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 .
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.
Claims 1-28 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 “the base of the device”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the base of the device” in previous claim limitations. Examiner respectfully submits that the claimed “device” is not inherently required to include a base. Claims 2-28 depend on claim 1 and hence are also rejected.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by German reference(DE10135778A1).
German reference in figure 1 teaches a compact scent delivery device, comprising a dynamic air flow chamber(housing 1), comprising an inlet for fresh air comprising an opening(air inlet opening 2), a fragrance source support(partition wall 5; para 0008 stating “the fiber material intended for forming the partition device is advantageously woven. The fabric structure is preferably chosen such that a passage cross section limiting the filter pores remains between the adjacent warp and weft threads”; para 0020 stating “Antibacterial substances or fragrances can also be embedded in the partition device according to the invention”), an outlet(air outlet opening 3) for scented air and wherein the inlet for fresh air faces a reflection surface(deflection device 7; noting airflow opening 2 in figure 1 facing the deflection device 7) and wherein the chamber further comprises the reflection surface configured to disperse and reflect and disperse the air from the inlet towards the fragrance source support, the fragrance source support being located within the chamber between the inlet and the outlet along a stream of air traversing the chamber, wherein the inlet, fragrance source support, outlet, and reflection surface are configured such that air flow entering the chamber through the inlet is reflected onto the reflection surface and dispersed throughout a cross-section of the chamber, after which the dispersed air touches the fragrance source and flows out through the outlet (para 0025 stating “by means of the shielding or deflection device arranged in the flow path to the partition device according to the invention, coarser dirt particles can be deflected in such a way that they do not hit the partition device or at least not with full inflow velocity”; para 0037 stating “which is additionally equipped with a deflection device 7, by which an improved velocity distribution in the air inlet section 4a can be achieved with regard to the separation of any entrained water droplets 8”.). Examiner notes the limitations “the device being configured so that when it is positioned vertically, the opening of the inlet faces downwards, the outlet is positioned above said opening, and the reflection surface is at the base of the device and positioned under the opening of the inlet” are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis, wherein anticipation is based independent on a chosen orientation of a prior art apparatus device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German reference(DE10135778A1) taken together with Thompson, Jr et al(9968701).
With regards to claim 2, German reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 but is silent as to in which the chamber comprises a narrowing air flow guide located between the fragrance source support and the outlet along a stream of air traversing the chamber. Thompson, Jr et al in figure 1D teaches a fragrance system(10), the fragrance system including an air flow chamber, the air flow chamber including an inlet(perforations 24) for fresh air, a fragrance delivery device(16), an outlet(top opening 22) for scented air, and wherein the air flow chamber includes a narrowing air flow guide(narrowing neck 20) located between the fragrance delivery device and the outlet along a stream of air traversing the chamber. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a narrowing air flow guide located between the fragrance source support(partition wall 5 of German reference) and the outlet(air outlet opening 3) in order to provide for a section of increased air velocity upstream of the air outlet opening.
With regards to claim 3, German reference taken together with Thompson, Jr et al further teaches wherein the fragrance source support comprises an air flow guide(para 0008 stating “the fiber material intended for forming the partition device is advantageously woven. The fabric structure is preferably chosen such that a passage cross section limiting the filter pores remains between the adjacent warp and weft threads”.).
With regards to claim 4, German reference taken together with Thompson, Jr et al further teaches in which the fragrance source support comprises a perforated surface(perforations formed by the woven structure), perforations of the surface forming the air flow guide.
With regards to claim 5, German reference taken together with Thompson, Jr et al further teaches in which the perforated surface spans the cross section of the chamber.
With regards to claim 7 , German reference taken together with Thompson, Jr et al further teaches in which an opening of the inlet located within the chamber is located at a distance from the reflection surface less than or equal to three times the width of said opening(noting the inlet 2 in German reference is located directly adjacent the deflection device 7 to prevent direct airflow contact with the partition wall 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-28 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.
Claim 6 recites “which comprises a perforation adaptation means configured to close/open at least one perforation of the surface.”. German reference teaches a fragrance source support comprising a perforated surface, however German reference does not teach or suggest a perforation adaptation means configured to close/open at least one perforation of the surface.
Claim 8 recites “in which the inlet extends longitudinally within the chamber, said inlet comprising a fixture for the fragrance source support.”. German reference teaches a chamber including a fresh air inlet comprising an opening, however German reference does not teach or suggest in which the inlet extends longitudinally within the chamber, said inlet comprising a fixture for the fragrance source support.
Claim 9 recites "Compact scent delivery system comprising a compact scent delivery device according to claim 1, an air flow mixing unit comprising: an inlet for scented air, configured to be connected to the outlet of scented air of the compact scent delivery device, - an outlet for mixed scented air directed at a smelling port , a conduit connecting the inlet for scented air and the outlet for mixed scent air and - at least one element of: an inlet for fresh air, configured to be connected to a fresh air delivery apparatus, said inlet delivering fresh air into the scented air stream between in the inlet for scented air and the outlet for mixed scented air and/or an outlet for waste scented air, configured to be connected to an air flow retrieval apparatus and/or a waste air exhaust, said outlet retrieving scented air from the scented air stream between the inlet for scented air and the outlet for mixed scented air in order to reduce the air flow either for subsequent dilution and/or for the associated smelling port ." German reference teaches a compact scent delivery device according to claim 1, however German reference does not teach or suggest an air flow mixing unit comprising: an inlet for scented air, configured to be connected to the outlet of scented air of the compact scent delivery device, - an outlet for mixed scented air directed at a smelling port , a conduit connecting the inlet for scented air and the outlet for mixed scent air and - at least one element of: an inlet for fresh air, configured to be connected to a fresh air delivery apparatus, said inlet delivering fresh air into the scented air stream between in the inlet for scented air and the outlet for mixed scented air and/or an outlet for waste scented air, configured to be connected to an air flow retrieval apparatus and/or a waste air exhaust, said outlet retrieving scented air from the scented air stream between the inlet for scented air and the outlet for mixed scented air in order to reduce the air flow either for subsequent dilution and/or for the associated smelling port. Claims 10-25 depend on claim 9 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claim 9 into claim 1.
Claim 26 recites “A method of scent delivery, comprising: a step of injecting fresh air into a compact scent delivery device according to claim 1, a step of injecting the scented air, from the outlet of the compact scent delivery device, into an air flow mixing unit and a step of providing fresh air into the scented air stream in the mixing unit and/or a step of retrieving waste scented air from the mixing unit.”. German reference teaches a step of injecting fresh air into a compact scent delivery device according to claim 1, however German reference does not teach or suggest a step of injecting the scented air, from the outlet of the compact scent delivery device, into an air flow mixing unit and a step of providing fresh air into the scented air stream in the mixing unit and/or a step of retrieving waste scented air from the mixing unit. Claims 27 and 28 depend on claim 26 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claim 26 into claim 1, and formulating a combination of claim 26 and claim 1 into a method claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-24-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to amended claim 1, applicant argues DE10135778A1 fails to disclose "the outlet is positioned above said opening". Applicant further argues in a vertical orientation, DE10135778A1 describes the air inlet opening 2 as being "arranged in the upper region of the housing 1." Id at I [0036], and as shown in Fig. 1, Air outlet opening 3 is positioned on the side of housing 1 and below air inlet opening 2. Applicant further argues DE10135778A1 further describes air outlet opening 3 as being arranged such that its lowest edge "is located clearly above the water discharge device 6." Id at I [0038] and therefore, rather than disclosing "the outlet is positioned above said opening" when the device is vertical, DE10135778A1 discloses air outlet opening 3 positioned below air inlet opening 2.
Examiner respectfully submits that anticipation of an apparatus claim is based on a prior art reference including all the claimed structural limitations , and patentable weight is not given based on a selected orientation of a claimed apparatus device. Examiner respectfully submits that German reference teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 1, as outlined in the current rejections, and therefore German reference anticipates the compact scent delivery device of amended claim 1. Examiner respectfully submits that although German reference provides an embodiment for separating liquid droplets from an inlet air flow, the device of claim 1 including housing(1) is capable of providing deflection and downstream fragrance infusion of an airflow that does not include liquid droplets, for example an inlet air flow that includes dust or dirt particulate. Examiner respectfully submits that the water drainage channel 6 and water outlet opening 6a are capable of functioning as a collection area for any other separated particulate. Examiner notes MPEP 2114 (II) states “a claim containing a ’recitation with respect to a manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. Examiner respectfully submits that the amendment to claim 1 defines a manner (configuration of the device in a vertical orientation) in which the claimed compact scent delivery device is intended to be employed.
Applicant also argues DE10135778A1 further fails to disclose "the opening of the inlet faces downwards" when the device is vertical as recited in amended Claim 1. Applicant argues the air inlet opening 2 is oriented to receive incoming air from above, rather than having an opening facing downwards toward the base of housing 1. Therefore, rather than disclosing "the opening of the inlet faces downwards," DE10135778A1 discloses air inlet opening 2 at the upper portion of housing 1 and oriented to receive incoming air from above.
Examiner respectfully submits that there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the base of the device”, as stated in the current 112 second paragraph rejection, therefore arguments that the air inlet opening 2 of German reference does not have an opening facing downwards towards the base of housing 1 are not given merit, wherein Examiner respectfully submits patentable weight is not given based on a selected orientation of a claimed apparatus device.
Examiner notes that amendment of claim 1 to specifically state that the compact scent delivery device includes a base, and that the claimed reflection surface is the base of the compact scent delivery device, with the opening of the inlet for fresh air faces the reflection surface, would seem to overcome German reference, wherein German reference includes “ a reflection surface”(deflection device 7), however the “reflection surface” is a separate structural element from the compact scent delivery device.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights