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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 6/16/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejections of claims 5 and 8 are obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
The rejections of claim 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C 112 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 101 is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites a method comprising the step of “determining whether at least one of the plurality of scent diffusion cartridge main body units is dismounted,” which is a step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In this context, determining if the scent diffusion cartridge main body unit is mounted in the mounting region encompasses a user manually checking if the IC chip of the cartridge body is mechanically coupled to the mounting region.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because once it is determined whether or not the cartridge is mounted, the scent is selectively diffused. This limitation is recited generically as there is nothing particular about the type of scent, the amount of scent, or how it is diffused. Therefore, the abstract idea is generally linked to the field of endeavor and does not amount to a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitation of “controlling a scent of each other scent diffusion cartridge main body unit” is well understood, routine and conventional within the prior art as seen in Duvert (WO 2021024682 A1) [page 7, para 5-9] and Catlin (US 20210394589 A1) [0132-133]. As such, the claim is not patent eligible. For compact prosecution purposes, prior art will be applied to the claim as if it was eligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites a method comprising the step of “determining a number of mounted scent diffusion cartridge main body units” which is a step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In this context, determining if the scent diffusion cartridge main body unit is mounted in the mounting region encompasses a user manually counting how many scent cartridge bodies are mechanically coupled to the mounting region.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because once it is determined how many scent diffusion cartridges there are, the number is displayed. This displaying step is considered to be an insignificant post solution activity. Therefore, the abstract idea is generally linked to the field of endeavor and does not amount to a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitation of “controlling a number of scent diffusion cartridge main body units mounted in the mounting region to be displayed” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(vi). As such, the claim is not patent eligible. For compact prosecution purposes, prior art will be applied to the claim as if it was eligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 7 and 9-10 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 6 and failure to resolve the issues contained therein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021024682 (hereinafter “Duvert”) in view of WO 2016179167 A1 (hereinafter “Edwards”) and US 20210394589 A1 (hereinafter “Catlin”) (eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 2/20/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Duvert teaches a scent diffusion cartridge conversion system (page 2, para 1) for a vehicle, comprising:
a plurality of scent diffusion cartridge main body units configured to generate different scents (cartridges = main body units, page 3, para 14-16); and
a controller (page 6, para 13-14, controller = scent output controller 120 + scent output mode and determination unit 121) configured to:
control a scent of another scent diffusion cartridge main body unit mounted in another mounting region to be selectively diffused (page 6, para 10, page 9, para 1).
While Duvert teaches the selective control of each main cartridge body unit’s scent intensity (page 4, para 1) Duvert does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to:
control a scent of another scent diffusion cartridge main body unit as a scent diffusion cartridge main body unit is dismounted from the mounting region,
control an opening of a vent hole of the another scent diffusion cartridge main body unit so as to selectively diffuse the scent of the another scent diffusion cartridge main body unit; and,
selectively diffuse the scent of the another scent diffusion cartridge main body unit with a scent diffusion intensity that is the same as a previous scent diffusion intensity of the dismounted scent diffusion cartridge main body unit;
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with how to selectively control the scent output units when decoupled from a scent cartridge, motivating one to turn towards Edwards.
Edwards teaches a scent dispenser for use in vehicles (abstract) comprising a control system linked to a plurality of scent dispensing devices (page 5, para 1-2) wherein the control system can detect an unlinking of the scent dispensing device and generate a new set of control signals based on the linked scent dispensing devices (page 24, para 5) such as selective activation of each device (page 5, para 2). This selective activation includes employing a scent dispensing subsystem to control an opening of a vent (336) and force scented air out of one of the scent dispensing devices (understood to be configured to selectively open a vent hole of a scent cartridge page 16, lines 5-10, and 18-31) and synchronizing the actuation of scent dispensing in relation to the status of other scent devices the vehicle (page 21, lines 11-25)
Edwards and Duvert are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to scent dispensing systems for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting and controllers as taught by Duvert to include the control system as taught by Edwards since Edwards teaches the control system to detect when scent dispensing devices are unlinked from the control system and selectively activate linked devices (page 5, para 2, page 24, para 5) in synchronicity with the status of another scent device in the vehicle (page 21, lines 11-25) and control parameters such as scent intensity (Duvert, page 4, para 1) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Modified Duvert teaches wherein the controller also includes mode selection unit (Duvert, 131) which selectively displays scent diffusion cartridges and associated scent information while allowing for individual operation (Duvert, [page 8, para 13-14, page 9, para 1-3]) but does not teach wherein, for scent diffusion cartridge main body units corresponding to a mounted state to be activated, the controller is configured to control a number of scent diffusion cartridge main body units mounted in the mounting region to be selectively displayed.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with displaying mounted scent diffusion cartridges to enable a user to control their operation alone, motivating one to turn towards Catlin. Catlin teaches a vehicular fragrance system comprising a plurality of scent cartridges (Fig. 2, CG) and a control module comprising a user interface display [0015] that is configured to display information from the cartridges through the user interface, including indicating the presence/absence of a scent cartridge and enabling the selection of one of the available/installed scent cartridges (control system understood to selectively display mounted [i.e. available/installed] cartridges for user selection [0132-133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller as taught by Modified Duvert to include the user interface module and control system as taught by Catlin because Catlin teaches the control system to selectively display available (i.e. mounted) scent cartridges for user selection [0132-133]). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Duvert teaches the scent diffusion cartridge conversion system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: control scent information of the scent diffusion cartridge main body unit mounted in the mounting region to be each displayed according to a type of scent (Duvert, controller also includes UI unit 130 scent output controller 125 and output to display and control scent information, page 6, para 6-8); and control the scent information to be selectively convertible by a user's operation (Duvert, user can select scent type, page 7, para 5-9).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Duvert teaches the scent diffusion cartridge conversion system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control a selection of a corresponding scent diffusion cartridge main body unit dismounted to be inactivated as the scent diffusion cartridge main body unit is converted from a mounted state into a dismounted state in the mounting region (Duvert, controller also includes mode selection unit 131 which selectively displays scent diffusion cartridges and associated scent information and allows individual operation [page 8, para 13-14, page 9, para 1-3]; Edwards, control system can detect an unlinking of the scent dispensing device and generate a new set of control signals based on the linked scent dispensing devices [page 24, para 5] such as selective activation [page 5, para 2] = understood to control deactivation of scent dispensing device when it is unlinked/dismounted; Catlin, control system can enable a user to control the selection of installed scent diffusion cartridges [0132-133]).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Duvert teaches the scent diffusion cartridge conversion system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control a selection of all of the scent diffusion cartridge main body units to be inactivated as all of the scent diffusion cartridge main body units are converted from a mounted state into a dismounted state in the mounting region (Duvert, controller also includes mode selection unit 131 which selectively displays scent diffusion cartridges and associated scent information and allows individual operation [page 8, para 13-14, page 9, para 1-3]; Edwards, control system can detect an unlinking of the scent dispensing device and generate a new set of control signals based on the linked scent dispensing devices [page 24, para 5] such as selective activation [page 5, para 2] = understood to control deactivation of scent dispensing device when it is unlinked/dismounted; Catlin, control system can enable a user to control the selection of installed scent diffusion cartridges [0132-133]).
Regarding claim 6, Duvert teaches a method for scent diffusion cartridge conversion for a vehicle, the method (page 2, para 1; also teaches a controller = scent output controller 120 and scent output mode determination unit 121 [page 6, para 13-14] configured to execute a program = understood to be steps in a method, [page 25, para 1-5]) comprising:
controlling a type of scent of any one scent diffusion cartridge main body unit, of a plurality of scent diffusion cartridge main body units (controller also includes scent selection unit 132 which selectively displays scent diffusion cartridges and associated scent information and allows individual operation, page 6, para 10, page 8, para 13-14, page 9, para 1-3).
Duvert further teaches a plurality of scent diffusion cartridge main body units configured to generate different scents (page 3, para 14-16) and the selective control of each main cartridge body unit’s scent intensity (page 4, para 1) but Duvert does not explicitly teach:
determining whether at least one of the plurality of scent diffusion cartridge main body units is dismounted,
controlling a scent of each other scent diffusion cartridge main body unit mounted in another mounting region to be diffused as it is determined that a mounted scent diffusion cartridge main body unit as is dismounted from the mounting region,
controlling an opening of a vent hole of the other scent diffusion cartridge main body units so as to selectively diffuse the scent of the other scent diffusion cartridge main body units; and,
selectively diffuse the scent of the other scent diffusion cartridge main body units with a scent diffusion intensity that is the same as a previous scent diffusion intensity of the dismounted scent diffusion cartridge main body unit;
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with how to selectively control the scent output units when decoupled from a scent cartridge, motivating one to turn towards Edwards.
Edwards teaches a scent dispenser for use in vehicles (abstract) comprising a control system linked to a plurality of scent dispensing devices (page 5, para 1-2) wherein the control system can detect an unlinking of the scent dispensing device and generate a new set of control signals based on the linked scent dispensing devices (page 24, para 5) such as selective activation of each device (page 5, para 2). This selective activation includes employing a scent dispensing subsystem to control an opening of a vent (336) and force scented air out of one of the scent dispensing devices (understood to be configured to selectively a vent hole of a scent cartridge page 16, lines 5-10, and 18-31) and synchronizing the actuation of scent dispensing in relation to the status of other scent devices the vehicle (page 21, lines 11-25)
Edwards and Duvert are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to scent dispensing systems for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting and controllers as taught by Duvert to include the control system as taught by Edwards since Edwards teaches the control system to perform a method step of detecting when scent dispensing devices are unlinked from the control system and selectively activating linked (page 5, para 2, page 24, para 5) in synchronicity with the status of another scent device in the vehicle (page 21, lines 11-25) and control parameters such as scent intensity (Duvert, page 4, para 1) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Modified Duvert teaches wherein the controller also includes mode selection unit (Duvert, 131) which selectively displays scent diffusion cartridges and associated scent information while allowing for individual operation (Duvert, [page 8, para 13-14, page 9, para 1-3]) but does not teach:
wherein, determining whether each of the plurality of scent diffusion cartridge main body units is mounted further comprises:
determining a number of mounted scent diffusion cartridge main body units; and,
controlling a number of scent diffusion cartridge main body units mounted in the mounting region to be displayed as it is determined that all of the scent diffusion cartridge main body units are not mounted in the mounting region.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with displaying mounted scent diffusion cartridges to enable a user to control their operation alone, motivating one to turn towards Catlin. Catlin teaches a vehicular fragrance system comprising a plurality of scent cartridges (Fig. 2, CG) and a control module comprising a user interface display [0015] that is configured to display information from the cartridges through the user interface, including indicating the presence/absence of a scent cartridge and enabling the selection of one of the available/installed scent cartridges (control system understood to determine a number of mounted scent diffusion cartridge main body units and selectively display mounted [i.e. available/installed] cartridges for user selection [0132-133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller as taught by Modified Duvert to include the user interface module and control system as taught by Catlin because Catlin teaches the control system to determine and selectively display available (i.e. mounted) scent cartridges for user selection [0132-133]). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Duvert teaches the method of claim 6, wherein controlling the scent further comprises controlling a selection of a scent diffusion cartridge main body unit to be inactivated as it is determined that all of the plurality of scent diffusion cartridge main body units are dismounted from the mounting region (Duvert, controller also includes scent selection unit 132 which selectively displays scent diffusion cartridges and associated scent information and allows individual operation [page 8, para 13-14, page 9, para 1-3]; Edwards, control system can detect an unlinking of the scent dispensing device and generate a new set of control signals based on the linked scent dispensing devices [page 24, para 5] such as selective activation [page 5, para 2] = understood to control deactivation of scent dispensing device when it is unlinked from control system; Catlin, control system can enable a user to control the selection of installed scent diffusion cartridges [0132-133]).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Duvert teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the operation of determining the number of mounted scent diffusion cartridge main body units controls the selection of the scent diffusion cartridge main body unit to be selectively activated (Duvert, controller also includes scent selection unit 132 which selectively displays scent diffusion cartridges and associated scent information and allows individual operation page 8, para 13-14, page 9, para 1-3) as it is determined that the number of scent diffusion cartridge main body units mounted in the mounting region is not 0 (Edwards, control system can detect an number of unlinked of the scent dispensing device and generate a new set of control signals based on the linked scent dispensing devices [page 24, para 5] such as selective activation [page 5, para 2], Catlin, control system can enable a user to control the selection of installed scent diffusion cartridges [0132-133]).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Duvert teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the operation of determining the number of mounted scent diffusion cartridge main body units controls the selection of the scent diffusion cartridge main body unit to be inactivated (Duvert, controller also includes scent selection unit 132 which selectively displays scent diffusion cartridges and associated scent information and allows individual operation page 8, para 13-14, page 9, para 1-3 = understood to include deactivation) as it is determined that the number of scent diffusion cartridge main body units mounted in the mounting region is 0 (Edwards, control system can detect an number of unlinked of the scent dispensing device and generate a new set of control signals based on the linked scent dispensing devices [page 24, para 5] such as selective activation [page 5, para 2] = also understood to include selective deactivation; Catlin, control system can enable a user to control the selection of installed scent diffusion cartridges [0132-133]).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on page 8 of the amendment, filed 6/16/2026, the Applicant argues that claim 1 amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea because it recites improvements to the functioning of a computer with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
This argument has been fully considered but is considered moot in light of the cancellation of the limitation “a controller configured to determine whether the scent diffusion cartridge main body unit is mounted in the mounting region from the mounting recognition unit based on whether an integrated circuit (IC) chip of the scent diffusion cartridge main body is recognized as being connected by the mounting recognition unit.” Thus, the rejection is obviated by the cancellation of the limitation.
In the arguments presented on pages 8-9 of the amendment, filed 6/16/2026, the Applicant argues that claim 6 amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea because the limitations of “control a scent of another scent diffusion cartridge…to be selectively diffused” and “control an opening of a vent hole... so as to selectively diffuse the scent of the another scent diffusion cartridge main body unit” recite improvements to the function of a computer with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
This argument has been fully considered but is unpersuasive. These limitations are not improvements to the function of a computer beyond what is well understood, routine, and conventional, as demonstrated by the prior art Duvert (WO 2021024682 A1) [page 7, para 5-9] and Catlin (US 20210394589 A1) [0132-0133]. Further, generally displaying information using computer parts are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(vi). Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
In the arguments presented on pages 9-11 of the amendment, filed 6/16/2026, the Applicant argues that Modified Duvert does not teach wherein, for scent diffusion cartridge main body units corresponding to a mounted state to be activated, the controller is configured to selectively display a number of scent diffusion cartridge main body units and teaches various scent output candidates without regard to a mounted state of the scent cartridge units with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further review, a new rejection is made in view of Catlin (US 20210394589 A1). See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights