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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species 4 (figs. 6, 9) in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the listed species exhibit significant overlap in their essential features where the differences include different types of piezoelectric ring vs. ultrasonic horn, adding a microheater 502, wireless power transmission 810 and additional atomizer devices using electronic valve hub 1150.
Regarding species 4, 5 and 6, applicant’s argument is found not persuasive because firstly, applicant’s disclosure does not specify that the listed differences are obvious variants and secondly, searching for these different system features require searching in wireless power transmission technology and valve hub areas associated with motor vehicle, all of which have significant different classifications from the air fragrance diffuser system of claim 1. Additionally, it is pointed out that, contrary to what applicant suggests that no serious search or examination burden exists, the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive.
Regarding species 1, 2, 3, applicant indicated that the mesh atomizer devices in species 1-3 are similar with minor differences in the type of vibratory element and addition of a micro heater. Upon examination of the references below, species 1, 2, 3 drawn to similar atomizer will be examined together with the elected system species 4.
Claim 10-12 and 15-20 drawn to features of the non-elected species 5 and 6 are withdrawn for the reasons provided above. Additionally, claims 13 and 14, depending upon withdrawn claim 12, are also withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 are addressed below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6 showing “HVAC SUSYEM” appears to be typographical error. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
1) 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:
“a transmission system coupled to the mesh atomizer device for receiving the mist of droplets and transmitting the mist of droplets into a passenger compartment of the automobile” in claim 1; the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “system” that is coupled with functional language “for receiving the mist of droplets and transmitting the mist of droplets…” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Although the generic placeholder is preceded by “transmission”, the term “transmission” itself does not constitute sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
“a vibratory element operatively coupled with the mesh and the electrical power source, wherein operation of the vibratory element causes formation of the mist of droplets via the mesh” in claim 2; the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “element” that is coupled with functional language “causes formation of the mist of droplets via the mesh” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Although the generic placeholder is preceded by “vibratory”, the term “vibratory” itself does not constitute sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
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.
2) This application includes one or more claim limitations that use generic placeholder coupled to functional language but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a mesh atomizer device for storing a fragrance oil” in claim 1; the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language “for storing a fragrance oil”. However, the limitation is preceded by explicit structure “mesh atomizer” that is capable of performing the function. This limitation therefore is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 8-9 is/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 “a ventilation fan configured in a chamber for blowing the mist of droplets into the passenger compartment via a Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) ventilation line of the automobile”. However, the preamble of claim 1 reciting “an air diffuser system for use in an automobile” indicating the automobile as an intended use limitation; and the body of claim 1 does not positively recite any automobile or ventilation component, it is unclear if claim 8 intends to positively recite limitation “a chamber” and “a Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) ventilation line of the automobile” or that claim 8 merely requires the ventilation fan to be capable of being placed in a chamber where the mist is blown by air flow from the HVAC of the automobile.
It is further noted that “the passenger compartment” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 9 is indefinite for including all limitations of claim 8.
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blackley (US 20160361972).
Regarding claim 1, Blackley discloses an air fragrance diffuser system (fig. 1 with vaporizer shown in fig. 2) for use in an automobile (see Note 1), the air fragrance diffuser system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
802
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a mesh atomizer device (vaporizer 108 or 200, par. 93; see figs. 1-2; par. 230: “The vaporizer component can comprise …a vibrating mesh for nebulizing the mixed vaporizable material into a mist”) for storing a fragrance oil (storing via container(s) 110/210; par. 89, since the container(s) contains aromatic liquids, the container(s) can store fragrance oil; see MPEP 2115);
an electrical power source (power supply 120; par. 51) for providing electrical power to the mesh atomizer device (par. 65: “ the piezoelectric dispersing element can comprise a piezoelectric dispersing element that can receive the ultrasonic signal transmitted from the power supply through the coils, and can cause vaporization of the vaporizable liquid by producing ultrasonic vibrations”) to convert the fragrance oil into a mist of droplets; and
a transmission system (intake 138, fan 130 and outlet(s) 114, 124 shown in fig. 1; and/or 212 shown in fig. 2) coupled to the mesh atomizer device (108/200 in figs. 1-2) for receiving the mist of droplets and transmitting the mist of droplets into a passenger compartment (capable of; via outlet(s) or exhaust port) of the automobile (“passenger compartment” and “automobile” are not positively recited; nonetheless, see “transportation vehicle” in par. 4).
