DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action in response to US Patent Application No. 18/563,190, filed 21 November, 2023, as the National Stage Entry of International Application PCT/JP2022/012562, filed 18 March, 2022, and with priority to Japanese application JP 2021-091083, filed 31 May, 2021.
All claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 .
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the discharge holes” at line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 11 be adjusted to depend from claim 3. Alternatively, the limitation could be adjusted as follows: ”
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0199104 A1, cited in the IDS filed 21 November, 2023, and having a US filing date of 06 January, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an odor presentation module (booster device 300—[0065]—for an aroma display 50—[0046]; also see title, abstract).
As best seen in Fig. 3, the aroma display (50) of Kim includes a first opening portion (70) that emits a first airflow container an odor (six openings 70 are provided at an opening section 64 of a housing 60 of the aroma display from which scents are emitted from six aroma cartridges 130—Fig. 3, [0052]), the first airflow being generated by a micro blower (234) which feeds air to an aroma cartridge (132) and then to the first opening portion (70) through conduits (158,160) (micro blower 234 feeds air into the interior of aroma cartridge 132 via opening 158, and the air then passes out of the cartridge through opening 160 leading to opening 70—Fig. 3, [0057]-[0058]).
Fig. 3 of Kim further depicts a second opening portion (68) that emits a second airflow (opening 68 provided at an opening section 64 of a housing 60 of the aroma display 50 from which scent-free air is emitted—[0052]), the second airflow being generated by a different micro blower (184) (micro blower 184 emits scent-free air from opening 68—[0062]). See Fig. 3 of Kim below.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim substantially indicates that the second airflow is stronger than the first airflow (micro blower 184 is larger than the other micro blowers 234, so the amount of air emitted from the opening 68 is far larger than the airflow from the micro blowers 234, the micro blower 184 carrying the scents further—[0062]) and the first (70) and second (68) opening portions are arranged to emit in the same direction; thus the device may be reasonably considered to be configured such that a direction of the first airflow emitted from the first opening portion is controlled by the second airflow (i.e., the larger second airflow will essentially dominate the over and determine the flow pattern of the smaller first airflow).
Kim further teaches the aroma display (50) being positioned within a booster device (300) (Fig. 7, [0076]), the booster device including a conical cap (324) which defines a space above the first (70) and second (68) opening portions (see Fig. 7), such that the conical cap receives the air emitted by the first and second opening portions and subsequently emits the received air from discharge end thereof (see [0066], [0071]). The conical cap is removable (cap 324 is detachable from the upper case—[0072]). The conical cap (324) thus defines a retention nozzle having a retention space in which the first and the second airflow are retained (it is evident that the first and second airflows are emitted into the region defined by the conical cap 324 and will have a residence time therein in which they are retained before being directed out of the discharge end of the cap—see Figs. 7 and 9, [0066], [0071]). See the cap (324) in Fig. 9 of Kim below.
PNG
media_image2.png
634
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it is noted that—instead of the airflow from the micro blower (184) and through opening (68) defining the second airflow through the second opening portion—the ends of the air passages (384) leading into the conical cap (324) can instead be defined as the second opening portions which emit a second airflow generated by a fan (326) into the retention nozzle (324) (see Fig. 9, [0066], [0071, [0078]), the second airflow from the fan (326) being capable of controlling the direction of the first airflow (maximum airflow of fan 326 is much larger than a maximum air flow of micro blower 184—[0070]—fairly implying that the airflow emitted from the end of the passages 384 would be sufficiently strong to alter the direction of the first airflow).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the odor presentation module according to claim 1. When the second opening portion of Kim is defined as the ends of air passages (384) leading into the conical cap (324), it is evident that Kim teaches that the retention nozzle (324) can be attached to and detached from the second opening portion (cap 324 is detachable from the upper case 322—[0072]; air passage 384 is defined by an inner side surface of the upper case 322—[0071], see Figs. 6-9).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the odor presentation module according to claim 1. Kim further teaches a first airflow generation device (micro blower 234) and an odor carrying portion (aroma cartridge 132) that carries the odor, wherein the first airflow is formed by mixing an airflow generated by the first airflow generation device and the odor carried by the odor carrying portion (micro blower 234 feeds air into aroma cartridge 132 so that scented air is emitted from the aroma display 50—[0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the odor presentation module according to claim 1, further comprising a second airflow generation device (micro blower 184 or fan 326) that generates the second airflow (micro blower 184 emits scent free air from opening section 64—[0055], [0062], Fig. 3; air from fan 326 passes through air passage 384—[0078]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the odor presentation module according to claim 5. Kim further teaches, the first opening portion (70) is located in front of the second airflow generation device (184 or 326) in a traveling direction of the second airflow (note that when interpreting the claim language in view of the instant disclosure and drawings, “in front of” is understood to mean downstream of; viewing Figs. 3, 7, and 9 of Kim, it is evident the airflow moves upward through the device as depicted in the Figures, and that first opening portion 70 at the top of the aroma display 50 is located above and thus positioned downstream of both the fan 326 and the micro blower 184).