DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Stanka (EP 0627268 A2).
Re claim 1, Stanka shows an automated vapor dispenser system (Fig. 2), comprising:
a reservoir (22); and
a nozzle (16), operatively connected to the reservoir (2), and having a valve (44) or pump (7) configured to selectively control a time-varying flow (col. 1, lines 53-58 through col. 2, lines 1-5) from the reservoir (2) of an atomized vapor plume (18) emitted from the nozzle (16).
Re claim 5, Stanka shows the valve or pump comprises a pump (7).
Re claim 6, Stanka discloses an automated control having a program, wherein the valve or pump is selectively controlled in dependence on the program to provide a time-coded atomized vapor plume of the atomized vapor (col. 8, lines 1-42).
Re claim 8, Stanka shows a second reservoir (22/2, etc); and
a second nozzle (col. 7, lines 31-42), operatively connected to the second reservoir (22/2, etc), and having a second valve (44/2, etc) or pump configured to selectively control a time-varying flow from the second reservoir of a second atomized vapor plume emitted from through the second nozzle (col. 8, lines 1-42).
Re claim 10, Stanka shows at least one additional reservoir (22/2, etc);
at least one additional nozzle (col. 7, lines 31-42), respectively connected to the at least one additional reservoir (22/2, etc), each of the at least one additional nozzle having a respective valve (44/2, etc) or pump configured to modulate a flow from the at least one additional reservoir; and
an automated control, configured to modulate a flow from each reservoir to an associated nozzle over time (col. 8, lines 1-42).
Re claim 12, Stanka discloses the automated control is operable in accordance with a program, to provide a respective time-coded atomized vapor plume for each respective reservoir which varies in dependence on the program (col. 8, lines 1-42).
Re claim 15, Stanka shows a method for emitting a vapor from the automated vapor dispenser system according to claim 1 (see above), comprising: dispensing a vapor (18) from the nozzle (16) in an atomized vapor plume (18); and modulating the atomized vapor plume (18) over time with an automated control (38; col. 1, lines 53-58 through col. 2, lines 1-5).
Re claim 16, Stanka shows the valve or pump comprises at least one of an electromechanical pump (7).
Re claim 17, Stanka discloses the automated control is programmable to provide a time-coded atomized vapor plume which varies in dependence on a program (col. 8, lines 1-42).
Re claim 19, Stanka discloses providing a second reservoir (22/2, etc), a second nozzle (col. 7, lines 31-42), operatively connected to the second reservoir (22/2, etc), and a second valve (44/2, etc) or pump configured to selectively control a time-varying flow from the second reservoir through the second nozzle;
dispensing a second atomized vapor plume from the second nozzle (col. 7, lines 31-42); and
modulating the second atomized vapor plume over time with the automated control, wherein the atomized vapor plume and the second atomized vapor plum have a different modulation (col. 8, lines 1-42).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stanka (EP 0627268 A2) in view of Soeyland (EP 2168687 A1).
Re claims 2 & 11, Stanka discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a microelectromechanical system.
However, Soeyland discloses a microelectromechanical system (col. 7, paragraph 0052).
The substitution of one known element (valves in Stanka) for another (MEMS valve as shown in Soeyland) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the MEMS valve shown in Soeyland would have yielded predictable results, namely, transferring fluid in Stanka to send to the nozzle.
Re claims 3 & 11, Stanka discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a piezoelectric device.
However, Soeyland discloses a piezoelectric device (col. 7, paragraph 0052).
The substitution of one known element (valves in Stanka) for another (piezoelectric valve as shown in Soeyland) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the piezoelectric valve shown in Soeyland would have yielded predictable results, namely, transferring fluid in Stanka to send to the nozzle.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stanka (EP 0627268 A2) in view of Park (KR 20060069033 A).
Re claim 4, Stanka discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a bubble jet device.
However, Park teaches a bubble jet device (p. 2, lines 17-18).
The substitution of one known element (pump in Stanka) for another (bubble jet device as shown in Park) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the bubble jet device shown in Park would have yielded predictable results, namely, mist generation in Stanka to send to the nozzle.
Claims 7, 9, 13, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stanka (EP 0627268 A2) in view of Orubor (US Pub No 2012/0097763 A1).
Re claims 7, 13 & 18, Stanka discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a wireless remote control signal.
However, Orubor teaches a wireless remote control signal (paragraph 0051).
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 have the motivation to have the controller of Stanka include a wireless remote control signal as taught by Orubor for wireless communication (Orubor – paragraph 0051).
Re claims 9 & 14, Stanka discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the reservoir comprises puncturable seal, and the nozzle is operatively connected to the reservoir through a hollow protrusion configured to puncture the seal.
However, Orubor teaches a reservoir (16) which comprises a puncturable seal, and a nozzle (14/74) that is operatively connected to the reservoir through a hollow protrusion configured to puncture the seal (paragraph 0037).
The substitution of one known element (reservoir in Stanka) for another (reservoir as shown in Orubor) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the reservoir shown in Orubor would have yielded predictable results, namely, a container in Stanka to contain fluid.
Re claim 20, Stanka shows an automated vapor dispenser (Fig. 2), comprising:
a plurality of reservoirs (22/2), each reservoir comprising a seal (28/2, etc) configured to contain a volatile liquid composition;
a plurality of nozzles (col. 7, lines 31-42), operatively connected to the plurality of reservoirs (22/2, etc), each having a valve (44/2, etc) or pump configured to selectively control a time-varying flow of the volatile liquid from the respective reservoir, emitted through the respective nozzle as an atomized vapor plume;
an automated control configured to separately operate each valve or pump in dependence on a program to provide a time-coded atomized vapor plume (col. 8, lines 1-42).
Stanka does not teach a wireless remote control, configured to communicate at least one parameter of the program to the automated control.
However, Orubor teaches a wireless remote control signal (paragraph 0051), configured to communicate at least one parameter of a program to an automated control.
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 have the motivation to have the controller of Stanka include a wireless remote control signal as taught by Orubor for wireless communication (Orubor – paragraph 0051).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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, 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.
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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights