1Notice 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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichow et al (20190262739) as discussed in paragraph 5 of the last office action.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichow et al in view of Wittek as discussed in paragraph 6 of the last office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner found applicant’s arguments to be persuasive with respect to previous 35 USC 112 2nd and 35 USC 101 rejections and has withdrawn both rejections.
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to Reichow et al not showing the “amplifying” limitation as claimed, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner first notes that claims 1 and 16 are construed as apparatus claims and the applicant needs to define over the prior art with structural limitations and not functional limitations. See in re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ 2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case the term amplifying is being construed as a functional limitation and it is the examiner’s position that the functionality of “amplifying” is taught by Reichow et al. As applicant points out, Reichow et al show multiple air sources 156a-156d that are applied to emit scents into the bulk airflow 115. Under BRI, it is the examiner’s position that the pulses of air that are emitted with the selected scent reads on a different stream of air that the first stream of air of bulk airflow 115. The applicant appears to be interpreting that the stream of air must be continuously applied to the bulk airflow to read on the amplifying limitation. Relying on BRI, the examiner interprets the burst of pulse of air to read on a second, third input of stream of air that does amplify the bulk airflow during the burst of air flow. This is corroborated with fig 1B which shows the stream of air inputs moving with the stream of the bulk airflow 115. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Reichow et al teach the “amplifying” limitations as this limitation is being interpreted as discussed supra.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6am-4pm.
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.
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.
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights