as a heater or fan, may be programmed to operate in various operational conditions. As will be discussed in more detail below, the evaporative assistance elements may be configured to have various discrete emission periods, gaps in emission of any evaporative assistance elements, varying energy profiles over time, randomized energy profiles, simultaneous emission periods, and combinations thereof. Each of these methods of operation, either alone or in combination, may promote user noticeability of the volatile composition and/or reduce the likelihood of short-term or long-term habituation of the volatile composition.” Fig. 18 in Turner teaches heater power is varied with respect to time. Here power of heater corresponds to heat profile in the instant claim.
Even though Turner is silent about a sequence consisting of equal durations, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heat profile as taught in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to operate “the evaporative assistance elements with varying energy over a total emission program, including energy boost periods, and extended emission periods of decreased or maintained energy” as taught in abstract in Turner. It is further noted that the original disclosure does not describe any criticality of the claimed profile.
MPEP 2144.05-II teaches ““[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)”.)
Regarding claim 14,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 1, wherein at least one heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles has an inactive cycle during which the controller provides a minimum value of voltage to the heater. (Paragraph [169] in Turner teaches “The total emission program may include gap periods where all evaporative assistance elements of a volatile composition dispenser are turned OFF (“gap periods”).”)
Regarding claim 15,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 1, wherein the user input device is a momentary switch that is actuatable via a button. (Paragraph [83] in Turner teaches “Examples of types of user interfaces include, but are not limited to LCD screens and LEDs, buttons (push buttons or buttons that move side-to-side), dials, and the like.”)
Regarding claim 16,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver in communication with the controller and configured to communicate with a remote computing device. (Paragraph [83] in Turner teaches “In addition, the microprocessor enables components to allow multiple volatile composition dispensers (such as those located in different parts of a room, or in different rooms), to communicate with each other. For example, the microprocessor can enable a remote control to send digital signals via an infrared beam to turn another volatile composition dispenser ON or OFF.” It is implied that the microprocessor and dispensers comprise transceiver to remotely communicate with each other.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cornelius et al., US 20140374402 (hereafter Cornelius), and Plug-in, https://scentfill.com/blogs/air-freshener-plug-in-refill-blog/methods-pros-and-cons-of-deodorizing-commercial-bathrooms, Sep 2020 (hereafter Plug-in).
The fragrance dispenser of claim 1, wherein the first power output ranges from 1.5 W to 2.0 W, wherein the second power output ranges from 2.0 W to 2.4 W, and wherein the third power output ranges from 2.4 W to 3.0 W. (Turner is silent about this.
Fig. 1 in Cornelius teaches that output power increases in a PWM circuit as duty cycle of the circuit increases from 10% to 90%.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the controller with PWM signals as taught in Cornelius to the dispenser in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “there is provided a power-saving method and system for efficiently heating an eye-shield apparatus wherein the eye-shield apparatus further comprises a PWM system for regulating power from the power source to the heater” as taught in paragraph [49] in Cornelius.
However, primary combination of references is silent about power output ranges.
Plug-in teaches that a plug-in warmer uses 5 watts of power. Combining the teachings from Cornelius and Plug-in, output power is changed from 0.5 watt to 4.5 watt by varying duty cycle of PWM circuit. Here the claimed ranges overlap the ranges taught in prior art. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”
PNG
media_image2.png
819
1867
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Plug-in
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the output power from 1.5W to 2W, 2W to 2.4W, and 2.4W to 3W as taught in Plug-in to the dispenser in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Plug-in warmers use little power when plugged into a standard 110W outlet as taught in page 2 of Plug-in.)
Claim(s) 17-18, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cornelius.
Regarding claim 17,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 1, wherein, within each heat profile of the plurality of heat profiles, the controller is configured to vary the power output of the single heater by delivering a pulse-width-modulated electrical voltage to the single heater, (Turner is silent about this limitation.
Cornelius teaches in paragraph [49] “through use of the pulse-width modulator, provide for varying coordinated duty cycles to power multiple resistive regions of the eye-shield.” Here the resistive regions correspond to resistance heaters.)
wherein the first power output is caused by delivering to the single heater the pulse-width-modulated electrical voltage having a first duty cycle, (Paragraph [87] in Cornelius teaches “where the PWM circuit connected to a 12-volt battery is 40% on and 60% off, one might say that the PWM signal represents a 12-volt PWM circuit at 40% power.” Fig. 1 teaches that output power increases in a PWM circuit as duty cycle of the circuit increases.)
PNG
media_image3.png
495
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Cornelius
wherein the second power output is caused by delivering to the single heater the pulse-width-modulated electrical voltage having a second duty cycle that is greater than the first duty cycle, (Paragraph [87] in Cornelius teaches “where the PWM circuit connected to a 12-volt battery is 40% on and 60% off, one might say that the PWM signal represents a 12-volt PWM circuit at 40% power.” Fig. 1 teaches that output power increases in a PWM circuit as duty cycle of the circuit increases.)
and wherein the third power output is caused by delivering to the single heater the pulse-width-modulated electrical voltage having a third duty cycle that is greater than the first and second duty cycles. (Paragraph [87] in Cornelius teaches “where the PWM circuit connected to a 12-volt battery is 40% on and 60% off, one might say that the PWM signal represents a 12-volt PWM circuit at 40% power.” Fig. 1 teaches that output power increases in a PWM circuit as duty cycle of the circuit increases.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the controller with PWM signals as taught in Cornelius to the dispenser in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because paragraph [49] in Cornelius teaches “there is provided a power-saving method and system for efficiently heating an eye-shield apparatus wherein the eye-shield apparatus further comprises a PWM system for regulating power from the power source to the heater.”
Regarding claim 18,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 17, wherein the first duty cycle ranges from 5% to 40%, the second duty cycle ranges from 35% to 75%, and the third duty cycle ranges from 70% to 100%. (Paragraph [68] in the original disclosure describes that “the controller can output PWM electrical voltage at a plurality of different duty cycles, such as, for example and without limitation, two, three, four, five, or more different duty cycles. In exemplary aspects, the controller can output PWM electrical voltage at three different duty cycles. For example, the controller can output PWM electrical voltage with a duty cycle of 25%, 50%, or 100%, respectively corresponding with low, medium, and high settings. However, it is contemplated that other duty cycles can be used. For example, the low setting can correspond to a duty cycle ranging from about 10% to about 40%, the medium setting can correspond to a duty cycle ranging from about 35% to about 75%, and the high setting can correspond to a duty cycle ranging from about 70% to about 100%, with the duty cycle of the medium setting being greater than the duty cycle of the low setting and the duty cycle of the high setting being greater than the duty cycle of the medium setting.” Thus, the original disclosure does not describe any criticality of the claimed ranges.
Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Paragraph [87] in Cornelius teaches “where the PWM circuit connected to a 12-volt battery is 40% on and 60% off, one might say that the PWM signal represents a 12-volt PWM circuit at 40% power.” Fig. 1 teaches that output power increases in a PWM circuit as duty cycle of the circuit increases from 10% to 100%.
MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth that “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the controller with PWM signals as taught in Cornelius to the dispenser in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because paragraph [49] in Cornelius teaches “there is provided a power-saving method and system for efficiently heating an eye-shield apparatus wherein the eye-shield apparatus further comprises a PWM system for regulating power from the power source to the heater.”)
Regarding claim 22,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 1, further comprising a memory that stores the plurality of heat profiles.(Turner is silent about this.
Cornelius teaches in paragraph [131] “responsive to an input from the more or less heat switch 1106, the microcontroller 1128 adjusts power to the eye-shield heater driver 1136 according to a predetermined profile contained in microcontroller memory 1130 and which controls the duty cycle signal on each individual PWM channel in a manner consistent with the size, shape and electrical resistivity of each associated heating element 1118, 1120, 1122 to provide power density balancing.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the memory with profiles as taught in Cornelius to the dispenser in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to provide power density balancing” as taught in paragraph [131] in Cornelius.)
Regarding claim 23,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 22, wherein the controller comprises the memory. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Cornelius teaches in paragraph [131] “responsive to an input from the more or less heat switch 1106, the microcontroller 1128 adjusts power to the eye-shield heater driver 1136 according to a predetermined profile contained in microcontroller memory 1130 and which controls the duty cycle signal on each individual PWM channel in a manner consistent with the size, shape and electrical resistivity of each associated heating element 1118, 1120, 1122 to provide power density balancing.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the memory with profiles as taught in Cornelius to the dispenser in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to provide power density balancing” as taught in paragraph [131] in Cornelius.)
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Porchia et al., US 20090162253 (hereafter Porchia).
Regarding claim 19,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 1, further comprising an indicator that shows the selected heat profile. (Turner is silent about this.
Porchia teaches in paragraph [70] “As the intensity level is varied, an intensity of the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 may be varied. In particular, if the diffuser 130 is set at a highest intensity level, the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their highest intensity level, if the diffuser 130 is set at a lowest intensity level, the LEDS and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their lowest intensity level, and for any intensity levels in between, the LEDs and/or light sources 182, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at respective intensity levels.” It is implied that different scent intensity corresponds to different power intensity.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the lights and controller as taught in Porchia to the dispenser in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In particular, if the diffuser 130 is set at a highest intensity level, the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their highest intensity level, if the diffuser 130 is set at a lowest intensity level, the LEDS and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their lowest intensity level, and for any intensity levels in between, the LEDs and/or light sources 182, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at respective intensity levels” as taught in paragraph [70] in Porchia.)
Regarding claim 20,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 19, further comprising a plurality of status lights that are configured to emit light based on the selected heat profile. (Turner is silent about this.
Porchia teaches in paragraph [70] “As the intensity level is varied, an intensity of the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 may be varied. In particular, if the diffuser 130 is set at a highest intensity level, the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their highest intensity level, if the diffuser 130 is set at a lowest intensity level, the LEDS and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their lowest intensity level, and for any intensity levels in between, the LEDs and/or light sources 182, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at respective intensity levels.” It is implied that different scent intensity corresponds to different power intensity.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the lights and controller as taught in Porchia to the dispenser in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In particular, if the diffuser 130 is set at a highest intensity level, the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their highest intensity level, if the diffuser 130 is set at a lowest intensity level, the LEDS and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their lowest intensity level, and for any intensity levels in between, the LEDs and/or light sources 182, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at respective intensity levels” as taught in paragraph [70] in Porchia.)
Regarding claim 21,
The fragrance dispenser of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of status lights that are configured to emit light based on the selected heat profile, (Turner is silent about this.
Porchia teaches in paragraph [70] “As the intensity level is varied, an intensity of the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 may be varied.”)
wherein the plurality of status lights comprises first, second, and third status lights, (Porchia teaches in paragraph [70] “As the intensity level is varied, an intensity of the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 may be varied.”)
wherein the first status light emits light when the first heat profile is the selected heat profile, wherein the second status light emits light when the second heat profile is the selected heat profile, and wherein the third status light emits light when the third heat profile is the selected heat profile. (Porchia teaches in paragraph [70] “As the intensity level is varied, an intensity of the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 may be varied. In particular, if the diffuser 130 is set at a highest intensity level, the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their highest intensity level, if the diffuser 130 is set at a lowest intensity level, the LEDS and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their lowest intensity level, and for any intensity levels in between, the LEDs and/or light sources 182, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at respective intensity levels.” It is implied that different scent intensity corresponds to different power intensity.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the lights and controller as taught in Porchia to the dispenser in Turner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In particular, if the diffuser 130 is set at a highest intensity level, the LEDs and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their highest intensity level, if the diffuser 130 is set at a lowest intensity level, the LEDS and/or light sources 182a, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at their lowest intensity level, and for any intensity levels in between, the LEDs and/or light sources 182, 182b, 189a, 189b, 201a, 201b, and/or 203 associated with the activated heaters 152a, 152b are illuminated at respective intensity levels” as taught in paragraph [70] in Porchia.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/02/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 13-23 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant amended claim 1 to include “heat profile consisting of” and argued that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
The applicant’s arguments against anticipation of Turner is moot because current office action relies on obviousness of Turner as discussed above.
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights