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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Groups I , drawn to claims 1-4, 6-8, and 21 in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I-III are directed to closely related aspects of a common inventive concept and contain overlapping subject matter. This argument is not found persuasive because in order to satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. Considering only the apparatus’s structure, the device as claimed is capable of being used in a way other than what is recited by the method. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-18, 20, and 22-23 in accordance with the videoconference interview held on April 24, 2026 are rejoined with the elected claims.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/27/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, “ensuring that” should read “ensuring the”
In claim 8, line 2, “hand-held” should read “handheld”
In claim 8, line 2, “device, providing” should read “device, and providing”
In claim 15, line 7, “ensuring that” should read “ensuring the”
In claim 17, line 1, “claim 15 the” should read “claim 15 wherein the”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
“scent-delivery device” in claims 1, 4, and 7; equivalent structure found in para. 0062. Therefore, in light of the specification, a “scent-delivery device” is best understood a nebulizer or diffuser configured to deliver scents, and equivalents thereof.
“device” in claims 16 and 20; equivalent structure found in paras. 00125 and 00126. Therefore, in light of the specification, a “device” is best understood as a forced air device or an evaporative device configured to emit scents, and equivalents thereof.
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
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 1-4, 6-8, 15-18, 20-23 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 plurality of scents” in line 5, then subsequently recites “scents” in line 7. It is unclear whether the “scents” refer to the previously recited “plurality of scents”, or separate scents. For examination purposes, “scents” will be read as “the plurality of scents”.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation "the end" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation "the same fragrance family" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites “their” and “they” in line 8. It is unclear what “their” and “they” is referring to in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “a plurality of scents” in line 3, then subsequently recites “a scent” in line 7. It is unclear whether “a scent” refers to one of the previously recited “plurality of scents” or a separate scent. For examination purposes, “a scent” is interpreted as “a respective scent from the plurality of scents”.
Claim 15 further recites “a plurality of intervals” in lines 6-7, then subsequently recites “an interval” in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether the “an interval” refers to the previously recited “plurality of intervals”, or a separate interval. For examination purposes, “an interval” will be read as “a respective interval from the plurality of intervals”.
Claim 15 further recites “a plurality of scents” in line 3, then subsequently recites “scents” in line 9. It is unclear whether the “scents” refer to the previously recited “plurality of scents”, or separate scents. For examination purposes, “scents” will be read as “the plurality of scents”.
Claim 15 further recites the limitation "the same fragrance family" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 further recites “they” in line 10. It is unclear what “they” is referring to in the claim.
Claim 15 further recites the limitation "the daily treatment schedule" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "administering the schedule" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the recipient" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite due to its dependence from an indefinite claim.
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, and 21 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler et al. (US 2017/0023922) in view of Wetmore et al. (US 2013/0190556).
Regarding claim 1, Chandler et al. teaches a method of improving a customer’s perception of the environment and influencing customer behavior (Abstract; paras. 0003-0004) comprising:
establishing a treatment schedule (Fig. 5, timeline 500) including a plurality of intervals (Fig. 5, activation periods 505 and 506; paras. 0063 and 0065; Figs. 3-4) separated by breaks (para. 0032, “’scent exclusion period,’ which also may be referred to as an ‘anti-event’”; Fig. 5, scent exclusion period blocks 503 and 504; paras. 0063 and 0065; Figs. 3-4);
inputting the treatment schedule into a scent-delivery device (Fig. 1, scent delivery unit 104; para. 0021) such that the device delivers one of a plurality of scents during each interval, and stops the delivery of the scent at the end of the interval (Fig. 7, step 706; para. 0084; Fig. 4, wherein the graphical user interface window 400 allows a user to specify an “on time” and “off time” and a scent delivery unit programmed with a preselected scent; para. 0092);
ensuring the plurality of scents delivered during consecutive intervals do not belong to the same fragrance family (Fig. 3, wherein the user can create a scent delivery unit profile outlining the unit, i.e., “unit A”, and particular scent, i.e., lavender; see Fig. 4, wherein the “description”, which corresponds to the scent delivery profile created in Fig. 3, is presented as a pull-down box, thereby, allowing the user to select different configured “units”, such as unit A, unit B, etc. and associated scents; paras. 0049-0050, 0060, 0092, and 0098), thereby maintaining their distinction and ensuring they are distinguishable by said human; and
repeating the treatment schedule for a predetermined treatment length (para. 0061, Fig. 4, “calendar” “weekly” and “days”; para. 0075, “master schedule data”) to improve a customer’s perception of the environment (paras. 0101-0102 and 0109).
Chandler et al. fails to teach improving cognitive function of a human further comprising improving far transfer effects for the human.
Wetmore et al. teaches an analogous method of improving cognitive function of a human (Abstract; para. 0015) further comprising improving far transfer effects for the human (paras. 0037, 0039, 0045, and 0139).
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 Chandler et al. with the aim of improving cognitive and/or memory function of a human of Wetmore et al. Modifying the method’s intended use to include improving cognitive and/or memory function of a human expands its utility (Wetmore et al., paras. 0014-0027). Accordingly, by delivering an ambient sensory stimuli, such as a scent, during a sleeping period, the user’s cognitive function in areas such as memorization and learning may be improved (Wetmore et al., Abstract; paras. 0066-0067 and 0163-0173).
Regarding claim 2, Chandler et al. in view of Wetmore 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 (Chandler et al., Fig. 4, wherein the “On Time” and “Off Time” is configured to be modified/adjusted; furthermore, by selecting “YES” next to the “Anti-Event” entry, the time selected is interpreted as a scent exclusion period; paras. 0061-0064; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Chandler et al. in view of Wetmore 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 at least three intervals separated by breaks (Chandler et al., paras. 0061, “multiple on/off times to specify multiple activation periods in a single day”; Fig. 5 wherein the activation periods 505 and 506 may be increased or decreased according to instructions inputted into the graphical user interface windows 400-403, as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Chandler et al. in view of Wetmore et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein inputting the treatment schedule into a scent-delivery device comprises wirelessly connecting the device to a handheld electronic device (Fig. 1, user device 108; paras. 0019-0021) having an application that allows the schedule to be uploaded from the handheld electronic device to the scent-delivery device (Figs. 3-4, graphical user interface (GUI) windows 300 and 400-403; paras. 0047-0050).
Regarding claim 6, Chandler et al. in view of Wetmore et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Chandler 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, 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 Chandler 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, the user’s quality of “deep” sleep may be improved (Wetmore et al., paras. 0016 and 0132).
Regarding claim 7, Chandler et al. in view of Wetmore et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein said activity comprises communicatively coupling a handheld device to the scent-delivery device (Wetmore et al., paras. 0090 and 0150-0151; Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, Chandler et al. in view of Wetmore 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, “EEG Sensor”) to the hand-held device (Wetmore et al., Fig. 5, “computing device”; para. 0061 and 0146), providing data that indicates the user has begun a sleep-cycle (Wetmore et al., paras. 0150-0151).
Regarding claim 21, Chandler et al. in view of Wetmore et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein no scent is repeated more than once during the treatment schedule (Chandler et al., Fig. 3, wherein the user can create a scent delivery unit profile outlining the unit, i.e., “unit A”, and particular scent, i.e., lavender; see Fig. 4, wherein the “description”, which corresponds to the scent delivery profile created in Fig. 3, is presented as a pull-down box, thereby, allowing the user to select different configured “units”, such as unit A, unit B, etc. and associated scents; paras. 0049-0050, 0060, 0092, and 0098).
Claim(s) 15-18, 20, and 22-23 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler et al. in view of Wetmore et al., further in view of Warrenburg et al. (US 2004/0033279)
Regarding claim 15, Chandler et al. teaches a method of improving a customer’s perception of the environment (Abstract; paras. 0003-0004) comprising:
providing a plurality of scents (paras. 0021 and 0092; Fig. 1, scent delivery unit 104);
establishing a treatment schedule (Fig. 5, timeline 500) including exposure of the human to a plurality of intervals (Fig. 5, activation periods 505 and 506) separated by breaks (Fig. 5, scheduled anti-events/scent exclusion period blocks 503 and 504), wherein a scent is administered to the human during an interval (paras. 0063 and 0065; Fig. 7, step 706; para. 0084; Fig. 4, wherein the graphical user interface window 400 allows a user to specify an “on time” and “off time” and a scent delivery unit programmed with a preselected scent) and no scent is administered during a break (para. 0032, “’scent exclusion period,’ which also may be referred to as an ‘anti-event’”; paras. 0063 and 0065; Figs. 3-4);
ensuring the plurality of scents delivered during one or more consecutive intervals do not belong to the same fragrance family (Fig. 3, wherein the user can create a scent delivery unit profile outlining the unit, i.e., “unit A”, and particular scent, i.e., lavender; see Fig. 4, wherein the “description”, which corresponds to the scent delivery profile created in Fig. 3, is presented as a pull-down box, thereby, allowing the user to select different configured “units”, such as unit A, unit B, etc. and associated scents; paras. 0049-0050, 0060, 0092, and 0098), thereby facilitating they are distinguishable by said human; and
repeating the daily treatment schedule each day for a predetermined treatment length (para. 0061, Fig. 4, “calendar” “weekly” and “days”; para. 0075, “master schedule data”) to improve a customer’s perception of the environment (paras. 0101-0102 and 0109).
Chandler et al. fails to specifically teach improving cognitive function of a human comprising providing a plurality of 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 the daily treatment schedule to improve far transfer effects for the human.
Wetmore et al. teaches an analogous method of improving cognitive function of a human (Abstract; para. 0015) further comprising improving far transfer effects for the human (paras. 0037, 0039, 0045, and 0139).
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 Chandler et al. with the aim of improving cognitive and/or memory function of a human of Wetmore et al. Modifying the method’s intended use to include improving cognitive and/or memory function of a human expands its utility (Wetmore et al., paras. 0014-0027). Accordingly, by delivering an ambient sensory stimuli, such as a scent, during a sleeping period, the user’s cognitive function in areas such as memorization and learning may be improved (Wetmore et al., Abstract; paras. 0066-0067 and 0163-0173).
While Chandler et al. in view of Wetmore et al. teaches improving far transfer effects including cognitive function of a human, the combination of Chandler et al. and Wetmore et al. fails to teach a plurality of 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 a plurality of 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; paras. 0024 and 0053-0063).
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 Chandler et al. in view of Wetmore et al. with the plurality of scents categorized into sub groups of Warrenburg et al. Emitting different scents with one or more fragrance compositions may reduce stress and result in the relaxation of tensive back, shoulder, or neck muscles (Warrenburg et al., paras. 0001 and 0031).
Regarding claim 16, Chandler 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 the schedule to the recipient comprises using a device that automatically emits said scents according to said schedule (Chandler et al., Fig. 3, “Automatic”; Fig. 4 wherein the “On and Off Time” controls the activation periods and the scent exclusion periods; paras. 0041 and 0054-0063).
Regarding claim 17, Chandler 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. Chandler 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 Chandler 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 a particular stage a sleep, i.e., deep sleep, thereby improving the user’s quality of “deep” sleep (Wetmore et al. para. 0132).
Regarding claim 18, Chandler 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 (Wetmore et al., paras. 0024 and 0053-0063), oriental notes (Wetmore et al., paras. 0024 and 0053-0063), woody notes (Chandler et al., para. 0092, “a leather scent”), and fresh notes (Wetmore et al., paras. 0024 and 0053-0063).
Regarding claim 20, Chandler 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. Chandler 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 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 (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 Chandler 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 22, Chandler 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 no scent is repeated more than once during the treatment schedule (Chandler et al., Fig. 3, wherein the user can create a scent delivery unit profile outlining the unit, i.e., “unit A”, and particular scent, i.e., lavender; see Fig. 4, wherein the “description”, which corresponds to the scent delivery profile created in Fig. 3, is presented as a pull-down box, thereby, allowing the user to select different configured “units”, such as unit A, unit B, etc. and associated scents; paras. 0049-0050, 0060, 0092, and 0098).
Regarding claim 23, Chandler 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 the treatment schedule comprises 3 or more intervals (Chandler et al., paras. 0061, “multiple on/off times to specify multiple activation periods in a single day”; Fig. 5 wherein the activation periods 505 and 506 may be increased or decreased according to instructions inputted into the graphical user interface windows 400-403, as shown in Fig. 4) separated by 5-minute breaks (Chandler et al., Fig. 4, wherein the “On Time” and “Off Time” is configured to be modified/adjusted; furthermore, by selecting “YES” next to the “Anti-Event” entry, the time selected is interpreted as a scent exclusion period; paras. 0061-0064; Fig. 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manne (WO 2016/057336) discloses an apparatus configured to emit a plurality of scents to either suppress or enhance an individual’s appetite. A schedule for delivering said scents at predetermined time intervals is also provided. Murano (JP 2017/033226) discloses an aroma generation apparatus comprising a generation schedule for emitting scents and a selection table containing different scent identifiers. Hosomi (WO 2017/119332) teaches a device for enhancing and promoting sleep, said device is an aroma diffuser. The aroma diffuser is configured to cease operation when a proper sleep state is identified.
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
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights