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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the proposed groups of claims are inextricably intertwined, and prosecution of the proposed groups of claims 1-20 together would be most effective for the office”. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search and/or examination burden because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, require a different field of search, and/or likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/13/2026.
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 the word “means” or “step” 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: “outlet element” in claim 1.
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 1-14 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.
In Claim 1, it is not clear whether limitations of “the first stream of air” in lines 3, 6, 7 and 8 are merely a stream of air or the “first stream of air with the fragrance”.
In Claim 2, it is not clear whether limitation of “the first stream of air” in line 2 is merely a stream of air or the “first stream of air with the fragrance”.
In Claim 3, it is not clear whether both instances of limitation of “the first stream of air” in line 3 are merely a stream of air or the “first stream of air with the fragrance”.
In Claim 4, it is not clear whether limitation of “the first stream of air” in line 1 is merely a stream of air or the “first stream of air with the fragrance”.
In Claims 6-8, it is not clear whether the limitations are optional when the parent claim only utilizes at least one trigger of user input and/or a request from a video game.
In Claim 7, it is not clear how a step of calculating as set forth in the claim can be “on the basis of at least one user input, …, the request from the video game” as parent claim 6 only requires a trigger of “a sensor or data value”.
In Claim 11, it is not clear whether limitation of “the first stream of air” in line 2 is merely a stream of air or the “first stream of air with the fragrance”.
In Claim 12, it is not clear whether limitation of “the first stream of air” in line 1 is merely a stream of air or the “first stream of air with the fragrance”.
In Claim 13, it is not clear whether limitation of “the first stream of air” in lines 1-2, 2 and 3 is merely a stream of air or the “first stream of air with the fragrance”.
Claims 5, 9-10 and 14 are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomono (WO2008072744).
As to Claim 1, Tomono (‘744) discloses a method for a directed emission of a fragrance (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-17; English translation, particularly Abstract, p. 3 [0013] – (7)), comprising:
mixing a first stream of air with the fragrance (via 02a, 02b, …, 02i) (see Figures 3-8; see entire English translation, particularly p. 5 [0030]);
emitting the first stream of air from an outlet element (01; 06) (see Figures 3-8); and
emitting a second stream of air (via 02S/06), which is not mixed with the fragrance, in a form of a laminar flow from the outlet element (01; 06) (see Figures 3-8), wherein the emission of the second stream of air (via 02S/06) takes place at the same time as the emission of the first stream of air (via 02a, 02b, …, 02i) (see Figures 3-8), and wherein the second stream of air (via 02S/06) is emitted from the outlet element (01; 06) in an arrangement enclosing the first stream of air (via 02a, 02b, …, 02i) such that the second stream of air (via 02S/06) forms a laminar enveloping flow of the first stream of air (via 02a, 02b, …, 02i) after the emission from the outlet element (01; 06) (see Figures 3-8).
As to Claim 2, Tomono (‘744) discloses that the first stream of air (via 02a, 02b, …, 02i) is emitted from the outlet element (01; 06) in a direction of flow parallel to the second stream of air (via 02S/06) (see Figure 3 and 6-8).
As to Claim 3, Tomono (‘744) discloses that the second stream of air (via 02S/06) has, after the emission from the outlet element (01; 06), a larger cross-sectional surface area, perpendicular to a direction of flow of the first stream of air (via 02a, 02b, …, 02i) and the second stream of air (via 02S/06), than the first stream of air (via 02a, 02b, …, 02i) (see Figures 8(A)-(B) and 12(A)).
As to Claim 4, Tomono (‘744) discloses that the emission of the first stream of air (via 02a, 02b, …, 02i) and the second stream of air (via 02S/06) takes place about a common center point (see Figures 3-8 and 12(A)).
As to Claim 5, Tomono (‘744) discloses that the method further comprising a process-controlled perfuming procedure which is triggered by at least one user input (via Ue), a sensor or data value (i.e. a sensor – see English translation, p. 7 [0047]), and/or a request from a video game (i.e. scented games – see English translation, p. 22 [0176] – line 4) (see entire document, particularly Figures 15-17; English translation, p. 7 [0046]-[0048], p. 22 [0170]-[0176]).
As to Claim 6, Tomono (‘744) discloses that the sensor or data value is selected from the group consisting of an output value of an electronic nose (i.e. “gender identification sensors” detectable via scent/odor/hormone), a camera signal (i.e. “gender identification sensors” via image/picture of the person and ”position detection sensors”), an audio signal (i.e. “gender identification sensors” via voice), and a GPS signal (i.e. via ”position detection sensors”) (see entire English translation, particularly p. 7 [0047] and [0048], p. 10 [0070], p. 22 [0170]-[0172]).
As to Claim 7, Tomono (‘744) discloses that the method further comprising calculating situation-dependent fragrance settings on the basis of the at least one user input, the sensor or data value, and/or on the basis of vehicle measurement device (see English translation, p. 23 [0184] – lines 4-5) (see entire English translation, particularly p. 7 [0046] and [0048], p. 10 [0070] and [0072]).
As to Claim 8, Tomono (‘744) discloses that the type of fragrance is fixed depending on the situation dependent fragrance settings (see entire English translation, particularly p. 7 [0048], p. 10 [0070] and [0072], p. 22 [0170]).
As to Claim 9, Tomono (‘744) discloses that the method further comprising calculation of a target coordinate for an olfactory effect (see entire English translation, particularly p. 22 [0171] and [0172], p. 23 [0184] – line 5).
As to Claim 10, Tomono (‘744) discloses that the target coordinate is determined based on a camera signal, a position of a face deduced from the camera signal, or a user input (i.e. via Ue) (see entire English translation, particularly Figures 16-17, p. 22 [0171] and [0172], p. 23 [0184] – line 5).
As to Claim 11, Tomono (‘744) discloses that an actuator (07, 09 and 20; 50; 30; 36A; 36D) acts on the outlet element (06; 06) such that the latter directs the first stream of air (via 02a, 02b, …, 02i) and the second stream of air (via 02S/06) to the target coordinate (see Figures 3-8, 12 and 15; see entire English translation, particularly pp. 5-6 [0031]-[0035]).
As to Claim 12, Tomono (‘744) discloses that a flow rate of the first stream of air (via 02a, 02b, …, 02i) and/or the second stream of air (via 02S/06) is adjusted (via SG2) depending on the target coordinate (see Figure 17).
As to Claim 13, Tomono (‘744) discloses that a start time for generating the first stream of air and/or the second stream of air, and/or an end time for generating the first stream of air and/or the second stream of air, are fixed depending on the situation-dependent fragrance settings (see entire English translation, particularly p. 6 [0035], p. 10 [0070]-[0072], p. 23 [0179] and [0183]-[0184]).
As to Claim 14, Tomono (‘744) discloses that the fragrance is emitted into a vehicle interior (see entire English translation, particularly p. 23 [0178] – line 3 and [0184]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: FR2550964 (hot aerosol generator dispensing deodorant as a cloud of aerosols composed of a suspension I hot air of fine particles of deodorant), 20030190268 (a fan with a scent dispenser attached).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights