DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 18 – 19, “and configuring the flexible small” should read --and is configured to cause the flexible smell generating device to be flexible--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is unclear as it raises what is being positively recited/claimed: conductive coil or a mechanical actuator.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one electrically conductive coil setting in oscillation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 17 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes et al (US 20190224445 A1, hereinafter Fernandes) in view of Fateh (US 20180286351 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fernandes teaches a flexible smell generating device for use on human skin comprising a multi-layered structure (“the subject inventions are directed to wearable skin-patches and related systems for determining and/or estimating and tracking a subject's sleep/wake patterns and circadian state, as well as for administering timed agents (e.g., stimuli) with the object of shifting and/or aligning the subject's circadian state”, [0056], Figure 1, [0013], [0015] – [0016], [0058], [0067], “patches disclosed herein may house a container [12] for storing such agents in either liquid/gel/foam form. A mechanism for actuating the container with electrical pulses may be used to control the delivery of the agents onto or into the skin of the subject”, [0073]), the multi-layered structure (Figure 1, [0013], [0015] – [0016], [0058], [0067], [0073]) comprising:
a plurality of electronic circuits (“a microcontroller, memory (for program and data storage), real-time clock, sensors, battery, antenna, and a means of communicating with and transfer data to the external world, which could be wired (e.g., USB, UART, CAN, SPI, I2C, etc.) or wireless (e.g., Bluetooth, BLE, RF, Zigbee, WiFi, RFID, etc.)”, [0058], [0067] – [0069]); and
a substrate (“Adhesive [11]”, Figure 1, [0067] – [0069]),
wherein the substrate (11) is arranged to be disposed as a most proximal layer to the human skin ([0068] – [0074]) and configured to secure the multi-layered structure to the human skin ([0071]), and
wherein the substrate (Fernandes: “edges [8] of the permeable fabric [7]”, [0069] and “Adhesive [11]”, [0071], Figure 1, [0067] – [0069]) is flexible and adhesive (Fernandes: “the adhesive sheet”, Figure 1, [0067] – [0069], [0071]) for to securing the multi-layered structure to the human skin (Fernandes: [0071]) and configuring the flexible smell generating device to be flexible (Fernandes: “the adhesive sheet”, Figure 1, [0067] – [0069], [0071]).
Fernandes does not teach one or more smell generating modules; one or more active cooling elements; wherein each of the one or more smell generating modules comprises at least one open channel and at least one chamber containing at least one phase change material incorporating one or more items selected from a scent-releasing substance, plural odorants and an inhalable content, and
wherein each of the one or more active cooling elements is controlled by a corresponding electronic circuit and is configured to actively cool a corresponding smell generating module upon activation by the corresponding electronic circuit.
However, Fateh discloses “the production of sensory stimuli and, more specifically, accessories for electronic devices that produce sensory stimuli to increase the realism of content presented by the electronic devices” ([0002]) and teaches:
one or more smell generating modules (“scent delivery system 202”, [0065] – [0066], abstract, [0037] - [0038], [0068] – [0070], Figures 2A - 4);
one or more active cooling elements (“fan 208”, [0069] – [0070], [0072], [0075], [0079], [0137], [0140], Figures 2A and 3);
wherein each of the one or more smell generating modules (202) comprises at least one open channel ([0069]) and at least one chamber (“reservoirs 206”, [0067], [0069] – [0075], Figures 2A - 4) containing at least one phase change material (“a scented material (e.g., liquid or air) stored in each of the reservoir(s) 206”, [0071], Figures 2A - 4) incorporating one or more items selected from ascent-releasing substance, plural odorants and an inhalable content (“a scented material (e.g., liquid or air) stored in each of the reservoir(s) 206”, [0071], Figures 2A - 4), and
wherein each of the one or more active cooling elements (208) is controlled by a corresponding electronic circuit ([0079] - [0080]) and is configured to actively cool a corresponding smell generating module (202) upon activation by the corresponding electronic circuit ([0079] – [0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes to incorporate one or more smell generating modules; one or more active cooling elements; wherein each of the one or more smell generating modules comprises at least one open channel and at least one chamber containing at least one phase change material incorporating one or more items selected from a scent-releasing substance, plural odorants and an inhalable content, and
wherein each of the one or more active cooling elements is controlled by a corresponding electronic circuit and is configured to actively cool a corresponding smell generating module upon activation by the corresponding electronic circuit, as taught by Fateh, for the benefit of “produc[ing] sensory stimuli to increase the realism of content” (Fateh: [0002]), enhancing experiences by introducing scents to a person (Fateh: [0004]), and inducing a desired reaction from a person (Fateh: abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Fernandes and Fateh teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Fernandes and Fateh teaches each of the smell generating modules (Fateh: “scent delivery system 202”, [0065] – [0066], abstract, [0037] - [0038], [0068] – [0070], Figures 2A - 4) further comprises at least one heating element (Fateh: “The heating element(s) 218 can be used to dispense the materials stored in the reservoir(s) 206 at certain temperatures or in certain forms.”, [0084]) for heating the at least one phase change material (Fateh: “a scented material (e.g., liquid or air) stored in each of the reservoir(s) 206”, [0071], Figures 2A - 4), and
at least one temperature sensing and control element (Fateh: “temperature sensor that generates temperature data”, [0085], [0084], [0140]) for sensing and controlling temperature variations of the smell generating module during said heating. The limitation “for sensing and controlling temperature variations of the smell generating module during said heating” is intended use. Since Fateh teaches the device includes a temperature sensor that generates temperature data (Fateh: [0085]) the device of Fernandes and Fateh is capable of performing the intended use as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Fernandes and Fateh teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Fernandes and Fateh teaches the multi-layered structure (Fateh: Figure 1, [0013], [0015] – [0016], [0056], [0058], [0067], [0073]) further comprises a plurality of electrical outputs (Fernandes: [0009], [0011], [0058] - [0059], [0070]) each communicating with the corresponding smell generating module (Fateh: “scent delivery system 202”, [0065] – [0066], abstract, [0037] - [0038], [0068] – [0070], Figures 2A - 4) individually to provide the corresponding smell generating module (Fateh: “scent delivery system 202”, [0065] – [0066], abstract, [0037] - [0038], [0068] – [0070], Figures 2A - 4) with an electric current at a switching frequency (Fernandes: “by applying low power electrical signals to the skin of the subject such that the signals propagate on the surface of the skin to the other patches”, [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes and Fateh such that the multi-layered structure further comprises a plurality of electrical outputs each communicating with the corresponding smell generating module individually to provide the corresponding smell generating module with an electric current at a switching frequency, as taught by Fernandes and Fateh, considering Fernandes discloses “patches and systems disclosed herein further include or comprise a vessel capable of storing various doses of an agent to be delivered transdermally to the subject by the one or more actuating device” (Fernandes: [0012], [0013]), “the agent is or comprises an olfactory agent” (Fernandes: [0016]) for the benefit of “improv[ing] sleep in populations that cannot or prefer not to use pharmaceutical interventions” (Fernandes: [0016]).Regarding claim 19, Fernandes and Fateh teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Fernandes and Fateh teaches a method of providing olfaction for a subject in immersive environments (Fateh: [0009] - [0010], [0035], [0062], [0068], [0089] - [0091], [0094] – [0095], [0151]), the method comprising:
attaching the flexible smell generating device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) on any part of skin of the subject (Fateh: [0036], “the user wear a helmet, goggles, or some other headwear that forms an enclosed area around the user's eyes”, [0062]; Examiner interprets the device is in contact with the skin of the subject when worn.);
connecting the flexible smell generating device (see claim 1 rejection above) to a master control device (Fateh: “the computing device used to view the visual content (e.g., on a head-mounted display (HMD) or a network-connected television)”, [0011]) capable of providing said immersive environments (Fateh: “a scent delivery system 400 that can be detachably connected to an HMD configured to display augmented or virtual reality content”, [0094]);
activating an electric heating element (Fateh: “heating element(s) 218”, [0084]) of the corresponding smell generating module (Fateh: “scent delivery system 202”, [0065] – [0066], abstract, [0037] - [0038], [0068] – [0070], Figures 2A - 4) within the smell generating device (see claim 1 rejection above) to heat a source of odors, scent, or inhalable content (Fateh: “a scented material (e.g., liquid or air) stored in each of the reservoir(s) 206”, [0071], Figures 2A - 4) upon receipt of an activation instruction from the master control device (Fateh: “heating element(s) 218 can be used to dispense the materials stored in the reservoir(s) 206 at certain temperatures or in certain forms”, [0084], [0012] – [0013], [0038], [0082], [0084], “Output signals could also be generated that induce activation/deactivation of […] a heating element (e.g., heating element 218 of FIG. 2)”, [0137]); and
actively cooling (Fateh: “fan 208”, [0069] – [0070], [0072], [0075], [0079], [0137], [0140], Figures 2A and 3) the source by an electromagnetic mechanism (Fateh: “The scent circuitry 214 (which may also be referred to as an “electronics module”, [0082]) can process data generated by each of the sensor(s) 212 and optimize the delivery of scented material(s) by the pump(s) 204.”, [0082], [0035]) upon receipt of a deactivation instruction from the master control device (Fateh: “the computing device used to view the visual content (e.g., on a head-mounted display (HMD) or a network-connected television)”, [0011]) (Fateh: [0012] – [0013], [0038], [0084], “Output signals could also be generated that induce activation/deactivation of a fan (e.g., fan 208 of FIG. 2)”, [0137]),
wherein the master control device is selected from portable or wearable virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality devices (Fateh: “the computing device used to view the visual content (e.g., on a head-mounted display (HMD) or a network-connected television)”, [0011]), and
wherein the subject is human (“human subject”, abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Fernandes and Fateh teach all limitations of claim 19. The modified invention of Fernandes and Fateh teaches the source of odors, scent or inhalable content (Fateh: “a scented material (e.g., liquid or air) stored in each of the reservoir(s) 206”, [0071], Figures 2A - 4) contains elements capable of providing therapeutic or mental benefits for the subject under the immersive environments in order to prevent, treat or alleviate neurological, psychological, psychiatric, cancerous, chronic inflammatory, and immuno-deficient or compromised diseases, and conditions or symptoms associated therewith (Fernandes: “the agent is or comprises an olfactory agent. […] The result of enhancing sleep, enhancing alertness, aligning the subject's circadian biology with the external environment is a system that improves sleep in populations that cannot or prefer not to use pharmaceutical interventions, shifting of timing of sleep, adjusting circadian phase, enhancing alertness, enhancing performance, reducing sleep onset latency, enhancing sleep consolidation and reducing variability in sleep patterns, adjusting mood and enhancing physiological processes. For example, olfactory agents can be automatically dispensed at specific times of day or specific times relative to sleep/wake to facilitate at least one action selected from the group consisting of sleep, wake, increased energy, and relaxation.”, [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes to incorporate the source of odors, scent or inhalable content, as taught by Fateh, for the benefit of enhancing experiences by introducing scents to a person (Fateh: [0004]) and “improv[ing] sleep in populations” (Fernandes: [0016]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes and Fateh, as applied in claim 2, in view of Wu et al (2018, NPL: U hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 3, Fernandes and Fateh teach all limitations of claim 2. The modified invention of Fernandes and Fateh does not teach the at least one heating element is a pair of serpentine-shaped electrodes.
However, Wu discloses a “conventional serpentine film heater thus to improve the temperature uniformity” (abstract) and teaches at least one heating element is a pair of serpentine-shaped electrodes (“serpentine heaters”, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes and Fateh to incorporate at least one heating element is a pair of serpentine-shaped electrodes, as taught by Wu, for the benefit of maximizing the surface area exposure.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes and Fateh, as applied in claim 2, in view of Yang et al (2018, NPL: V, hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 4, Fernandes and Fateh teach all limitations of claim 2. The modified invention of Fernandes and Fateh does not teach a pair of serpentine-shaped electrodes is made of a metal selected from gold, chromium, and copper.
However, Yang discloses “microheaters that can provide thermal stimuli in a series of small regions have received considerable attention in recent years” (abstract) and teaches a pair of serpentine-shaped electrodes is made of a metal selected from gold, chromium, and copper (“selectively electrodeposited copper defined by a 3D-printed mask is used as the electrode material”, left column, paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes and Fateh to incorporate a pair of serpentine-shaped electrodes is made of a metal selected from gold, chromium, and copper, as taught by Yang, considering “its low cost and scalability” (page 89, left column, paragraph 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes and Fateh, as applied in claim 2, in view of Junkel (US 6044202 A).
Regarding claim 5, Fernandes and Fateh teach all limitations of claim 2. The modified invention of Fernandes and Fateh teaches the at least one temperature sensing and control element (Fateh: “The heating element(s) 218 can be used to dispense the materials stored in the reservoir(s) 206 at certain temperatures or in certain forms.”, [0084]) but does not teach a thermistor.
However, Junkel discloses “deodorizing device for diffusing and dispersing a volume of a desired fragrant compound” (abstract) and teaches a thermistor (“thermistor 92”, column 7, line 20 - 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes and Fateh to incorporate a thermistor, as taught by Junkel, for the benefit of “achiev[ing] a desired level of diffusion of the fragrant compounds” (Junkel: abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes and Fateh, as applied in claim 1, in view of Edwards et al (US 20150048178 A1, hereinafter Edwards).
Regarding claim 6, Fernandes and Fateh teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Fernandes and Fateh teaches the at least one phase change material (Fateh: “a scented material (e.g., liquid or air) stored in each of the reservoir(s) 206”, [0071], Figures 2A - 4) but does not teach paraffin wax.
However, Edwards discloses a “system to provide scents includes a scent receiver” ([0002]) and teaches paraffin wax (“paraffin wax”, [0166]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes and Fateh to incorporate paraffin wax, as taught by Edwards, for the benefit of “making such an excellent choice for the scent media” as it “has a relatively low melting point and a naturally neutral scent” (Edwards: [0166]).
Claims 7 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes and Fateh, as applied in claim 1, in view of Quiring et al (US 20150048178 A1, hereinafter Quiring).
Regarding claim 7, Fernandes and Fateh teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Fernandes and Fateh teaches the one or more active cooling elements (“fan 208”, [0069] – [0070], [0072], [0075], [0079], [0137], [0140], Figures 2A and 3).
The modified invention of Fernandes and Fateh does not teach one or more electromagnetic actuators each comprising at least one electrically conductive coil and a magnet.
However, Quiring discloses “an air-cooled electrical machine comprising a rotor, including a rotor shaft and a field winding, a driver element, and a fan impeller, rotatably mounted on the rotor shaft” ([0002]) and teaches one or more electromagnetic actuators (Figure 2) each comprising at least one electrically conductive coil (“field winding 4”, [0033] – [0034]) and a magnet (“fan impeller 5 which is expediently composed of a magnetic or magnetized material”, [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes and Fateh to incorporate one or more electromagnetic actuators each comprising at least one electrically conductive coil and a magnet, as taught by Quiring, for the benefit of “ensur[ing] sufficient cooling” (Quiring: [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring teach all limitations of claim 7. The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring teaches the magnet (Quiring: magnet within the fan due to “fan impeller 5 which is expediently composed of a magnetic or magnetized material”, [0033], see annotated Quiring’s Figure 2 below) is positioned within a magnetic field (Quiring: “magnetic field 15”, [0033], see annotated Quiring’s Figure 2 below) generated by the at least one electrically conductive coil (Quiring: “field winding 4”, [0033] – [0034], see annotated Quiring’s Figure 2 below) when an electric current (Quiring: “current”, [0033]) is applied to the at least one electrically conductive coil (Quiring: 4) (see annotated Quiring’s Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring teach all limitations of claim 8. The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring teaches each of the smell generating modules (Fateh: “scent delivery system 202”, [0065] – [0066], abstract, [0037] - [0038], [0068] – [0070], Figures 2A - 4) has a first polymer layer (Fernandes: “transparent flexible film material, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET)”, [0067] - [0068], see annotated Fernandes’s Figure 1 below) having a cavity (Fernandes: [0068], see annotated Fernandes’s Figure 1 below), a second polymer layer (Fernandes: “a flexible sheet material [1], such as pyralux”, [0067], Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
374
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring does not explicitly teach the second polymer layer having a switch.
However, Fateh discloses “the production of sensory stimuli and, more specifically, accessories for electronic devices that produce sensory stimuli to increase the realism of content presented by the electronic devices” ([0002]) and teaches a layer with a switch (Fateh: “a mechanical switch on the scent delivery system”, [0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring to incorporate the second polymer layer having a switch, as taught by Fateh, for the benefit of “enabl[ing] the scent functionality” by the user (Fateh: [0135]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring, as applied in claim 9, in view of Wang (US 20070057752 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring teach all limitations of claim 9. The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring teaches the first polymer layer and second polymer layer. The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring does not teach the magnet is disposed within the cavity of a first layer while the at least one electrically conductive coil is attached to the switch of a second layer.
However, Wang discloses “a heat actuated switch comprises a substrate, a moveable element having at least one electrical contact associated therewith, a permanent magnet in the vicinity of the electrical contact” (abstract) and teaches a magnet (“Magnet 102 is any type of magnet such as a permanent magnet, an electromagnet, or any other type of magnet capable of generating a magnetic field”, [0085], Figures 1A – 1B) is disposed within a cavity of a first layer (Figure 1A) while the at least one electrically conductive coil (“conductor 114”, [0087]) is attached to the switch of a second layer (Figures 1A – 1B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring such that teach the magnet is disposed within the cavity of a first layer while the at least one electrically conductive coil is attached to the switch of a second layer, as taught by Wang, for the benefit of “permit[ing] bi-stability and minimize[ing] switching current” (Wang : [0008]) and “reliable, simple in design, low-cost and easy to manufacture” (Wang: [0009]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang, as applied in claim 10, in view of Ruan et al (US 20020021860 A1, hereinafter Ruan).
Regarding claim 11, Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang teach all limitations of claim 10. The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang does not teach the plurality of electronic circuits comprises a microcontroller unit configured to control open and close of the switch in order to control the electric current flowing through the at least one electrically conductive coil, thereby adjusting an oscillating frequency and amplitude thereof.
However, Ruan discloses “latching micro-magnetic switches with low power consumption and methods of formulating and operating micro-magnetic switches” ([0003]) and teaches the plurality of electronic circuits ([0040], Figures 1A – 1B) comprises a microcontroller unit (“Switching control may be provided by a control device such as a microcontroller, microprocessor”, [0065]) configured to control open and close of the switch in order to control the electric current ([0004], [0044], [0048], [0051], [0067]) flowing through at least one electrically conductive coil (“conductor 114”, [0040]), thereby adjusting an oscillating frequency and amplitude thereof (“a controller provides control signals in the form of electrical signals to electrodes 602 and 604 to create voltage differences as appropriate”, [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang such that the plurality of electronic circuits comprises a microcontroller unit configured to control open and close of the switch in order to control the electric current flowing through the at least one electrically conductive coil, thereby adjusting an oscillating frequency and amplitude thereof, as taught by Ruan, for the benefit of control the signals for the desired output (Ruan: [0010]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring, Wang and Ruan, as applied in claim 11, in view of Ball et al (US 6024717 A, hereinafter Ball).
Regarding claim 12, Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring, Wang and Ruan teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring, Wang and Ruan teaches a smell generating module (Fateh: “scent delivery system 202”, [0065] – [0066], abstract, [0037] - [0038], [0068] – [0070], Figures 2A - 4) and the corresponding smell generating module (Fateh: “scent delivery system 202”, [0065] – [0066], abstract, [0037] - [0038], [0068] – [0070], Figures 2A - 4).
The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring, Wang and Ruan does not teach the at least one electrically conductive coil setting in oscillation due to the electric current flowing therethrough acts as a mechanical actuator.
However, Ball discloses “applying an electrical drive signal to the coil, the housing can be oscillated to phonophoretically enhance delivery of medicament from the medicament transfer surface into tissue” (abstract) and teaches at least one electrically conductive coil setting in oscillation (“coil-magnet oscillatory drive”, column 3, lines 9 – 15; “an oscillatory driver which is connected to the coil and which produces the electrical drive signal”, column 3, lines 53 - 54) due to the electric current flowing therethrough acts as a mechanical actuator (“The use of such coil-magnet oscillatory drive assemblies is advantageous in a number of respects. First, the drivers may be oscillated at a wide range of frequencies depending primarily on the nature (frequency) of the electrical drive signal which is applied to the coil.”, column 3, lines 9 – 15; “an electrical signal is passed through a coil in a housing, where the coil vibrates a magnet suspended in the housing. Vibration of the magnet in turn causes inertial vibration of the housing”, column 5, lines 10 - 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring, Wang and Ruan to incorporate the at least one electrically conductive coil setting in oscillation due to the electric current flowing therethrough acts as a mechanical actuator, as taught by Ball, for the benefit of “enhance[ing] delivery of” agents for treating patients (Ball: abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring, Wang, Ruan and Ball teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring, Wang, and Tadano does not explicitly teach the mechanical actuator has a vibration frequency from 0 to about 10 Hz and a vibration amplitude from 0 to about 1.86 mm.
However, , Ball discloses “applying an electrical drive signal to the coil, the housing can be oscillated to phonophoretically enhance delivery of medicament from the medicament transfer surface into tissue” (abstract) and teaches a vibration frequency within a range of 10 kHz to 4 MHz (“The driver may comprise a simple oscillatory circuit which produces a single, continuous frequency, typically in the range from 10 kHz to 4 MHz”, column 58 - 60) and a vibration amplitude from of 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm (“amplitude of vibration (displacement) is typically in the range from 1 μm to 100 μm.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring, Wang, Ruan and Ball by making the impulse sequences ranging from 0 Hz to 10 Hz as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify vibration frequency and amplitude of the device of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring, Wang, and Tadano such as a vibration amplitude of 0 to 100 μm, as taught by Ball, for the benefit of “enhance[ing] delivery of” agents for treating patients (Ball: abstract). Furthermore, it has been held that “[i]n 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).” See MPEP 2144.05(I). Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring, as applied in claim 8, in view of Escalona et al (US 20180280708 A1, hereinafter Escalona).
Regarding claim 14, Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring teach all limitations of claim 8. The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh and Quiring does not teach the at least one electrically conductive coil is made of a metal selected from copper, silver and gold.
However, Escalona discloses “an external transmitter apparatus for a transcutaneous energy transfer (TET) system for supplying power for use in energising an implantable medical device in use, and a method of operating the same” ([0001]) and teaches at least one electrically conductive coil (“a pair of transmitter coils 17, 19”, [0220]) is made of a metal selected from copper, silver and gold (“spiral copper coils”, [0081], [0220]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang to incorporate the at least one electrically conductive coil is made of a metal selected from copper, silver and gold, as taught by the at least one electrically conductive coil is made of a metal comprising copper, silver and gold, for the benefit of “reducing bulk of the receiver coil” (Escalona: [0118]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang, as applied in claim 10, in view of Jurg et al (US 20160361494 A1, hereinafter Jurg).
Regarding claim 15, Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang teach all limitations of claim 10. The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang teaches the first polymer layer is made of polyethylene terephthalate (Fernandes: “transparent flexible film material, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET)”, [0067] - [0068]), the cavity (Fernandes: [0068], see annotated Fernandes’s Figure 1), and the first polymer layer ([0067] - [0068], see annotated Fernandes’s Figure 1) but does not teach the cavity is defined by a polydimethylsiloxane ring disposed on a layer.
However, Jurg discloses “a device or portable administering apparatus for administering a fluid product, in particular medical substances or a drug in liquid form” ([0002]) and teaches a cavity ([0062], Figures 2a, 3g, and 8 - 9) is defined by a polydimethylsiloxane ring (“seals 54, 57 and 58”, [0062], Figures 2a, 3g, and 8 - 9, [0077], “seal or O-ring 54 can for example be made of […] polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)”, [0078]) disposed on a layer (Figures 2a 3g, and 8 - 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang such that the cavity is defined by a polydimethylsiloxane ring disposed on a layer, as taught by [next source], for the benefit of “inhibiting the passage of liquids or water” (Jurg: [0077]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang, as applied in claim 10, in view of Saxena et al (2017, NPL: W, hereinafter Saxena).
Regarding claim 16, Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang teach all limitations of claim 10. The modified invention of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang teaches the second polymer layer is made of polyimide (Fernandes: “a flexible sheet material [1], such as pyralux”, [0067], Figure 1; Examiner pyralux to include polymide film as the website Dupont (NPL: X) defines.) but does not teach the switch is a cantilever.
However, Saxena discloses “a MEMS based RF switch Cantilever beam” (abstract) and teaches the switch is a cantilever (“cantilever switch”, page 10329, paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fernandes, Fateh, Quiring and Wang to incorporate the switch is a cantilever, as taught by Saxena, for the benefit of providing “greater flexibility and high switching speed” (Saxena: page 10329, paragraph 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 21 October 2025, with respect to specification objection has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendments. The specification objection of 11 August 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 21 October 2025, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objections for claim 7 – 8, 11, 17 and 19 of 11 August 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 21 October 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of 11 August 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 21 October 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of 11 August 2025 have been withdrawn except for the one below.
Claim 12 is unclear as it raises what is being positively recited/claimed: conductive coil or a mechanical actuator.
Applicant's arguments filed pages 13 - 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “Fernandes' device is built on a rigid subject, which is a portable device for smell generation. Instead, the device disclosed in the present invention is a flexible and wearable device. Lastly, Fernandes' device is targeted on improving sleep quality instead of VR applications. In view of the above comments, the flexible smell generating device as disclosed in the subject application contrasts Fateh's device and Fernandes' olfactory dispensing unit in that the disclosed flexible smell generating device is flexible while the other two are not. The flexibility of the disclosed flexible smell generating device is achieved by employing the substrate that is flexible. The Applicant respectfully submits that combining the teachings of Fernandes and Fateh would not motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to anticipate a smell generating device that is flexible.”.
However, Fernandes discloses wherein the substrate (Fernandes: “edges [8] of the permeable fabric [7]”, [0069] and “Adhesive [11]”, [0071], Figure 1, [0067] – [0069]) is flexible and is configuring the flexible smell generating device to be flexible (Fernandes: “the adhesive sheet”, Figure 1, [0067] – [0069], [0071]). See claim 1 rejection above. The claim requires the top assembly to be flexible (i.e. “the flexible smell generating device to be flexible”) thus if any component of the assembly is flexible this would read on the claim. Applicant should point out specifically what is flexible and how it would flex to potentially overcome the prior art of record.
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 JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791