Note 1: The limitation in the preamble of the claim “for use in an automobile” has been given limited patentable weight since the body of claim 1 fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Since the claim body does not positively recite any part of the vehicle, “for use in an automobile” is addressed as intended use. The same consideration is applied to component “passenger compartment of the automobile” in limitation “for receiving the mist of droplets and transmitting the mist of droplets into a passenger compartment of the automobile”.
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 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 2-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackley (US 20160361972) in view of Van Der Mark (US 20120291776).
Regarding claim 2, Blackley discloses the air fragrance diffuser system as claimed in claim 1, wherein Blackley fails to explicitly teach the mesh atomizer device comprises: a sealed enclosed chamber for containing the fragrance oil; a mesh having a plurality of holes, the mesh arranged on the sealed enclosed chamber to be in contact with the fragrance oil; and a vibratory element operatively coupled with the mesh and the electrical power source, wherein operation of the vibratory element causes formation of the mist of droplets via the mesh. (Although, Blackley discloses a mesh (par. 222), a container 110 capable of containing fragrance oil, and a piezoelectric material (par. 64-65) but Blackley does not indicate the container is a sealed enclosed chamber, the mesh having a plurality of holes and the coupling details of the mesh to the vibratory element and electrical power source).
Van Der Mark discloses a comparable diffuser device (fig. 2) having a sealed enclosed chamber 34 (par. 25: “medication chamber 34 may comprise a disposable medication assembly (pre-sealed) which includes medication or substance in the form of liquid 52 therein”) for containing the fragrance oil (par. 25: “Medication chamber 34 holds a liquid 52 containing a medication, drug, or other therapeutic substance therein”, the chamber 34 therefore has the structural capability to contain a fragrance oil);
a mesh 38 (par. 28) having a plurality of holes (apertures of the membrane 38; par. 28), the mesh arranged on the sealed enclosed chamber to be in contact with the fragrance oil (as can be seen in fig. 3); and
a vibratory element 44 (piezoelectric ring; par. 29) and horn 20 operatively coupled with the mesh 38 (via spring 48) and the electrical power source (via circuitry 60; par. 46), wherein operation of the vibratory element causes formation of the mist of droplets (aerosol 62; par. 29) via the mesh.
Given the similarity in the manner of diffusion disclosed in paragraph 222 of Blackley and operation of Van Der Mark’s device as presented above, Van Der Mark is in the same field of substance diffuser and reasonably pertinent to the concerns addressed by the inventor, although the disclosure does not specifically mention air fragrance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technical capabilities to assess the configuration taught by Van Der Mark to utilize the sealed enclosed chamber, the mesh and the vibratory element combination as claimed to diffuse fragrance as intended in Blackley. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackley to incorporate the teachings of Van Der Mark to provide the mesh atomizer device comprises: a sealed enclosed chamber for containing the fragrance oil; a mesh having a plurality of holes, the mesh arranged on the sealed enclosed chamber to be in contact with the fragrance oil; and a vibratory element operatively coupled with the mesh and the electrical power source, wherein operation of the vibratory element causes formation of the mist of droplets via the mesh. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating delivery of aerosolized liquid or substance used for various applications (See Paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 3, Blackley, as modified above, discloses the air fragrance diffuser system as claimed in claim 2, wherein Van Der Mark discloses the vibratory element is a piezoelectric ring (see item 44 and figs. 6-7 of Van Der Mark) coupled to the mesh (fig. 7), and the piezoelectric ring causes the mesh to vibrate to form the mist of droplets (aerosol 62 shown in fig. 3, par. 29 of Van Der Mark).
Regarding claim 4, Blackley, as modified above, discloses the air fragrance diffuser system as claimed in claim 2, wherein Van Der Mark discloses the vibratory element is an ultrasonic horn (44 and horn device 20; fig. 2) positioned adjacent to the mesh (38, as can be seen in fig. 2), and the ultrasonic horn conducts vibration to the mesh via a thin layer of the fragrance oil to form the mist of droplets (see Van Der Mark’s par. 26: “the horn device 20 and vibrator 44 are configured to ultrasonically vibrate a flexible membrane 38 in the medication chamber 34 to form an aerosol of the medicine or substance to be ejected therefrom. Such vibration pushes a liquid medication 52 through the flexible membrane 38 to form an aerosol 62”).
Regarding claim 5, Blackley, as modified above, discloses the air fragrance diffuser system as claimed in claim 2, wherein Van Der Mark discloses the mesh is in contact with the fragrance oil via one of: a wick, a capillary tube, a micropump (horn device 20 shown in fig. 2; par. 26: “Such vibration pushes a liquid medication 52 through the flexible membrane 38 to form an aerosol 62”, vibration via the horn acts a micropump), or gravity.
Regarding claim 6, Blackley, as modified above, discloses the air fragrance diffuser system as claimed in claim 2, wherein Blackley discloses the mesh atomizer device further comprises a microheater (126; par. 66: “The heating casing 126 can enclose one or more of the container 110, the vaporizer 108, and/or the outlet 114”) for heating the fragrance oil to regulate viscosity of the fragrance oil (since the heater encloses the container 110, the content within the container, which can be fragrance oil, is heated and viscosity is regulated).
Regarding claim 7, Blackley, as modified above, discloses the air fragrance diffuser system as claimed in claim 1, wherein Blackley discloses the electrical power source is one of: a battery of the automobile or an additional battery integrated with the mesh atomizer device (Blackley, par. 51, 55).
Regarding claim 8, Blackley, as modified above, discloses the air fragrance diffuser system as claimed in claim 2, wherein Blackley’s cited embodiment shown in figs. 1-2 discloses the transmission system comprises:
a conduit pneumatically and fluidically coupled to the mesh atomizer device for receiving the mist of droplets;
PNG
media_image2.png
530
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a ventilation fan (fig. 1, fan 130; par. 73) indicates the lack of explicit teaching for this feature in the cited embodiment shown above)
The cited embodiment does not explicitly teach the ventilation fan 130 of the diffuser is configured in a chamber for blowing mist into passenger compartment via a ventilation line.
However, in a different embodiment shown in fig. 15, Blackley discloses a comparable air treatment apparatus 1422 may be used in a transportation vehicle, including a motor vehicle (par. 148), where the apparatus 1422 may be positioned in a ventilation system of the vehicle, which includes one or more ventilation ducts. The ventilation ducts includes the vents 1424 coupled to the desired cabin, area or room and coupled to the diffuser apparatus 1422 (par. 149-150) to deliver the chemical to the desired area.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackley to incorporate the teachings of Blackley’s alternative embodiment to provide the ventilation fan 130 and its diffuser positioned a chamber for blowing mist into passenger compartment via a ventilation line. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating wider distribution of air treatment vapor to the desired area for the targeted compartment.
Regarding claim 9, Blackley, as modified above, discloses the air fragrance diffuser system as claimed in claim 8, further comprising an electronic control unit (102 106, and 112; par. 51: processor, microprocessor, microcontroller) operatively coupled with the mesh atomizer device (vaporizer 108 or 200, par. 93, 230; coupled as can be seen in fig. 1), the electronic control unit configured to:
control operation of an electrical power source (par. 55: “the input/output device 112 can be configured to receive power from the adaptor device and provide the power to the power supply 120 to recharge one or more batteries”, par. 56; par. 92: “A multiplexer 216 can receive power from any suitable source and exchange data signals with a processor,”); and
control operation of the transmission system (par. 52: “The memory device 104 can comprise a random access memory (RAM) configured for storing program instructions and data for execution or processing by the processor 102 during control of the robotic vapor device 100”; par. 56: “the input/output device 112 can include controls that allow the user to interact with and input information and commands to the robotic vapor device 100”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752