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
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 3/13/2026. Claims 24-43 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 24-30, 32, and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govindan et al. (EP 3682910 A1) in view of Goodsell et al. (US 20160008504 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Govindan discloses an odor dial assembly (Fig. 5) comprising:
a dial body (housing 10) comprising:
a cartridge (base 14);
a base formed, at least in part, by the cartridge (Fig. 2A, bottom of cartridge 14 = base);
a top formed, at least in part, by the cap (Fig. 2A, cap 12 forms a top); and
one or more sidewalls extending between the base and the top (Fig. 5, sidewalls 26 extends between base and top);
a cap (12) configured to be removably coupled to the cartridge to at least partially form a fragrance cavity (cavity between 12, base 14), and
a fragrance puck (Fig. 2A, perfume body 2 + intensity selector 20) including a fragrance body including a material infused with a fragrance (Fig. 2A, 20) and a passageway (22) extending through the fragrance body, the passage including a through hole (22) surrounded by the fragrance body (20) and having a passage entrance (Fig. 5, 22) and a passage outlet (Fig. 5, 22) aligned with the entrance (Fig. 5, 18/52) and the outlet (Fig. 5, 18/50),
wherein the odor dial assembly further comprises an unobstructed entrance (Fig. 5, 18/52, Fig. 3A, entrance is capable of being unobstructed in a full intensity configuration [0026-0027]) and an unobstructed outlet (Fig. 5, 18/50; Fig. 3A, entrance is capable of being unobstructed in a full intensity configuration [0026-0027]) to the fragrance cavity, the entrance and the outlet each also having a fixed cross-sectional size (Fig. 5, entrance and outlet have fixed size across the cross section in the horizontal plane); and
wherein, the fragrance puck is configured to be received within the fragrance cavity (Fig. 2A, puck 2 within cavity between 12, 14) and secured to the dial body such that the passageway of the fragrance body is aligned with the entrance of the odor dial assembly to form a fragrance passageway extending through the dial body and the fragrance puck (Fig. 1, passageway 22 aligned with entrance 18/52 and exit opening 18/50 extends through dial body 10 and exposes fragrance body 2), and wherein movement of the dial body results in a corresponding movement of the fragrance puck (para 0040-0044).
Govindan fails to teach wherein the fragrance body comprises a through hole surrounded by a material infused with the fragrance. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with optimizing the rate of mass diffusion from the fragrance body to the air, motivating them to turn towards Goodsell.
Goodsell teaches a fragrance delivery device [abstract] including a fragrance body infused with a fragrance polymer (Fig. 1, 10, [0002, 00016]) with a plurality of airflow apertures (30) configured to enable air to flow past the body [0030] and direct the fragrance towards an optimal direction from the fragrance body [0004].
Goodsell is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the fragrance dispensing and deodorization arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fragrance body as taught by Govindan with the porous fragrance body as taught by Goodsell to increase mass diffusion of the fragrance to the air passing through the pores and optimally direct the air through the dial body as taught by Govindan and this involves the substitution of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 25, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 24, wherein the cartridge includes:
one or more by-pass skirts extending downwardly from the base (Govindan, Fig.3A, open-wall section 164 below base 12, para 0042);
one or more by-pass entrances and by-pass exits forming an air by-pass flow path (Govindan, Fig. 5, open-wall section 164, para 0042); and
one or more divider walls separating the one or more by-pass entrances and by-pass exits (Govindan, Fig. 5, non-open wall 166).
Regarding claim 26, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 25, wherein the one or more by-pass skirts extend around at least a portion of a periphery of the base of the cartridge (Govindan, Fig. 5, open-wall section 164).
Regarding claim 27, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 26, wherein the one or more by-pass skirts extend around only a portion of a bottom of the cartridge (Fig. 5, open-wall section 164).
Regarding claim 28, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 24, wherein the odor dial assembly further includes one or more resilient detent levers (Govindan, Fig. 5, planar portion 23) configured to engage one or more detent grooves (Govindan, Fig. 5, shroud 16, para 0047) formed in an odor dial receptacle tray (odor dial tray understood to be space enclosed by cap 12, base 14, selector 20) , wherein an interaction between the one or more detent grooves and the one or more detent levers corresponds to different strength positions of the odor dial assembly relative to the odor dial receptacle tray (Govindan, Fig 5, indicia 122 on cap 12 corresponding to a range of position of the dial, para 0040).
Regarding claim 29, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 25, wherein the entrance includes an entrance width and an entrance height, wherein the entrance height varies across the entrance width (Govindan, Fig. 5, open-wall section 164, shroud edge 168; para 0042).
Regarding claim 30, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 25, wherein the entrance includes an entrance width and an entrance height, wherein the entrance height is less proximate one or more of ends of the entrance width than in between the ends of the entrance width (Govindan, Fig. 5, open-wall section 164, shroud edge 168; possible embodiment according to para 0042).
Regarding claim 32, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 29, wherein the passageway of the fragrance puck has a cross-section that corresponds to a cross-section of the entrance (Govindan, Fig. 2A, cross section of passageway 20 aligned with entrance 18/52 and exposes fragrance body 2).
Regarding claim 41, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 24, wherein the cap (Govindan, 12) includes one or more ribs (124) configured to extend downwardly from a top surface of the cap (12) (see Fig. 5, support posts 124) into the fragrance cavity.
Regarding claim 42, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 41, wherein the one or more ribs (Govindan, 124) are configured to generally limit movement of the fragrance puck (2) within the fragrance cavity (para 0040).
Regarding claim 43, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 41, wherein the one or more ribs (Govindan, 124) are configured to prevent the fragrance puck from being inserted upside down (i.e. Govindan discloses that ribs (124) extending from the cap (12) are for supporting the exterior edge at the top of the fragrance puck (Figs. 2A, 5, 12-13,15) within sleeve (24) and rear housing portion (14). Therefore, the ribs would not be able to secure the smaller width of the bottom of the puck if placed upside down, as the diameters of the two ends of sleeve (24) are not the same).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govindan et al. (EP 3682910 A1) in view of Goodsell et al. (US 20160008504 A1), as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Santini et al. (US 20160144064 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 30, but does not explicitly teach wherein the entrance height is larger proximate a middle of the entrance than the ends of the entrance width.
Santini discloses a fragrance delivery device (100) comprising a housing (110) configured to receive a fragrant cartridge (310) and permeate the fragrance through an absorbent medium (210) to an external environment (para 0015). Santini discloses a pattern of elliptical and triangular apertures on the sidewall of top member (112) exposed to the external environment to promote fluid communication with an external environment (para 0039) as shown in Figs. 1-2, 2-3C, 4-5 (See “Figure 1: Santini Annotated Fig. 4” below) wherein it appears the entrance height is larger proximate a middle of apertures/openings/entrances than the ends of the aperture/opening/entrance width. Santini also discloses the apertures may take a variety of shapes and designs for that allow for the dissemination of fragrance to the environment (para 0038), understood to encompass any shape that allows air to flow around a fragrant medium, which also includes an embodiment wherein an entrance height is larger [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Santini Annotated Fig. 4 )]
PNG
media_image1.png
363
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
proximate a middle of the entrance than the ends of the entrance width.
Santini is considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are drawn to apparatuses for the treatment of air. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the odor dial assembly as taught by Modified Govindan to include the apertures as taught by Santini since Santini teaches the apertures to promote communication of fragrance to an external environment and this involves the combination of elements (the odor dial assembly of Govindan and the ovular slits of Santini) to yield a predictable result (increasing permeation of a fragrance medium to an external environment).
Claim(s) 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govindan et al. (EP 3682910 A1) in view of Goodsell et al. (US 20160008504 A1), as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Suhajda (US 4703155 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Modified Govindan does not explicitly disclose the odor dial assembly of claim 24, wherein the cap further includes a ledge configured to form a seal with an odor dial receptacle tray.
Suhajda discloses an electric fogging device (Fig. 1, 10) comprising a container (14) and a cap (18) secured to the container with a closure seal to prevent escape of fog from in between the container and the closure seal into the housing of the fogging device (col 4, lines 56-66), wherein said fog may comprise an air freshener (col 3, lines 1-5). Suhajda further discloses that container (14) has a lip (24) configured to engage with an annular ledge (34) on cap (18) to form a closure seal preventing the escape of fog from the container (14) (col 3, lines 6-16; Figs. 2-4).
Suhajda is considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are drawn to apparatuses for dispensing volatile materials in air. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as taught by Modified Govindan to include the annular ledge as taught by Suhajda as Suhajda teaches the annular ledge to form a seal to prevent leakage between the cap and the fog container and this involves the combination of elements (the cap of Govindan and the annular ledge of Suhajda) to yield a predictable result (sealing odor dial assembly to force airflow through entrance and exit around the fragrance puck as discussed above).
Regarding claim 34, Modified Govindan teaches the odor dial assembly of claim 33, wherein the ledge extends generally radially outwardly away from the one or more sidewalls of the cartridge when the cap is coupled to the cartridge (Suhajda, Figs. 2-4, annular ledge 34 extends from sidewalls when cap 18 is coupled to the cartridge).
Claim(s) 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Govindan et al. (EP 3682910 A1) in view of Goodsell et al. (US 20160008504 A1), as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Withers (US 20090218413 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Modified Govindan does not explicitly disclose the odor dial assembly of claim 24, wherein the cap further includes one or more locking grooves configured to engage with one or more locking protrusions associated with an odor dial receptacle tray.
Withers discloses an embodiment of an odor dial assembly (para 0099-0100; Figs.13-20, dispenser 240), wherein locking protrusions (266), are formed in a sidewall of a cap (244) while locking grooves (268) are formed in a sidewall of the odor dial receptacle tray (base 242, shell 248).
Withers is considered analogous to the claimed invention as both are drawn to odor dial assemblies for deodorizing air. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the odor dial assembly as disclosed by Modified Govindan to include the locking protrusions and locking grooves as taught by Withers because Withers teaches the grooves to secure the odor dial cap to the odor dial receptacle tray with only a partial rotation, retaining the fragrance container (250) (para 0100) and this is involves the combination of elements (the odor dial assembly of Govindan and the locking grooves and locking protrusions of Withers) to yield a predictable result (securing the fragrance component).
It would have also been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the locking grooves to be located on the sidewall of the cap and the locking protrusions to be located on the sidewall of the odor receptacle tray as the reversal of each component would still allow for the cap to be engaged with the odor dial receptacle tray, retaining the original function of the locking mechanism. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A) and 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Regarding claim 36, Modified Govindan teaches the odor dial assembly of claim 35, wherein the one or more locking grooves (Withers, 268) are configured to urge the odor dial assembly into engagement with the odor dial receptacle tray (Withers, base 242) to generally seal the odor dial assembly (Withers, container 252, lids 246, cap 244, rim 262) to the odor dial receptacle tray (Withers, base 242, shell 248) while also allowing the odor dial assembly to rotate (Withers, Figures 13-15, para 0100-0102).
Regarding claim 37, Modified Govindan teaches the odor dial assembly of claim 36, wherein at least a portion of the one or more locking grooves (Withers, 268) has a ramped profile (Withers, Fig. 20 shows ramped protrusion 266, which implies corresponding thread 268 is also ramped; para 0100). See MPEP 2144.01.
Regarding claim 38, Modified Govindan teaches the odor dial assembly of claim 35, but does not teach that the one or more locking grooves (Withers, 268) are formed in a sidewall of the cap (Withers, 244) that generally extends around at least a portion of a periphery of a top surface of the cap, since Withers discloses that the one or more locking protrusions (266), are formed in a sidewall of the cap that generally extends around a portion of the periphery of a top surface of the cap (para 0100) while the one or more locking grooves (formed in between 268) are formed in a sidewall of the odor dial receptacle tray (base 242, shell 248).
However, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the locking grooves to be located on the sidewall of the cap and the locking protrusions to be located on the sidewall of the as the reversal of each component would still allow for the cap to be engaged with the odor dial receptacle tray, retaining the original function of the locking mechanism. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A) and 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Regarding claim 39, Modified Govindan discloses the odor dial assembly of claim 35, wherein the one or more locking grooves (Withers, 268) includes a plurality of locking grooves, wherein each locking groove includes a locking groove entrance arranged asymmetrically about the cap such that the locking groove entrances only align with the locking protrusions (Withers, 266) in a single orientation. Withers discloses the locking grooves (268) as discussed above wherein the locking grooves (268) are provided as asymmetrical portions rather than a continuous thread (para 0100) to fully engage the odor dial receptacle tray (Fig. 1, base 242, shell 248) with only a partial rotation, implying this orientation is the only configuration that would allow for the interlocking. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 39. The locking groove entrances as taught by Modified Govindan above in claim 39 are all the same size and shape. One having ordinary skill in the art would have no obvious motivation to modify the locking groove entrances to be different shapes and/or sizes of prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 40 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on page 8 of the amendment, filed 3/13/2026, the Applicant argues that neither Govindan nor Goodsell teach an odor dial assembly which includes an unobstructed entrance and an unobstructed outlet to the fragrance cavity, the entrance and outlet each also having a fixed cross-sectional size with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that if the entrance (Fig. 9-10, 906) and exit (Fig. 9-10, 1108) as shown in the drawings filed 9/2/2025 can be interpreted as unobstructed, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the same interpretation to the entrance (Fig. 5, 18/52) and outlet (Fig. 5, 18/50) of Govindan. The entrance and exit as taught by Govindan are selectively obstructed and unobstructed based on the position of the intensity selector (Fig. 5, 20), therefore a configuration exists where the entrance and exit are completely unobstructed to allow a strong intensity of fragrance to be diffused from the fragrance cavity (Fig. 3A, entrance and exit are capable of being unobstructed in a full intensity configuration [0026-0027]). Further, the entrance and exit as taught by Govindan have a fixed cross-sectional size (Fig. 5, entrance and outlet have fixed size across the cross section in the horizontal plane).
However, the rejection has been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Govindan and Goodsell. See rejection 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 NEBYATE S SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights