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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I, directed to claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 10th August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10th August 2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, ‘wherein the processing unit issue an…’, should likely read ‘wherein the processing unit issues an…’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 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 6, ‘the test’ there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
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 & 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110811552 A to Wei et al. (hereinafter, Wei).
Regarding Claim 1, Wei discloses an information processing device (Wei: Para. [0020-0022], [0048]) comprising
a processing unit that identifies information regarding an odor component to be released (Wei: Para. [0022-0023], [0061-0069]) and
controls release of the odor component on a basis of information associated with a user (Wei: Para. [0049], [0060], [0064]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wei discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Wei further discloses wherein the information regarding the odor component to be released includes any one or more pieces of information selected from the group consisting of a type of the odor component, a mixing ratio of the odor component, a concentration of the odor component, a release time of the odor component, and a time until start of the release of the odor component (Wei: Para. [0064-0069] ‘concentrations of olfactory agents’; Note: As claimed, only one of the selections are required, any other selection is optional and will be considered optional in every dependent claim that recites these options, thus is not required to be taught by the prior art).
Regarding Claim 3, Wei discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Wei further discloses wherein the processing unit further identifies a concentration of the odor component to be released (Wei: Para. [0068-0069] ‘concentrations of olfactory agents’) or
a release time of the odor component on a basis of the information regarding the odor component identified and the information associated with the user (Wei: Para. [0060], [0062; Note: The limitation is considered optional and thus not required to be taught by the prior art).
Regarding Claim 4, Wei discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, Wei further discloses wherein the information associated with the user includes any one or more pieces of information selected from the group consisting of biological information regarding the user, physical information regarding the user, and information regarding an answer from the user (Wei: Para. [0058], [0060]; Note: As claimed, only one of the selections are required, any other selection is optional and will be considered optional in every dependent claim that recites these options, thus is not required to be taught by the prior art).
Regarding Claim 5, Wei discloses the information processing device according to claim 4, Wei further discloses wherein the information regarding the answer from the user includes a result of any one or more tests selected from the group consisting of an identification test, a threshold test, and a discrimination test (Wei: Para. [0061-0062]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wei discloses the information processing device according to claim 5, Wei further discloses wherein the processing unit issue an instruction to output the result of the test (Wei: Para. [0025-0026], [0060]).
Regarding Claim 8, Wei discloses the information processing device according to claim 4, Wei further discloses wherein the processing unit adjusts a concentration of the odor component to be released on a basis of the information regarding the answer from the user (Wei: Para. [0064]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wei discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Wei further discloses wherein the processing unit controls the release of the odor component on a basis of environmental information that affects the release of the odor component (Wei: Para. [0011-0014], [0051], [0055-0056], [0060] ).
Regarding Claim 10, Wei discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Wei further discloses further comprising a storage unit that stores the information associated with the user and/or the information regarding the odor component identified (Wei: Para. [0023-0026]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wei discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Wei further discloses wherein the processing unit determines a physical function of the user on a basis of the information associated with the user displayed in time series (Wei: Para. [0007] ‘discrimination ability’ via [0062-0065] ‘discrimination test’).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Akazawa et al. (hereinafter, Akazawa) Influence of an Olfactory Term Table on the Odor Recognition Threshold in T&T Olfactometer, January 2019, Nihon Bika Gakkai Kaishi (Japanese Journal of Rhinology) 58(2):159-166 DOI:10.7248/jjrhi.58.159.
Regarding Claim 7, Wei discloses the information processing device according to claim 5, Wei further discloses wherein the result of the threshold test includes any one or more results selected from the group consisting of a detection threshold, a recognition threshold (Wei: Para. [0069-0070]).
Wei is silent on a difference between the detection threshold and the recognition threshold.
However, Akazawa teaches a difference between the detection threshold and the recognition threshold (Akazawa: Pg. 159, “The results of recognition threshold, detection threshold, and the difference between detection and recognition thresholds with T&T olfactometer, as well an alinamin test and self-administered odor questionnaire were retrospectively compared. Results: The olfactory term table usage and non-usage groups consisted of 37 and 23 patients, recpectively. The recognition threshold was significantly lower in the usage group than that in non-usage group (p = 0.003). The difference between detection and recognition thresholds was significantly lower in the usage group than that in non-usage group (p = 0.048). The detection threshold and SAOQ score were not significantly different between the groups. Therefore, we assumed that although olfactory function was similar, the recognition threshold was improved after using an olfactory term table over that when not using an olfactory term table”).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the analysis steps of Wei to include a difference between the detection threshold and the recognition threshold as taught by Akazawa to compare results with modified vs control groups to make determinations on potential improvements such as the improvement to the recognition threshold (Akazawa: Pg. 159)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm EST..
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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights