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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, & 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0035832 hereinafter Ureten.
In regards to Claim 1: An aromatherapy product, comprising:
an aromatherapy oil configured for releasing an aroma when exposed to an outside environment (Ureten, Paragraph 13; Figure 2 Item 28 & 38; “the blanket can be worn over the user with the envelope close to the user's head, thereby releasing aromatherapy vapors/scent close to the user's nose”);
a carrier comprising an absorption portion for receiving a predetermined amount of the aromatherapy oil, wherein the absorption portion includes a wood-based fabric (Ureten, Paragraph 3 & 42; Figure 2 Item 28 & 38; Examiner interprets the envelope to be made of bamboo; Superior Absorption section).
In regards to Claim 2: The aromatherapy product of claim 1, wherein the wood-based fabric includes a bamboo (Ureten, Paragraph 42).
In regards to Claim 3: The aromatherapy product of claim 2, wherein the absorption portion consists of bamboo (Ureten, Paragraph 42).
In regards to Claim 4: The aromatherapy product of claim 2, wherein the carrier consists of bamboo (Ureten, Paragraph 3 & 42).
In regards to Claim 7: The aromatherapy product of claim 1, wherein the carrier is biodegradable (Ureten, Paragraph 3; Examiner points out that the bamboo used for the device is known to be biodegradable).
In regards to Claim 8: the aromatherapy product of claim 1, wherein the aromatherapy oil has a mixture comprising at least 80 percent of an essential oil by mass (Ureten, Paragraph 14; Examiner interprets the Aromatherapy oils used in the device to be 100% essential oils by mass.).
In regards to Claim 10: The aromatherapy product of claim 1, wherein the aromatherapy product is configured for therapeutic purposes (Ureten, Paragraph 14; “The therapeutic benefit of using aromatherapy (botanical) extracts has been recognized by mankind going as far back as cultures such as the Aborigines of Australia, the Native American Indians, and to the tribes in Africa. In more modern history, companies have produced commercial lines of extracted essential oils for topical and aroma therapeutic use”).
In regards to Claim 11: The aromatherapy product of claim 1, wherein the aromatherapy product is configured for at least one of a comfort purpose, a cosmetic purpose and another non-therapeutic purpose (Ureten, Paragraph; Examiner interprets an aromatherapy device capable of providing sleep benefits as a device used for comfort purposes).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12-16 & 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0035832 hereinafter Ureten in view of US 2015/0060565 hereinafter Furner.
In regards to Claim 5: Ureten teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach an individual package configured for enclosing the carrier in an air-tight manner.
Furner teaches an individual package configured for enclosing the carrier in an air-tight manner (Furner, Paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the air-tight packaging for the device taught in Furner to the aromatherapy blanket taught in Ureten, the motivation being to provide a way to contain the essential oil aroma before its intended use time.
In regards to Claim 12: Ureten teaches all of claim 1 and a carrier having an absorption portion for receiving a predetermined amount of an aromatherapy oil, wherein the absorption portion includes a wood-based fabric (Ureten, Paragraphs 3 & 42; Superior absorption), wherein the aromatherapy oil is configured for releasing an aroma when exposed to an outside environment (Ureten, Paragraph 3; Examiner interprets the envelope to be made of bamboo).
Ureten does not teach of packaging a carrier.
Furner teaches of packaging a carrier (Furner, Paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the air-tight packaging for the device taught in Furner to the aromatherapy blanket taught in Ureten, the motivation being to provide a way to contain the essential oil aroma before its intended use time.
In regards to Claim 13: A modified Ureten teaches all of claim 12, and wherein the wood-based fabric includes a bamboo (Ureten, Paragraph 42).
In regards to Claim 14: A modified Ureten teaches all of claim 13, and wherein the absorption portion consists of bamboo (Ureten, Paragraph 42).
In regards to Claim 15: A modified Ureten teaches all of claim 13, and wherein the carrier consists of bamboo (Ureten, Paragraph 3 & 42).
In regards to Claim 16: A modified Ureten teaches all of claim 12, wherein a package for receiving the carrier comprises an individual package configured for enclosing the carrier in an air-tight manner (Furner, Paragraph 51).
In regards to Claim 18: A modified Ureten teaches all of claim 12, and wherein the carrier is biodegradable (Ureten, Paragraph 9; Examiner points out that the bamboo material used to make the device is biodegradable).
In regards to Claim 19: A modified Ureten teaches all of claim 12, but does not teach wherein the aromatherapy oil has a mixture comprising at least 80 percent of an essential oil by mass (Ureten, Paragraph 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the mixture percentage to the aromatherapy blanket taught by a modified Ureten, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is mixture percentage which achieves the recognized result of keeping the scent strong therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0035832 hereinafter Ureten in view of US 2018/0028776 hereinafter Clark.
In regards to Claim 6: Ureten teaches all of claim 4, but does not teach wherein the individual package is formed with a plastic.
Clark teaches wherein the individual package is formed with a plastic (Clark, Paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the packaging being plastic taught in Clark to the aromatherapy blanket taught in Ureten, the motivation being to provide a packaging material that is easily formed to be air tight.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0035832 hereinafter Ureten in view of US 2003/0047186 hereinafter Dyer.
In regards to Claim 9: Ureten teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the carrier is designed and filled with oil such that aromatherapy is effective for a period of between about 15 minutes and about 30 minutes.
Dryer teaches wherein the carrier is designed and filled with oil such that aromatherapy is effective for a period of between about 15 minutes and about 30 minutes (Dyer, Paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the diffusion period taught by Dryer to the aromatherapy blanket taught by Ureten, the motivation being to provide a set duration after which the user would know to replace the device.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0035832 hereinafter Ureten in view of US 2015/0060565 hereinafter Furner in view of US 2018/0028776 hereinafter Clark.
In regards to Claim 17: A modified Ureten teaches all of claim 4, but does not teach wherein the individual package is formed with a plastic.
Clark teaches wherein the individual package is formed with a plastic (Clark, Paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the packaging being plastic taught in Clark to the aromatherapy blanket taught in a modified Ureten, the motivation being to provide a packaging material that is easily formed to be air tight.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0035832 hereinafter Ureten in view of US 2015/0060565 hereinafter Furner in view of US 2003/0047186 hereinafter Dyer.
In regards to Claim 20: A modified Ureten teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the carrier is designed and filled with oil such that aromatherapy is effective for a period of between about 15 minutes and about 30 minutes.
Rau teaches wherein the carrier is designed and filled with oil such that aromatherapy is effective for a period of between about 15 minutes and about 30 minutes (Dyer, Paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the diffusion period taught by Rau to the aromatherapy blanket taught by a modified Ureten, the motivation being to provide a set duration after which the user would know to replace the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8,007,842 hereinafter Rau is relevant to claim 9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights