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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the battery must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: scented material 50, paragraph 0023, line 3; aromatherapy system 10, paragraph 002, line 1; one or more power sources 80 and power source 180, paragraph 0038, lines 1-2.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "112" and "116" have both been used to designate the body.
The drawings are objected to because they are not black and white line drawings; additionally, there is considerable amount of blurriness and shading issues within the figures (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84).
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, “wherein the computing device can be heated by a micro USB” should read “wherein the computing device is configured to be heated by a micro USB”
In claim 6, “wherein the computing device may operate wirelessly” should read “wherein the computing device is configured to be operated wirelessly”
In claims 5 and 6, “the computing device” should read “the mobile computing device”
In claim 7, “further comprising of a battery” should read “further comprising a battery”
In claim 15, “a computing device” should read “a mobile computing device” or in claims 16-18 “the mobile computing device” should read “the computing device”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites "one or more heating elements" in line 6, then subsequently recites "a heating element" in lines 11-12 and "the heating elements" in lines 15-16. It is unclear whether “a heating element” refers to one of the previously recited on or more heating elements or a separate heating element. For the purposes of examination, “a heating element” is interpreted as “a respective heating element of the one or more heating elements”. It is further unclear whether applicant intends to require a plurality of heating elements in the limitations of lines 15-16 or one or more heating elements, as previously recited. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “the one or more heating elements”.
Claim 1 further recites "one or more cavities in the body" in line 5, then subsequently recites "a cavity" in line 11. It is unclear whether “a cavity” refers to one of the previously recited one or more cavities, or a separate element. For the purposes of examination, “a cavity” is interpreted as “a respective cavity of the one or more cavities”.
Claim 1 further recites "scented material” in line 10, then subsequently recites “scented material” again in line 11. It is unclear whether the second recitation of “scented material” refers to the same scented material as the first recitation or a separate element. For the purposes of examination, the second recitation is interpreted as “the scented material”.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "includes at least one of meditation, anxiety reduction, stress reduction, calming, anger reduction, and substance use treatment" renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim requires only one of the options listed, as suggested by “at least one” or all of the options, as suggested by the use of “and”. It is suggested to change “and” to “or”. For the purposes of examination, the claim is treated as requiring only one of the options listed. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the smartphone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes claim 4 will be read as if dependent of claim 3, which recites a smartphone.
Claim 5 reads, “The system of claim 1, wherein the computing device can be heated by a micro USB”. It is unclear how the computing device is able to be heated by a micro USB. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to require a micro USB interface configured to operate with a mobile computing device.
Claim 8 reads, “The system of claim 1, further comprising of the battery of claim 7, which is wirelessly charged”. Claim 7 recites the battery being charged through a micro USB wire. It is unclear whether claim 8 is intended to require the battery being both wirelessly chargeable and chargeable via micro USB, or if claim 8 intends to substitute the micro USB charging for the wireless charging of claim 7. If the latter, this raises an issue under 35 USC 112(d), see below.
Claims 10 and 18 contain the trademark/trade name “Bluetooth”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe conformance with a continuously changing communication protocol set forth by the Bluetooth standard and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim was construed to refer to any of the various Bluetooth communication variants.
Claim 15 recites "one or more heating elements" in lines 3-4, then subsequently recites "the heating element" in line 7. Accordingly, it is unclear which of the previously recited heating element(s) applicant intends to reference in the limitation line 7, and whether applicant intends to require a plurality of heating elements. For the purposes of examination, “the heating element” is interpreted as “the one or more heating elements”. Claims 16-18 each recite, “the heating element” as well, and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 15 further recites “one or more cavities”, then subsequently recites "a cavity". It is unclear whether “a cavity” refers to one of the previously recited one or more cavities, or a separate element. For the purposes of examination, “a cavity” is interpreted as “a respective cavity of the one or more cavities”.
The dependent claims not specifically addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7, and therefore must include all the limitations of claim from which it depends. Claim 8 appears to substitute wireless charging for the micro USB charging as in claim 7, and therefore does not include all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 15 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2017/0197004).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a system for providing aromatherapy (abstract) to a user, the system comprising:
a mobile computing device (Paragraph 0035, mobile terminal 10; Figures 1-2) including a mobile application (Figure 4; paragraph 0053) to control the system;
a diffuser (100) mounted to the mobile computing device (Paragraphs 0035-0036 and Figure 2 where the aromatic smell generation apparatus 100 is attached to the protection case 20 and the mobile terminal 10 is attached to the protection case via a mobile terminal mounting portion 24)
the diffuser including: a body (Figures 1 and 2, receiving case 40); one or more cavities in the body (Paragraph 0037 and figure 3, cavities of the plurality of aromatic smell generation cartridges 32, 34, and 36); one or more heating elements positioned to provide localized heating to the one or more cavities (Figure 3 and paragraph 0040, exothermic pad 50;); a processor (Figure 2, the controller 80); and one or more non-transitory computer storage mediums (Figure 4 and paragraph 0053, where the mobile terminal includes software or firmware),
a plurality of carriers including scented material (Figure 3; paragraph 0044, perfume sticks 42, 44, 46), the carriers sized and configured to reversibly fill a cavity (as shown in Figure 3) and position scented material proximate a heating element (Figure 3; paragraph 0045, where 42, 44, 46 are proximate to the exothermic pad 50)
wherein the non-transitory computer storage mediums are encoded with one or more computer programs that, when executed by the processor in response to instructions from the mobile computing device, instruct the heating elements to apply heat from the heating elements to activate the scented material and deliver a predetermined aromatherapy experience to the user (Figure 4;paragraph 0056 where the mobile terminal 10 detects an event…the aromatic smell generation apparatus 100 transfers the even set to generate different aromatics smells and to diffuse the different aromatic smells to the controller 80. 80 determines which aromatic smell to diffuse and the diffusion time. Moreover, disclosed in paragraph 0040, the exothermic pad 50 may be controlled by the controller).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the mobile computing device comprises a smartphone (Figure 2, terminal device 10 depicted as a smartphone; paragraph 0027, “the electronic device may be a smart phone”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the body configured to be removably attached to the smartphone (Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0037-0038 where the cover 22 includes a receiving case 40; “the mobile terminal 10 is covered by the cover 22 in a state in which the mobile terminal 10 is attached, and the cover 22 may include a magnet 28 that determines detachment and attachment of the mobile terminal 10”).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches a method comprising:
obtaining a system for providing aromatherapy (abstract) to a user, the system (100) compromising of a body (Figures 1-2, receiving case 40),
one or more cavities in the body (Figure 3 and paragraph 0043, a plurality of aromatic smell generation cartridges 32, 34, and 36),
one or more heating elements (exothermic pad 50) positioned to provide localized heating the one or more cavities (Figure 3 and paragraph 0040),
a processor (Figure 2, the controller 80), and
one or more non-transitory computer storage mediums (Figure 4 and paragraph 0053 where the mobile terminal includes software or firmware),
inserting a scented component (perfume sticks 42, 44, and 46) in at least one cavity (as shown in Figure 3) of the body, and
activating the heating element (exothermic pad 50) using a computing device (mobile terminal 10) to diffuse scented material (Figure 4 and paragraphs 0052-0056, where the mobile terminal 10 detects an event and the aromatic smell generation apparatus 100 transfers the event set to the controller 80. 80 controls the heating of the exothermic pad 50 to generate aromatic smell).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 9-10, and 17-18 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view of Lima et al. (U.S Patent No. 9,827,343).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above. Kim fails to teach the predetermined aromatherapy experience that includes at least one of meditation, anxiety reduction, stress reduction, calming, anger reduction, and substance use treatment. Lima et al. teaches an analogous aromatherapy device which is programed to deliver a predetermined aromatherapy experience, i.e., calming (Figure 15D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the system of Kim with the disclosed aromatherapy experience of Lima et al. Doing so would the user to control and schedule the diffuser to emit a particular aroma at a specific time, for example, during nighttime, with the goal of inducing a pleasurable, calming atmosphere (Lima et al., Col. 18, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above. Kim fails to teach wherein the computing device may operate wirelessly. Lima et al. in the same field of endeavor, teaches an analogous aromatherapy device comprising a computing device that may operate wirelessly (Figs. 1 and 11; Col. 25, lines 16-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kim with the wirelessly operated computing device of Lima et al. Advantageously, this modification could improve the communication between the computing device and the system via a network, thereby allowing the user to view and react to the information from the mobile application in real time (Lima et al., Col. 25, lines 16-27).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above. Kim fails to teach wherein the system connects to a mobile computing device through a wireless connection. Lima et al. teaches an analogous aroma diffusing device wherein the system connects to a mobile computing device through a wireless connection (Col. 13, lines 59-63; Figure 1A and block 804 in Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kim with the wirelessly operated computing device of Lima et al. Advantageously, this modification could improve the communication between the computing device and the system via a network, further allowing the user to view and react to the information from the mobile application in real time (Lima et al., Col. 25, lines 16-27).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above. Kim fails to teach wherein the system connects to the mobile computing device through a Bluetooth connection. Lima et al. teaches an analogous aroma diffusing device wherein the system connects to the mobile computing device through a Bluetooth connection (Figures 1A and 11; Col. 12, lines 23-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kim with the Bluetooth connected computing device of Lima et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the advantage of improved communication between the computing device and the system via a network, further allowing the user to view and react to the information from the mobile application in real time (Lima et al., Col. 25, lines 16-27).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the method comprising the system, as stated above, according to claim 15. Kim fails to teach wherein the heating element is connected to the mobile computing device through a wireless connection. Lima et al. teaches an analogous aroma diffusing device wherein the method comprises the heating element (Figure 1B heating element 196) connected to the mobile computing device (client device 106) through a wireless connection (Col. 14, lines 1-5; see Figure 8 block 804).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Kim with the heating elements wirelessly connected to the mobile computing device of Lima et al. Doing so would have obtained the predictable result of connecting the mobile computing device to the scent/aroma diffuser for the purpose of instructing the diffuser to transmit data and perform programed actions.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches the method comprising the system, as stated above, according to claim 15. Kim fails to teach wherein the heating element is connected to the mobile computing device through a Bluetooth connection. Lima et al. teaches an analogous aroma diffusing device wherein the heating element (Figure 1B heating element 196) is connected to the mobile computing device (client device 106) through a Bluetooth connection (Col. 12, lines 23-31; Figures 16A-16E depict the user interfaces on the mobile computing device for scheduling scent dispensation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Kim with the heating element connected to the mobile computing device via a Bluetooth connection of Lima et al. Doing so would have obtained the predictable result of connecting the mobile computing device to the scent/aroma diffuser for the purpose of instructing the diffuser to transmit data and perform programed actions.
Claim(s) 5 and 16, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim , as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view of Lucas et al. (U.S 2017/0274405).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above. Kim fails to teach wherein the computing device can be heated by a micro USB. Lucas et al. teaches an analogous aroma diffusing device wherein the computing device can be heated by a micro USB (Figure 5, micro USB receptable 212; paragraph 0041, lines 3-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kim with the micro USB feature of Lucas et al. Doing so would provide the user a variety options for powering the device and supplying energy to the computing device; generally, this modification would make the system more accessible, thereby expanding its functionality.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the method comprising the system, as stated above, according to claim 15. Kim fails to teach activating the heating element through a micro USB wire connected to the mobile computing device. Lucas et al. teaches an analogous aroma diffusing device wherein the heating element is activated through a micro USB wire connected to the mobile computing device (paragraph 0040, lines 4-10; paragraph 0037, lines 13-17 where the piezoelectric engine is controlled by the microprocessor, which is controlled by the user via a direct mechanism (i.e., micro-USB cable) attached to the smartphone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Kim with the heating element activated through a micro USB wired connected to the mobile computing device of Lucas et al. Doing so would so allow the user to directly trigger the aromatherapy experience with a mobile device, effectively, enhancing the user’s experience and streamlining the activation process.
Claim(s) 7-8, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knowles (U.S 2018/0056028).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above. Kim fails to teach a battery which is charged through a micro USB wire. Knowles teaches an analogous aroma diffusing device wherein a battery is charged through a micro USB wire (Paragraph 0040, lines 1-7, power sources 44 and connector 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kim with a battery charged through a micro USB wire of Knowles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the advantages a rechargeable battery, powered via a micro-USB wire, grants the user. Conventionally, rechargeable batteries that are powered with a micro USB wire are characteristically cost-effective and offer a universal charging port for users.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above. Kim fails to teach a battery claimed in claim 7, which is wirelessly charged. Knowles teaches an analogous aroma diffusing device wherein a battery (power source 44) is wirelessly charged (Paragraph 0040, lines 7-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kim with a battery, suitable of being wirelessly charged of Knowles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the advantages a rechargeable battery, powered via wireless charging, grants the user. Conventionally, rechargeable batteries are characteristically cost-effective, waste reducing, and convenient for computing devices that require frequent charging.
Claim(s) 11-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Carmichael et al. (U.S Patent No. 8,784,747).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above. Kim fails to teach wherein the carriers comprise scented pads. Carmichael et al. teaches an analogous aroma emitting device wherein the carriers comprise scented pads (Figures 1-2; Col. 9, lines 18-23 and lines 60-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted the system of Kim with the carriers comprised of scented pads of Carmichael et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution for the benefit of integrating a conforming size and shape insertable fragrant substrate which provides a flush, smooth fit within the cavities or recess (Carmichael et al., Col. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above. Kim fails to teach wherein the scented material includes a scented liquid. Carmichael et al. teaches an analogous aroma emitting device wherein the scented material includes a scented liquid (Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted the system of Kim with the scented material containing a scented liquid of Carmichael et al. Doing so encloses the release of scent in liquid form, resultantly, the scent is able to be dispersed into the environment at steady rate (Carmichael et al., Col.6, lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Carmichael teaches the system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the scented liquid comprises an oil (Carmichael et al., fragrance comprises an essential oil, Col. 4, lines 53-55 and Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above. Kim fails to teach wherein the carriers comprise absorbent pads containing scented liquid. Carmichael et al. teaches an analogous aroma emitting device wherein the carriers comprise absorbent pads containing scented liquid (Figure 2, scented insert 14, pocket 18; Col. 11, lines 23-29 and Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted the system of Kim with the carriers comprising absorbent pads containing scented liquid of Carmichael et al. Doing so provides the user an interchangeable and disposable porous scented insert that disperses a uniform scent and is compatible with different aromas (Carmichael et al., Col. 5, lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches the method comprising the system, as stated above, according to claim 15. Kim fails to teach wherein the scented component includes a carrier and a scented liquid. Carmichael et al. teaches an analogous aroma emitting device wherein the scented component includes a carrier and a scented liquid (Col. 11, lines 26-29 and Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted the method of Kim with the scented component including a carrier and a scented liquid of Carmichael et al. Doing so would promote user experience by providing a long-lasting aroma that can be altered based on the user’s preference, i.e., more potent scents may be incorporated by utilizing different liquids.
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Carmichael teaches the system as claimed in claim 19, wherein the scented liquid comprises an oil (Carmichael et al., fragrance comprises an essential oil, Col. 4, lines 53-55 and Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pizzini (9,526,809) teaches an aromatherapy device, however the diffuser is not mounted to a mobile computing device. Zhang (CN 202314539) teaches a fragrance-releasing device and a mobile phone. Li (CN 2692933) teaches a cell phone with perfuming device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN RANE LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791