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 Objections
Claims 3-4, 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims all recite “wherein further comprising” and the claims should recite only one transitional phrase (i.e. “wherein” or “further comprising”) for grammatical correctness.
Claim 4 should read “a plurality of sleeves (6) [[is]] are provided,” for grammatical correctness.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 8 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 4 recites “the sleeve (6)” twice after claiming “sleeves” and finally recites the limitations “a plurality of sleeves is provided”. It cannot be determined if there are a plurality of sleeves and what features are common to a single sleeve versus the plurality. The claim should consistently refer to sleeves in plurality and refer to features of individual sleeves as one of the plurality of sleeves, and is interpreted herein in that manner for the purposes of examination.
Claim 8 recites “slidingly matched with a plurality of stays (71)” and it’s not clear if the stays are the same as the plurality of vertically arranged stays (71) set forth in claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. The scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted the stays are the same or different.
The remaining claims are indefinite for being dependent on one of the claims above for at least the reasons set forth above.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kihm (US 2020/0009284).
Regarding claim 1, Kihm (US 2020/0009284) discloses –
An atomizing aroma diffuser (title, Figs. 1-7 and 13 – fragrance discharge apparatus 10), comprising:
a housing (body 200), a mounting cavity (the hollow formed by mounting hole 210 in the body 200, par. 72) is provided inside the housing (figs. 3 and 6-7 show this),
an oil inlet (mounting hole 210) connecting the mounting cavity and ambient is provided on a top side of the housing (see fig. 6 where the hole 210 is on the top of the body, connecting the inside of the body 200 to the outside),
the housing is also provided with a mist outlet (fig. 7 the space where d1 is shown extending to air outlet 240 is for releasing mist; par. 96) connecting the mounting cavity and the ambient (fig. 7 shows this;
an oil guiding member (Fig. 13 fragrance discharger 120), the oil guiding member is arranged in the mounting cavity (Fig. 7 shows the discharger portion 120 with ultrasonic vibrator 122 in the cavity of the housing 200), and
a bayonet (par. 83, the inner portion of fragrance discharger 120 at housing 125 forms a bayonet as shown in fig. 8 component 21 in the instant specification) and an oil storage channel (guide funnel 125d) are provided inside the oil guiding member (Fig. 13 shows this);
the bayonet is arranged at a first end of the oil storage channel (fig. 13 shows the threaded portion at one end of the guide funnel 125d) and connected to the oil storage channel and the oil inlet (the components are all at least indirectly connected);
a second end of the oil storage channel is correspondingly connected to the mist outlet (the components are all at least indirectly connected);
an atomizing sheet (ultrasonic vibrator 122), the atomizing sheet is arranged at the mist outlet (fig. 7 and 13 show this) and configured to block the oil storage channel (component 122 blocks the channel including 125d);
an essential oil bottle (fragrance storage 110, fig. 13 and 4a), a mouth of the essential oil bottle extends into the oil inlet (Fig. 1 shows this) and is detachably connected to the bayonet (par. 83, the fragrance storage 110 can be detached from the discharger 120 and the associated bayonet).
Regarding claim 2, Kihm further teaches the oil inlet and the bayonet (21) are configured to be vertical (fig. 7 shows this), the oil storage channel is arranged horizontally (the guide funnel 125d tapers horizontally and is therefore arranged as such, and furthermore “arranged” is not a positive recitation of structure and the funnel could be arranged in a horizontal manner), and
the mist outlet is configured to be inclined upward relative to the oil storage channel (the outlet formed from d1 to d3 at 240 is inclined upward), and the atomizing sheet obliquely blocks the oil storage channel (ultrasonic vibrator 122 obliquely blocks guide funnel 125d because the structure of 122 will bend as shown in fig. 13 to form a non-right angle between the funnel 125d and the ultrasonic vibrator 122).
Regarding claim 3, Kihm further teaches an end cover (Fig. 1 protector 201), the end cover is detachably connected with the oil inlet, so as to close or open the oil inlet (Fig. 1 shows a detachable connection to cover the mounting holes 210).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihm (US 2020/0009284) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mushtaq (CA 3 004 774).
Regarding claim 4, Kihm appears to be silent with regards to sleeves.
Mushtaq (CA 3 004 774) discloses a fragrance dispersion system wherein the device (Figs. 6-11, fragrance dispenser 20) includes sleeves (fragrance reservoir 52 has at least one sleeve 68 in the form of a petal valve 68 with petal valve ring 70; par. 65), a sleeve hole (top of valve 68) and an oil discharge hole (bottom of the hole 68) are provided inside the sleeve (the holes are formed by the sleeve and exist within it), and the oil discharge hole is connected to the sleeve hole and the ambient (the valve 68 meters oil to the atomizer for dispersion into the environment; par. 68);
the sleeve can extend into the oil inlet and be detachably connected with the bayonet (the bottom of the petal valve 68 is connectable to the spigot 76 of the chimney 32),
the mouth of the essential oil bottle is detachably connected with the sleeve hole (the top of the petal valve is shown as being connectable with the bottle 52);
a plurality of sleeves is provided (Kihm discloses a plurality of bottles and therefore a plurality of sleeves would be included). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kihm such that the device includes a sleeve with the features as taught by Mushtaq to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to control the output of the device according to means known in the art to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding the limitation that the size of the sleeve holes are different on each of the sleeves: this modification would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as this modification is merely obvious to try. There are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, as the sleeves can only be the same size as one another or different. An ordinary artisan would be able to see the predictable advantage of having differently sized sleeves, in order to accommodate differently sized bottles to arrive at an improved device. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihm (US 2020/0009284) in view of Mushtaq (CA 3 004 774) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Brunner (WO 2015/011210).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kihm further teaches the mouth of the essential oil bottle (4) is threadedly connected with the sleeve hole (Mushtaq teaches the mouth of the bottle 52 being connected to the top hole on the valve, Kihm making obvious the use of threaded connections, par. 83). Modified Kihm appears to be silent with regards to a convex strip.
Brunner (WO 2015/011210) discloses diffuser device (last par. on p. 16 discloses the cartridge is for a fragrant gas) with an inner wall of a bayonet is provided with a convex strip (figs. 4 and 7-8, hooks 77-79 have an inner surface that is interior to cover element 76), and the convex strip and the inner wall of the bayonet enclose to form a limiting groove (sliding surfaces 80-82, particularly on the radial interior thereof at 77 shown in fig. 7);
a sleeve is rotationally connected with the bayonet (see claim 1 on p. 14, “sliding surface (80) on which the projection (87) can slide”, the components are rotated to be reversibly mated), and an outer wall of the sleeve is provided with a protrusion (Fig. 8 92 protective web 92-93);
when the sleeve is placed in the bayonet, the protrusion can be driven to engage into the limiting groove by rotating the sleeve (see claim 1 on p. 14, “sliding surface (80) on which the projection (87) can slide”, the components are rotated to be reversibly mated). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kihm such that the sleeve and bayonet connect to each other rotatably and reversibly with the features taught by Brunner to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to create a, convenient, cheap, secure, and reversible (see p. 4 last par.) connection to arrive at an improved device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihm (US 2020/0009284) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Brunner (WO 2015/01210).
Regarding claim 6, Kihm appears to be silent with regards to a thimble.
Brunner (WO 2015/01210) teaches a thimble (Fig. 3 shows cap 18 with a central thimble), the thimble is vertically arranged in the first end of the oil storage channel (when lid member 18 and bottom member 19 are attached, the central thimble would extend into the channel formed by the interior space), and a needle of the thimble extends into the bayonet (the tip of the thimble specifically reading on the limitation of a needle, further the needle would similarly extend into the bayonet closure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kihm such that it includes a thimble with a needle as claimed to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to uniformly and thoroughly disperse the mist from the vibrator 122 into the airstream for consistent dispersion.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihm (US 2020/0009284) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kelsen (US 2018/0369442).
Regarding claim 9, Kihm appears to be silent with regards to a battery connected to the control board and atomizing sheet.
Kelsen (US 2018/0369442) discloses a fragrance system (abstract) including a battery connected to a control board and atomizer (par. 57) in a mounting cavity (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kihm such that it includes a battery connected to a control board and atomizing sheet to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so for convenient portable operation.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kihm further teaches an LED light strip electrically connected to the control board is arranged on the top side of the housing (Kelsen, par. 59 discloses an LED screen which would include or be a strip of LEDs, and it is on a side that could be oriented as the top side).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Kihm in view of Brunner.
Kihm in view of Brunner teaches a thimble with a plurality of stays arranged on a side of the thimble (see fig. 1, the thimble on cap 2). Kihm in view of Brunner are silent with regards to the thimble being a pyramid shape and the stays being arranged on an upper circumference of the thimble. There would be no reason to modify Kihm or Brunner to include all of the limitations recited in claim 7 and therefore the claim is allowable over the prior art.
Claim 8 is indicated as allowable for being dependent on claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758