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 .
This is a response to applicant’s amendment filed on October 15, 2025. Claims 1-4, 6, 9-12 and 14-15 have been amended. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 16-20 have been added. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) of Claims 10-12 and 14-15 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102 of Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102 of Claim 5 has been withdrawn in view of cancellation of claim 5.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103 of Claims 2, 13 and 15 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10, 12 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Language inconsistency.
Claim 6 recites: “…wherein at least one of the holding devices has a rubber cap…” Language consistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 6 as reciting: “…wherein at least one of the two or more holding devices has a rubber cap…”
Claim 10 recites: “…wherein at least one of the holding devices has a rubber cap…” Language consistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 10 as reciting: “…wherein at least one of the one or more holding devices has a rubber cap…”
Claim 12 recites: “…wherein at least one of the holding devices has a rubber cap…” Language consistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 12 as reciting: “…wherein at least one of the one or more holding devices has a rubber cap…”
Claim 19 recites: “…wherein at least one of the holding devices has a rubber cap…” Language consistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 19 as reciting: “…wherein at least one of the two or more holding devices has a rubber cap…”
Claim 20 recites: “…wherein at least one of the holding devices has a rubber cap…” Language consistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 20 as reciting: “…wherein at least one of the two or more holding devices has a rubber cap…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/900415 in view of Guggenheim, R. (WO2015/179992A1, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Guggenheim).
Claim 1 of copending application 17/900415 contains substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 1 of instant invention except:
one or more coupling devices arranged on the housing, two or more holding devices, wherein each of the two or more holding devices can be coupled and decoupled from the one or more coupling devices, wherein the first holding device and the second holding device are structurally shaped differently, wherein each of the first holding device and the second holding device are configured to separately be coupled to one of the one or more coupling devices.
However, Guggenheim teaches a scenting device (#1) for a vehicle comprising a housing (#3), a scent container (#2) arranged in the housing (#3), one or more coupling devices (#4, #14) arranged on the housing (#3), two or more holding devices (#5, #25 in spec., but shown as #20 in figure 6) for attaching configured to attach the scenting device to a ventilation in the interior of the vehicle, wherein each of the two or more holding devices (#5, #25 in spec., but shown as #20 in figure 6) are configured to be coupled to and decoupled from the one or more coupling devices (#4, #14) wherein the two or more holding devices (#5, #25 in spec., but shown as #20 in figure 6) include a first holding device (#5) and a second holding device (#25), wherein the first holding device (#5 umbrella shaped attachment formed of rubber-elastic material) and the second holding device (#25 clip-like) are structurally shaped differently, wherein each of the first holding device (#5) and the second holding device (#25) are configured to separately be coupled to one of the one or more coupling devices (#4, #14) (see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0007], [0011], [0023], [0026]-[0027] and [0029]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify claim 1 of copending application 17/900415 to further include one or more coupling devices arranged on the housing, two or more holding devices, wherein each of the two or more holding devices can be coupled and decoupled from the one or more coupling devices, wherein the first holding device and the second holding device are structurally shaped differently, wherein each of the first holding device and the second holding device are configured to separately be coupled to one of the one or more coupling devices, as claimed in claim 1 of instant application, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Guggenheim teaches a scenting device for a vehicle comprising a housing, a scent container arranged in the housing, one or more coupling devices arranged on the housing, two or more holding devices for attaching configured to attach the scenting device to a ventilation in the interior of the vehicle, wherein each of the two or more holding devices are configured to be coupled to and decoupled from the one or more coupling devices, wherein the two or more holding devices include a first holding device and a second holding device, whereby the first holding device and the second holding device are structurally shaped differently, and each of the first holding device and the second holding device are configured to separately be coupled to one of the one or more coupling devices, whereby these designs allow for good packaging of the fragrance device and quick assembly after purchase for mounting in the vehicle (see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0007], [0011], [0023], [0026]-[0027] and [0029]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 3-4 and 10-18 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 3 recites: “…wherein the one or more coupling device and the one or more holding devices…” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. Since claim 1 discloses “two or more holding devices” it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the two or more holding devices of claim 1 or if applicant meant to recite “two or more holding devices”.
Claim 4 recites: “…wherein the each of the one or more coupling devices comprises a frame and each of the one or more holding devices comprises a flat plate configured such that the flat plate of each of the one or more holding devices is configured to be slid under the frame of a corresponding one of the one or more coupling devices for coupling…” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. Since claim 1 discloses “two or more holding devices” it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the two or more holding devices of claim 1 or if applicant meant to recite “two or more holding devices”.
Claim 10 recites: “…one or more coupling devices arranged on the housing, one or more holding devices configured to attach the scenting device to a ventilation in the interior of the vehicle, wherein the holding device is configured to be coupled to and decoupled from the coupling device…” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to which holding device is configured to be coupled to and decoupled from which coupling device, since now claim 10 recites one or more coupling devices and one or more holding devices.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 10 as reciting: “…one or more coupling devices arranged on the housing, one or more holding devices configured to attach the scenting device to a ventilation in the interior of the vehicle, wherein one of the one or more holding devices is configured to be coupled to and decoupled from one of the one of more coupling devices…”
Claim 11 recites: “…wherein at least one of said holding devices comprises a spreader element…” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. Is applicant referring to another holding device from the one or more holding devices?
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret clam 11 as reciting: “…wherein another of the at least one or more of the holding devices comprises a spreader element…”
Claim 12 recites: “…one or more coupling devices arranged on the housing, one or more holding devices configured to attach the scenting device to a ventilation in the interior of the vehicle, wherein the holding device is configured to be coupled to and decoupled from the coupling device…” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to which holding device is configured to be coupled to and decoupled from which coupling device, since now claim 12 recites one or more coupling devices and one or more holding devices.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 12 as reciting: “…one or more coupling devices arranged on the housing, one or more holding devices configured to attach the scenting device to a ventilation in the interior of the vehicle, wherein one of the one or more holding devices is configured to be coupled to and decoupled from one of the one of more coupling devices…”
Claim 12 recites: “…wherein at least one of said holding devices comprises a spreader element…” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. Is applicant referring to another holding device from the one or more holding devices?
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret clam 12 as reciting: “…wherein another of the at least one or more of the holding devices comprises a spreader element…”
Claim 12 recites: “…wherein the holding device is configured to be coupled to the rubber cap and the holding device is configured to be coupled to the spreader element on all coupling devices.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. Is applicant referring to a holding device coupled to the rubber cap and the spreader element simultaneously or is applicant referring to two different holding devices coupled to the rubber cap and spreader element, respectively? Further, it is unclear as to what applicant refers to in the limitation regarding “on all coupling devices”. Is applicant referring to wherein any or both of the one or more holding devices coupled to the rubber cap and/or the one or more holding devices coupled to the spreader element, is configured to be coupled on all coupling devices?
Claim 13 recites: “…wherein exactly three coupling devices are arranged on the housing and one of the three coupling devices is arranged in the middle between the other two outer coupling devices, in particular wherein only the coupling device arranged in the middle is coupled to one of the at least one holding device or only the two outer coupling devices is coupled to one of the at least one holding device.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
Claim 13 recites: “…wherein exactly three coupling devices are arranged on the housing and one of the three coupling devices is arranged in the middle between the other two outer coupling devices, in particular wherein only the coupling device arranged in the middle is coupled to one of the at least one holding device or only the two outer coupling devices is coupled to one of the at least one holding device.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. In regards to “the middle between the other two outer coupling devices”, there is no mention previously in claim 1 of positions of the at least one or more coupling devices. Therefore, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In regards to “the at least one holding device” limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. Since claim 1 discloses “two or more holding devices” it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the two or more holding devices of claim 1 or if applicant meant to recite “two or more holding devices”.
Claim 14 recites: “…wherein the coupling device in the middle is coupled to the holding device with the spreader element, and in particular no holding device is coupled to the two outer coupling devices.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. In regards to “the coupling device in the middle” and “no holding device is coupled to the two outer coupling devices”, there is no mention previously in claim 12 of positions of the at least one or more coupling devices. Therefore, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, in regards to the limitation which includes the phrase “in particular…”, this limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
Claim 15 recites: “…wherein the coupling device in the middle is coupled to the holding device with the spreader element, and in particular no holding device is coupled to the two outer coupling devices.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
Claim 16 recites: “…wherein the two outer coupling devices are each coupled to one of the holding devices with the rubber cap, and in particular no holding device is coupled to the middle coupling device.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. In regards to “the two outer coupling devices are each coupled to one of the holding devices with the rubber cap” and “no holding device is coupled to the middle coupling device”, there is no mention previously in claim 12 of positions of the at least one or more coupling devices. Therefore, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, in regards to the limitation which includes the phrase “in particular…”, this limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
Claim 17 recites: “…wherein the two outer coupling devices are each coupled to one of the holding devices with the rubber cap, and in particular no holding device is coupled to the middle coupling device.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. In regards to “the two outer coupling devices are each coupled to one of the holding devices with the rubber cap” and “no holding device is coupled to the middle coupling device”, there is no mention previously in claim 13 of positions of the at least one or more coupling devices. Therefore, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, in regards to the limitation which includes the phrase “in particular…”, this limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
Claim 18 recites: “…wherein at least one of said holding devices comprises a spreader element…” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. Is applicant referring to another holding device from the one or more holding devices?
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret clam 18 as reciting: “…wherein another of the at least one or more of the holding devices comprises a spreader element…”
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, 3, 6, 8-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Guggenheim, R. (WO2015/179992A1, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Guggenheim).
In regards to Claim 1, Guggenheim discloses a scenting device (#1) for a vehicle comprising:
a housing (#3) (see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0021] and [0023]),
a scent container (#2) arranged in the housing (#3) (see figures 1-6 and paragraph [0023]),
one or more coupling devices (#4, #14) arranged on the housing (#3) (see figures 1-6 and paragraph [0026]),
two or more holding devices (#5, #25 in spec., but shown as #20 in figure 6) for attaching configured to attach the scenting device to a ventilation in the interior of the vehicle (see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0029]),
wherein each of the two or more holding devices (#5, #25 in spec., but shown as #20 in figure 6) are configured to be coupled to and decoupled from the one or more coupling devices (#4, #14) (see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0029]),
wherein the two or more holding devices (#5, #25 in spec., but shown as #20 in figure 6) include a first holding device (#5) and a second holding device (#25), wherein the first holding device (#5 umbrella shaped attachment formed of rubber-elastic material) and the second holding device (#25 clip-like) are structurally shaped differently, wherein each of the first holding device (#5) and the second holding device (#25) are configured to separately be coupled to one of the one or more coupling devices (#4, #14) (see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0029]).
In regards to Claim 3, Guggenheim discloses wherein the one or more coupling devices (#4, #14) and the two or more holding devices (#5, #25) are adapted such that they couple with one another in the form of a snap fit (see figures 1-6).
In regards to Claim 6, Guggenheim discloses wherein at least one (#5) of the two or more holding devices has a rubber cap, wherein the rubber cap is adapted to be clamped between two slats of the ventilation and/or wherein the rubber cap is removable from holding device (see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0026]-[0028]).
In regards to Claim 8, Guggenheim discloses wherein the rubber cap has an outer surface, a base surface and an upper surface opposite the base surface (see figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
325
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 9, Guggenheim discloses wherein a groove is arranged on the upper surface of the rubber cap and/or wherein two upper edges running parallel are arranged on the upper surface of the rubber cap, wherein the two upper edges each have a rectilinear section (see figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
353
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 19, Guggenheim discloses wherein at least one of the two or more holding devices (#5) has a rubber cap, wherein the rubber cap is adapted to be clamped between two slats of the ventilation (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0026]-[0028]).
In regards to Claim 20, Guggenheim discloses wherein at least one of the holding devices (#5) has a rubber cap, wherein the rubber cap is removable from the holding device (#5) (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0026]-[0028]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guggenheim in view of Bennett et al. (US Pat. No. 11,059,353, hereinafter Bennett).
In regards to Claim 4, Guggenheim discloses the scenting device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the each of the one or more coupling device comprises a frame and each one of the two or more holding devices comprises a flat plate configured such that the flat plate of each one of the two or more holding devices is configured to be slid under the frame of a corresponding one of the one or more coupling devices for coupling, wherein the each flat plate has at least one protrusion which engages in gaps of the frame in the coupled position.
However, Bennett teaches an air freshener (#100) for a vehicle comprises housing (#102) having scented beads (#104) contained within the housing (#102), one coupling device (#112 receiver slot) arranged on the housing (#102), and a mounting clip (#106), i.e. holding device, for attaching the housing to a vehicle air vent (see figures 6-10 and column 1, lines 34-38). Benner further teaches two mounting clips (#6, #106) with two different fasteners which fit into the different shapes of coupling devices of the different housings (#10, #100 respectively) and both mounting clips (#6, #106) are configured to separately be coupled to the coupling device (#54, #112) (see figures 5 and 6).
Bennet further teaches wherein the one or more coupling devices (#112) comprises a frame (U-shaped receiving slot) and one of the mounting clips (#106), i.e. one of the holding devices, comprises a flat plate (#118) configured such that the flat plate (#118) of one of the mounting clips (#106) is configured to be slid under the frame of a corresponding one of the one or more coupling devices (#112) for coupling, wherein the each flat plate (#118) has at least one protrusion which engages in gaps of the frame in the coupled position (see figures 6-10 and column 5, lines 1-35).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the scenting device as disclosed by Guggenheim by substituting a known coupling device and a known holding device for another known coupling device and known holding device such as wherein the coupling device comprises a frame and each one of the two or more holding devices comprises a flat plate configured such that the flat plate of each one of the two or more holding devices is configured to be slid under the frame of a corresponding one of the one or more coupling devices for coupling, wherein the each flat plate has at least one protrusion which engages in gaps of the frame in the coupled position, as claimed by the applicant, as Bennett teaches an air freshener comprising a housing having scented beads contained within the housing, one coupling device arranged on the housing, and a mounting clip, i.e. holding device, for attaching the housing to a vehicle air vent, wherein the air freshener further includes two mounting clips with two different fasteners which fit into the different shapes of coupling devices of the different housings and both mounting clips are configured to separately be coupled to the coupling device, whereby the one or more coupling devices comprise a frame (U-shaped receiving slot) and one of the mounting clips comprises a flat plate configured such that the flat plate of one of the mounting clips is configured to be slid under the frame of a corresponding one of the one or more coupling devices for coupling, wherein the each flat plate has at least one protrusion which engages in gaps of the frame in the coupled position, thereby obtaining an air freshener device which can be clipped to the air vent of any vehicle (see figures 6-10 and column 5, lines 1-35).
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guggenheim et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0051344, hereinafter ‘344).
In regards to Claim 1, ‘344 discloses a scenting device (#1) for a vehicle comprising:
a housing (#2) (see figures 1-7 and paragraph [0028]),
a scent container (#5) arranged in the housing (#2) (see figures 1-7 and paragraph [0028]),
one or more coupling devices (#17 pins) arranged on the housing (#2) (see figures 1-7 and paragraph [0039]),
two or more holding devices (two holding devices #4 with clamping part #6) configured to attach the scenting device (#1) to a ventilation in the interior of the vehicle (see figures 1-7 and paragraphs [0029], [0031], [0039] and [0046]),
wherein each of the two or more holding device (two holding devices #4 with clamping part #6) are configured to be coupled to and decoupled from the one or more coupling devices (#17 pins) (see figures 1-7 and paragraphs [0039] and [0046]),
wherein the two or more holding devices (two holding devices #4 with clamping part #6) include a first holding device (holding device #4 with clamping part #6) and a second holding device (holding device #4 with clamping part #6), and each of the first holding device and the second holding device are configured to separately be coupled to one of the one or more coupling devices (#17 pins) (see figures 1-7 and paragraphs [0039] and [0046]).
‘344 further discloses the holding device (#4) comprising at least one clamping part (#6), i.e. two or more holding devices, is configured so as to be able to be introduced in a holding manner into a ventilation slot of a vehicle. That is, the dimensions of the elliptical or circular cross-section of the clamping part (#6) are selected depending on the dimensions, in particular the width, of the ventilation slot in such a way that the deodorization device (#1) is able to be mounted to the ventilation slot when the at least one clamping part (#6) is inserted/introduced into the ventilation slot and is retained thereby said clamping part (#6) in a holding manner (see paragraph [0029]). The at least one clamping part (#6) is preferably embodied as a separate part of the deodorization device (#1) which can be connected to the deodorization device (#1) preferably in a detachable manner. Thus, multiple clamping parts of varying dimensions, in particular varying cross-sections, can be made available to the user having a deodorization device, wherein the multiple clamping parts (for example, three clamping parts) are designed for three different widths of ventilation slots. The user then has the functional advantage of being able to use the same deodorization device in his passenger vehicle, van or truck, which normally have ventilation slots of different widths, by exchanging the one or more clamping parts (see paragraph [0046]).
Since ‘344 clearly discloses the dimensions of the elliptical or circular cross-section of the clamping part #6 are selected depending on the dimensions of the ventilation slot, and that multiple clamping parts of varying dimensions can be made available to the user having the deodorization device, wherein the multiple clamping parts are designed for three different widths of ventilation slots, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that the first holding device and the second holding device are reasonably structurally shaped differently, in order to use the same deodorization device for different types of ventilation slots with different widths.
In regards to Claim 2, ‘344 discloses the scenting device as recited in claim 1. ‘344 discloses at least two coupling devices (#17 pins) arranged on the housing (#2), with which in each case one of the two holding devices (#4) can be coupled, in particular wherein the two coupling devices (#17 pins) are spaced apart from one another, and/or wherein inlet openings are provided between the at least two coupling devices (#17 pin), through which air can flow into the housing (see figures 1-7 and paragraphs [0030] and [0039]).
Examiner notes that although ‘344 does not explicitly disclose at least three coupling devices arranged on the housing and at least three holding devices, having another additional coupling device and another additional holding device is a mere duplication of parts and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 6, ‘344 further discloses wherein at least one of the two or more holding devices (#4 holding device with clamping part #6) has a rubber cap, wherein the rubber cap is adapted to be clamped between two slats of the ventilation, and/or wherein the rubber cap is removable from the holding device (#4) (see figures 1-7 and paragraphs [0009], [0029], [0039] and [0046]).
In regards to Claim 7, ‘344 discloses wherein the scenting device (#1) comprises at least two holding devices (#4) with the rubber caps, wherein the at least two holding device (#4) comprise rubber caps of different sizes (see paragraphs [0029] and [0046]; ‘344 discloses wherein the holding device (#4) comprising at least one clamping part (#6), i.e. two or more holding devices, is configured so as to be able to be introduced in a holding manner into a ventilation slot of a vehicle. That is, the dimensions of the elliptical or circular cross-section of the clamping part (#6) are selected depending on the dimensions, in particular the width, of the ventilation slot in such a way that the deodorization device (#1) is able to be mounted to the ventilation slot when the at least one clamping part (#6) is inserted/introduced into the ventilation slot and is retained thereby said clamping part (#6) in a holding manner. The at least one clamping part (#6) is preferably embodied as a separate part of the deodorization device (#1) which can be connected to the deodorization device (#1) preferably in a detachable manner. Thus, multiple clamping parts of varying dimensions, in particular varying cross-sections, can be made available to the user having a deodorization device, wherein the multiple clamping parts (for example, three clamping parts) are designed for three different widths of ventilation slots. The user then has the functional advantage of being able to use the same deodorization device in his passenger vehicle, van or truck, which normally have ventilation slots of different widths, by exchanging the one or more clamping parts. Since ‘344 clearly discloses the dimensions of the elliptical or circular cross-section of the clamping part #6 are selected depending on the dimensions of the ventilation slot, and that multiple clamping parts of varying dimensions can be made available to the user having the deodorization device, wherein the multiple clamping parts are designed for three different widths of ventilation slots, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that the at least two holding devices with the rubber caps comprise rubber caps of different sizes, as claimed by the applicant.).
Examiner’s Comments
In regards to Claim 10-18, not art rejection has been made for these claims, these have only been rejected under 35 USC § 112(b), as explained in the above office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Guggenheim (‘344) have been considered but are moot because Guggenheim (‘344) is now used under a different interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Wang have been considered but are moot because Wang is no longer used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774