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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/23/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that storing a decontaminant does not constitute a materially different process than emitting a fragrance, as the act of storing a decontaminant is the reverse or conclusion of the emitting process. This is not found persuasive because the act of storing a decontaminant is a distinct function/objective that is not inversely related to emitting a fragrance. The inverse of an emission process would be non-emission, not storage. Further, a storing a decontaminant in a pressurized apparatus is functionally different that utilizing a pressurized apparatus to emit a fragrance.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10, please change “room,” to “room.” In line 2.
Claim 14, please change “room,” to “room.” In line 2.
Claim 18, please change “room,” to “room.” In line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “timing mechanism” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the timing mechanism is understood to be a clockwork mechanism or pneumatic logic controller as disclosed in the specification (page 24, para 3; page 25, para 1-2) and all equivalent structures.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9-10, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lau (US 20200061229 A1) (disclosed in Applicant’s IDS dated 1/25/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Lau teaches a fragrance delivery device comprising (Fig. 1, system 150):
a body (Fig. 1, atomizer device 108) defining an interior space (Fig. 1, enclosed space 107), the body comprising a nozzle coupler designed to be attachable to a source of compressed gas (Fig. 1, body 108 coupled to air pressure source 102 via a jet orifice 108g = nozzle coupler, [0030]),
the source of compressed gas comprising an existing air supply line of a room, or a compressed gas container (pressure generating source 102 understood to be a compressed gas container, see Fig. 3, pressure source 307 [0037]),
the fragrance delivery device being adapted to utilize pneumatic pressure of a first gas flow from the source of compressed gas to disperse and/or dispense a fragrance-carrying fluid into an atmosphere outside the fragrance delivery device (first gas flow 104 utilized to disperse fragrance oil 110 as an atomized gas flow 113 into a vehicle [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 1 (Fig. 1, system 150), wherein the pneumatic pressure of the source of compressed gas is used to generate an intensified pressure (pressure source generates intensified pressure into stream 104, [0028]), and utilize the intensified pressure to disperse a fragrance-carrying fluid into the atmosphere outside the fragrance delivery device (pressurized stream 104 used to disperse atomized gas flow 113 into atmosphere outside of device 150 and into the car cabin [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according claim 2 (Fig. 1, system 150), wherein the fragrance delivery device disperses the fragrance-carrying fluid into the atmosphere outside the fragrance delivery device without using any internal or external electric power to disperse the fragrance- carrying fluid (Fig. 1, fragrance carrying flow 113 is distributed into atmosphere outside of device 150 without using a separate fan/blower from the air pressure generating source [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 1, wherein the source of compressed gas comprises the compressed gas container (pressure generating source 102 understood to be a compressed gas container, see Fig. 3, pressure source 307, [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 1, wherein the source of compressed gas comprises the existing air supply line of a room (pressure generating source 102 can be a compressor [0027] understood to be connected to an existing air supply of a vehicle cabin, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Lau teaches a fragrance delivery device (Fig. 1, system 150) comprising:
a body (Fig. 1, atomizer device 108) defining an interior space (Fig. 1, enclosed space 107), the body comprising a nozzle coupler designed to be attachable to a source of compressed gas (Fig. 1, body 108 coupled to air pressure source 102 via a jet orifice 108g = nozzle coupler, [0030]),
the source of compressed gas comprising a compressed gas cylinder or an existing air supply line 12 of a patient care room (pressure generating source 102 understood to be a compressed gas container, see Fig. 3, pressure source 307 [0037]),
the fragrance delivery device being adapted to utilize pneumatic pressure from the source of compressed gas to generate an intensified pressure and utilize the intensified pressure to disperse a fragrance-carrying fluid into an atmosphere outside the fragrance delivery device (first gas flow 104 pressurized by compressed gas source and utilized to disperse fragrance oil 110 as an atomized gas flow 113 into a vehicle [0028]).
Regarding claim 17, Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 15, wherein the source of compressed gas comprises the compressed gas container (pressure generating source 102 understood to be a compressed gas container, see Fig. 3, pressure source 307, [0037]).
Regarding claim 19, Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 15, wherein the source of compressed gas comprises the existing air supply line of a room (pressure generating source 102 can be a compressor [0027] understood to be connected to an existing air supply of a vehicle cabin, Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 20200061229 A1) in view of Norwood et al. (ES 2403514 T3) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 4, Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 1 but does not teach wherein the fragrance delivery device comprises an assembly of mechanical components, said assembly of mechanical components comprises one or more of: a timing mechanism that runs for a desired length of time.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with controlling the dispensing of the aerosolized fragrance, motivating one to turn towards Norwood. Norwood teaches a fragrance diffuser (abstract) comprising a timer mechanism, wherein the timer mechanism may be a clock mechanism to control the length of fragrance emission (page 18, para 6).
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 fragrance delivery device as taught by Lau with the timer mechanism as taught by Norwood because Norwood teaches the timer mechanism to control the length of fragrance duration (page 18, para 6) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 4, wherein the fragrance delivery device comprises a timing mechanism that can be preset in a memory by a user (Norwood, page 18, para 6) but does not teach wherein the timing mechanism runs for a desired length of time ranging from about 2.0 seconds to about 60 minutes.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the length of fragrance emission as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result), wherein the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). 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 program the timing mechanism as taught by Modified Lau to run for a desired length of time ranging from about 2.0 seconds to about 60 minutes.
Claim(s) 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 20200061229 A1) in view of Ansley et al. (US 20150298147 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 1, wherein the body may be refilled with fragrance via a nozzle opening (Fig. 2, 108j) but does not teach wherein the body further comprises a removable cartridge port sized to accept a removable cartridge containing a fragrance medium, and the pneumatic pressure of the first gas flow is used to disperse the fragrance-carrying fluid from a removable cartridge positioned within the removable cartridge port, the removable cartridge comprising one or more cartridge nozzles sized to allow passage of the fragrance-carrying fluid from the removable cartridge into the atmosphere outside the fragrance delivery device. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with preventing build-up from accumulating within the fragrance body, motivating one to turn towards Ansley.
Ansley teaches a removable cartridge for a liquid diffusion device (Fig. 8, 200) wherein the cartridge is configured to couple to a fragrance device [0051] wherein the cartridge contains a fragrance medium (fragrance contained within cavity 213, [0051]) and a cartridge nozzle (Fig. 8, cartridge outlet 214). Ansley teaches wherein the cartridge nozzle is configured to utilize an external pressurized gas source and is sized to allow the passage of fragrance carrying fluid from the cartridge to the atmosphere [0054-0057] and wherein the use of the removable cartridge prevents fouling and build-up of residue within a fixed fragrance oil container [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 modify the fragrance delivery device and nozzle opening as taught by Lau with the removable fragrance cartridge as taught by Ansley because Ansley teaches the fragrance cartridge to couple to an existing fragrance device, utilize a pressurized gas source of the existing fragrance device to dispense a fragrance to the atmosphere, and prevent the build-up of fragrance oil from accumulating due to its disposable nature ([0051-0057]) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, the nozzle opening as taught by Lau (Fig. 2, 108j) would couple to the removable cartridge as taught by Ansley, making it a removable cartridge port.
Regarding claim 11, Lau teaches a fragrance delivery device comprising (Fig. 1, system 150):
a body (Fig. 1, atomizer device 108) defining an interior space (Fig. 1, enclosed space 107), the body comprising a nozzle coupler designed to be attachable to a source of compressed gas (Fig. 1, body 108 coupled to air pressure source 102 via a jet orifice 108g = nozzle coupler, [0030]),
the source of compressed gas comprising an existing air supply line of a room, or a compressed gas container (pressure generating source 102 understood to be a compressed gas container, see Fig. 3, pressure source 307 [0037]),
the fragrance delivery device being adapted to utilize pneumatic pressure of a first gas flow from the source of compressed gas to disperse and/or dispense a fragrance-carrying fluid into an atmosphere outside the fragrance delivery device (first gas flow 104 utilized to disperse fragrance oil 110 as an atomized gas flow 113 into a vehicle [0028]),
the body comprising a nozzle coupler designed to be attachable to a source of compressed gas (Fig. 1, body 108 coupled to air pressure source 102 via a jet orifice 108g = nozzle coupler, [0030]).
Lau teaches wherein the body may be refilled with fragrance via a nozzle opening (Fig. 2, 108j) but does not teach wherein the body further comprises a removable cartridge port sized to accept a removable cartridge containing a fragrance medium, and the pneumatic pressure of the first gas flow is used to disperse the fragrance-carrying fluid from a removable cartridge positioned within the removable cartridge port, the removable cartridge comprising one or more cartridge nozzles sized to allow passage of the fragrance-carrying fluid from the removable cartridge into the atmosphere outside the fragrance delivery device. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with preventing build-up from accumulating within the fragrance body, motivating one to turn towards Ansley.
Ansley teaches a removable cartridge for a liquid diffusion device (Fig. 8, 200) wherein the cartridge is configured to couple to a fragrance device [0051] wherein the cartridge contains a fragrance medium (fragrance contained within cavity 213, [0051]) and a cartridge nozzle (Fig. 8, cartridge outlet 214). Ansley teaches wherein the cartridge nozzle is configured to utilize an external pressurized gas source and is sized to allow the passage of fragrance carrying fluid from the cartridge to the atmosphere [0054-0057] and wherein the use of the removable cartridge prevents fouling and build-up of residue within a fixed fragrance oil container [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 modify the fragrance delivery device and nozzle opening as taught by Lau with the removable fragrance cartridge as taught by Ansley because Ansley teaches the fragrance cartridge to couple to an existing fragrance device, utilize a pressurized gas source of the existing fragrance device to dispense a fragrance to the atmosphere, and prevent the build-up of fragrance oil from accumulating due to its disposable nature ([0051-0057]) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, the nozzle opening as taught by Lau (Fig. 2, 108j) would couple to the removable cartridge as taught by Ansley, making it a removable cartridge port.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 11, wherein insertion of the removable cartridge into the removable cartridge port initiates one or more of: opens an air supply valve from the source of compressed gas to one or more valves leading to one or more of the removable cartridges (Ansley, [0054-0057]]).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 15, wherein the source of compressed gas comprises the compressed gas container (Lau, pressure generating source 102 understood to be a compressed gas container, see Fig. 3, pressure source 307, [0037]).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 15, wherein the source of compressed gas comprises the existing air supply line of a room (Lau, pressure generating source 102 can be a compressor [0027] understood to be connected to an existing air supply of a vehicle cabin, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 20200061229 A1) in view of Nishimaki et al. (US 20180318461 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 15 but does not teach wherein the intensified pressure is used to push on a cartridge piston or a cartridge ball of a removable cartridge so as to force fragrance-carrying fluid from one or more cartridge nozzles of the removable cartridge into an atmosphere outside the fragrance delivery device. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with effectively ejecting the atomized fragrance outside of the body while maintaining an equilibrium pressure between the atmosphere and the internal cavity of the device, motivating one to turn towards Nishimaki.
Nishimaki teaches a scent-emitting device comprising a fragrance emitting apparatus comprising a fragrance cartridge (Fig. 2, 20) via a discharge port (Fig. 2, 25). Nishimaki further teaches an embodiment (Fig. 10A) wherein the cartridge comprises a piston (Fig. 10A, 102) configured to be driven by an intensified pressure so as to force a fragrance through the discharge port and to the atmosphere [0088].
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 fragrance delivery device as taught by Lau with the fragrance cartridge as taught by Nishimaki because Nishimaki teaches the fragrance cartridge to eject a fragrance to the atmosphere while maintaining an equilibrium pressure between the atmosphere and the internal cavity of the device [0088] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 4, but neither teaches nor suggests wherein the components within the exemplary assembly of mechanical components are either connected to a fixed vertical base plate, attached to a fixed horizontal base plate, or positioned on and connected to a pivoting plate, the pivoting plate being connected, via a hinge, to the fixed vertical base plate, and wherein a position of the pivoting plate is controlled with an activation lever, or by the presence or absence of a removable cartridge positioned within a removable cartridge port of the fragrance delivery device. One having ordinary skill in the art would have no obvious motivation to modify the fragrance delivery device of Modified Lau with the recited structural components, as the ejection of the fragrance is primarily driven by a pneumatic system mechanism, not a mechanical one.
Regarding claim 7, Modified Lau teaches the fragrance delivery device according to claim 4, but neither teaches nor suggests wherein when the pivoting plate is in a horizontal position, the exemplary assembly of mechanical components is "active" and a main pneumatic pressure from the source of compressed gas is on, and the combination of spur gears that connect the driver shaft to the cam shaft are engaged, and when the pivoting plate is pivoted into a downward position, two things happen simultaneously, namely: a main pneumatic pressure from the source of compressed gas is off, and the combination of spur gears that connect the driver shaft to the cam shaft is disengaged.
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
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights