DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 08/18/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-18, and 20-23 are acknowledged as pending with claims 1, 8, 15-16 being currently amended. Claims 9-14 remain withdrawn from consideration.
The claim objections, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn as having been overcome by the amendment. New rejections necessitated by the amendment are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 8, paras. 2-5, that the combination of references, (Chandler et al. (US 2017/0023922) and Wetmore et al. (US 2013/0190556), used to reject claim 1 does not teach “controlling the treatment schedule so that scents delivered during consecutive intervals necessarily belong to different fragrance families and remain distinguishable from one another by the human”, the argument is found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9, paras. 3-5, that the combination of references used to reject claims 2, 7, and 21, does not teach 1) thirty minute intervals and five minute breaks, 2) the act of establishing a wireless coupling link as the activity that signifies that the user is going to bed and initiates the treatment schedule, and 3) that no scent is repeated during the schedule, respectively. After further consideration, the argument is found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10, paras. 2-5, that the combination of references used to reject claim 15 does not teach classifying scents into families and subgroups according to the claimed fragrance wheel to control the scent administered during consecutive intervals of the claimed cognitive-improvement treatment schedule. After further consideration, the argument is found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11, paras. 1-4, that the combination of references used to reject claims 20 and 22-23, does not teach 1) programming the device to being the claimed treatment schedule after a predetermined amount of time measured from when the human went to bed, 2) that no scent be repeated more than once during the treatment schedule, and 3) five minute breaks, respectively. After further consideration, the argument is found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11, para. 5, that the examiner erroneously cited to Wetmore et al. to teach claim 18’s limitations. This argument is found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 15-18, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references
Claim Objections
Claims 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 3, “the schedule” should read “the treatment schedule”
In claim 6, line 2, “the schedule” should read “the treatment schedule”
In claim 15, line 2, “each family” should read “each scent family”
In claim 18, line 1, “said scent families” should read “the scent families”
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 8, 16-17, and 20 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 8 recites the limitation "the handheld device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as if dependent of claim 7, which discloses a handheld device.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a schedule” in line 1. It is unclear whether a “schedule” is synonymous to the previously recited “treatment schedule” in claim 1, line 5, the “daily treatment schedule” in claim 1, line 11, or if the “schedule” in claim 16, line 1 is associated with a different technical feature entirely.
Claim 16 further recites the limitation “said schedule” in line 3. It is unclear whether “said schedule” is synonymous to the previously recited “treatment schedule” in claim 1, line 5, the “daily treatment schedule” in claim 1, line 11, or if “said schedule” in claim 16, line 3 is associated with a different technical feature entirely.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the schedule” in line 1. It is unclear whether the “schedule” is refers to the previously recited “treatment schedule” in claim 1, line 5, the “daily treatment schedule” in claim 1, line 11, or if the “schedule” in claim 17, line 1 is associated with a different technical feature entirely.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the schedule” in line 2. As indicated in the rejection of claim 16 above, it is unclear whether the “schedule” refers to the previously recited “treatment schedule” in claim 1, line 5, the “daily treatment schedule” in claim 1, line 11, or if the “schedule” in claim 20, line 2 is associated with a different technical feature entirely.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 15-18, 20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laudamiel-Pellet et al. (US 2006/0196100) in view of Wetmore et al. (US 2013/0190556), further in view of Warrenburg et al. (US 2004/0033279).
Regarding claim 1, Laudamiel-Pellet et al. teaches a method for dispensing multiple scents into the environment to induce a physiological or therapeutic effect in a human (paras. 0026, 0048, and 0058-0059), the method comprising:
establishing a treatment schedule including a plurality of intervals separated by breaks (paras. 0123-0125, “emission program”, “non-emission/non-heated period” and “emission period” and 0131-0132);
inputting the treatment schedule into a scent-delivery device (Fig. 1, diffuser/dispensing device/device 20; para. 0050) such that the device delivers one of a plurality of scents during each interval, and stops the delivery of the scent upon completion of each interval (paras. 0021, 0123-0125, and 0139);
ensuring the plurality of scents delivered during consecutive intervals are sufficiently distinct from each other, thereby maintaining the plurality of scents' distinction and ensuring the plurality of scents are distinguishable by said human (para. 0131, wherein the emission program provides noticeable transitions between different scents and wherein it is clear that consecutive scents are sufficiently distinct from each other to provide for the noticeable transitions).
While Laudamiel-Pellet et al. further teaches scent themes (paras. 0024, 0048, 0058-0061), Laudamiel-Pellet et al. fails to teach improving cognitive function of a human, a fragrance family, and repeating the treatment schedule for a predetermined treatment length to improve far transfer effects for the human.
In the same field of endeavor, Wetmore teaches a method of improving cognitive function of a human (Abstract; paras. 0037, 0112-0115, and 0205-0207) further comprising: repeating the treatment schedule for a predetermined treatment length to improve far transfer effects for the human (paras. 0033, 0064, 0078, 0158, wherein sensory stimuli according to a training schedule are repeated after a training/learning phase over multiple sleep stages over multiple nights, the sensory stimulus may be a scent; para. 0171).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al. with the aim of improving cognitive and/or memory function of a human and the act of repeating the treatment schedule for a predetermined treatment length of Wetmore et al. Improving cognitive and memory function may enhance the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities, age-related cognitive decline, or other learning disabilities. Moreover, healthy individuals may also benefit from methos that enhance memory consolidation and, consequently, long-term memory retention (Wetmore et al., para. 0009 and 0014-0027). Additionally, a repeated treatment schedule may be useful for delivering stimuli to modulate a phase of the user’s sleep, improve sleep quality, enhance memory during sleep, or conversely, facilitate learning a task or skill while awake (Wetmore et al., paras. 0017, 0035, 0055, and 0067).
While Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., teaches improving cognitive function of a human and repeating the treatment schedule for a predetermined treatment length, the combination of Laudamiel-Pellet et al. and Wetmore et al. fail to teach a fragrance family.
In the same field of endeavor, Warrenburg et al. teaches a fragrance family (Abstract; para. 0018, “concentration of one or more fragrance compositions having an aroma profile including at least one rose, floral, musky, ambery, sweet and/or powdery aroma fragrance notes or nuances”; paras. 0019 and 0053-0064, wherein Fragrances A-E have distinct scent undertones).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., with the one or more fragrance compositions having a distinct aroma profile of Warrenburg et al. Emitting different aroma profiles including one or more of rose, floral, musky, ambery, sweet and/or powdery aroma notes, may induce relaxation in users when inhaled (Warrenburg et al., Abstract; paras. 0001-0004, 0045-0052).
Regarding claim 2, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein establishing the treatment schedule including the plurality of intervals separated by breaks comprises scheduling a plurality of 30-minute intervals separated by 5-minute breaks (Laudamiel-Pellet et al., paras. 0123-0125).
Regarding claim 3, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Laudamiel-Pellet et al. further teaches wherein establishing the treatment schedule including the plurality of intervals separated by breaks (paras. 0123-0125, “emission program”, “non-emission/non-heated period” and “emission period” and 0131-0132) but fails to teach scheduling at least three intervals separated by breaks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al to include at least three intervals separated by breaks, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working values/amounts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is at least three intervals separated by breaks which achieves the recognized result of ensuring memory enhancement for a greater number of learned information is provided during a single treatment schedule, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed value/amount through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The Examiner notes there appears to be no criticality for the claimed value/amount.
Regarding claim 4, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Laudamiel-Pellet et al. further teaches inputting the treatment schedule into a scent-delivery device (Fig. 1, diffuser/dispensing device/device 20; para. 0050) but fails to teach wirelessly connecting the device to a handheld electronic device having an application that allows the schedule to be uploaded from the handheld electronic device to the scent-delivery device.
Wetmore et al. further teaches wirelessly connecting the device to a handheld electronic device having an application that allows the schedule (para. 0078, “training schedule”) to be uploaded from the handheld electronic device to the scent-delivery device (paras. 0021 and 0061, wherein the user may control the device via web-based software application running a mobile device; paras. 0090, 0146, and 0150-0151, wherein the control logic, which comprises an application configured to be executed on a mobile device, triggers the sensory stimuli according to detection of the users sleep state, and 0195, “a stimulus generator capable of delivering one or more olfactory stimuli could connect to the mobile device and be activated at the appropriate times based on the control logic of the custom application running on the mobile device”; paras. 0125, 0196-0200, 0254-0255; Claim 1; Figs. 3 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. with the wirelessly connected handheld electronic device having an application of Wetmore et al. This modification enables users to directly activate and program the stimulus they receive without additional intervention (Wetmore et al., paras. 0021, 0061, 0090, 0146, 0150-0151, 0196-0200, 0254-0255).
Regarding claim 6, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Laudamiel-Pellet et al. fails to teach wherein establishing a treatment schedule comprises basing an initiation of the schedule on an activity signifying that a user is going to bed.
Wetmore et al. further teaches wherein establishing a treatment schedule comprises basing an initiation of the schedule on an activity signifying that a user is going to bed (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 7, “Detect sleep phase”; paras. 0080, 0131-0138, 0166, 0169, and 0171, wherein the activity signifying that a user is going to bed includes the user putting on an EEG headband unit to track sleep).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. with the treatment schedule initiation of Wetmore et al. By monitoring the user’s physiological changes during sleep and delivering user-specific sensory stimuli, i.e., scents, may improve the user’s quality of “deep” sleep (Wetmore et al., paras. 0016 and 0132).
Regarding claim 7, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above. Laudamiel-Pellet et al. fails to teach wherein said activity comprises communicatively coupling a handheld device to the scent-delivery device.
Wetmore et al. further teaches communicatively coupling a handheld device to the scent-delivery device (paras. 0021, 0090, 0150-0151, wherein the control logic, which comprises an application configured to be executed on a mobile device, triggers the sensory stimuli according to detection of the users sleep state, and 0195, “a stimulus generator capable of delivering one or more olfactory stimuli could connect to the mobile device and be activated at the appropriate times based on the control logic of the custom application running on the mobile device”; paras. 0125 and 0196-0200; Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein said activity comprises wirelessly coupling a biometric sensor (Wetmore et al., para. 0125 and 0138; Fig. 5, “EGG Sensor”) to the handheld device (Wetmore et al., para. 0061 and 0150-0151, Fig. 5, “computing device”, i.e., mobile device), and providing data that indicates the user has begun a sleep-cycle (Wetmore et al., paras. 0166, 0169, and 0171, wherein the activity signifying that a user is going to bed includes the user putting on an EEG headband unit to track sleep).
Regarding claim 15, Laudamiel-Pellet et al. teaches a method for dispensing multiple scents into the environment to induce a physiological or therapeutic effect in a human (paras. 0026, 0048, and 0058-0059), the method comprising:
providing a plurality of scents (Abstract; para. 0026, 0047-0048, 0058-0059);
establishing a treatment schedule including exposure of the human to a plurality of intervals separated by breaks, wherein a scent is administered to the human during an interval and no scent is administered during a break (paras. 0123-0125, “emission program”, “non-emission/non-heated period” and “emission period” and 0131-0132);
ensuring the plurality of scents delivered during one or more consecutive intervals are sufficiently distinct from each other, thereby facilitating the plurality of scents are distinguishable by said human (para. 0131, wherein the emission program provides noticeable transitions between different scents and wherein it is clear that consecutive scents are sufficiently distinct from each other to provide for the noticeable transitions).
While Laudamiel-Pellet et al. further teaches scent themes (paras. 0024, 0048, 0058-0061), Laudamiel-Pellet et al. fails to teach improving cognitive function of a human; scents categorized into scent families, each family including scent sub groups, according to a fragrance wheel arranged such that adjacent sub groups have similarities; and repeating a daily treatment schedule each day for a predetermined treatment length to improve far transfer effects for the human.
In the same field of endeavor, Wetmore teaches a method of improving cognitive function of a human (Abstract; paras. 0037, 0112-0115, and 0205-0207) further comprising: repeating a daily treatment schedule for a predetermined treatment length to improve far transfer effects for the human (paras. 0033, 0064, 0078, 0158, wherein sensory stimuli according to a training schedule are repeated after a training/learning phase over multiple sleep stages over multiple nights, the sensory stimulus may be a scent; para. 0171).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al. with the aim of improving cognitive and/or memory function of a human and the act of repeating the daily treatment schedule for a predetermined treatment length of Wetmore et al. Improving cognitive and memory function may enhance the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities, age-related cognitive decline, or other learning disabilities. Moreover, healthy individuals may also benefit from methos that enhance memory consolidation and, consequently, long-term memory retention (Wetmore et al., para. 0009 and 0014-0027). Additionally, a repeated treatment schedule may be useful for delivering stimuli to modulate a phase of the user’s sleep, improve sleep quality, enhance memory during sleep, or conversely, facilitate learning a task or skill while awake (Wetmore et al., paras. 0017, 0035, 0055, and 0067).
While Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., teaches improving cognitive function of a human and repeating the daily treatment schedule for a predetermined treatment length, the combination of Laudamiel-Pellet et al. and Wetmore et al. fail to teach scents categorized into scent families, each family including scent sub groups, according to a fragrance wheel arranged such that adjacent sub groups have similarities.
In the same field of endeavor, Warrenburg et al. teaches scents categorized into scent families, each family including scent sub groups, according to a fragrance wheel arranged such that adjacent sub groups have similarities (Abstract; para. 0018, “concentration of one or more fragrance compositions having an aroma profile including at least one rose, floral, musky, ambery, sweet and/or powdery aroma fragrance notes or nuances”; paras. 0019 and 0053-0064, wherein Fragrances A-E have distinct scent undertones).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., with the one or more fragrance compositions having a distinct aroma profile of Warrenburg et al. Emitting different aroma profiles including one or more of rose, floral, musky, ambery, sweet and/or powdery aroma notes, may induce relaxation in users when inhaled (Warrenburg et al., Abstract; paras. 0001-0004, 0045-0052).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 15 as stated above wherein administering a schedule to a recipient comprises using a device that automatically emits said plurality of scents according to said schedule (Laudamiel-Pellet et al., paras. 0123-0125, wherein the diffuser/dispensing device/device is programed to emit the scents or aromatic materials without the user having control, i.e., unconsciously).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 15 as stated above. Laudamiel-Pellet et al. fails to teach wherein the schedule is administered to a recipient while the human is sleeping.
Wetmore et al. further teaches wherein the schedule is administered to a recipient while the human is sleeping (paras. 0052, 0074, 0132, and 0171).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. with the administered scent stimuli during sleeping periods of Wetmore et al. Doing so may enable the user to receive stimuli during particular sleep stages, i.e., deep sleep, thereby improving the user’s quality of “deep” sleep (Wetmore et al., para. 0132).
Regarding claim 18, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 15 as stated above wherein said scent families comprise floral notes (Warrenburg et al., paras. 0024 and 0053-0064), oriental notes (Warrenburg et al., paras. 0024 and 0053-0064), woody notes (Warrenburg et al., paras. 0024 and 0053-0064), and fresh notes (Warrenburg et al., paras. 0024 and 0053-0064).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 16 as stated above. Laudamiel-Pellet et al. fails to teach wherein said using of the device comprises programming the device to begin the schedule a predetermined amount of time after the human has gone to bed.
Wetmore et al. further teaches programming the device to begin the schedule a predetermined amount of time after the human has gone to bed (paras. 0125 and 0132, wherein the sensory stimuli are delivered based on sleep stages identified from the user’s biometric data; paras. 0155-0160; para. 0190, “the system may be switched to the sleep mode (or sleep phase monitoring mode/sleep consolidation mode) by a timer or by detecting when the subject is sleeping”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. with the programmed stimuli initiation of Wetmore et al. Doing so may enable the user to receive stimuli during a particular stage a sleep, i.e., deep sleep, or a specific time period, thereby improving the user’s quality of “deep” sleep (Wetmore et al. paras. 0132 and 0190).
Regarding claim 23, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 15 as stated above. Laudamiel-Pellet et al. further teaches five-minute breaks (paras. 0123-0125) but fails to teach wherein the treatment schedule comprises 3 or more intervals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al to include three or more intervals, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working values/amounts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is three or more intervals which achieves the recognized result of ensuring memory enhancement for a greater number of learned information is provided during a single treatment schedule, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed value/amount through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The Examiner notes there appears to be no criticality for the claimed value/amount.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laudamiel-Pellet et al. in view of Wetmore et al. and Warrenburg et al., further in view of Banco et al. (US 2010/0294852).
Regarding claim 21, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. fails to specifically teach wherein no scent is repeated more than once during the treatment schedule.
In the same field of endeavor, Banco et al. teaches wherein no scent is repeated more than once during the treatment schedule (paras. 0057-0058 and 0105, wherein during the emission cycle is defined as dispensing each of the fragrances once, the fragrances may be different; Claims 1 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. with the distinct scent delivery of Banco et al. Doing so inhibits adaptation and/or habituation to one or more dispensed fragrances (Banco et al., paras. 0005 and 0105).
Regarding claim 22, Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. teaches the method according to claim 15 as stated above. Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. fails to specifically teach wherein no scent is repeated more than once during the treatment schedule.
In the same field of endeavor, Banco et al. teaches wherein no scent is repeated more than once during the treatment schedule (paras. 0057-0058 and 0105, wherein during the emission cycle is defined as dispensing each of the fragrances once, the fragrances may be different; Claims 1 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Laudamiel-Pellet et al., in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. with the distinct scent delivery of Banco et al. Doing so inhibits adaptation and/or habituation to one or more dispensed fragrances (Banco et al., paras. 0005 and 0105).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4 and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,639,448 in view of Warrenburg et al. (US 2004/0033279).
See table below for corresponding teachings of reference U.S. Patent No. 10,639,448.
Instant Application
10,639,448
Claim 1. A method of improving cognitive function of a human comprising: establishing a treatment schedule including a plurality of intervals separated by breaks; inputting the treatment schedule into a scent-delivery device such that the device delivers one of a plurality of scents during each interval, and stops the delivery of the scent upon completion of each interval;
Claim 1
ensuring the plurality of scents delivered during consecutive intervals do not belong to a same fragrance family,
Not present
thereby maintaining the plurality of scents' distinction and ensuring the plurality of scents are distinguishable by said human; and
Claim 1
repeating the treatment schedule for a predetermined treatment length to improve far transfer effects for the human.
Claim 1
Claim 2. The method of claim 1 wherein establishing the treatment schedule including the plurality of intervals separated by breaks comprises scheduling a plurality of 30 minute intervals separated by 5 minute breaks.
Claim 2
Claim 3. The method of claim 1 wherein establishing the treatment schedule including the plurality of intervals separated by breaks comprises scheduling at least three intervals separated by breaks.
Claim 3
Claim 4. The method of claim 1 wherein inputting the treatment schedule into a scent-delivery device comprises wirelessly connecting the device to a handheld electronic device having an application that allows the schedule to be uploaded from the handheld electronic device to the scent-delivery device.
Claim 4
Claim 6. The method of claim 1 wherein establishing a treatment schedule comprises basing an initiation of the schedule on an activity signifying that a user is going to bed.
Claim 6
Claim 7. The method of claim 6 wherein said activity comprises communicatively coupling a handheld device to the scent-delivery device.
Claim 7
Claim 8. The method of claim 6 wherein said activity comprises wirelessly coupling a biometric sensor to the handheld device, and providing data that indicates the user has begun a sleep-cycle.
Claim 8
Claim 21. The method of claim 1, wherein no scent is repeated more than once during the treatment schedule.
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the reference patent fails to explicitly disclose a fragrance family.
In the same field of endeavor, Warrenburg et al. teaches a fragrance family (Abstract; para. 0018, “concentration of one or more fragrance compositions having an aroma profile including at least one rose, floral, musky, ambery, sweet and/or powdery aroma fragrance notes or nuances”; paras. 0019 and 0053-0064, wherein Fragrances A-E have distinct scent undertones).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of the instant application to include the fragrance family of Warrenburg et al. Emitting different aroma profiles including one or more of rose, floral, musky, ambery, sweet and/or powdery aroma notes, may induce relaxation in users when inhaled (Warrenburg et al., Abstract; paras. 0001-0004, 0045-0052).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
