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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification includes section headings which are in lower case and are bolded. Section headings are required to be in all upper case font with no underline or bold text. See MPEP 37 C.F.R. 1.154(c).
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imanaka (JP-H11206867).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Imanaka discloses a skin patch (entire patch in fig. 3, paragraphs 0003-0008 of the English translation) for delivering scent to a human nose (paragraphs 0001, 0003, 0007, 0008 of the English translation), the skin patch comprising: a flexible base member (1 can be the flexible base member, alternatively, the flexible base member can be interpreted as 1 and 9, alternatively, the flexible base member can be interpreted as 1, 3 and 9, fig. 3, Imanaka discloses in paragraph 0008 that 1 is a tape substrate and is a polyvinyl chloride sheet having ventilation holes 6) configured to be adhered between a base of the nose and a vermillion border (see paragraph 0007, Imanaka discloses that the aromatherapy tape can be applied to the nose or under the nose, under the nose would be between the base and vermillion border, furthermore, the flexible base member would be capable of being adhered to between a base of the nose and a vermillion border); the flexible base member defining an outer perimeter having a left edge, a right edge, an upper edge extending from the left edge to the right edge, and a lower edge opposite the upper edge and extending from the left edge to the right edge (see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, the tape would have a height that extends from the right to the left edge, therefore, depending on how the skin patch is oriented on the wearer, there would be a top edge being between the left edge and the right edge and a bottom edge opposite of the top edge that is between the right edge and the left edge); the flexible base member including first side and a second side opposite the first side, the second side including a skin contact adhesive (adhesive 2, see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, paragraph 0007); a plurality of perforations (6, fig. 3, paragraph 0007) through the flexible base member extending from the first side to the second side, the perforations being distributed across the flexible base member (see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, paragraph 0007); and a non-perforated section of the flexible base member carrying a scented portion (3 and 4 can be interpreted as the scented portion when 1 and 9 are being interpreted as the flexible base member, alternatively, 3, 4 and 9 can be interpreted as the scented portion when 1 is being interpreted as the flexible base member, or alternatively, when 1, 3 and 9 are being interpreted as the flexible base member, the scented portion can be interpreted as the essential oil of material 4 that is within the gauze 3, see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, paragraphs 0007-0008, as shown, when 3/4/9 are being interpreted as the scented portion, the non-perforated section is the non-perforated portion adjacent to the hole 6, alternatively, when the scented portion is being interpreted as the 3/4, the non-perforated section can be interpreted as the non-perforated portion of 9, alternatively, when the scented portion is the essential oil within gauze 3, the non-perforated section can be interpreted as the non-perforated portion of 1 adjacent to hole 6 or the non-perforated portion of 9 or the solid section of the material forming gauze 3).
Regarding claim 6, Imanaka discloses that the scented portion includes a liquid absorbent material (see 3, Imanaka discloses in paragraph 0007 that the pad 3 containing a fragrance material 4 comprising essential oil, the padding material is made of gauze containing pieces of nonwoven fabric and is impregnated with rosemary essential oil).
Regarding claim 8, Imanaka discloses that the flexible base member carries the scented portion on the first side (see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, as shown, the flexible base member (1) carries the scented portion (3, 4 and 9) on the first side).
Regarding claim 9, Imanaka discloses that the base member carries the scented portion within the flexible base member (the flexible base member is being interpreted as 1, 9, gauze/pad 3 and the scented portion is being interpreted as the fragrance material 4 comprising essential oils as the scented portion, which would be within the gauze 3, therefore, within the flexible base member, see paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 10, Imanaka discloses that the scented portion remains on the flexible base member when nasal drainage is wiped from the flexible base member (see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, as shown, if the nasal drainage is wiped from the flexible base member at the section that gets exposed to the nasal drainage, the scented portion would remain on the flexible base member).
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 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 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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) in view of Cressman (2022/0193351).
Regarding claim 2, Imanaka discloses that the scented portion includes essentials oil made from herbs and fruits (see paragraphs 0007-0008), but fails to disclose that the scented portion includes menthol, camphor, and/or eucalyptus.
However, Cressman teaches a scented portion includes menthol or eucalyptus (see paragraphs 0003-0015 and 0054-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scented portion of Imanaka to have menthol or eucalyptus as taught by Cressman for the purpose of providing aromatherapy to alleviate various symptoms related to the respiratory system, such as restricted nasal patency, thereby, providing comfort to the wearer (see paragraph 0003 and 0054-0057 of Cressman).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) in view of Pohjola (2,595,606).
Regarding claim 3, Imanaka fails to specifically disclose that the non-perforated section is disc-shaped and is positioned at a center of the flexible base member.
PNG
media_image2.png
1030
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Pohjola teaches a non-perforated section that is disc-shaped and is positioned at a center of the flexible base member (see the annotated-Pohjola fig. 2 above, as shown, the section on 10 that is not perforated (without 16) can be defined as a disc-shaped, see col 4, lines 48-64, it is noted, that disc-shaped is interpreted in the same manner as the applicant’s instant disclosure, in that the disc-shaped section is an arbitrary section being imaginarily sectioned off).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scented portion and the perforations of Imanaka to be carried by a non-perforated section that is disc-shaped and is positioned at a center of the flexible base member of Imanaka as taught by Pohjola for the purpose of providing a perforations arrangement that would allow the scented portion of Imanaka to be supported by the flexible base member and to also provide the predictable result of allowing the flexible base member to be breathable, thereby preventing stuffiness and rashes (see col 4, lines 48-64 of Pohjola and see paragraph 0007 of Imanaka).
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the non-perforated section is disc-shaped, the feature of choosing to have the perforations arranged such that the non-perforated section of the modified Imanaka is a disc-shaped is considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component or an arrangement of perforations. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) in view of Pohjola (2,595,606).
Regarding claim 4, Imanaka discloses perforations (6), but fails to disclose that the perforations are circular.
However, Pohjola teaches discloses perforations are circular (see perforations 16, fig. 2, see col 4, lines 48-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforations of Imanaka to be circular as taught by Pohjola for the purpose of providing a shape for the perforations that would allow the perforations of the modified Imanaka to be breathable, thereby preventing stuffiness and rashes (see col 4, lines 48-64 of Pohjola and paragraph 0007 of Imanaka).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) in view of Zhang (CN 109199699).
Regarding claim 5, Imanaka discloses perforations (6), but fails to disclose that the perforations are evenly distributed across the flexible base member.
However, Zhang teaches a plurality of ventilated holes that are evenly distributed on a base member (paragraphs 0010 and 0031 of the English translation and fig. 1, see holes 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforations of Imanaka to be evenly distributed as taught by Zhang for the purpose of providing an arrangements of perforations that would provide the predictable result of allowing the perforations of the modified Imanaka to provide breathability, thereby, would prevent stuffiness and rashes (see paragraphs 0010 and 0031 of Zhang and paragraph 0007 of Imanaka).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) in view of Doshi (10,335,322).
Regarding claim 7, Imanaka discloses that the flexible base member can comprise any shape (see paragraph 0007), but fails to disclose that the outer perimeter defines a trapezoid with the upper edge being longer than the lower edge.
However, Doshi teaches that a tape comprising an outer perimeter that defines a trapezoid with the upper edge being located than the lower edge (see col 32, lines 43-67, Doshi discloses that the holdfast shape may be a square, rectangle or trapezoid with reference to figs. 9A-9C and col 27, line 60 to col 28, line 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the flexible base member of Imanaka to be a trapezoid as taught by Doshi for the purpose of providing an alternative shape that would perform equally well in allowing the flexible base member to be placed under the nose to provide the aromatherapy to the wearer.
Claims 11, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Imanaka (JP-H11206867) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) in view of Cressman (2022/0193351).
Regarding claim 11, Imanaka discloses a method comprising delivering scent to a human nose (see paragraphs 00003-0008 of the English translation) by adhering a skin patch (entire patch in fig. 3, paragraphs 0001, 0003, 0007, 0008 of the English translation) to an upper lip (see paragraphs 0001 and 0007-0008, Imanaka discloses that the patch is placed on the nose or under the nose, adhering to a portion that is under the nose would be adhering to an upper lip), the skin patch including: a flexible base member (1 can be the flexible base member, alternatively, the flexible base member can be interpreted as 1 and 9, alternatively, the flexible base member can be interpreted as 1, 3 and 9, fig. 3, Imanaka discloses in paragraph 0008 that 1 is a tape substrate and is a polyvinyl chloride sheet having ventilation holes 6) configured to be adhered between a base of the nose and a vermillion border (see paragraph 0007, Imanaka discloses that the aromatherapy tape can be applied to the nose or under the nose, under the nose would be between the base and vermillion border, furthermore, the flexible base member would be capable of being adhered to between a base of the nose and a vermillion border); the flexible base member defining an outer perimeter having a left edge, a right edge, an upper edge extending from the left edge to the right edge, and a lower edge opposite the upper edge and extending from the left edge to the right edge (see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, the tape would have a height that extends from the right to the left edge, therefore, depending on how the skin patch is oriented on the wearer, there would be a top edge being between the left edge and the right edge and a bottom edge opposite of the top edge that is between the right edge and the left edge); the flexible base member including first side and a second side opposite the first side, the second side including a skin contact adhesive (adhesive 2, see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, paragraph 0007); a plurality of perforations (6, fig. 3, paragraph 0007) through the flexible base member extending from the first side to the second side, the perforations being distributed across the flexible base member (see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, paragraph 0007); and a non-perforated section of the flexible base member carrying a scented portion (3 and 4 can be interpreted as the scented portion when 1 and 9 are being interpreted as the flexible base member, alternatively, 3, 4 and 9 can be interpreted as the scented portion when 1 is being interpreted as the flexible base member, or alternatively, when 1, 3 and 9 are being interpreted as the flexible base member, the scented portion can be interpreted as the essential oil of material 4 that is within the gauze 3, see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, paragraphs 0007-0008, as shown, when 3/4/9 are being interpreted as the scented portion, the non-perforated section is the non-perforated portion adjacent to the hole 6, alternatively, when the scented portion is being interpreted as the 3/4, the non-perforated section can be interpreted as the non-perforated portion of 9, alternatively, when the scented portion is the essential oil within gauze 3, the non-perforated section can be interpreted as the non-perforated portion of 1 adjacent to hole 6 or the non-perforated portion of 9 or the solid section of the material forming gauze 3). However, if there is any doubt that Imanaka discloses that the method comprising delivering scent to a human nose, by adhering the skin patch to an upper lip.
However, Cressman teaches a method comprising delivering scent to a human nose, by placing a band to an upper lip (see 1 and 2 being secured to an upper lip (see figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and the skin patch of Imanaka to be placed to an upper lip as taught by Cressman for the purpose of providing a position where the skin patch of Imanaka can provide aromatherapy to the user (see paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0033 of Cressman and paragraphs 0007-0008 of Imanaka).
Regarding claim 16, Imanaka or the modified Imanaka discloses that the scented portion includes a liquid absorbent material (see 3 of Imanaka, Imanaka discloses in paragraph 0007 of Imanaka that the pad 3 containing a fragrance material 4 comprising essential oil, the padding material is made of gauze containing pieces of nonwoven fabric and is impregnated with rosemary essential oil).
Regarding claim 18, Imanaka or the modified Imanaka discloses that the flexible base member carries the scented portion on the first side (see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, as shown, the flexible base member (1 of Imanaka) carries the scented portion (3, 4 and 9 of Imanaka) on the first side).
Regarding claim 19, Imanaka or the modified Imanaka discloses that the base member carries the scented portion within the flexible base member (the flexible base member is being interpreted as 1, 9, gauze/pad 3 and the scented portion is being interpreted as the fragrance material 4 comprising essential oils as the scented portion, which would be within the gauze 3, therefore, within the flexible base member, see paragraph 0007 of Imanaka).
Regarding claim 20, Imanaka or the modified Imanaka discloses that the scented portion remains on the flexible base member when nasal drainage is wiped from the flexible base member (see the annotated-Imanaka fig. 3 above, as shown, if the nasal drainage is wiped from the flexible base member at the section that gets exposed to the nasal drainage, the scented portion would remain on the flexible base member 1 of Imanaka).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) and alternatively in view of Cressman (2022/0193351) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cressman (2022/0193351).
Regarding claim 12, Imanaka or the modified Imanaka discloses that the scented portion includes essentials oil made from herbs and fruits (see paragraphs 0007-0008 of Imanaka), but fails to disclose that the scented portion includes menthol, camphor, and/or eucalyptus.
However, Cressman teaches a scented portion includes menthol or eucalyptus (see paragraphs 0003-0015 and 0054-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scented portion of Imanaka or the modified Imanaka to have menthol or eucalyptus as taught by Cressman for the purpose of providing aromatherapy to alleviate various symptoms related to the respiratory system, such as restricted nasal patency, thereby, providing comfort to the wearer (see paragraph 0003 and 0054-0057 of Cressman).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) and alternatively in view of Cressman (2022/0193351) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pohjola (2,595,606).
Regarding claim 13, Imanaka or the modified Imanaka fails to specifically disclose that the non-perforated section is disc-shaped and is positioned at a center of the flexible base member.
However, Pohjola teaches a non-perforated section that is disc-shaped and is positioned at a center of the flexible base member (see the annotated-Pohjola fig. 2 above, as shown, the section on 10 that is not perforated (without 16) can be defined as a disc-shaped, see col 4, lines 48-64, it is noted, that disc-shaped is interpreted in the same manner as the applicant’s instant disclosure, in that the disc-shaped section is an arbitrary section being imaginarily sectioned off).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scented portion and the perforations of Imanaka or the modified Imanaka to be carried by a non-perforated section that is disc-shaped and is positioned at a center of the flexible base member of Imanaka as taught by Pohjola for the purpose of providing a perforations arrangement that would allow the scented portion of Imanaka to be supported by the flexible base member and to also provide the predictable result of allowing the flexible base member to be breathable, thereby preventing stuffiness and rashes (see col 4, lines 48-64 of Pohjola and see paragraph 0007 of Imanaka).
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the non-perforated section is disc-shaped, the feature of choosing to have the perforations arranged such that the non-perforated section of the modified Imanaka is a disc-shaped is considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component or an arrangement of perforations. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) and alternatively in view of Cressman (2022/0193351) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pohjola (2,595,606).
Regarding claim 14, Imanaka or the modified Imanaka discloses perforations (6 of Imanaka), but fails to disclose that the perforations are circular.
However, Pohjola teaches discloses perforations are circular (see perforations 16, fig. 2, see col 4, lines 48-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforations of Imanaka or the modified Imanaka to be circular as taught by Pohjola for the purpose of providing a shape for the perforations that would allow the perforations of the modified Imanaka to be breathable, thereby preventing stuffiness and rashes (see col 4, lines 48-64 of Pohjola and paragraph 0007 of Imanaka).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) and alternatively in view of Cressman (2022/0193351) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 109199699).
Regarding claim 15, Imanaka or the modified Imanaka discloses perforations (6 of Imanaka), but fails to disclose that the perforations are evenly distributed across the flexible base member.
However, Zhang teaches a plurality of ventilated holes that are evenly distributed on a base member (paragraphs 0010 and 0031 of the English translation and fig. 1, see holes 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforations of Imanaka or the modified Imanaka to be evenly distributed as taught by Zhang for the purpose of providing an arrangements of perforations that would provide the predictable result of allowing the perforations of the modified Imanaka to provide breathability, thereby, would prevent stuffiness and rashes (see paragraphs 0010 and 0031 of Zhang and paragraph 0007 of Imanaka).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanaka (JP-H11206867) and alternatively in view of Cressman (2022/0193351) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Doshi (10,335,322).
Regarding claim 17, Imanaka or the modified Imanaka discloses that the flexible base member can comprise any shape (see paragraph 0007 of Imanaka), but fails to disclose that the outer perimeter defines a trapezoid with the upper edge being longer than the lower edge.
However, Doshi teaches that a tape comprising an outer perimeter that defines a trapezoid with the upper edge being located than the lower edge (see col 32, lines 43-67, Doshi discloses that the holdfast shape may be a square, rectangle or trapezoid with reference to figs. 9A-9C and col 27, line 60 to col 28, line 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the flexible base member of Imanaka or the modified Imanaka to be a trapezoid as taught by Doshi for the purpose of providing an alternative shape that would perform equally well in allowing the flexible base member to be placed under the nose to provide the aromatherapy to the wearer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (KR 20180108358) is cited to show a functional band for fragrance emission.
KR 200413962 is cited to show a device for providing vaporization function.
Park (KR 20210087292) is cited to show a facial strap for fixing a cotton fixing part on a user’s philtrum for providing aroma to the user.
Ledermann (DE 10 2007 012 397) is cited to show an aromatherapy device.
Cataldi (2012/0029405) is cited to show a tape comprising a scented portion and a plurality of ventilation holes.
Villeneuve (2018/0000696) is cited to show an aromatherapy adhesive strip.
Cressman (2016/0375205) is cited to show a nasal inhaler band.
Debski (2014/0326240) is cited to show a warming vapor pad.
Mitra (5,890,486) is cited to show a thermal nasal dilator comprising aromatic substance.
Cronk (2001/0032645) is cited to show a tape comprising fragrances.
Reed (6,295,982) is cited to show an apparatus for administering volatile substance into an inhalation flow path, the apparatus adhered to the upper lip.
Juni (6,120,792) is cited to show a medicated skin patch comprising menthol.
Block (6,090,403) is cited to show an inhalation therapy comprising a patch that adhered to the upper lip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785