DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claim 5 is 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 5 recites “another one of the fragrance generators”, which is different to the claim 1 recitation of “at least another one fragrance generator”. The discrepancy renders claim 5 unclear, because the “at least another one fragrance generator” can be interpreted as a different component than the “another one of the fragrance generators”, rather than the same. It appears through the instant specification that the Applicant intends the two terms to be the same. Thus, the term “at least another one fragrance generator” in claim 5 will be interpreted as “another one of the fragrance generators”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 20190184792 A1), further in view of Yoshimatsu (US 20190070937 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a vehicle fragrance supply device (aroma generating device 22 for a vehicle, Fig. 1 and 2A-C), comprising:
a plurality of fragrance generators (fragrance cartridges 36A and B, Fig. 2A-C);
a supply pipe (air blowing port 40, Fig. 2A-C) configured to supply a fragrance generated from the plurality of fragrance generators to a vehicle cabin interior (“The perfume that is released from the cartridge 36B is, together with the blown air from the blower 30, released, via the air blowing path 38B and the air blowing channel 32B1, into the vehicle interior from the air blowing port 40”, Fig. 2A and [0034]);
a switching valve (valves 32A-B, Fig. 2A-C) configured to link the plurality of fragrance generators with the supply pipe (see Fig. 2A and B); and
an external air introduction pipe (conduit portion downstream of blower 30 but upstream of valve 32A, Fig. 2A-C) connected to the switching valve (valve 32A, Fig. 2A-C) and configured to introduce external air (air from blower 30, Fig. 2A-C),
wherein the switching valve is switchable between a first communication state (Fig. 2A) in which one fragrance generator of the plurality of fragrance generators (36B, Fig. 2A) and the supply pipe are communicated with each other (port 40, Fig. 2A), a second communication state (Fig. 2B) in which at least another one fragrance generator of the plurality of fragrance generators (36A, Fig. 2B) and the supply pipe are communicated with each other (port 40, Fig. 2A), and a third communication state (Fig. 2C).
While Watanabe teaches a third communication state where the air introduction pipe and the supply pipes are fluidly blocked by the valve (see Fig. 2C), Watanabe fails to teach a third communication state in which the external air introduction pipe and the supply pipe are communicated with each other. It is important to note that in the Fig. 2C configuration that the purpose of the third communication state is to prevent aromas from being released (i.e., cut-off from any airflow, [0038-39]).
Yoshimatsu teaches a vehicle aroma generator (22, Fig. 2) having a plurality of aroma cartridges (34A-C, Fig. 2) each selected into individual separate airflow channels (doors 32A-D and 36A-D selecting airflow channels 40A-D, Fig. 2 and [0030]) connecting the air introduction pipe (conduit portion downstream of blower 30 but upstream of doors 32A-D, Fig. 2) with a supply pipe (42, Fig. 2), having a “third” communication state (channel 40D having no aroma cartridge, Fig. 2) where the external air introduction pipe and the supply pipe are communicated with each other (conduit portion downstream of blower 30 but upstream of doors 32A-D are in fluid connection via channel 40D to airflow path 42, Fig. 2), for the same purpose of preventing aromas from being released ([0030]).
Watanabe and Yoshimatsu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aroma generation for vehicle interiors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the valve structure of Watanabe with a valve structure having an airflow channel that is in fluid connection from the air introduction pipe to the supply pipe as taught by Yoshimatsu, because the substitution of this result yields the predictable result of preventing aromas from being released (Watanabe [0038-39] and Yoshimatsu [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Watanabe teaches wherein the switching valve (valves 32A and B, Fig. 2A-C) comprises a rotary valve element (valves 32A and B rotate along an axis, Fig. 2A-C and [0033]), by rotation of which, switching among the first communication state, the second communication state, and the third communication state is performed (Fig. 2A-C).
Regarding claim 3, modified Watanabe teaches wherein, in the third communication state (Fig. 2C), all of the plurality of fragrance generators (cartridges 36A-B, Fig. 2C) are in a non-communicated state with the supply pipe ([0038]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Watanabe teaches a blower (30, Fig. 2A-C) provided at the air introduction pipe (conduit portion downstream of blower 30 but upstream of valve 32A, Fig. 2A-C), but fails to mention wherein the blower is provided at the supply pipe.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the blower to be at a position at the supply pipe (port 40, Fig. 2A-C), because shifting the position of the blower would not have modified the operation of the apparatus (i.e., the fan would still generate airflow, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C).
Regarding claim 5, modified Watanabe teaches wherein, when transitioning between the first communication state in which one of the fragrance generators is communicated with the supply pipe (Fig. 2A) and the second communication state in which another one of the fragrance generators is communicated with the supply pipe (Fig. 2B), the switching valve passes through the third communication state (valves 32A and B are at intermediate positions at the third communication state relative to states Fig. 2A and 2B, i.e., the transition from Fig. 2A’s first communication state to Fig. 2B’s second communication state will inherently cross the Fig. 2C communication state before reaching Fig. 2B).
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights