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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “configured to visually and/or acoustically orchestrate dispending of the fragrance molecules provided by the fragrancing system according to defined criteria”. The claims nor the specification of the current application provide any definition for said “defined criteria”. Therefore, the requirement of “visually and/or acoustically orchestrate dispending of the fragrance molecules provided by the fragrancing system according to defined criteria defined criteria” is not sufficiently supported by the specification to satisfy the written description requirement.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 presents the limitation “configured to visually and/or acoustically orchestrate dispending of the fragrance molecules provided by the fragrancing system according to defined criteria”. There is no support in the current application’s specification that further identifies what would constitute as “defined criteria”. Therefore, claim 20 is indefinite because it is uncertain what would satisfy the limitation “configured to visually and/or acoustically orchestrate dispending of the fragrance molecules provided by the fragrancing system according to defined criteria”.
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.
Claims 11-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolf (US 20150137395 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wolf teaches a fragrancing system for fragrancing an interior of a vehicle (abstract), the fragrancing system comprising; an interior part which is movable such that, when transformed from a first state to a second state, the interior part at least briefly releases a cavity present in an interior of the vehicle (housing has cover which pivots about an axis of rotation into the housing interior, abstract, and housing installed at any required location on the motor vehicle, paragraph [0012]), wherein an airflow in the cavity is generated by the transformation (closure mechanism is pivoted away from fragrance storage container so that air channel is freed, paragraph [0059]); and a fragrance carrier disposed in the cavity such that fragrance carrier is activated by the airflow and dispenses fragrance molecules to an exterior of the cavity (fragrance storage container inserted in housing for dispensing fragrance when actuated open by an actuator, abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Wolf teaches wherein: a chamber in which the fragrance carrier is placed is provided in the cavity (Figure 2 closure mechanism “9” contains fragrance container “4” and opening), the chamber is formed such that the chamber in the first and the second state is closed on all sides (seals enclose the opening of the fragrance storage container, paragraph [0053], and Figures 1 and 2 closure mechanism “9” remains in place with cover “5” closed [Figure 1] and open [Figure 2]), and during the transformation at least briefly releases an opening in a direction of the interior of the vehicle such that the airflow enters and flows over the fragrance carrier, activates the fragrance carrier , and the dispensed fragrance molecules flow to an exterior of the chamber and to the exterior of the cavity (closure mechanism is pivoted away from fragrance storage container so that air channel is freed, paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Wolf teaches wherein a region of the chamber, which during the transformation at least briefly releases the opening in the direction of the interior of the vehicle, in the first state and/or the second state is covered by the interior part or has a cover which is opened during transformation (Figure 6 closure mechanism “9” pressed by the linear actuator “7” moves away from the fragrance container “4” so that the opening “11” is freed)
Regarding claim 17, Wolf teaches wherein the fragrance carrier is disposed such that the fragrance carrier is replaceable or refillable (a replaceable fragrance storage container, abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Wolf teaches a vehicle comprising the fragrancing system according to claim 11 (fragrancing system for a motor vehicle, paragraph [0012]).
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.
Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Watanabe (US 20210031823 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wolf teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the interior part is a steering wheel that is transformable in terms of shape. However, Watanabe teaches an interiors part of a vehicle that is a steering wheel that is transformable in terms of shape (steering system that is configured to move the operation member between a normal position and a storage area, abstract).
Wolf is considered analogous to the current invention as both are in the field of vehicle deodorization devices and Watanabe is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of transformable vehicle steering devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the deodorization device taught by Wolf with use in the steering device taught by Watanabe because Wolf teaches the deodorization device is able to be placed in compatibility with any interior vehicle structure (housing installed at any required location on the motor vehicle, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 15, Wolf teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein: the interior part is a steering wheel, a headrest, an entertainment device, or a support in a region of a seat., the second state is an altered position and/or a position which is visible to and/or utilizable by an occupant, or a position which is no longer visible to and/or utilizable by the occupant. However, Watanabe teaches the interior part is a steering wheel, a headrest, an entertainment device, or a support in a region of a seat (steering system that is configured to move the operation member between a normal position and a storage area, abstract), the second state is an altered position and/or a position which is visible to and/or utilizable by an occupant, or a position which is no longer visible to and/or utilizable by the occupant (Figure 3 operation member “110” is transitioned from a normal operation position to a retracted position within the storage area “410”).
Wolf and Watanabe are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the deodorization device taught by Wolf with use in the steering device taught by Watanabe because Wolf teaches the deodorization device is able to be placed in compatibility with any interior vehicle structure (housing installed at any required location on the motor vehicle, paragraph [0012]). Additionally, Watanabe teaches that the changeable position of the steering device advantageously expands the available space for the driver while improving safety (paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 19, Wolf teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the vehicle is fully automated or a self-driving vehicle. However, Watanabe teaches wherein the vehicle is fully automated or a self-driving vehicle (vehicle including the steering system is provided with automatic driving system, paragraph [0037]).
Wolf and Watanabe are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the vehicle deodorization device taught by Wolf with the autonomous vehicle taught by Watanabe because Wolf teaches the deodorization device can be placed flexible in any vehicle interior (paragraph [0061]).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Kelsen (US 20180369442 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Wolf teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein: the fragrance carrier is a solid substance having fragrance modules which are located in the fragrance carrier and are activatable by the airflow, and comprise at least one polymer, or the fragrance carrier is a material impregnated with a fragrance. However, Kelsen teaches the fragrance carrier is a solid substance having fragrance modules which are located in the fragrance carrier and are activatable by the airflow, and comprise at least one polymer, or the fragrance carrier is a material impregnated with a fragrance (cartridge dilled with beads or polymer substrate and dry fragrance particles are removed from beads or substrate and mix with the air, paragraph [0061]).
Wolf and Kelsen are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of vehicle deodorization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the deodorization device taught by Wolf with the solid polymer fragrance beads taught by Kelsen because Kelsen teaches the dry fragrance materials advantageously contain no volatile organic compounds (paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 20, Wolf teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the vehicle comprises a device which is configured to visually and/or acoustically orchestrate dispensing of the fragrance molecules provided by the fragrancing system according to defined criteria. However, Kelsen teaches wherein the vehicle comprises a device which is configured to visually and/or acoustically orchestrate dispensing of the fragrance molecules provided by the fragrancing system according to defined criteria (audio signals can be interpreted by system that result in the emission of fragrances that are programmed to correspond to the audio signals, paragraph [0084], and system can change audio of light output, paragraph [0086]).
Wolf and Kelsen are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the deodorization system taught by Wolf with visually or acoustically orchestrated dispensing of fragrances taught by Kelsen because Kelsen teaches such a system will advantageously allow the system to provide complimentary outputs and simply the operation of the connected devices (paragraph [0086]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights