CTNF 18/251,395 CTNF 95641 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 December 2025 . Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not a statement that provides the technical disclosure of the patent applicant and does not include that which is new in the art to which the patent application pertains (MPEP 608.01.b). 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 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 2-5, 7-9, and 12-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Recommend amending claims 2-5, 7-9, and 13-16 to recite: “the plurality of food s ,” (consistent with the terminology of claim 1). Recommend amending claim 12 to recite: “ a the plurality of the foods.” Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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 the following: The “controller” in claim 1 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The generic placeholder is “controller” (defined as a means for controlling) and the functional limitation is “that controls each generation of a mist from a plurality of foods.” Structure that is used from the Specification includes a central processing unit. In claim 11, an additional functional limitation for the “controller” is “controls a flow of the mist.” Structure that is used from the Specification includes a fan. In claim 13, an additional functional limitation for the “controller” is “controls the generation of the mist from the food on a basis of a sensing result.” Structure that is used from the Specification includes a sensor system. In claim 15, an additional functional limitation for the “controller” is “controls the generation of the mist from the food on a basis of a projection timing of an image to be projected onto the mist.” Structure that is used from the Specification includes a projection display device. 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. 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-16 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 1 recites: “a controller that controls each generation of a mist from a plurality of foods.” The number of generations that are required by the claim is unclear. The claim recites a “generation,” which suggests that there is a singular generation. However, the claim also recites “each,” which suggests that there are plural generations. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only one generation, i.e., “ each a generation.” If multiple generations are intended to be claimed, then recommend amending claims 13-16 to recite a plurality of generations. If a singular generation is intended to be claimed, then recommend amending claim 6 to recite a singular generation of mist. Claim 4 recites “The control device according to claim 1, further comprising a mist generator , wherein the mist generator includes: an oscillation tank having an ultrasonic oscillator at a bottom part and having a container- like structure containing a liquid inside; and a food tank in contact with the liquid at a bottom part and having a container-like structure containing the food .” The scope of the claim is unclear because the preamble of the claim is directed to a “control device;” however, the body of the claim includes structure that is not part of a “control device” (referencing fig. 4 of the Drawings in the Instant Application). As a result, it is unclear if claim 4 is directed to a control device or a device that is much more than a control device. Recommend broadening the scope of the preamble in claim 4. Claim 6 recites: “wherein the food tank comprises a plurality of the food tanks containing the respective foods that are different from each other .” The scope of the “plurality of food tanks” and the “respective foods” is unclear. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 4, which recites: “a food tank in contact with the liquid at a bottom part and having a container-like structure containing the food.” Do the “plurality of food tanks” inherit the limitations of claim 4? In other words, does the “plurality of food tanks” each need to be “in contact with the liquid at a bottom part and having a container-like structure containing the food?” Also, are the “respective foods that are different from each other” the “plurality of foods” that generating a mist according to claim 1? Recommend using “at least one” and “each” in the parent claims if the intent is to claim an embodiment with a “plurality” in the child claims so that it clear how the child claims inherit the limitations of the parent claims. Claim 12 recites the limitation "each of the flows of the mists.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11, which recites “a flow of the mist.” It is unclear if claim 12 requires a singular flow and a singular mist, as recited in claim 11, or multiple flows and multiple mists, as recited in claim 12. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring at least one flow and at least one mist. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-11, and 13-16 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Cameron (US-20160330999-A1) . Regarding claim 1, Cameron teaches a control device ( vaporizer 300, fig. 3; “vaporize the mixture at controlled rates,” para 0079 ) comprising a controller ( processor 102, fig. 1; para 0079; construed as being equivalent to a central processing unit ) that controls a generation of a mist ( “… in response to a control signal from the processor 102, withdraw select quantities of vaporizable material in order to create a customized mixture of different types of vaporizable material,” para 0079; “vapor or mist,” para 0073 ) from a plurality of foods ( “two containers 202 a and 202 b containing a vaporizable material, for example a fluid or a solid,” para 0079; “flavoring correlated to a food item,” para 0036; each container is construed as containing a food, i.e., two foods are taught in fig. 3, one for each container ). Cameron, fig. 3 PNG media_image1.png 1123 1012 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Cameron teaches wherein the food comprises a liquid ( “the vaporizable material is liquid, t,” para 0079 ). Regarding claim 3, Cameron teaches wherein the mist comprises fine droplets of the food ( “average particle or droplet size can be less than three microns, for example, can be less than one micron with particles or droplets distributed in the range of 0.01 to 1 micron,” para 0144 ). Regarding claim 11, Cameron teaches wherein the controller ( the processor 102 can include a fan 130, fig. 1 ) further controls a flow of the mist ( “controlling the flow of vapor through each of the valves…the processor 102 can be configured to determine settings for the respective ones of the valves,” para 0050 ). Regarding claim 12, Cameron teaches wherein the controller controls ( “controlling the flow of vapor through each of the valves…the processor 102 can be configured to determine settings for the respective ones of the valves,” para 0050 ) each of the flows of the mists from a plurality of the foods ( each container 202a and 202b has a “valve,” para 0079 ). Regarding claim 13, Cameron teaches wherein the controller ( processor 102 can include a sensor 136, fig. 1 ) controls the generation of the mist from the food on a basis of a sensing result ( paras 0062 and 0069 ) of at least one or more of the mist ( para 0062 ), a user ( para 0063 ), or an environment ( “environmental conditions,” para 0064 ). Regarding claim 14, Cameron teaches wherein the controller ( processor 102 can include a sensor 136, fig. 1 ) controls the generation of the mist from the food on a basis of at least one or more of a state or an amount of the food ( “analyze the contents of the air, smoke, vapor or other material,” para 0062; the contents of the vapor are construed as being the states or the amounts of the vapor ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US-20160330999-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tomono et al. (US-20080223953-A1) . Regarding claim 4, Cameron teaches further comprising a mist generator ( containers 202a, 202b, 210a, and 210b as well as cartridges 206a and 206b, fig. 3 ), wherein the mist generator includes: an oscillation tank ( fluid containers 210a and 210b, fig. 3 ) having a container- like structure ( the containers 210a and 210b are construed as being container-like ) containing a liquid inside ( “fluid,” para 0080; para 0048 ); and a food tank ( cartridges 206a and 206b, fig. 3 ) in contact with the liquid at a bottom part ( cartridges 206a and 206b are in contact with the fluid in the containers 210a and 210b on the right side of the containers; the right side of fig. 3 is construed as being the “bottom part” ) and having a container-like structure ( cartridges 206a and 206b are construed as being container-like ) containing the food ( materials inside the cartridges 206a and 206b, fig. 3 ). Cameron does not explicitly disclose an oscillation tank having an ultrasonic oscillator at a bottom part ( although Cameron teaches using thin metal discs to produce ultrasonic vibrations, para 0053, Cameron does not explicitly disclose using an ultrasonic oscillator in the fig. 3 embodiment ). However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Tomono teaches an oscillation tank ( liquid container 19, fig. 1 ) having an ultrasonic oscillator ( ultrasonic transducer 40, fig. 1 ) at a bottom part ( bottom part of container 19, fig. 1 ). Tomono, fig. 1 PNG media_image2.png 1260 954 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cameron, in view of the teachings of Tomono, by placing an ultrasonic transducer 40, as taught by Tomono, on the right side of each of the containers 210a and 210b, as taught by Cameron in fig. 3, in order to use the liquid in the containers 210a and 210b, such that ultrasonic convergence is focused on the materials inside the cartridges 206a and 206b, as taught by Cameron, because when an intermediary medium is used to focus the ultrasonic convergence on the liquid for atomization, then the amount of atomization efficiency increases by two to three times in comparison to when an intermediary medium is not used ( Tomono, paras 0111-0112 ). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cameron in view of Tomono as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Tomono teaches wherein the ultrasonic oscillator ( ultrasonic transducer 40, fig. 1 ) generates the mist ( “mist,” para 0018 ) from the food ( Liq2, fig. 1 ) by propagating a vibration to the food ( para 0203 ) via the liquid ( Liq1, fig. 1 ) and the food tank ( transparent film 23, fig. 1 ). Regarding claim 6, Cameron teaches wherein the food tank comprises a plurality of the food tanks ( cartridges 206a and 206b, fig. 3 ) containing the respective foods ( materials inside the cartridges 206a and 206b, fig. 3 ) that are different from each other ( “different types of vaporizable material,” para 0079 ), wherein the controller controls each of the generations of the mists of the mutually different foods from the plurality of food tanks ( “in response to a control signal from the processor 102, withdraw select quantities of vaporizable material in order to create a customized mixture of different types of vaporizable material” para 0079 ). Regarding claim 10, Cameron teaches wherein the food tank ( cartridges 206a and 206b, fig. 3 ) is provided detachably from the mist generator ( “configured to fit inside and engage removably,” para 0079 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US-20160330999-A1) and Tomono et al. (US-20080223953-A1) as applied to claim s 1 and 4 above and further in view of Baym et al. (US-20140134298-A1) . Regarding claim 7, Cameron teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller controls an oscillation frequency of the ultrasonic oscillator on a basis of a type of the food. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Tomono teaches wherein the controller ( drive circuit 43, fig. 1 ) controls an oscillation frequency of the ultrasonic oscillator ( para 0182 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cameron, in view of the teachings of Tomono, by controlling the ultrasonic transducer 40 such that it operated at a high frequency of 1 MHz, as taught by Tomono, in order to control the size of the particles based on the frequency, for the advantage of creating mists with extremely small particles such that the mists drift in space for a certain amount of time ( Baym, paras 0182 and 0208 ). Cameron/Tomono do not explicitly disclose wherein the controller controls the oscillation frequency on a basis of a type of food. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Baym teaches wherein the controller ( para 0032 ) controls the oscillation frequency on a basis of a type of food ( layer 104 releases based on a “first frequency” and layer 114 releases based on a “second frequency,” para 0043; the layers can have “different encapsulated food additives,” para 0044; construed such that the frequency is determined based on the desired food additive that is released ). Baym, fig. 1B PNG media_image3.png 474 648 media_image3.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cameron, in view of the teachings of Baym, by using a different encapsulation layer, as taught by Cameron, for each of the cartridges 206a and 206b, as taught by Cameron, in order to be able to release multiple distinct food additives to a consumer at the same time or at a range of times in response to a variety of conditions ( Baym, para 0030 ). Regarding claim 8, Cameron teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller controls an oscillation frequency of the ultrasonic oscillator on a basis of a type of a secondary ingredient to which the mist of the food is to be attached or which is to be immersed in the food. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Tomono teaches wherein the controller ( drive circuit 43, fig. 1 ) controls an oscillation frequency of the ultrasonic oscillator ( para 0182 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cameron, in view of the teachings of Tomono, by controlling the ultrasonic transducer 40 such that it operated at a high frequency of 1 MHz, as taught by Tomono, in order to control the size of the particles based on the frequency, for the advantage of creating mists with extremely small particles such that the mists drift in space for a certain amount of time ( Baym, paras 0182 and 0208 ). Cameron/Tomono do not explicitly disclose wherein the controller controls the oscillation frequency on a basis of a type of a secondary ingredient to which the mist of the food is to be attached or which is to be immersed in the food. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Baym teaches wherein the controller ( para 0032 ) controls the oscillation frequency on a basis of a type of a secondary ingredient ( food additive 112, fig. 1B ) to which the mist of the food ( food additive 102, fig. 1B ) is to be attached ( “can be introduced to the consumer at the same time,” para 0012; construed such that the additives attach when released at the same time ) or which is to be immersed in the food ( food additive 112 is immersed in food additive 102, fig. 1B; layer 104 releases based on a “first frequency” and layer 114 releases based on a “second frequency,” para 0043; the layers can have “different encapsulated food additives,” para 0044; construed such that the frequency is determined based on the desired food additive that is released ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cameron, in view of the teachings of Baym, by using two different encapsulation layers 104 and 114, as taught by Cameron, for each of the cartridges 206a and 206b, as taught by Cameron, in order to be able to release multiple distinct food additives to a consumer at the same time or at a range of times in response to a variety of conditions ( Baym, para 0030 ). Regarding claim 9, Cameron teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller controls an oscillation timing of the ultrasonic oscillator on a basis of a type of the food. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Tomono teaches wherein the controller ( drive circuit 43, fig. 1 ) controls an oscillation timing ( the reciprocal of the “frequency” is construed as the claimed “oscillation timing,” para 0182; e.g., 2 MHz is construed as 0.5 microseconds ) of the ultrasonic oscillator ( para 0182 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cameron, in view of the teachings of Tomono, by controlling the ultrasonic transducer 40 such that it operated at a high frequency of 1 MHz, as taught by Tomono, in order to control the size of the particles based on the frequency, for the advantage of creating mists with extremely small particles such that the mists drift in space for a certain amount of time ( Baym, paras 0182 and 0208 ). Cameron/Tomono do not explicitly disclose wherein the controller controls the oscillation timing on a basis of a type of food. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Baym teaches wherein the controller ( para 0032 ) controls the oscillation timing on a basis of a type of food ( layer 104 releases based on a “first frequency” and layer 114 releases based on a “second frequency,” para 0043; the layers can have “different encapsulated food additives,” para 0044; construed such that the frequency is determined based on the desired food additive that is released ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cameron, in view of the teachings of Baym, by using a different encapsulation layer, as taught by Cameron, for each of the cartridges 206a and 206b, as taught by Cameron, in order to be able to release multiple distinct food additives to a consumer at the same time or at a range of times in response to a variety of conditions ( Baym, para 0030 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US-20160330999-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ishita et al. (JP-2015179131-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) . Cameron teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller controls the generation of the mist from the food on a basis of a projection timing of an image to be projected onto the mist. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Ishita teaches wherein the controller ( control unit 11, fig. 3; construed as including projector 2, fig. 1 ) controls the generation of the mist from the food ( para 0035 ) on a basis of a projection timing of an image to be projected onto the mist ( “projected image 600 is projected onto the screen 315 and displayed,” para 0040; fig. 1 ). Ishita, fig. 1 PNG media_image4.png 558 628 media_image4.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cameron, in view of the teachings of Ishita, by using a projector, as taught by Ishita, to project onto the vapors, as taught by Cameron, in order to project images onto a mist screen, which creates the effect such that the images appear to float in mid-air ( Ishita, para 0002 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US-20160330999-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Edwards et al. (US-20190339654-A1) . Cameron teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller controls the generation of the mist from the food on a basis of an output timing of music to be outputted to a user. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Edwards teaches wherein the controller ( mobile device 712, fig. 8A ) controls the generation of the mist from the food on a basis of an output timing of music to be outputted to a user ( “Icons 830 representing different scents can be used as labels for the scent track composer to keep track of which scent is to be released at the various transitions in the music,” para 0103 ). Edwards, fig. 8A PNG media_image5.png 472 652 media_image5.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cameron, in view of the teachings of Edwards, by timing the vaporization, as taught by Cameron, based on various transition in music, as taught by Edwards, in order to use a scent track that is synchronized with an audio track, of the advantage of providing olfactory stimuli combined with audio signals, enhancing the overall sensory experience for a user ( Edwards, paras 0005 and 0033 ) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dziaba et al. (US-20030195816-A1) teach an integrated ordering system using different scents. Edwards et al. (US-20120114809-A1) teach delivering aerosol ingredients using ultrasonic generators. Bretillot et al. (US-20140291414-A1) teach delivering aerosol ingredients using ultrasonic generators. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30. 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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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. /ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/28/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 10 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 11 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 12 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 13 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 14 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 15 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 16 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/251,395 Page 17 Art Unit: 3761
Prosecution Insights