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 § 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip et al. (US 6950607).
Yip discloses in reference to claim:
1. A scent dispensing device , comprising:
a body 110 with a vial bay forming a cavity C, the vial bay configured to receive a scent vial 156, the cavity including a first sidewall 124 on a first side of the cavity and a second sidewall 126 on a second side of the cavity opposite the first side of the cavity, the first sidewall and the second sidewall being configured to extend beyond a length of the scent vial 156 when the scent vial is inserted into the vial bay, the scent vial having a retaining mechanism protrusion 160; and
a scent vial retaining mechanism 176 positioned on a top side of the cavity, the scent vial retaining mechanism including a vial coupling 174 that engages with the retaining mechanism protrusion on the scent vial within the vial bay when the scent vial 156 is inserted into the vial bay, the vial coupling 176 stably securing the scent vial 156 within the vial bay C.
In order to stably support bottles 156 at different heights, due to different shapes, configurations and weights of bottles 156, a clamping mechanism 174 extends down from each cylindrical support wall 164.
PNG
media_image1.png
1055
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The embodiment shown in Fig. 3 of Yip uses a combination of support for the scent vial, namely the support platform 146 and the vial retaining mechanism 176. The embodiment shown in Fig. 3 does not explicitly disclose the scent vial hangs vertically and is retained by only the vial coupling to position the scent vial within the vial bay.
Alternative embodiments within Yip as seen in figures 5 and 7 teach a scent vial support mechanism including a body 10 with a vial bay forming a cavity (within housing 12), the vial bay configured to receive a scent vial 46, the cavity including a first sidewall portion 14 on a first side of the cavity and a second sidewall portion 14 on a second side of the cavity opposite the first side of the cavity, the first sidewall and the second sidewall being configured to extend along a length of the scent vial 46 when the scent vial is inserted into the vial bay, the scent vial having a retaining mechanism protrusion 160; and a scent vial retaining mechanism 24 positioned on a top side of the cavity, the scent vial retaining mechanism including a vial coupling 26 that engages with the retaining mechanism protrusion on the scent vial within the vial bay when the scent vial 46 is inserted into the vial bay, the vial coupling 26 stably securing the scent vial 46 within the vial bay, and further wherein the scent vial hangs vertically and is retained by only the vial coupling to position the scent vial within the vial bay.
PNG
media_image2.png
1028
956
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of skill in the art understanding the totality of the disclosure of Yip would find it obvious to modify the embodiment shown in figures 16-25 with the teachings of the embodiments shown in figures 1-7 by replacing the vial retaining mechanism and vial coupling of figures 16-25 with the vial retaining mechanism and vial coupling of figures 1-7 such that the support for the vials is provided solely by the vial retaining mechanism and provides for a vertical positioning within a cavity. One of skill in the art would find motivation to provide such a modification such that the device shown in figures 1-7 uses the same retaining mechanism for both embodiments which would be desirable to the user such that they need not learn separate procedures for changing scent vials and further such that scent vials can be unquestionably used in both the wall outlet supported embodiment shown in figures 1-7 as well as the table supported embodiment shown in figures 16-25.
2. The scent dispensing device of claim 1, wherein the scent vial 156 includes a neck at a top end of the vial and the retaining mechanism protrusion 160 extends out of an exterior surface of the neck.
3. The scent dispensing device of claim 1, wherein the retaining mechanism protrusion 160 is situated at a dispensing end of the vial. See Figures above.
4. The scent dispensing device of claim 3, wherein the vial is cylindrical in shape (at least at the neck) and the retaining mechanism protrusion 160 extends around an exterior surface of a circumference of the vial.
5. The scent dispensing device of claim 1, wherein the scent vial includes a wick 162 extending out of a top surface that allows a scent solution to be drawn up the wick, the scent dispensing device further comprising:
a ring 170 extending from the body through which the wick is positioned when the scent vial is inserted into the vial bay; and
a heating element 172 positioned within the ring that is configured to heat the scent solution in the wick when the scent vial is inserted into the vial bay.
6. The scent dispensing device of claim 5, further comprising:
a stopping member 176 that comes into contact with a top vial surface when the scent vial is inserted into the vial bay.
7. The scent dispensing device of claim 6, wherein the stopping member 176 provides a feedback of when the scent vial has been correctly positioned in the vial bay. Note that the feedback is in the form of the travel being stopped.
8. The scent dispensing device of claim 6, wherein the stopping member 176 includes one or more clips 178 that protrude outwardly from the stopping member, the one or more clips including one or more clip protrusions that form the vial coupling that engages with the retaining mechanism protrusion on the scent vial within the vial bay when the scent vial is inserted into the vial bay.
PNG
media_image3.png
1189
980
media_image3.png
Greyscale
9. The scent dispensing device of claim 8, wherein the one or more clip protrusions 178 engage with and hold the retaining mechanism protrusion 160.
10. The scent dispensing device of claim 1 further comprising:
a controller 236 configured to selectively dispense a scent from the scent vial inserted into the vial bay.
Regarding claims 11-20, see above explanation of Yip, mutatis mutandis, in reference to claims 1-10 applied for the multi-vial scent dispensing device claimed. See Figure 5 showing the multi-vial configuration of Yip.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference strictly as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc