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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has 211 words and therefore, it is too long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect grammar.
Claim 4 recites: “…wherein the blister pocket comprises a film enclosing a releasable aroma, wherein the triggering mechanism is configured to ruptures the film to release the releasable aroma.” The word “ruptures” is grammatically incorrect.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 4 as reciting: “…wherein the blister pocket comprises a film enclosing a releasable aroma, wherein the triggering mechanism is configured to rupture the film to release the releasable aroma.”
Claim 20 recites: “…wherein the porous polymer matrix comprises an additives selected from…” The word “additives” is grammatically incorrect.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 20 as reciting: “…wherein the porous polymer matrix comprises an additive selected from…”
Claims 7, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Initial occurrence of an acronym.
Claim 7 recites: “…wherein the electrical device comprises a virtual device, a computer system, a GPS device, or a digital assistant device.” For the initial occurrence of a term, acronyms should be avoided to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 7 as reciting: “wherein the electrical device comprises a virtual device, a computer system, a global positioning system (GPS) device, or a digital assistant device.”
Claim 16 recites: “…wherein the porous polymer matrix is cross-linked or mixed with hydrophilic components selected from the group consisting of PEG, glycerin…” For the initial occurrence of a term, acronyms should be avoided to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 16 as reciting: “…wherein the porous polymer matrix is cross-linked or mixed with hydrophilic components selected from the group consisting of polyethylene glycol (PEG), glycerin…”
Claim 17 recites: “…wherein the porous polymer matrix comprises PNIPAAM treated or functionalized to reduce drying in ambient air.” For the initial occurrence of a term, acronyms should be avoided to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 17 as reciting: “…wherein the porous polymer matrix comprises poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAAM) treated or functionalized to reduce drying in ambient air.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6-10 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…wherein the triggering mechanism comprises a mechanical trigger, an optical trigger, an electrical trigger, and/or a thermal trigger, the controller is integrated with an electrical device that produces or receives the at least one predetermined text, sound, image, and/or location.” There is no mention of at least one predetermined text, sound, image, and/or location previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 6 as reciting: “…wherein the triggering mechanism comprises a mechanical trigger, an optical trigger, an electrical trigger, and/or a thermal trigger, the controller is integrated with an electrical device that produces or receives at least one predetermined text, sound, image, and/or location.”
Claims 7-8 have been rejected because they depend on rejected claim 6. Claim 9 recites: “The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a hollow fiber tube and membrane, filled with an aroma compound, wherein upon exposure to an undesirable compound, the membrane releases the aroma.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation of claim 1 is claim 9 trying to further limit. Where is the hollow fiber tube and membrane present?
Claim 10 recites: “The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a pH sensitive hydrogel including chitosan and poly(ethylene imine) or carboxymethyl chitosan.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation of claim 1 is claim 10 trying to further limit. Where is the pH sensitive hydrogel including chitosan and poly(ethylene imine) or carboxymethyl chitosan present?
Claim 15 recites: “…wherein the dispersing mechanism comprises a smart material for holding and releasing the aroma…” Firstly, the term “smart” renders the claim indefinite because it is a relative term and it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is. Secondly, this limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It is unclear as to what a “smart material” is. What structural feature makes this material “smart”?
Claim 16 recites: “…wherein the porous polymer matrix is cross-linked or mixed with hydrophilic components selected from the group consisting of polyethylene glycol (PEG), glycerin, sodium alginate, calcium chloride, zeolite, silica gel, silicone elastomer, or combination thereof.” This limitation is considered indefinite because silicon elastomer is typically hydrophobic due to their polymethylsiloxane (PDMS) backbone.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 16 as reciting: “…wherein the porous polymer matrix is cross-linked or mixed with hydrophilic components selected from the group consisting of polyethylene glycol (PEG), glycerin, sodium alginate, calcium chloride, zeolite, silica gel, or combination thereof.”
Claims 17-21 have been rejected because they depend on rejected claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Stults et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0051045, hereinafter Stults).
In regard to Claim 1, Stults discloses an apparatus (#200) for generating odor, the apparatus comprising:
a dispersing mechanism (#210) including a releasable aroma (see figure 2 and paragraph (see figures 2-3 and paragraph [0037]);
a triggering mechanism (#217) in combination with the dispersing mechanism (#210) and configured to trigger the dispersing mechanism (#210) to release the releasable aroma (see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0038]-[0039]); and
a controller (#215) in actuating combination with the triggering mechanism (#217), wherein the controller (#215) is configured to monitor for a predetermined stimulus (#220, #225) and to actuate the triggering mechanism (#217) upon determining an occurrence of the predetermined stimulus (see figures 2 and 4, and paragraphs [0038]-[0041], [0049] and [0061]).
In regard to Claim 2, Stults discloses wherein the dispersing mechanism (#210) comprises an aroma storage module (#305) selected from a polymer matrix and/or a blister pocket (#307A-#307N) (see figure 3 and paragraph [0048]).
In regard to Claim 4, Stults discloses wherein the blister pocket (#307A-#307N) comprises a film enclosing a releasable aroma, wherein the triggering mechanism (#217) is configured to rupture the film to release the releasable aroma (see figure 3 and paragraph [0048]; Stults discloses wherein the personal reservoir may be activated by breaking a reservoir #307 on a package #305 of reservoirs #307-#307N containing stimulant #202 to release the stimulant. This is considered equivalent to the triggering mechanism is configured to rupture the film to release the releasable aroma, as claimed by the applicant.).
In regard to Claim 6, Stults discloses wherein the triggering mechanism (#217) comprises a mechanical trigger, an optical trigger, an electrical trigger, and/or a thermal trigger, the controller (#215) is integrated with an electrical device that produces or receives at least one predetermined text, sound, image, and/or location (see figures 2 and 4 and paragraphs [0038]-[0039], [0044], [0049]-[0051] and [0061]).
In regard to Claim 7, Stults discloses wherein the electrical device comprises a virtual device, a computer system, a GPS device, or a digital assistant device (see figure 4 and paragraphs [0049]-[0051]).
In regard to Claim 11, Stults discloses wherein the dispersing mechanism (#210) comprises a plurality of blister pockets (#307A-#307N) including a releasable aroma, and the triggering mechanism (#217) is configured to separately rupture individual blister pockets (#307A-#307N) to release a corresponding releasable aroma (see figure 3 and paragraph [0048]; Stults discloses wherein the personal reservoir may be activated by breaking a reservoir #307 on a package #305 of reservoirs #307-#307N containing stimulant #202 to release the stimulant. This is considered equivalent to the dispersing mechanism comprises a plurality of blister pockets including a releasable aroma, and the triggering mechanism is configured to separately rupture individual blister pockets to release a corresponding releasable aroma, as claimed by the applicant.).
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kelsen, K. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0369442, hereinafter Kelsen).
In regard to Claim 1, Kelsen discloses an apparatus for generating odor, the apparatus comprising:
a dispersing mechanism (#251) including a releasable aroma (see figures 1-4 and paragraph [0056]);
a triggering mechanism (#233, #235) in combination with the dispersing mechanism (#251) and configured to trigger the dispersing mechanism (#251) to release the releasable aroma (see figures 1-4 and 32, and paragraphs [0058], [0081] and [0084]); and
a controller (#267) in actuating combination with the triggering mechanism (#233, #235), wherein the controller (#267) is configured to monitor for a predetermined stimulus and to actuate the triggering mechanism (#233, #235) upon determining an occurrence of the predetermined stimulus (see figures 1-4 and 32, and paragraphs [0057]-[0058], [0081] and [0084]).
In regard to Claim 2, Kelsen discloses wherein the dispersing mechanism (#251) comprises an aroma storage module (#101) selected from a polymer matrix and/or a blister pocket (see paragraph [0061).
In regard to Claim 3, Kelsen discloses wherein the polymer matrix comprises a porous polymer substrate, a hydrogel, and/or a hydrogel with carbon nanotubes (CNT), graphene, and/or titanium oxide (see paragraph [0061]).
In regard to Claim 6, Kelsen discloses wherein the triggering mechanism (#233, #235) comprises a mechanical trigger, an optical trigger, an electrical trigger, and/or a thermal trigger, the controller (#267) is integrated with an electrical device that produces or receives at least one predetermined text, sound, image, and/or location (see figures 2 and 4 and paragraphs [0084]-[0085]).
In regard to Claim 7, Kelsen discloses wherein the electrical device comprises a virtual reality device, a computer system, a GPS device, or a digital assistant device (See paragraphs [0084]-[0085]).
In regard to Claim 8, Kelsen discloses wherein the controller (#267) monitors for a displayed image on or a spoken word to or from the electrical device (see paragraphs [0084]-[0085]).
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 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelsen.
In regard to Claim 15, Kelsen discloses wherein the dispersing mechanism (#251) comprises a smart material for holding and releasing the aroma, the smart material comprising a porous polymer matrix, wherein the porous polymer matrix releases the material upon actuation of the triggering mechanism (#233, #235) (see paragraphs [0061] and [0084]). Examiner notes that although Kelsen is silent in regard to the polymer matrix being a “smart material”, Kelsen discloses substantially the same polymer matrix as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Kelsen’s polymer matrix will be reasonably a smart material, as it has been held that chemical compositions and their properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stults, in view of Walter et al. (EP1716872A1, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Walter).
In regard to Claim 5, Stults discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the blister pocket encloses the polymer matrix.
However, Walter teaches a chemically/mechanically self-regulating dispenser system for fragrances comprising a fabric blister containing an active ingredient and a pressure blister for sealing the fabric dispenser system (see paragraph [0001]). The fabric blister (fabric container) is made of a polymer matrix that melt a low temperatures and have a high enthalpy of fusion in the fragrance mixture. By using such polymers with high enthalpy of fusion, an increase in ambient temperature leads to a delay in temperature rise in the fragrance mixture, so that the polymers act as a temperature buffer in the system and thus limit the release of the fragrances despite rising ambient temperature (see paragraph [0009]). The chemically/mechanically self-regulating dispenser comprises a fabric blister comprising at least one porous polypropylene matrix, at least one fragrance, and at least one polymer that melts at a low temperature in soluble polar solvents (see paragraphs [0017] and [0022]). Further, the chemically/mechanically self-regulating dispenser further comprises a printer blister, wherein the mutual mechanical independence of the fabric blister and the printed blister makes it possible for the entire fabric dispenser system to be used both as a disposable item and as a refillable system with the two system components (fabric and printed blister) and can be produced in printer blister packs, i.e. the blister pocket encloses the polymer matrix (see paragraph [0066]).
Walter further teaches a polypropylene fiber fleece is coated on both sides with the polymer mass containing the fragrance. The coated fleece is die-cut according to the dimensions of the blister, embedded in a blister bag and sealed, thereby producing a printed blister pack, i.e. the blister pocked encloses the polymer matrix (see paragraphs [0072]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Stults by having the blister pocket to enclose the polymer matrix, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Walter teaches a chemically/mechanically self-regulating dispenser system for fragrances comprising a fabric blister containing an active ingredient and a pressure blister for sealing the fabric dispenser system, wherein the chemically/mechanically self-regulating dispenser comprises a fabric blister comprising at least one porous polypropylene matrix, at least one fragrance, at least one polymer that melts at a low temperature in soluble polar solvents, and a printer blister, wherein the mutual mechanical independence of the fabric blister and the printed blister makes it possible for the entire fabric dispenser system to be used both as a disposable item and as a refillable system with the two system components (fabric and printed blister) and can be produced in printer blister packs, whereby a polypropylene fiber fleece is coated on both sides with the polymer mass containing the fragrance, and the coated fleece is die-cut according to the dimensions of the blister, embedded in a blister bag and sealed, thereby producing a printed blister pack, i.e. the blister pocked encloses the polymer matrix, thereby obtaining a system that efficiently limits the release of the fragrances despite rising ambient temperature (see paragraph [0009], [0017], [0022], [0066] and [0072]-[0074]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stults, in view of Sirkar et al. (US Pat. No. 5,858,385, hereinafter Sirkar).
In regard to Claim 9, Stults discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a hollow fiber tube and membrane, filled with an aroma compound, wherein upon exposure to an undesirable compound, the membrane releases the aroma.
However, Sirkar teaches a novel controlled release device employing porous membranes with or without a nonporous coating and aqueous-organic partitioning of the selected agent to be delivered. The porous membranes are primarily in hollow fiber tube form and membrane. These porous membranes may be used to deliver selected agents such as fragrances to humans (see column 2, lines 50-59).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Stults by substituting a known type of dispersing mechanism with another known type of dispersing mechanism comprising a hollow fiber tube and membrane, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Sirkar teaches a novel controlled release device employing porous membranes with or without a nonporous coating and aqueous-organic partitioning of the selected agent to be delivered, wherein the porous membranes are primarily in hollow fiber tube form and membrane and these porous membranes may be used to deliver selected agents such as fragrances to humans (see column 2, lines 50-59).
Examiner notes that although Stults, in view of Sirkar, is silent in regard to wherein upon exposure to an undesirable compound the membrane releases the aroma, Stults, as modified above, discloses substantially the same apparatus as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Stults’s apparatus, as modified above, is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stults in view of Chen et al. (Synthesis and pH sensitivity of carboxymethyl chitosan-based polyampholyte hydrogels for protein carrier matrices, hereinafter Chen).
In regard to Claim 10, Stults discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a pH sensitive hydrogel chitosan and poly(ethylene imine) or carboxymethyl chitosan.
However, Chen teaches a novel polyampholyte hydrogels based on carboxymethyl chitosans (CMC) of various degree of deacetylation (DD) and substitution (DS) were prepared by crosslinking with glutaraldehyde. The hydrogel showed typical amphoteric character responding to pH of the external medium. At the isoelectric point (IEP), the hydrogel shrunk most, when the pH deviated from IEP, the swelling degree (Ds) increased. With increasing DD or DS value, the hydrogel changed from polyampholyte into polycations or polyanions, respectively. Osmotic forces and intermolecular interactions among CMC chains regulate the swelling behavior of CMC gel. The carboxymethyl chitin hydrogels were loaded with bovine blood proteins (BSA), and their release studies were performed in both the simulated gastric and intestinal pH conditions. The release was much quicker in pH 7.4 buffer than pH 1.2 solution; the release followed Fickian diffusion in the first 4h and then steadily increased with the dissolution of the hydrogels (see abstract).
Chen teaches that polyampholyte hydrogels with carboxymethyl chitosans were loaded inside with a material (bovine blood proteins) and it was demonstrated that the release of the material inside the hydrogels was quicker at a pH of 7.4, and therefore, the carboxymethyl chitosan hydrogels are pH sensitive.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Stults by further substituting a known dispersing mechanism for another known dispersing mechanism, such as further comprising a pH sensitive hydrogen including chitosan and poly(ethylene imine) or carboxymethyl chitosan, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Chen teaches that polyampholyte hydrogels with carboxymethyl chitosans where loaded inside with a material (bovine blood proteins) and it was demonstrated that the release of the material inside the hydrogels was quicker at a pH of 7.4, and therefore, the carboxymethyl chitosan hydrogels are pH sensitive, thereby obtaining an apparatus having improved fragrance releasing capabilities (see abstract).
Claim 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stults in view of Spector, D. (US Pat. No. 4,629,604, hereinafter Spector).
In regard to Claim 12, Stults discloses the apparatus of claim 11. Stults discloses wherein the plurality of blister pockets (#307A-#07N) is disposed on a substrate (#305) (see figure 3 and paragraph [0048]), but fails to disclose wherein the triggering mechanism comprises a retractable needle, a retractable lase, and/or a pair of conductive wires along the substrate and in combination with each of the plurality of blister pockets.
However, Spector teaches a multi-aroma cartridge player comprising an array of frame assemblies capable of exuding different aromatic fragrances. The multi-aroma cartridge player (#10) includes an array of frame assemblies formed by a pair of frames (#14, #15) made of PVC, i.e. polymer matrix, holding fragrant material (#13), i.e. blister pockets, and disposed on a honeycomb substrate (#21) (see figures 1-7 and column 3, lines 23-52 and column 4, lines 12-17). An individual electric heater (H1-H9), i.e. triggering mechanism, is mounted on the base of each honeycomb cell, and comprises a pair of conducting wires (seen on figure 6) along the honeycomb substrate (#21) and in combination with the array of frames (#14, #15) holding the fragrant material (#13), i.e. blister pockets (see figures 1-7 and column 4, lines 18-29). Each electric heater (H1-H9) is connected through a respective switch (S1-S9) to a transformer and a plug to a standard 120V power line. When any one of the switches (S1-S9) is closed, the associated heater is energized, and as a consequence, the fragrant material (#13) is heated and the liquid is volatilized to produce an aromatic vapor and discharged to the outside (see figures 1-7 and column 4, lines 30-41).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Stults by further changing the type of trigger mechanism to another known type of trigger mechanism, such as the triggering mechanism to comprise a pair of conductive wires along the substrate and in combination with each of the plurality of blister pockets, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Spector teaches a multi-aroma cartridge player comprising an array of frame assemblies formed by a pair of frames made of PVC, i.e. polymer matrix, holding fragrant material, i.e. blister pockets, and disposed on a honeycomb substrate, wherein an individual electric heater, i.e. triggering mechanism, is mounted on the base of each honeycomb cell, and comprises a pair of conducting wires along the honeycomb substrate and in combination with the array of frames holding the fragrant material, whereby each electric heater is connected through a respective switch to a transformer and a plug to a standard 120V power line, and when any one of the switches is closed, the associated heater is energized, and as a consequence, the fragrant material is heated and the liquid is volatilized to produce an aromatic vapor and discharged to the outside (see figures 1-7 and column 3, lines 23-52, and column 4, lines 12-41).
In regard to Claim 13, Stults discloses the apparatus of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises a filling hole under each of the plurality of blister.
However, Spector teaches a multi-aroma cartridge player comprising an array of frame assemblies capable of exuding different aromatic fragrances. The multi-aroma cartridge player (#10) includes an array of frame assemblies formed by a pair of frames (#14, #15) made of PVC, i.e. polymer matrix, holding fragrant material (#13), i.e. blister pockets, and disposed on a honeycomb substrate (#21) (see figures 1-7 and column 3, lines 23-52 and column 4, lines 12-17). As shown on figures 5-6, the honeycomb substrate (#21) comprises a filling hole (C1-C9 cells) under each pair of frames holding the fragrant material (#13), i.e. blister pockets, for holding individual electric heaters on the base of each honeycomb cell (see figure 5-6 and column 4, lines 12-41).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Stults by having the substrate to comprise a filling hole under each of the plurality of blister pockets, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Spector teaches as Spector teaches a multi-aroma cartridge player comprising an array of frame assemblies formed by a pair of frames made of PVC, i.e. polymer matrix, holding fragrant material, i.e. blister pockets, and disposed on a honeycomb substrate, wherein the honeycomb substrate comprises a filling hole under each pair of frames for holding the fragrant material, i.e. blister pockets, for holding individual electric heaters on the base of each honeycomb cell, for heating the fragrant material, whereby the liquid is volatilized to produce an aromatic vapor and discharged to the outside (see figures 1-7 and column 3, lines 23-52, and column 4, lines 12-41).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelsen in view of Armes et al. (US Pat. Pub No. 2006/0222670, hereinafter Armes).
In regard to Claim 14, Kelsen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the dispersing mechanism comprises microgel droplets including polymer matrix particles having particle diameters of less than 500 nanometers.
However, Armes teaches the use of a nanocomposite as a stimulus responsive particulate emulsifier, wherein the microgel particles comprise an inorganic particle component and a cross-linked responsive polymer matrix (see paragraph [0015]). The microgel particles comprise an inorganic particulate component and a cross-linked responsive polymer matrix, as a stimulus responsive particulate emulsifier, which comprises applying a stimulus to break the emulsion (see paragraph [0018]).
Armes further teaches the nanocomposite microgel particulate comprises a polymer matrix such as poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM) and inorganic particles, and the nanocomposite microgel particulate emulsifier has a mean particle size of less than 500nm (see paragraphs [0037] and [0048]), which falls inside the claimed range of less than 500nm, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Kelsen by substituting a known dispersing mechanism with another known dispersing mechanism, such as comprising microgel droplets including polymer matrix particles having particle diameters of less than 500 nanometers, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Armes teaches the use of a nanocomposite as a stimulus responsive particulate emulsifier, wherein the microgel particles comprise an inorganic particle component and a cross-linked responsive polymer matrix which comprises applying a stimulus to break the emulsion, and wherein the nanocomposite microgel particulate comprises a polymer matrix such as poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM) and inorganic particles, and the nanocomposite microgel particulate emulsifier has a mean particle size of less than 500nm, thereby obtaining an apparatus which efficiently releases fragrances by stimulus (see paragraphs [0037] and [0048]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelsen in view of Fugger et al. (EP1023088B1, hereinafter Fugger).
In regard to Claim 16, Kelsen discloses the apparatus of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the porous polymer matrix is cross-linked or mixed with hydrophilic components selected from the group consisting of polyethylene glycol (PEG), glycerin, sodium alginate, calcium chloride, zeolite, silica gel, or combination thereof.
However, Fugger teaches a process of making a perfume-impregnated hydrogel-forming absorbent polymer wherein release of a perfume is triggered by dynamic swelling force of the polymer when the polymer is wetted, i.e. stimulus (see paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The perfume-impregnated hydrogen forming absorbent polymer comprises mixing a solid carrier comprising a polymer, such as cyclodextrin and a porous hydrophilic matrix such as a zeolite, and a perfume/fragrance composition which may be loaded into the solid carrier, and applied to a material mixture of hydrogel-forming absorbent polymer (HFAP) before gelation point of HFAP polymerization for trapping the perfume within the matrix (see paragraphs [0026], [0028] and [0038]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Kelsen by substituting a known porous polymer matrix for another known porous polymer matrix, such as a porous polymer matrix cross-linked or mixed with hydrophilic components selected from the group consisting of polyethylene glycol (PEG), glycerin, sodium alginate, calcium chloride, zeolite, silica gel, or combination thereof, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Fugger teaches a process of making a perfume-impregnated hydrogel-forming absorbent polymer wherein release of a perfume is triggered by dynamic swelling force of the polymer when the polymer is wetted, i.e. stimulus, wherein the perfume-impregnated hydrogen forming absorbent polymer comprises mixing a solid carrier comprising a polymer, such as cyclodextrin and a porous hydrophilic matrix such as a zeolite, and a perfume/fragrance composition which may be loaded into the solid carrier, and applied to a material mixture of hydrogel-forming absorbent polymer (HFAP) before gelation point of HFAP polymerization for trapping the perfume within the matrix, thereby obtaining an apparatus that releases its fragrance upon stimulus (see paragraphs [0026], [0028] and [0038]-[0040]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelsen in view of Mascheroni et al. (Encapsulation of Volatiles in Nanofibrous Polysaccharide Membranes for Humidity-Triggered Release, hereinafter Mascheroni).
In regard to Claim 19, Kelsen discloses the apparatus of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the porous polymer matrix comprises an electro-spun fiber.
However, Mascheroni teaches a single-step electrospinning process applied to a blend of polymers, such as pullulan and β-cyclodextrin is used to encapsulate bioactive aroma compounds and allow a humidity-triggered release, i.e. stimulus (see abstract). A polymer solution was prepared by dissolving pullulan in water to make a pullulan solution, mixed with β-cyclodextrin and further emulsified to generate a polymeric emulsion, and the polymeric emulsion was electrospun, and the results show that it is possible to encapsulate aroma compounds directly in a single step electrospinning treatment applied to a dispersed aqueous system containing β-cyclodextrin, pullulan and aroma compounds (see abstract and results and discussion).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Kelsen by substituting a porous polymer matrix for another known polymer matrix comprising an electro-spun fiber, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mascheroni teaches a single-step electrospinning process applied to a blend of polymers, such as pullulan and β-cyclodextrin is used to encapsulate bioactive aroma compounds and allow a humidity-triggered release, i.e. stimulus, wherein a polymer solution was prepared by dissolving pullulan in water to make a pullulan solution, mixed with β-cyclodextrin and further emulsified to generate a polymeric emulsion, and the polymeric emulsion was electrospun, and the results show that it is possible to encapsulate aroma compounds directly in a single step electrospinning treatment applied to a dispersed aqueous system containing β-cyclodextrin, pullulan and aroma compounds (see abstract and results and discussion).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelsen in view of Walter.
In regard to Claim 21, Kelsen discloses the apparatus of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the porous polymer matrix is encapsulated with cyclodextrin.
However, Walter teaches a chemically/mechanically self-regulating dispenser system for fragrances comprising a fabric blister containing an active ingredient and a pressure blister for sealing the fabric dispenser system (see paragraph [0001]). The fabric blister (fabric container) is made of a polymer matrix that melt a low temperatures and have a high enthalpy of fusion in the fragrance mixture. By using such polymers with high enthalpy of fusion, an increase in ambient temperature leads to a delay in temperature rise in the fragrance mixture, so that the polymers act as a temperature buffer in the system and thus limit the release of the fragrances despite rising ambient temperature (see paragraph [0009]). The chemically/mechanically self-regulating dispenser comprises a fabric blister comprising at least one porous polypropylene matrix, at least one fragrance, and at least one polymer that melts at a low temperature in soluble polar solvents (see paragraphs [0017] and [0022]). Further, the fabric blister comprising the fragrance is encapsulated, and the encapsulation agent comprises cyclodextrin (see paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Kelsen by having the porous polymer matrix to be encapsulated with cyclodextrin, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Walter teaches a chemically/mechanically self-regulating dispenser system for fragrances comprising a fabric blister containing an active ingredient and a pressure blister for sealing the fabric dispenser system, wherein the chemically/mechanically self-regulating dispenser comprises a fabric blister comprising at least one porous polypropylene matrix, at least one fragrance, at least one polymer that melts at a low temperature in soluble polar solvents, and the fabric blister comprising the fragrance is encapsulated in cyclodextrin, thereby obtaining a system that efficiently limits the release of the fragrances despite rising ambient temperature (see paragraph [0009], [0017], [0022]-[0023], [0066] and [0072]-[0074]).
Examiner’s Comments
Regarding Claims 17-18 and 20, no art rejection has been made for these claims. These have only been rejected under 35 USC 112(b), as explained in the above office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights