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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5, 7-9, 17, 20-26, and 28 in the reply filed on 11/13/25 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 06/08/22 and 3/31/25 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Both have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, the NPL cited on the 3/31/25 IDS is not translated and all but the JP2014-092674 and CN107710748 documents on the 6/8/22 IDS lack translations.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 should recite “wherein [[a]] the third opening and the first opening are arranged symmetrically, wherein [[a]] the fourth opening and the second opening” for proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation "the strap part or the headband part" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that there is some strap or headband part.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 17, 20, 23-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2015/0283282).
Regarding claim 1, Kim (US 2015/0283282) discloses –
An odor presentation module (Title, Abstract; Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 21) comprising:
a first opening that first airflow containing an odor exits (see fig. 21, display 10 has a first opening, emission port 16, from which fragrance is emitted; par. 117); and
a second opening that second airflow exits (the second of the plurality of emission ports 16, shown in fig. 21; pars. 119-120 disclose air being discharged through the emission ports 16), wherein
the first opening and the second opening are provided so that movement of the first airflow exiting the first opening is able to be controlled by the second airflow (the air out of any of the ports 16 would affect and therefore reasonably be said to at least in part control the air out of any of the other respective ports 16; par. 123 discloses a mixing outside of the housing 20). The device disclosed by Kim is well capable of performing this function and is reasonably expected to do so, see MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further teaches the odor presentation module includes a first airflow generation device (open air inlet 82 receives air from nozzle 52 to create the airflow, par. 91), and an odor carrying portion that carries the odor (fig. 21, the solid fragrance sources 90 in container main body 80 both read on an odor carrying portion; par. 87), and
the odor presentation module is configured such that airflow generated by the first airflow generation device and the odor included in the odor carrying portion form the first airflow (par. 91).
Regarding claim 3, Kim further teaches a second airflow generation device, wherein the second airflow generation device generates the second airflow (each of the cartridges 14 is provided with an open air inlet 82 from which air is delivered from a source).
Regarding claim 4, Kim further teaches that the first airflow is injected from the first opening (an airflow is created at the outlet of port 16, par. 123).
Regarding claim 5, Kim further teaches the first airflow and the second airflow come into contact with each other outside the odor presentation module (par. 21 and par. 123 disclose that mixing of the airflows outside the housing is a function of the device).
Regarding claim 7, Kim further teaches the first opening is in front of the second airflow generation device in a traveling direction of the second airflow (the opening 16 is ahead of the air supply port 54 and therefore is in front of it in that direction, see fig. 4 and 21).
Regarding claim 8, Kim further teaches the device is configured to be able to change the flow velocity of at least one of the first airflow and the second airflow (par. 93 discloses an adjusting of the drive rate of the airflow source 26).
Regarding claim 9, Kim further teaches the device is configured to be able to change a direction of the second airflow to a direction into the second opening (Fig. 21, the airflow must enter into the second opening 16 from the direction of air discharge port 50, reading on this limitation).
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses –
An odor presentation device (Title, Abstract; Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 21) comprising:
an odor presentation module (main body 20 and the interior components thereof) including
a first opening that first airflow containing an odor exits (first of the plurality of emission ports 16), and
a second opening that second airflow exits (second of the plurality of emission ports 16),
the first and second openings being provided so that movement of the first airflow exiting the first opening is able to be controlled by the second airflow (the air out of any of the ports 16 would affect and therefore reasonably be said to at least in part control the air out of any of the other respective ports 16; par. 123 discloses a mixing outside of the housing 20 - the device disclosed by Kim is well capable of performing this function and is reasonably expected to do so, see MPEP 2114, II); and
a housing configured to hold the odor presentation module (housing 20).
Regarding claim 20, Kim further teaches a third opening that third airflow containing an odor exits; and
a fourth opening that fourth airflow exits (figs. 21-22 show a plurality of openings that are equivalent to the first and second as set forth above and would further read on the claimed limitation of a third and fourth), wherein
the third opening and the fourth opening are provided so that movement of the third airflow exiting the third opening is able to be controlled by the fourth airflow (similar to the first and second openings, the airflow out of any of the openings 16 would mix with and dictate the flow characteristics of the airflow out of any of the other openings; par. 123), wherein
a third opening and the first opening are arranged symmetrically, wherein a fourth opening and the second opening are arranged symmetrically (Fig. 22 shows symmetrically placed openings on a hexagonally shaped plate).
Regarding claim 23, Kim further teaches the first opening is outside the second opening (Figs. 21 and 22 best show the openings 16 as distinct from one another).
Regarding claim 24, Kim further teaches the odor carrying portion is configured to spray scents that match a scene of a video while the video is being watched by a user (par. 67 disclose the emission is intended to match with audio-visual experiences such as a video or video game).
Regarding claim 25, Kim further teaches the odor carrying portion is configured to generate wind (the outlets 16 produce a flow of air which would read on the limitation of generating wind, par. 123).
Regarding claim 26, Kim further teaches the odor presentation module includes a plurality of odor carrying portions that carry the odor (fig. 21, there are a plurality of fragrance source cartridges 14 that carry fragrance; par. 69), and the plurality of odor carrying portions include the odor carrying portion (the solid fragrance sources 90 and main body 80 are located within the plurality of fragrance source cartridges 14).
Regarding claim 28, Kim further teaches at least one connection terminal which is configured to connect to a smartphone (pars. 67 and 91 disclose the device operates in tandem with a mobile phone that sends instructions to the device, which would require at least one wired or wireless connection for interfacing with said mobile device which would read on the limitation of a terminal).
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.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2015/0283282) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Edwards (US 2015/0048178)
Regarding claim 21, Kim is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to a strap or headband part.
Edwards (US 2015/0048178) discloses an olfactory sensation system (title) including a strap or headband part (Figs. 2a-b cables 118a, 118b; par. 134). 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 disclosed by Kim such that it includes some strap or headband part as disclosed by Edwards to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to conveniently allow for portable olfactory experiences that are synced to audio-visual presentations from devices like smartphones as disclosed as desirable by Kim (par. 67) to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 22, Kim is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to a strap or headband part.
Edwards (US 2015/0048178) discloses an olfactory sensation system (title) including a strap or headband part (Figs. 2a-b cables 118a, 118b; par. 134). 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 disclosed by Kim such that it includes some strap or headband part as disclosed by Edwards to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to conveniently allow for portable olfactory experiences that are synced to audio-visual presentations from devices like smartphones as disclosed as desirable by Kim (par. 67) to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding the limitation that the second opening is closer to the strap part or the headband part than the first opening: both the emission portions 16 disclosed by Kim are identical in structure and function and as shown in Edwards (see figs. 1a-b and 4a-b) one of the openings that reads on the second opening is closer to the strap 118 than another different opening that can read on the first opening, therefore meeting the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758