Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP21194248.7, filed on 09/01/2021.
3. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
4. Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/31/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
6. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “5” has been used to designate both the outlet opening slots and the directional arrow of the sliding container in Figure 4.
7. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference character mentioned in the description: “114”. Section 69 of the specification states “The sliding container 11 is thereby moved back and forth in the direction of the double arrow 114 shown in Fig. 4.” Examiner suggests to relabel the directional arrow of the sliding container from “5” to “114” in Figure 4.
8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
9. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “by a sliding movement sliding device” appears grammatically incorrect. Examiner interprets this as a typo and suggest to correct the phrase to “by a sliding movement of the sliding device.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
11. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
12. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
13. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
14. Claim limitations “scenting device,” “holding device,” and “sliding device” in claims 1, 2, and 5 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder "device" coupled with functional language "scenting,” “holding,” and “sliding” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
15. Because these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claims 1, 2, and 5 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
16. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations “scenting device” and “holding device.” Examiner notes the “scenting device” corresponds to the reference character 1 in the drawings of the disclosure as discussed in paragraph 40 of the specification: “Figures 1 to 4 show a scenting device 1 according to the invention for a vehicle.” Examiner notes the “holding device” corresponds to the reference character 4 in the drawings of the disclosure as discussed in paragraph 40 of the specification: “The scenting device 1 has holding devices 4.”
17. Reviewing the specification for the corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation “sliding device” reveals no such specific structure. While paragraphs 65 through 71 describes the purpose of the “sliding device,” the specific structural features are not disclosed here nor in other areas of the specification. Further, the drawings provide no more clarity as to the corresponding structure of the “sliding device.” Because the structure is not described in the disclosure, the examiner reasonably interprets the corresponding structure of the “sliding device” to the best of their ability. Examiner notes that the corresponding structure of the “sliding device” is interpreted to be both the sliding container 11 and the scent container 3 together.
18. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
19. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
20. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “by means of a housing cover” and “by means of a rotary hinge” in claim 13.
21. Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
22. If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
23. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
24. Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is unclear as to what the “sliding device” is as the corresponding structure is not specified in the specification nor the drawings. While paragraphs 65 through 71 of the specification describe the purpose of the sliding device, there is no specific structure described here nor elsewhere in the disclosure. All that is known from the disclosure is that “A sliding device with a sliding container 11 is arranged inside the housing 2” (67). There are questions of whether the sliding device contains the sliding container, just entails the walls of the sliding container, or is something else entirely. Because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail, specifically the structure of the “sliding device”, the inventor lacks possession of the claimed invention.
25. 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.
26. Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
27. Regarding claims 1, 12-13, and 15, the use of the phrase “can be” or “can only be” makes it unclear whether the action is required for the invention, and the scope of the claim is indefinite.
28. Regarding claims 1, 8, 10, and 15, the use of the term “and/or” makes it unclear whether both limitations or just one are required for the invention, and the scope of the claim is indefinite.
29. Regarding claim 1, the arrangement of the scent container is unclear as it is described to be both “arranged in the housing” and “being arranged in the sliding container” later in the claim. There is lack of clarity as to whether the scent container is arranged in just the housing or the sliding container, and the scope of the claim is indefinite.
30. Regarding claim 8, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “at an angle of at least 10°,” and the claim also recites “in particular at least 20°, in particular at least 30°,” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
31. Regarding claim 11, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term “substantially” to describe how much the elongated slot extends over the short side of the device renders the length of the elongated slots indefinite and makes it unclear whether the elongated slots must extend over the majority (i.e. greater than half) of the short side or must extend more than a certain percentage. The examiner will interpret the meaning of substantially to be the majority (i.e. greater than half).
32. Regarding claims 1, 2, and 5, the claim limitation “sliding device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding the sliding device, the closest structure disclosed is “A sliding device with a sliding container 11 is arranged inside the housing 2” (Paragraph 67). However, this phrase does not provide sufficient structure for the sliding device as it is unclear whether the sliding device contains the sliding container, is just the walls of the sliding container, or something else entirely. There is no described structure in the specification nor the drawings that discloses how to perform the function of the sliding device. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
33. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
34. If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Claims 1-3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over hereinafter Home-Cloud based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. The brand Home-Cloud anticipates the claimed invention as “EORRZZY 2 Packs Custom Car Air Freshener Diffuser Vent Clips for Car Decoration Accessories with 12 Refill Sticks for Cars, Office, Kitchen, Bathroom, Pet Houses” on Amazon.com (https://www.amazon.com/Custom-Cylindrical-Essential-Diffuser-Office%EF%BC%8Ckitchen%EF%BC%8CBathroom/dp/B07P249T5C (Home-Cloud)). See Figures 1 and 2, labeled images of the product, below for reference in the rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
627
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
38. Regarding claim 1, Home-Cloud discloses A scenting device for a vehicle (See Fig. 1 and 2),
39. the scenting device comprising: a housing (14);
40. and a scent container (5) arranged in the housing (14),
41. wherein the housing (14) comprises a holding device (2) for attaching the scenting device to a ventilation system in the interior of a vehicle (Fig. 1 shows an image of the device attached to a vent inside a vehicle.),
42. an inlet side at which an inlet opening (1) is arranged for the inflow of air into the housing,
43. an outlet side, in particular opposite the inlet side, on which an outlet opening (3) for the outflow of air from the housing is arranged (Inlet side has inlet openings 1 and outlet side is opposite the inlet side with outlet openings 3.),
44. wherein the scenting device has a sliding device (4, 5, 6) with a sliding container (4) arranged in the housing (14), the scent container being arranged in the sliding container (See Fig. 2, steps 3 and 4),
45. and wherein the outlet opening (3) and/or the inlet opening (1) can be at least partially closed by a sliding movement sliding device (The sliding device 4, 5, 6 is constructed such that it will at least partially close the outlet opening during sliding movement as seen in steps 1 and 4 of Fig. 2.).
46. Regarding claim 2, Home-Cloud discloses The scenting device according to claim 1 (As described in the rejection of claim 1 above.), wherein the sliding device (4, 5, 6) is adapted such that the scent container (5) is displaced relative to the housing during the sliding movement (Sliding container 4 is displaced relative to the housing 14 as seen in step 1 and 4 of Fig. 2. Because it is contained in the sliding container 4, the scent container 5 inherently moves and is displaced during sliding movement.).
47. Regarding claim 3, Home-Cloud discloses The scenting device according to claim 1 (As described in the rejection of claim 1 above.), wherein the scent container (5) is arranged in the sliding container (4) such that the scent container does not rub along the housing (14) during the sliding movement (The sliding container 4 encapsulates the scent container 5 such that it does not rub the housing 14 during sliding movement (See Fig. 2.). The edges of the opening in the sliding container 4 are thick enough to prevent the scent container 5 from touching the housing 14.).
48. Regarding claim 5, Home-Cloud discloses The scenting device according to claim 1 (As described in the rejection of claim 1 above.), wherein the sliding device has a handle (6), in particular a plate-shaped handle, by the actuation of which the sliding device (4) is displaceable (See Fig. 2, steps 1 and 4.),
49. wherein the handle (6) protrudes neither through the outlet side nor through the inlet side (See Fig. 1; the handle 6 runs parallel to and does not protrude through the outlet and inlet sides.).
50. Examiner notes that while Home-Cloud does not particularly disclose a plate-shaped handle, the shape of the handle is not described in the disclosure to be critical to the invention and is merely a design choice. Examiner interprets the phrase “in particular” in the claim as noncritical language. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the handle assume any shape that performs the function (such as the cylindrical handle disclosed by Home-Cloud), and the product would still anticipate the claimed invention.
51. Regarding claim 12, Home-Cloud discloses The scenting device according to claim 1 (As described in the rejection of claim 1 above.), wherein the scent container (4) can be inserted into the housing (14) through a housing opening (7) and removed therefrom again (See Fig. 2; housing opening 7 allows for scent container 4 to be inserted into the housing 14.), in particular wherein the scent container (5) is in the form of a scent stick (See Fig. 1 and 2; scent container 5 is a scent stick.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Home-Cloud as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2020/0268924 A1 (Young).
56. Regarding claim 4, Home-Cloud discloses The scenting device according to claim 1 (As described in the rejection of claim 1 above.), but does not specifically disclose wherein the housing has webs on which the sliding container is supported.
57. However, Young does disclose wherein the housing (14) has webs (48) on which the sliding container (16) is supported (See Fig. 2-3 and 0019; Housing 14 has webs in the form of guide grooves 48 in which the guide rails 74 of the sliding container or cap 16 are connected to. The guide grooves 48 of the housing 14 inherently support the guide rails 74.).
58. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scenting device disclosed by Home-Cloud to include the webs on the housing as disclosed by Young in order to allow the sliding container to slide and be guided into the housing more easily.
59. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Home-Cloud as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2021/0178862 A1 (Alves).
60. Regarding claim 6, Home-Cloud discloses The scenting device according to claim 1 (As described in the rejection of claim 1 above.), but does not specifically disclose wherein the scent container has a recess into which a protrusion of the sliding container protrudes when the scent container is inserted.
61. However, Alves does disclose wherein the scent container (16) has a recess (42) into which a protrusion (20) of the sliding container (14) protrudes when the scent container is inserted (See Fig. 1-2 and 7; Scent container 16 has recess or “engagement slot” 42 that slides into the “internal cavity” 30 and engages with the protrusion or “stalk” 20 of the “cartridge housing” 14.).
62. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scenting device disclosed by Home-Cloud to include the recess of the scent container and protrusion of the sliding container disclosed by Alves in order to have them better fit together for easier replacement of the scent container. The scent device disclosed by Home-Cloud could include a longitudinal recess on the scent stick 5 into which a longitudinal protrusion on the sliding device 4 would fit.
63. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Home-Cloud as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2010/0326280 A1 (Hicks).
64. Regarding claim 7, Home-Cloud discloses The scenting device according to claim 1 (As described in the rejection of claim 1 above.), wherein the outlet side has an elongate shape with a longitudinal side (10) and a short side (11) (See Fig. 1.), but does not specifically disclose and wherein the outlet opening is an elongate slot and the elongate slot is arranged obliquely to the longitudinal side of the outlet side, in particular is also arranged obliquely to the short side of the outlet side.
65. However, Hicks does disclose and wherein the outlet opening is an elongate slot (40) and the elongate slot is arranged obliquely to the longitudinal side of the outlet side, in particular is also arranged obliquely to the short side of the outlet side (Vents 40 are the outlet openings for the device and are arranged obliquely to both sides of the device as seen in Fig. 1.).
66. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scenting device disclosed by Home-Cloud to include elongated slots arranged obliquely to both sides of the housing as the outlet openings as disclosed by Hicks in order to maximize the airflow coming out of the device. Making the slots elongated and slanted across the outlet side allows for the slots to cover more surface area of the housing and create an aesthetically pleasing design.
67. Regarding claim 8, Home-Cloud and Hicks disclose The scenting device according to claim 7 (As described in the rejection of claim 7 above.). Home-Cloud does not specifically disclose wherein the elongated slot is arranged at an angle of at least 10ﹾ, in particular at least 20ﹾ, in particular at least 30 ﹾ, to the longitudinal side of the outlet side and/or to the short side of the outlet side.
68. However, Hicks does disclose wherein the elongated slot (40) is arranged at an angle of at least 10ﹾ, in particular at least 20ﹾ, in particular at least 30 ﹾ, to the longitudinal side of the outlet side and/or to the short side of the outlet side (Some of the vents 40 are slanted at an angle of at least 30 degrees to both sides of the outlet side.).
69. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scenting device disclosed by Home-Cloud to include the slanted elongated slots of at least 30 degrees to both sides of the outlet side as disclosed by Hicks in order to maximize the surface area covered by the slots and therefore also maximize the outflow of air from the slots.
70. Regarding claim 9, Home-Cloud and Hicks disclose The scenting device according to claim 7 (As described in the rejection of claim 7 above.). Home-Cloud does not specifically disclose the scenting device comprising at least three elongated slots.
71. However, Hicks does disclose the scenting device comprising at least three elongated slots (40) (Vents 40 are comprised of at least three elongated slots.).
72. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scenting device disclosed by Home-Cloud to include the at least three elongated slots as disclosed by Hicks in order to increase the area of the outlet side covered by the slots and therefore also increase the outflow of air from the openings (as opposed to less than three elongated slots).
73. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Home-Cloud in view of Hicks as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, and further in view of foreign patent application DE102019006459B4 (Werner).
74. Regarding claim 10, Home-Cloud and Hicks disclose The scenting device according to claim 9 (As described in the rejection of claim 9 above.), but the combination of Home-Cloud and Hicks does not specifically disclose wherein the elongated slots are arranged parallel to each other, and/or equidistant to each other, and/or of equal length.
75. However, Werner does disclose wherein the elongated slots (16) are arranged parallel to each other, and/or equidistant to each other, and/or of equal length (See Fig. 1; Elongated slots of air outlet openings 16 are parallel and equidistant to each other and of equal length.).
76. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scenting device disclosed by Home-Cloud and Hicks to include the feature of the elongated slots being parallel, equidistant, and of equal length as disclosed by Werner in order to make them uniform and create a nice pattern of openings across the outlet side, maximizing the outflow of air in the process.
77. Regarding claim 11, Home-Cloud and Hicks disclose The scenting device according to claim 7 (As described in the rejection of claim 7 above.), but the combination of the two does not specifically disclose wherein the elongated slot extends over substantially the entire short side of the outlet side.
78. However, Werner does disclose wherein the elongated slot extends over substantially the entire short side of the outlet side (See Fig. 1; Elongated slots of air outlet openings 16 extend substantially (more than half) over the short side of the outlet side of the device.).
79. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scenting device disclosed by Home-Cloud and Hicks to include the feature of the elongated slots extending substantially over the short side of the outlet side as disclosed by Werner in order to maximize the surface area covered by the openings and therefore also increase the outflow of air from the device.
80. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Home-Cloud as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2020/0268924 A1 (Young) and U.S. Patent No. 10765602 B1 (Arnett).
81. Regarding claim 13, Home-Cloud discloses The scenting device according to claim 12 (As described in the rejection of claim 12 above.), wherein the housing opening (7) can be opened and closed by means of a housing cover (6), but does not specifically disclose wherein the housing cover is arranged on the housing by means of a rotary hinge, in particular wherein exactly one single housing opening is present, in particular wherein the housing cover is latched in the closed state.
82. However, Young does disclose wherein the housing cover is arranged on the housing…, in particular wherein exactly one single housing opening is present (There is only one housing opening of end 30 of the housing 14.), in particular wherein the housing cover (16) is latched in the closed state (Retaining clip 52 latches the housing cover cap 16 in the closed state.).
83. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scenting device disclosed by Home-Cloud to include only one housing opening and a latch for the housing cover as disclosed by Young in order to make insertion of the sliding container more user-friendly and to secure the housing cover during use.
84. The combination of Home-Cloud and Young does not specifically disclose wherein the housing cover is arranged on the housing by means of a rotary hinge.
85. However, Arnett does disclose wherein the housing cover is arranged on the housing by means of a rotary hinge (50 or 86) (See Fig. 2 and 9; housing cover contains a rotary hinge 86 and press fit mechanism.).
86. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scenting device disclosed by Home-Cloud and Young to include the rotary hinge as disclosed by Arnett in order to allow for easy access to the inside of the sliding container and the housing. Making the housing cover of Home-Cloud’s scenting device similar to that of Arnett’s would allow for a double latch mechanism with both the rotary hinge and press fit and therefore making the housing cover extra secure.
87. Regarding claim 14, Home-Cloud, Young, and Arnett disclose The scenting device according to claim 13 (As described in the rejection of claim 13 above.), and Home-Cloud further teaches wherein a part of the housing cover extends along the longitudinal side (See Fig. 1; Housing cover and handle 6 extends partially along the longitudinal side 10.).
88. Regarding claim 15, Home-Cloud, Young, and Arnett disclose The scenting device according to claim 13 (As described in the rejection of claim 13 above.), and Young further teaches wherein the housing cover (16) can only be closed when the scent container (80) is inserted in the housing (14) in the correct position and/or correctly aligned, wherein there is only exactly one correct position and/or only exactly one correct alignment (See Fig. 2 and 0015; Due to the guide rails 74, guide grooves 48, and retaining clip 52, there is only one correct position and alignment for the housing cover cap 16 to be inserted into the housing 14.).
89. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scenting device disclosed by Home-Cloud, Young, and Arnett to include the feature of only having one correct position and alignment of the scent container as disclosed by Young so that there is only one way to insert the scent container for ease of use. Making the device have only one correct position and alignment for insertion of the scent container allows for the device to be more user-friendly and reduces user error with insertion.
Conclusion
90. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA KATHERINE BUSH whose telephone number is (571)272-4476. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. CT..
91. 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.
92. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
93. 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.
/JULIANA KATHERINE BUSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights