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. DETAILED ACTION This Office action is based on the 18/285302 application originally filed October 02, 2023. Amended claims 1-15, filed October 02, 2023, are pending and have been fully considered. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 2, 8, 11, 12 and 14 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. Regarding claims 2, 8, 11, 12 and 14, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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. Claim(s) 1 , 2, 4, 5 and 8 -15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gardlik et al. (US 6,147,037) hereinafter “Gardlik” . Regarding Claim s 1 and 5 Gardlik discloses in the abstract, a fragrance delivery system which comprises one or more pro-accords , which are capable of releasing mixtures of fragrance raw materials. The pro-accords which comprise the fragrance delivery systems are useful in delivering sustained fragrances to personal care items inter alia deodorants, body lotions or creams, sun tan lotions, shampoos, as well as liquid and granular laundry detergent compositions and hard surface cleaners. Gardlik discloses in column 4 lines 37-50, the fragrance accords released by the pro-accords have a "heart", "character", or "note" which is described as inter alia rose, jasmin, lilac, lily of the valley, violet, orange, peach, watermelon, and lemon, or the pro-accord can deliver fragrance raw materials which provide a "fresh" or "clean" note , for example, linalool or dihydromyrcenol. The accord may be further "modified" or "twisted" by the inclusion of pro-accords which deliver modifier top or middle notes which, as an additional benefit, can be incorporated into the pro-accord. For example, a "rose essence" may be combined with a "green" modifier to "shift the fragrance accord character". Gardlik discloses in column 6 line 27 and 40, pro-accords: linalool and isolinalool. The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. Regarding Claim s 2 , 4, 8 and 11 Gardlik discloses in column 4 lines 37-50, the fragrance accords released by the pro-accords have a "heart", "character", or "note" which is described as inter alia rose, jasmin, lilac, lily of the valley, violet, orange, peach, watermelon, and lemon, or the pro-accord can deliver fragrance raw materials which provide a "fresh" or "clean" note , for example, linalool or dihydromyrcenol. The accord may be further "modified" or "twisted" by the inclusion of pro-accords which deliver modifier top or middle notes which, as an additional benefit, can be incorporated into the pro-accord. For example, a "rose essence" may be combined with a "green" modifier to "shift the fragrance accord character". Regarding Claim 9 Gardlik discloses in column 16 lines 1-15, those skilled in the art of preparing fragrance-containing compositions have categorized fragrances into three types based on their relative volatility; top, middle, and base notes. In addition, fragrances are categorized by the odor they produce; some of these descriptors are broad and others are relatively specific. For example, "floral" is a term which connotes odors associated with flowers while the term "lilac" is more specific. Descriptors used by those skilled in the art of perfumes and fragrances are inter alia "rose", "floral", "green", "citrus", "spicy", "honey", and "musk". The sources of these notes are not limited to one chemical class; alcohols can produce "rose", "green", and "musk" scents, while "rose" scents can comprise alcohols, ketones, terpenes, aldehydes, etc . Regarding Claim 10 Gardlik discloses in column 5 line 54, a pro-accord 2,2-dimethyl-3-(3-methylphenyl)-propan-1-ol (Majantol) for the fragrance composition. Regarding Claims 12-15 Gardlik discloses in the abstract, a fragrance delivery system which comprises one or more pro-accords , which are capable of releasing mixtures of fragrance raw materials. The pro-accords which comprise the fragrance delivery systems are useful in delivering sustained fragrances to personal care items inter alia deodorants, body lotions or creams, sun tan lotions, shampoos, as well as liquid and granular laundry detergent compositions and hard surface cleaners. Gardlik discloses in column 4 lines 37-50, the fragrance accords released by the pro-accords have a "heart", "character", or "note" which is described as inter alia rose, jasmin, lilac, lily of the valley, violet, orange, peach, watermelon, and lemon, or the pro-accord can deliver fragrance raw materials which provide a "fresh" or "clean" note , for example, linalool or dihydromyrcenol. The accord may be further "modified" or "twisted" by the inclusion of pro-accords which deliver modifier top or middle notes which, as an additional benefit, can be incorporated into the pro-accord. For example, a "rose essence" may be combined with a "green" modifier to "shift the fragrance accord character". Gardlik discloses in column 6 line 27 and 40, pro-accords: linalool and isolinalool. Gardlik discloses in column 5 line 54, a pro-accord 2,2-dimethyl-3-(3-methylphenyl)-propan-1-ol (Majantol) for the fragrance composition. The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 3, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardlik et al. (US 6,147,037) hereinafter “Gardlik” . Regarding Claim 3 Gardlik discloses in column 4 lines 37-50, the fragrance accords released by the pro-accords have a "heart", "character", or "note" which is described as inter alia rose, jasmin, lilac, lily of the valley, violet, orange, peach, watermelon, and lemon, or the pro-accord can deliver fragrance raw materials which provide a "fresh" or "clean" note , for example, linalool or dihydromyrcenol. The accord may be further "modified" or "twisted" by the inclusion of pro-accords which deliver modifier top or middle notes which, as an additional benefit, can be incorporated into the pro-accord. For example, a "rose essence" may be combined with a "green" modifier to "shift the fragrance accord character". Gardlik discloses in column 16 lines 1-15, those skilled in the art of preparing fragrance-containing compositions have categorized fragrances into three types based on their relative volatility; top, middle, and base notes. In addition, fragrances are categorized by the odor they produce; some of these descriptors are broad and others are relatively specific. For example, "floral" is a term which connotes odors associated with flowers while the term "lilac" is more specific. Descriptors used by those skilled in the art of perfumes and fragrances are inter alia "rose", "floral", "green", "citrus", "spicy", "honey", and "musk". The sources of these notes are not limited to one chemical class; alcohols can produce "rose", "green", and "musk" scents, while "rose" scents can comprise alcohols, ketones, terpenes, aldehydes, etc . It is to be noted, Gardlik fails to specifically state the scent note is selected from pineapple, apple and/or plum. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art pineapple, apple and/or plum are within the scent notes of Gardlik due to Gardlik discloses various types of fruit and flower scent notes are present depending upon the desired fragrance accord. The applicant is reminded that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable varieties by routine experimentation. In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Regarding Claims 6 and 7 Gardlik discloses in the abstract, a fragrance delivery system which comprises one or more pro-accords , which are capable of releasing mixtures of fragrance raw materials. The pro-accords which comprise the fragrance delivery systems are useful in delivering sustained fragrances to personal care items inter alia deodorants, body lotions or creams, sun tan lotions, shampoos, as well as liquid and granular laundry detergent compositions and hard surface cleaners. Gardlik discloses in column 6 line 27 and 40, pro-accords: linalool and isolinalool. Gardlik further disclose in column 3 lines 31-35, at least about 0.01%, preferably from about 0.01% to about 15%, of one or more pro-accords . Therefore, due to the weight percent of the pro-accords of Gardlik , it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art the weight percent of Gardlik overlaps the claimed weight ratio . In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5551 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Prem Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6381 . 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. /Latosha Hines/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771