Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 5, 8, and 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: line 10 “the fragrance” should read “the fragrance substance”
Claims 5 and 12: line 3, “to number of holes” should read “to a number of holes”
Claim 8: line 13, “fragrance” should read “the fragrance”. 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 use a generic modifier and function 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: “pump for dispensing” and “liquid dispensing unit” in claims 1 and 8, as a pump is a structure, and the liquid dispensing unit is given structure as it comprises the container, pump, etc.
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 1-7 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 the limitation "the liquid" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3 and 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Withers (9051085).
Regarding claim 1, Withers (085) discloses an apparatus comprising: a liquid dispensing unit (16, fig 1), the liquid dispensing unit comprises: a container (12, fig 1); and a pump (18, fig 1) for dispensing the liquid contained in the container; and a fragrance dispensing unit (14, fig 1) coupled to a bottom of the liquid dispensing unit (44, fig 8), wherein the fragrance dispensing unit comprises: a receptacle (36, fig 8) configured to contain fragrance substances, the receptacle having a top wall (74, fig 8); and one or more holes (76, fig 8) in the top wall of the receptacle or the receptacle, wherein the one or more holes are for releasing the fragrance.
Regarding claim 2, Withers (085) discloses wherein the liquid is soap (col 1, lines 10-15, a skin detergent would be another name for a liquid hand soap).
Regarding claim 3, Withers (085) discloses wherein the one or more holes comprise multiple holes in the top wall of the fragrance dispensing unit (fig 8, there are many holes 76).
Regarding claim 8, Withers (085) discloses A method for dispensing a liquid and fragrance, the method comprising: providing an apparatus comprising: a liquid dispensing unit, the liquid dispensing unit comprises: a container; and a pump for dispensing the liquid contained in the container; and a fragrance dispensing unit coupled to a bottom of the liquid dispensing unit, wherein the fragrance dispensing unit comprises: a receptacle configured to contain fragrance substance; a lid covering an opening in the receptacle; and one or more holes in a wall of the receptacle or the lid, wherein the one or more holes are for release of the fragrance; dispensing the liquid from the liquid dispensing unit; and dispensing, continuously, fragrance by diffusion in air, from the fragrance dispensing unit. (all of the above limitations are taught by Withers (085) (085) in claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 9, Withers (085) discloses wherein the liquid is a soap. (see claim 2 above)
Regarding claim 10, Withers (085) discloses wherein the one or more holes comprise multiple holes in the lid of the fragrance dispensing unit. (see claim 3 above)
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.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withers (085) in view of Withers (US-Pub 2009/0218413).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Withers (085) does not disclose wherein the fragrance dispensing unit is configured to rotate from a closed state to up to 90 degrees, wherein the top wall which form the lid of the fragrance dispensing unit is covered by a bottom of the container in the closed state, and rotating the fragrance unit to expose the holes.
Withers (413) teaches an air freshener unit (102, fig 6) with a top and bottom compartment (104, 106, fig 6) wherein the fragrance dispensing unit (104, fig 7) is opened and closed (fig 6, fig 7) via a rotating connection (117, fig 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the snap connection mechanism disclosed by Withers (085) by using a rotational mechanism which when used would cover the fragrance unit with the bottom container in the closed state, and, when turned, would expose the fragrance unit air holes based on the teachings of Withers (413). Doing so would allow for the amount of rotation to fully vary the amount of fragrance being dispensed from the compartment (par. 0090), as suggested by Withers (413)
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Withers (085) as modified by Withers (413) in claims 4 and 11 discloses wherein a degree of rotation of the fragrance dispensing unit relative to the liquid dispensing unit from the closed state up to 90 degrees is proportional to number of holes exposed for releasing the fragrance, wherein the fragrance release increases with rotation of the fragrance dispensing unit (par. 0090, Withers (413)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withers (085) in view of Kilic (11464368).
Regarding claim 6, Withers (085) does not disclose wherein each of the container and the receptacle has one or more transparent or translucent windows to check a level of the liquid inside the container and a level of the fragrance substance inside the receptacle.
Kilic teaches a container for holding a fragrance or liquid, wherein the body has a transparent window (50, fig 4) to check a level of the substance within.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified both the container and receptacle disclosed by Withers (085) by having a transparent window to determine the levels of liquid or fragrance within based on the teachings of Dente. Doing so would allow a user to detect fill level of the dispensers (col 18, lines 60-67), as suggested by Kilic.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withers (085) as modified by Withers (413) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhou (US-Pub 2023/0381801)
Regarding claim 7, Withers (085) discloses wherein the multiple holes in the top wall are sealed in the closed state by the bottom of the container preventing any leakage of the fragrance substance (48, fig 8, the flange connects with the housing 32 to securely engage them, meaning that when closed the area is secure)
Withers (085) does not disclose wherein the liquid dispensing unit comprises a silicone ring along a periphery of the top wall.
Zhou teaches using a silicone ring (50, fig 3) located between a liquid dispensing unit body (40, fig 3) and rotating body (40, fig 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection point disclosed by Withers (085) as modified by Dente by having a silicone ring sleeved along a periphery of the top wall based on the teachings of Zhou. Doing so would dampen the feeling of rotation to prevent accidental movement (par. 0072), as suggested by Zhou.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741