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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-14 in the reply filed on February 17th, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beland et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0049259).
Beland discloses a scent dispensing device, comprising:
A scent vial holder (116 and/or 122) configured to hold a scent vial (56) as set forth in paragraph 28;
A top (52) having a first plurality of openings, the first plurality of openings including a scent opening (64a & 64b) and an airflow opening (76a & 76b) as set forth in paragraph 27;
A heater (150a or 150b) configured to apply heat to the scent vial (56) as set forth in paragraph 30; and
A fan (54) configured to cause a flow of air to pass through the airflow opening (76a & 76b) creating a difference in air pressure between the airflow opening (76a & 76b) and the scent opening (64a & 64b) such that scent from the scent vial (56) is drawn through the scent opening and into the flow of air (paragraphs 25-30). More specifically, because housing (52) is a “top” for the entirety of the dispensing device (and most notably can be considered a top for vials 56), then said housing (52) meets the limitations of a top.
Concerning claim 2, Beland also discloses a controller (160) configured to control the heater (150a or 150b) and the fan (54) to achieve a selected scent diffusion level based on user input (paragraphs 31 and 32-38).
Regarding claim 3, Beland continues to disclose a wick cover (74 or 75a & 75b) having a second plurality of openings, the wick cover configured to at least partially close the scent opening (64a & 64b) as set forth in paragraph 27.
With respect to claim 4, Beland further discloses an actuator coupled to the wick cover (74 or 75a & 75b), the actuator configured to adjust a position of the wick cover (paragraphs 27, 31, 33 and 34).
Concerning claim 5, the reference also discloses that the controller (160) is further configured to control the actuator such that the second plurality of openings of the wick cover (74 or 75a & 75b) are positioned to further achieve the selected scent diffusion level (paragraphs 31-34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beland et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0049259) in view of Field et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0280557).
Concerning claims 6, 8 and 12, Beland discloses a scent dispensing device, comprising:
A scent vial holder (116 and/or 122) configured to hold a plurality of scent vials (56) as set forth in paragraph 28;
A top (52) having a first plurality of openings, the first plurality of openings including a plurality of scent openings (64a & 64b) and an airflow opening (76a & 76b) as set forth in paragraph 27;
A plurality of heating elements (150a/150b) configured to selectively apply heat to the plurality of scent vials (56) as set forth in paragraph 30;
A fan (54) configured to cause a flow of air to pass through the airflow opening (76a & 76b) creating a difference in air pressure between the airflow opening (76a & 76b) and the plurality of scent openings (64a & 64b) such that one or more scents from the plurality of scent vials (56) is drawn through the plurality of scent openings and into the flow of air (paragraphs 25-30); and
A controller (160) configured to control the plurality of heating elements (150a/150b) and the fan (54) to achieve a selected scent diffusion level of the one or more scents (paragraphs 31 and 32-38).
Beland does not appear to disclose a tag reader configured to read tags coupled with the plurality of scent vials, wherein the controller is further configured to identify a scent contained in each of the plurality of scent vials based on an output from the tag reader. Field discloses a scent dispensing device (Figures 1 & 7) that includes a scent vial holder configured to hold a plurality of scent vials (102), a fan (168) configured to cause an airflow to pass through an airflow opening and flow past the scent vials to discharge a scent from said dispenser (paragraph 90), and a controller configured to control said scent dispensing device (paragraphs 77 and 92-101). The reference continues to disclose that the dispenser further includes a tag reader (183) configured to read tags (185) coupled with the plurality of scent vials (102), wherein the controller is further configured to identify a scent contained in each of the plurality of scent vials based on an output from the tag reader in order to determine the particular scent located within each cartridge and convey the identification of the scent to a user (paragraphs 102, 103, 114 and 115). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tag reader in the device of Beland that is configured to read tags coupled with the plurality of scent vials, wherein the controller is further configured to identify a scent contained in each of the plurality of scent vials based on an output from the tag reader in order to determine the particular scent located within each cartridge and convey the identification of the scent to a user as exemplified by Field.
Thus, claims 6, 8 and 12 are not patentable over Beland in view of Field.
Regarding claim 9, Beland continues to disclose a wick cover (74 or 75a & 75b) having a second plurality of openings, the wick cover configured to at least partially close one or more of the plurality of scent openings (64a & 64b) as set forth in paragraph 27.
With respect to claim 10, Beland further discloses an actuator coupled with the wick cover (74 or 75a & 75b), the actuator configured to adjust a position of the wick cover (paragraphs 27, 31, 33 and 34).
Concerning claim 11, the Beland also discloses that the controller (160) is further configured to control the actuator such that the second plurality of openings of the wick cover (74 or 75a & 75b) are positioned to further achieve the selected scent diffusion level (paragraphs 31-34).
With respect to claim 13, Beland continues to disclose that the controller is further configured to:
Selectively apply heat to a first scent vial (56a) of the plurality of scent vials; and
Control the actuator such that the wick cover (74 or 75a & 75b) is not covering a first scent opening (64a or 64b) corresponding to the first scent vial (56a) and is covering remaining scent openings (64a or 64b) of the plurality of scent openings to achieve the selected scent diffusion level (paragraphs 33-38).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beland et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0049259) in view of Vazquez Alvarez et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0105223).
Beland is relied upon as set forth above. While Beland continues to disclose a base (72) and an air channel positioned between the fan (74) and the airflow opening (76a & 76b), wherein the fan is configured to draw air through the air channel such that scent molecules are not drawn over internal components of the scent dispensing device (Figures 4-7); the reference does not appear to disclose that the base (72) has a third plurality of openings in which the fan is configured to draw air through the third plurality of openings and to the air channel. Vazquez discloses a scent dispensing device that includes a scent vial holder that holds a scent vial (112), a fan (154) configured to disperse scent molecules from the scent dispensing device (paragraphs 38 & 45), and a base and an air channel positioned between the fan (154) and an airflow opening (194) the emits the scent from the dispensing device (Figure 4). The reference continues to disclose that the base has a plurality of openings (132) in which the fan (154) is configured to draw air through the plurality of openings (132) and to the air channel such that scent molecules are not drawn over internal components of the scent dispensing device in order to create a contiguous uniform flow of air throughout said device (Figure 4; paragraphs 28, 33 and 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the base of Beland with a third plurality of openings in which the fan is configured to draw air through the third plurality of openings and to the air channel such that scent molecules are not drawn over internal components of the scent dispensing device in order to create a contiguous uniform flow of air throughout said device as exemplified by Vazquez.
As such, claim 7 is not patentable over Beland in view of Vazquez.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beland et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0049259) in view of Field et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0280557) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Vazquez Alvarez et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0105223).
Beland in view of Field is relied upon as set forth above. While Beland continues to disclose a base (72) and an air channel positioned between the fan (74) and the airflow opening (76a & 76b), wherein the fan is configured to draw air through the air channel such that scent molecules are not drawn over internal components of the scent dispensing device (Figures 4-7); the reference does not appear to disclose that the base (72) has a third plurality of openings in which the fan is configured to draw air through the third plurality of openings and to the air channel. Vazquez discloses a scent dispensing device that includes a scent vial holder that holds a scent vial (112), a fan (154) configured to disperse scent molecules from the scent dispensing device (paragraphs 38 & 45), and a base and an air channel positioned between the fan (154) and an airflow opening (194) the emits the scent from the dispensing device (Figure 4). The reference continues to disclose that the base has a plurality of openings (132) in which the fan (154) is configured to draw air through the plurality of openings (132) and to the air channel such that scent molecules are not drawn over internal components of the scent dispensing device in order to create a contiguous uniform flow of air throughout said device (Figure 4; paragraphs 28, 33 and 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the base of Beland with a third plurality of openings in which the fan is configured to draw air through the third plurality of openings and to the air channel such that scent molecules are not drawn over internal components of the scent dispensing device in order to create a contiguous uniform flow of air throughout said device as exemplified by Vazquez.
As such, claim 7 is not patentable over Beland in view Field and Vazquez.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights