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.
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, 6, 7, 8, 13-15, 19, & 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0286351 hereinafter Fateh.
In regard to Claim 1: A system for using olfactory stimuli to influence a behavior or condition of a subject comprising:
a container (Fateh, Paragraph 65; Figure 2A Item 202) comprising:
a plurality of compartments, wherein each compartment defines a respective internal volume (Fateh, Paragraph 71; Figure 2A Item 206); and
a plurality of odorous materials, wherein each compartment houses a respective odorous material within the respective internal volume (Fateh, Paragraph 74; Figure 2A 206); and
an integrated circuit (IC) chip comprising a processor and a memory, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the IC chip to monitor a respective state of each compartment (Fateh, Paragraph 82; Figure 2B Item 214).
In regard to Claim 6: The system of claim 1, wherein each odorous material comprises a liquid, an aerosolized liquid, a solid, a polyurethane, a plastic, a powder, a gel, a nanoemulsion, a wax, a paper, a celluloid material, a gum base, a foam, or a composite (Fateh, Paragraph 37; “A scent delivery system can include one or more reservoirs of scented material (e.g., liquid or air) that can each be selectively dispensed by a pump at the appropriate time”).
In regard to Claim 7: The system of claim 1, wherein each of the odorous materials is configured to emit a distinct odor (Fateh, Paragraph 74; “the three reservoirs depicted in FIGS. 2A-B may correspond to general scents (e.g., sweet, savory, and floral), specific scents (e.g., cinnamon, citrus, and rose), or some combination thereof”).
In regard to Claim 8: The system of claim 7, wherein the distinct odor is a lemon odor, a vanilla odor, a floral odor, a peppermint odor, an apple odor, or a chocolate odor (Fateh, Paragraph 74; “the three reservoirs depicted in FIGS. 2A-B may correspond to general scents (e.g., sweet, savory, and floral), specific scents (e.g., cinnamon, citrus, and rose), or some combination thereof”).
In regard to Claim 13: The system of claim 1, further comprising a remote computing device (Fateh, Paragraph 82; “a communication module that allows the scent delivery system 202 to communicate with the binocular HMD 200 and/or another computing device (e.g., a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, or server)”).
In regard to Claim 14: The system of claim 13, wherein the IC chip and the remote computing device are operably coupled by a communication link (Fateh, Paragraph 82; “the communication module may communicate via a short-range wireless protocol, such as Wi-Fi, near-field communication (NFC), radio-frequency identification (RFID), or Bluetooth”).
In regard to Claim 15: The system of claim 14, wherein the communication link is a wireless communication link (Fateh, Paragraph 82; “the communication module may communicate via a short-range wireless protocol, such as Wi-Fi, near-field communication (NFC), radio-frequency identification (RFID), or Bluetooth”).
In regard to Claim 19: The system of claim 13, wherein the remote computing device is configured to prompt the subject to smell an odor contained in a specific compartment of the container (Fateh, Paragraphs 37; “a pine scent could be produced when the individual is able to view a digital forest, while a vanilla scent could be produced when the individual is able to view a digital kitchen”).
In regard to Claim 21: The system of claims 19, wherein the remote computing device is configured to: receive, from a wearable sensor, a physiological signal associated with the subject (Fateh, Paragraph 81; Figure 2A Item 212); and analyze the physiological signal, wherein the subject is prompted to smell the odor contained in the specific compartment of the container based, at least in part, on the analysis (Fateh, Paragraph 81; “ Scent circuitry 214 may be responsible for modifying which scented material(s) are dispensed and how much of each scented material is dispensed based on signals received from each of the sensor(s) 212”).
In regard to Claim 22: The system claim 19, wherein the remote computing device is configured to receive, from a location sensor, a location of the subject, wherein the subject is prompted to smell the odor contained in the specific compartment of the container based, at least in part, on the location of the subject (Fateh, Paragraph 81; “if the sensor data indicates that the user has begun to move her head toward the scent source (e.g., toward a flower in a virtual environment), the scent circuitry 214 may increase the amount of scented material dispensed by each pump to increase scent intensity”).
In regard to Claim 23: The system claim 19, wherein the subject is prompted to smell the odor contained in the specific compartment of the container at a specific time (Fateh, Paragraph 112 & 144; “identify the most appropriate scented materials, dispersal times, scent intensities, etc.”).
In regard to Claim 24: The system claim 1, wherein the container is portable (Fateh, Paragraph 86; “ the technologies introduced here are readily portable and allow scents to be delivered directly to an individual experiencing digital content”).
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) 2-5, 11, 16-17, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0286351 hereinafter Fateh in view of US 2018/0289591 hereinafter French.
In regard to Claim 2: Fateh teaches of the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the respective state of each compartment is at least one of an opened state, a closed state, a locked state, or an unlocked state.
French consists of a device for providing indicators prompting a user to take a medicament, and teaches wherein the respective state of each compartment is at least one of an opened state, a closed state, a locked state, or an unlocked state (French, Paragraph 49; “a latching mechanism on the smart case 200 can record when the latch is opened or closed, such as via an electrical switching mechanism”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the different states of the compartment taught in French to the device of Fateh, the motivation being to provide a container that is both secure and refillable.
In regard to Claim 3: Fateh teaches of the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the IC chip to record the respective state of each compartment.
French consists of a device for providing indicators prompting a user to take a medicament, and teaches wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the IC chip to record the respective state of each compartment (French, Paragraph 49; “a latching mechanism on the smart case 200 can record when the latch is opened or closed, such as via an electrical switching mechanism”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add recording the state of the compartments taught in French to the device of Fateh, the motivation being to provide a feedback to the system that the user followed its prompts.
In regard to Claim 4: Fateh teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the IC chip to transmit the respective state of each compartment to a remote computing device.
French consists of a device for providing indicators prompting a user to take a medicament, and teaches wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the IC chip to transmit the respective state of each compartment to a remote computing device (French, Paragraph 26, Figure 1; Paragraph 49, Examiner interprets the record of the latch state to be sent to the remote computing device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the transmitting the states of the compartments to a remote computing device taught in French to the device of Fateh, the motivation being to provide a further prompts to the user once a compartment’s state change.
In regard to Claim 5: Fateh teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the IC chip to generate a control signal configured to prompt the subject to open a specific compartment of the container.
French consists of a device for providing indicators prompting a user to take a medicament, and teaches wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the IC chip to generate a control signal configured to prompt the subject to open a specific compartment of the container (French, Paragraph 42; “indicators may be present on the smart case to prompt the user to initiate a medication event”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the control signal configured to prompt the user as taught in French to the device taught in Fateh, the motivation being to comply with a medication dosage schedule.
In regard to Claim 11: Fateh teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein each compartment further comprises a respective seal configured to isolate the respective internal volume from an external environment.
French consists of a device for providing indicators prompting a user to take a medicament, and teaches wherein each compartment further comprises a respective seal configured to isolate the respective internal volume from an external environment (French, Paragraph 27; “The lid and base may be fabricated from any durable, lightweight material that is suitable to protect a plurality of medication doses from light, temperature, and other ambient influences”; Examiner interprets the device of French to have a seal that protects from light, temperature, and other ambient influences”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the sealed container taught in French to the device of Fateh, the motivation being to provide protections to the material inside the container.
In regard to Claim 16: Fateh teaches the system of claim 13, but does not teach wherein the remote computing device is configured to receive a signal indicating the respective state of each compartment.
French consists of a device for providing indicators prompting a user to take a medicament, and teaches wherein the remote computing device is configured to receive a signal indicating the respective state of each compartment (French, Paragraph 36; Step 802; “sensing data will be transmitted until a step 803 in which the data is received by the software application 104 on the mobile phone 102”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the computing device configured to receive a signal indicating the state of the compartment taught in French to the device taught in Fateh, the motivation being to provide feedback to the device on when to further prompt the user after an action is taken.
In regard to Claim 17: Fateh teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the remote computing device is configured to measure a respective amount of time each compartment is in an opened state (French, Paragraphs 36 & 37; Steps 802 & 803).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the measurement of time each compartment is open taught in French to the device taught in a modified Fateh, the motivation being to provide information to the user about how many uses are left.
In regard to Claim 20: Fateh teaches the system of claim 19, but does not teach wherein the remote computing device is configured to receive subject-reported information about the odor contained in the specific compartment of the container.
French consists of a device for providing indicators prompting a user to take a medicament, and teaches wherein the remote computing device is configured to receive subject-reported information about the odor contained in the specific compartment of the container (French, Paragraph 45; “the connection allows information, e.g. sensor data, recorded by the electronic display, user input, and sensors, e.g. audio sensor/motion sensor/lid sensor/pressure sensor, to be transmitted electronically across a network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the ability to receive subject-reported information as taught in French to the device taught by Fateh, the motivation being to provide feedback to the device on when to further prompt the user after an action is taken.
Claim(s) 9 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0286351 hereinafter Fateh in view of US 2009/0216070 hereinafter Hunt.
In regard to Claim 9: Fateh teaches of the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein each compartment further comprises a respective cover configured to restrict access to the respective internal volume.
Hunt consists of an olfactory sensory portion including a renewable scent element for emitting the scent to the user, and teaches wherein each compartment further comprises a respective cover configured to restrict access to the respective internal volume (Hunt, Paragraphs 29 & 30; Figure 2 Item 42; “lid”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the cover that is configured to restrict access to the inside of the container taught in Hunt to the device taught in Fateh, the motivation being to keep the scent element secure when not in use.
In regard to Claim 10: Fateh teaches of the system of claim 9, wherein each compartment further comprises a respective lock (Hunt, Paragraph 29 & 30; Figure 2 Item 44 “Clasp”; “the container 42 has a laterally extending hinge 43 and a clasp 44 or other closure opposite the hinge for securing the container in the closed configuration”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0286351 hereinafter Fateh in view of US 2012/0024889 hereinafter Robertson.
In regard to Claim 12: Fateh teaches of the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein each compartment further comprises a respective marking to indicate the respective odorous material within the respective internal volume.
Robertson consists of a device with multiple containers with markings to distinguish between different medicaments, and teaches wherein each compartment further comprises a respective marking to indicate the respective odorous material within the respective internal volume (Robertson , Paragraph 29; “Each of the compartments 116 of the multi-dose package 104 is labeled with the day of the week (e.g., M, Tu, W, Th, F, Sa, Su)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the labels on the containers taught in Robertson to the device of Fateh, the motivation being to provide the user an indication of which container they should interact with.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0286351 hereinafter Fateh in view of US 2019/0167927 hereinafter Dagnello.
In regard to Claim 18: Fateh teaches the system of claim 13, but does not teach wherein the remote computing device is configured to: receive an image of the container; and analyze the image to determine the respective state of each compartment.
Dagnello consists of a camera for capturing an image and analyzing said image to determine the state of a container, and teaches wherein the remote computing device is configured to: receive an image of the container (Dagnello, Paragraph 58); and analyze the image to determine the respective state of each compartment (Dagnello, Paragraph 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the ability to receive and analyze an image to determine the state of a compartments taught in Dagnello to the device Fateh, the motivation being to provide feedback to the device on when to further prompt the user after an action is taken.
Conclusion
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
/CARRIE R DORNA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights