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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 should read “wherein the detection element waits a verification period” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first operation mode" and “the second operation mode” in lines 2 and 4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there are plural modes for the device.
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 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2014/0268652).
Regarding claim 1, Li (US 2014/0268652) discloses –
Device for diffusing volatile substances, comprising:
- a diffuser (Figs. 6-7 heating element for activating the scent mode of the scented cartridge 40, see pars. 58-59) for diffusing the volatile substances; and
- a controller (fig. 4 circuit board 54 for controlling the device, pars. 43-44) connected to the diffuser that controls the operation of the diffuser (pars. 60-61), characterized in that
the device for diffusing volatile substances also comprises
a detection element configured to provide an indication of whether the device is worn by a user or placed on a surface (pars. 30 and 59, the bottom surface includes control switches for initiation of an operation of the device including an LED light source that would indicate an operation, the control switch corresponding to the switch disclosed as the detection element in the specification where the switch controls the operation of the device) connected with the controller wherein the controller operates the device:
- in a personal operation mode, when the device is worn by a user (the switch will not be in contact with a surface if it is picked up off a surface and therefore the device would necessarily be in a personal operation mode): or
- in an environmental operation mode, when the device is used in a room placed on a surface (par. 30, the switch on the bottom would be well capable of being activated by the surface it is located on).
The device disclosed by Li is reasonably capable of and expected to perform the claimed functions of providing an indication of whether the device is worn by a user or placed on a surface as claimed, and discloses all the claimed structure. Therefore, all the limitations of the claim are met. See MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 2, Li further teaches the detection means (3) comprises a contact switch (the switches 30 and 32 for activation are described as switches for actuation, reading on the limitation of a contact switch; pars. 58, 61).
Regarding claim 5, Li further teaches the detection element (3) is placed in the bottom part of the device (par. 30 discloses the switch being in the bottom of the device).
Regarding claim 6, Li further teaches the detection element sends a signal to the controller indicating whether the device is worn by a user or placed on a surface (the control switch as set forth in par. 59 is analogous to the detection element disclosed in the specification and would reasonably perform this function, therefore the limitation is met, see MPEP 2114, II).
Regarding claim 7, Li further teaches in the first operation mode the length of the activation period of the diffusion means and/or the time between activation periods of the diffusion means is/are different from the second operation mode (pars. 52, 60-61 the depression of the switch 32 affects the duty cycle of heating and duration which affects both the length of activation and the time between activation periods, which compared to a control state where the device is off also changes these parameters).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2014/0268652) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and further in view of Hoppe (WO 2013/043696).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Li is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to a light sensor and a proximity sensor.
Hoppe (WO 2013/043696) discloses a diffuser (title, abstract) wherein detection element include a photodetector or light sensor, and also a proximity sensor (par. 166, 304 disclose light sensors and motion sensors which detect objects within a preset range, reading on the limitation of a proximity sensor). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Li such that the detection element include a light sensor and proximity sensor as taught by Hoppe to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to detect and operate the diffuser when users are in proximity and when the device is in an operational position as desired, and to intelligently and automatically control the device as is known in the art to arrive at an improved diffusion device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including diffusers and conventional sensors, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 8, Li is set forth above with regards to claim 6 but appears to be silent with regards to a verification period before sending the signal.
Hoppe discloses a diffuser (title, abstract) wherein the detection means wait a verification period before sending the signal to control means for activating (par. 14, 216). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Li such that the detecting element wait a verification period before sending the signal to the control means as taught by Hoppe to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid accidental activations of the device to arrive at a more user-friendly device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including buttons and common button control protocols, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 101 rejections and the 112(b) rejections are persuasive and those rejections are obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s remarks filed 11/19/25 directed towards the 102 rejection of claim 1 are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 that Li fails to teach a detection element for providing an indication of whether the device is worn by a user or placed on a surface, which is not persuasive. The detection element claimed is supported in the specification on p. 2 lines 15-18 as a switch on a bottom part of the device, and Li clearly discloses that in pars. 30 and 59. Further, the “indication” provided is construed as being either a signal for operation of the device or an indication to a user of state of the device, both of which are taught by Li in those same paragraphs, as the device is operated by and having an LED illuminated in response to the switch that is located on a bottom of the device being toggled by contact.
Further, Applicant argues the device does not teach different modes that read on a personal mode or an environmental mode, which is further not persuasive. Li discloses in par. 30 different modes of both the light part of the device and the scenting mode of the device being controlled by the control switch, any one of these modes reading on the limitation of an “environmental” mode or a “personal mode” because the modes, as claimed, do not have any particular function required of them and are generic operations of the device.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the intended operation of the device, and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The device disclosed by Li is well capable of performing the functions as claimed and discloses all the structure as claimed. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 1 are met.
The remaining claims remain rejected similarly, as Applicant does not present any particular arguments specific to the dependent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758