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the odor presentation module according to claim 1. The first opening portion (70) emits a scented airflow ([0052]), wherein there is no clear distinction between such emitting and the claimed “injecting”. Thus, the first opening portion (70) of Kim is presumed to be formed into a shape for injecting the first airflow.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the odor presentation module according to claim 1. Kim further indicates a width of the retention space of the retention nozzle (324) is greater than a width of the second opening portion (68 or 384) (see Figs. 3, 7, and 9; it is evident that width of the space defined by the cap 324 is wider than either the width of the opening 68 or the ends of the air opening passage 384).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the odor presentation module according to claim 1. Claim 9 recites that the retention nozzle is formed into a convex shape in an airflow discharge direction; in view of the instant disclosure, this is understood to mean that the nozzle essentially has a dome shape (convex shape) at a discharge end thereof. Viewing, e.g., Fig. 9 of Kim, it is evident the cap (324) generally has a dome shape extending aligned with the discharge direction, and thus Kim teaches the module of claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, the method claim essentially a amounts to a method of using the device of claim 1. Accordingly, see the rejection of claim 1 above regarding how ordinary use of the device of Kim amounts to an odor presentation method, comprising the steps of: emitting a first airflow containing an odor (scents emitted from openings 70—[0052]); emitting a second airflow (scent-free air emitted from opening 68—[0052]; OR air passage 384 feeds air form fan 325 into cap 324—[0078]); and retaining the first airflow and the second airflow in a retention space (see Figs. 3, 7, and 9: it is evident the first and either of the identified second airflows will pass through the space defined by cap 324 and be retained therein for at a residence time), wherein a direction of the first airflow that is emitted is controlled by the second airflow (second air flow is larger than first air flow and would thus affect the direction of the first air flow—see [0062] with respect to airflow from micro blower 184 relative to micro blower 234, and/or [0070] with respect to the airflow form fan 326 with respect to micro blower 184).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0199104 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and evidenced by Liang (CN 209210122 U).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the odor presentation module according to claim 1. Kim does not present an embodiment wherein the retention nozzle has a plurality of discharge holes. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider altering the design of the nozzle (cap 324) of Kim in order to achieve a desired flow pattern of the emitted air. Furthermore, nozzles with a plurality of discharge holes are commonplace; for example, Liang (CN 209210122 U, in the analogous art of systems including gas injection devices—see abstract) teaches a nozzle (14) having plurality of discharge openings (grooves 14), the arrangement providing for a more diffuse release of a gas from the nozzle (see page 4, paragraph 2nd paragraph, indicating that eight air outlet grooves 22 of nozzle 14 provide diffuse injection out of a larger injection area). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kim to include a plurality of discharge holes for the benefit of allowing a more diffuse release of the airflows exiting the nozzle (consider Liang at page 4, 2nd paragraph).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0199104 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Meehan (US 4633533 A).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the odor presentation module according to claim 1. Kim does not indicate that a surface of the retention nozzle is coated with a fluorinated resin and/or the retention nozzle is formed of a fluorinated resin. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it may be desirable to reduce the permeation of odors into the nozzle (cap 324) of Kim so that unwanted odors are not mixed into the emitted air. Furthermore, fluorinated materials are known to be capable of providing an odor barrier (Meehan—in the analogous art of neutralizing odors—indicates column 7, lines 31-46 indicates that fluorinated polymers provide a barrier against the transmission of odors). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Meehan such that the nozzle (lid 324) is coated with a fluorinated resin (i.e., fluorinated polymer) for the benefit of creating an odor barrier (see Meehan at column 7, lines 31-46) which could prevent odors from residing in the cap material.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0199104 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ajagbe (US 2012/0091231 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the odor presentation module according to claim 1. Kim does not teach the retention nozzle is provided with a shutter mechanism for opening and closing the discharge holes of the retention nozzle.
However, in the analogous art of fragrance releasing devices (abstract), Ajagbe teaches a nozzle (shower head assembly 210) which includes a plurality of discharge holes (nozzles 222) which can be selectively blocked by rotating a shutter piece (outlet 214 with front face 220) so that a set of nozzles which delivers a desired spray pattern is left open (see Fig. 6, [0036], discussing how outlet 214 can rotate with face 220 so that various nozzles 222 are open yielding different stream patterns to be emitted from the shower head assembly). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the nozzle (cap 324) of Kim as a shower head type nozzle having a plurality of discharge holes which can be blocked by a baffle plate, as seen in Ajagbe, for the benefit of enabling adjustment of the system between different flow patterns (see Ajagbe at Fig. 6, [0036]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0199104 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reichow et al. (US 2019/0262739 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the claim requires, as a component, a plurality of odor presentation modules. As discussed with respect to claim 1 above, Kim teaches such modules (aroma display 50) having a first opening portion (70) for emitting a first airflow containing an odor, and a second opening portion (68) for emitting a second airflow (see Fig. 3, [0052], and the rejection of claim 1 above), a direction of the first airflow emitted from the first opening portion being controlled by the second airflow (see [0062] as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above). The module of Kim is intended to be removable from a larger system (300) (user puts aroma display 50 into housing 310—[0075]—fairly implying removability of the aroma display from the housing).
Claim 12 further requires a retention nozzle that has a retention space in which the first airflow and second airflow emitted from the plurality of odor presentation modules are integrated and retained, and that can be attached to and detached from each of the second opening portions. Kim does not teach such a retention nozzle.
However, it is first noted that the retention nozzle as claimed amounts to a structure which receives airflows from at least two odor presentation modules and delivers the airflows to a target region via an outlet.
Furthermore, in the analogous art of scent blending (title), Reichow teaches a plurality of scent distributor modules (150a-d) which are each arranged to deliver a scent into bulk airflow conduit (165), the bulk airflow conduit having an exit which guides the airflow (115) toward a target (135) (Fig. 1B, [0033]-[0034]). The arrangement of Reichow enables blending different scents together by combining the airflows from the scent distributor modules in the bulk airflow, allowing the system to emit a greater range of scent profiles (consider abstract, Fig.1B, [0042]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill it the art to configure a plurality of the odor presentation modules (aroma displays 50) of Kim to deliver airflows to a bulk conduit having an exit, as seen in Reichow, for the benefit of yielding a system which can deliver a greater number of scent profiles comprising blended combinations of different scented airflows (arrangement of Reichow is for scent blending—see title, abstract, Fig. 1B, [0042]). In view of the broad claim language, such a bulk conduit having an exit fairly defines a retention nozzle that has a retained space in which the first and second airflows are integrated and retained.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the odor presentation modules of modified Kim to be detachable from the retention nozzle for the evident benefit of facilitating replacement and/or refilling of the odor presentation modules. Thus modified, the retention nozzle of the modified invention can be attached to and detached from each of the second opening portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. (US 2021/0199104 A1) in view of Reichow et al. (US 2019/0262739 A1) teaches the odor presentation device according to claim 12. Kim and Reichow do not teach a rotating mechanism is provided at a junction between the retention nozzle and each of the odor presentation modules. No prior art was found which teaches of fairly suggests configuring an odor presentation module as claimed to be rotatable with respect to a retention nozzle as claimed via a rotating mechanism provided therebetween. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 13 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Regrading claim 14, Kim et al. (US 2021/0199104 A1) in view of Reichow et al. (US 2019/0262739 A1) teaches the odor presentation device according to claim 12. Kim and Reichow do not teach an alignment mechanism that allows each of the odor presentation modules to rotate in three axial directions. No prior art was found which teaches or fairly suggests configuring an odor presentation module as claimed to be rotatable with respect to three axial directions via an alignment mechanism, in combination with all further limitations of claim 12. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 14 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bishop et al. (US 2021/0206162 A1) teaches a shutter plate (340) including an opening (342) which can be aligned or misaligned with an opening (322) of a nozzle (320) to block or allow access to and from the nozzle ([0045]-[0046] and [0048]-[0049]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797