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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 January 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 16 are amended.
Claims 1-30 are pending in the instant application, but claims 12-15 and 24-30 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 16 December 2025, with respect to the 101 rejections of claims 1-11 and 16-23, have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment. The 101 rejections of claims 1-11 and 16-23 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claim 1 and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states claims 1 and 16 require that a control board (Leon, Paragraph [0131]) executes a treatment schedule ((Leon, Paragraph [0134] “treatment schedule”) and controls at least one motor (Leon, Paragraph [0131]) of a scent-delivery device (Leon, Abstract) according to that schedule, such that scent delivery during intervals and cessation during breaks occur automatically (Leon, Paragraph [0109] “break intervals”). Leon teaches these limitations as Leon teaches a scent device that is programmable by a third party device (like a cell phone or downloadable program) that includes break intervals and is automatically controlled by the control board.
Applicant states Leon does not disclose a scent-delivery device in which a control board executes a treatment schedule and controls a motor to automatically enforce interval-and-break operation (See above) tied to a user-specific experiential scent profile. Leon does teach a user-specific experiential scent profile, as Leon discloses the system includes an “identification system whereby a recipient can tag a scent as unpleasant, or give the scent a rating on a scale, and the scent delivery system thus schedules scents with the lowest rating during hours when the recipient is most likely to be asleep” in Paragraph [0020]. This would also mean that the scents are presented to the user prior to treatment and therefore the user is familiar with the scents.
Applicant states Kwon does not disclose execution of a predefined cognitive-training treatment schedule (Disclosed by Leon supra) comprising intervals separated by breaks (Disclosed by Leon supra), nor fragrance-wheel-based sequencing (Leon, Paragraph [0017], Fig 5). for cognitive function improvement (Leon, Abstract, Kwon, sleep improvement which has been previously discussed in remarks).
Applicant further argues that the references also fail to teach or suggest executing such a schedule using scents identified in a profile tied to memories from the user's past experiences. Examiner disagrees, as Leon teaches the identification system, and Kwon teaches using a relational database and “old scent” (disclosed in previous office actions). The term “profile” is not defined within the claim and can be broadly interpreted. The limitation “memories from the user's past experiences” can also be broadly interpretated because there is nothing in the claims defining “memories” or “past experiences”. Leon exposing users to scents for them to grade can be broadly interpretated as “memories from the user's past experiences” because the second time they experience the scent the user will have previously experienced the scent during grading.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kwon provides a familiar scent to a user for the same purpose of Leon, to improve mental cognition (improving sleep improves mental cognition). As both Kwon and Leon disclose analogous systems (Kwon, Page 3, includes a controller, a storage unit, smell diffusion control, smell diffusion processing unit, and scheduling smell diffusion processing unit 161) the use of an “old scent” in Kwon vs the graded scents of Leon, is simple substation and can be regarded as analogous options.
Examiner encourages Applicant to schedule an interview to discuss possible amendments to advance the prosecution of the application.
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) 1-4, 7-11, 16-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon (US20190314601A1) in view of Kwon (KR20220011241A).
Regarding claim 1, Leon discloses a method of improving cognitive function of a user (Claim 1) comprising executing, by a control board of a scent-delivery device (Paragraph [0131]), a treatment schedule (Paragraph [0134]) including a plurality of intervals separated by breaks (Paragraph [0109]) such that the device delivers one or more of a plurality of scents during each interval (Claim 1), and controlling, by the control board, at least one motor of the scent-delivery device (Paragraph [0131]) according to the treatment schedule such that the device stops the delivery of the one or more of the plurality of scents during each break (Paragraphs [0109], [0131], Claim 1), the plurality of scents comprising at least one scent identified in a profile of said user (Paragraph [0020]), wherein the profile comprises identifiers of scents (Paragraph [0020]), such that the at least one identified scent is familiar to the user from a past experience (Paragraph [0020], if the user graded the scent, it would be familiar from the first time they smelled it, “past experience”)).
Leon does not disclose the at least one identified scent is familiar to the user tied to memories from the user's past experiences. Kwon discloses a method of scent diffusion for improving a user’s sleep (Page 4). Kwon further discloses gathering data from the user and creating a scent diffusion condition information in a relational database, wherein the user has a profile and depending on the data received the method produces a specific scent (Page 4). Finally, Kwon discloses that as a user goes to sleep, the user will be provided an “old scent” which is interpretated as the user is familiar with the scent or “the scent is tied to memories from the user's past experiences” (Page 4) to relax the user during sleep. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Leon, with the at least one identified scent is familiar to the user tied to memories from the user's past experiences as taught by Kwon, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a method for improving a user’s quality of sleep, and thereby improving mental cognition.
Regarding claim 2, Leon, as modified in claim 1, further discloses the one or more of the plurality delivered during consecutive intervals are sufficiently distinct from each other so as to be distinguishable by said user (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Leon, as modified in claim 1, further discloses no scent is repeated more than once during the treatment schedule (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Leon, as modified in claim 1, further discloses repeating the treatment schedule for a predetermined treatment length (Claim 1) to improve far transfer effects for the user (Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, Leon, as modified in claim 1, further discloses establishing the treatment schedule including the plurality of intervals separated by breaks comprises scheduling at least three intervals separated by breaks (Claim 3).
Regarding claim 8, Leon, as modified in claim 1, further discloses inputting the treatment schedule into a scent-delivery device comprises wirelessly connecting the device to a handheld (Claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, Leon, as modified in claim 1, further discloses establishing a treatment schedule comprises basing an initiation of the treatment schedule on an activity signifying that a user is going to bed (Claim 6).
Regarding claim 10, Leon, as modified in claim 9, further discloses said activity comprises communicatively coupling a handheld device to the scent-delivery device (Claim 7).
Regarding claim 11, Leon, as modified in claim 1, further discloses said activity comprises wirelessly coupling a biometric sensor to the hand-held device, providing data that indicates the user has begun a sleep cycle (Claim 8).
Regarding claim 16, Leon discloses a method of improving cognitive function of a user (Claim 15) comprising: providing a plurality of scents categorized into scent families (Claim 15), each family including scent sub-groups (Claim 15), according to a fragrance wheel arranged such that adjacent sub-groups have similarities (Claim 15), the plurality of scents comprising at least one scent identified in a profile of said user (Paragraph [0020]) where the at least one identified scent is familiar to the user (Paragraph [0020]), and executing, by a control board of a scent-delivery device (Paragraph [0131]), a treatment schedule (Paragraph [0134]) including exposure of the user to a plurality of intervals separated by breaks (Claim 15), wherein the control board controls at least one motor of the scent-delivery device (Paragraphs [0109], [0131]) such that a scent is administered to the user during an interval and no scent is administered during a break (Claim 15), wherein scents delivered during consecutive intervals are sufficiently distinct from each other so as to be distinguishable by said user (Claim 15).
Leon does not disclose the at least one identified scent is familiar to the user from a past experience. Kwon discloses a method of scent diffusion for improving a user’s sleep (Page 4). Kwon further discloses gathering data from the user and creating a scent diffusion condition information in a relational database, wherein the user has a profile and depending on the data received the method produces a specific scent (Page 4). Finally, Kwon discloses that as a user goes to sleep, the user will be provided an “old scent” which is interpretated as the user is familiar with the scent (Page 4) to relax the user during sleep. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Leon, with the at least one identified scent being familiar to the user from a past experience as taught by Kwon, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a method for improving a user’s quality of sleep, and thereby improving mental cognition.
Regarding claim 17, Leon, as modified in claim 16, further discloses no scent is repeated more than once during the treatment schedule (Claim 15).
Regarding claim 18, Leon, as modified in claim 16, further discloses repeating the treatment schedule each day for a predetermined treatment length (Claim 15) to improve far transfer effects for the user (Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 21, Leon, as modified in claim 16, further discloses administering the treatment schedule to the user comprises using a device that automatically emits said scents according to said schedule (Claim 16).
Regarding claim 22, Leon, as modified in claim 21, further discloses said using of the device comprises programming the device to begin the treatment schedule a predetermined amount of time after the user has gone to bed (Claim 20).
Regarding claim 23, Leon, as modified in claim 16, further discloses the scents are presented to the user according to the treatment schedule while the user is sleeping (Claim 17).
Claim 5, 6, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon (US20190314601A1) and Kwon (KR20220011241A), as applied to claim 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Cohen (US20190387796A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Leon, as modified in claims 1 and 16, does not disclose creation of the profile, wherein creation of the profile comprises receiving responses from the user; based on the received responses, identifying scents corresponding to the responses; and including, in the profile, information specifying the identified scents. Kwon discloses creation of the profile (“scent diffusion condition information” Page 4), wherein creation of the profile comprises receiving responses from the user (“bio-signals” Page 4); based on the received responses, identifying scents corresponding to the responses (“Relational database”, “The scent diffusing control information management unit 150 may match a scent diffusing condition process based on the scent diffusing condition information stored in the storage unit 140 , and may store and manage scent diffusing control information corresponding to the scent diffusing condition process. The scent diffusing condition process may be classified based on the scent diffusing condition information.” Page 4); and including, in the profile, information specifying the identified scents (“Also, the scent diffusing control information may include scent diffusing information optimized to reduce body fatigue and stabilize mind and emotions according to the environmental information and the bio-signals.” Page 4). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Leon, with creation of the profile, wherein creation of the profile comprises receiving responses from the user; based on the received responses, identifying scents corresponding to the responses; and including, in the profile, information specifying the identified scents as taught by Kwon, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a user customized scent therapy that would improve the therapy’s effect.
Neither Leon or Kwon disclose posing questions to the user, the questions relating to one or more of the ethnicity of the user, locations where the user has lived previously, and activities in which the user has been previously engaged. Cohen discloses vaporizer therapy methods for cessation of nicotine addiction (Abstract) wherein the therapy is determined based on user inputs to include previous substance use, ethnicity and location, user behavior, and other habits (Paragraph [0111]). This allows the method to customize the flavor/scent of vaporization in order of improve the outcome of the therapy (Paragraph [0116]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by modified Leon, with posing questions to the user, the questions relating to one or more of the ethnicity of the user, locations where the user has lived previously, and activities in which the user has been previously engaged as part of the profile creation as taught by Cohen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a user customized scent therapy that would improve the therapy’s effect (Paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Leon, as modified in claims 5 and 19, discloses accessing one or more databases that relate identifiers of scents to potential responses to the posed questions (Kwon, “relational databases” Page 4) and reading any identifiers of scents that correspond to the received responses (Kwon, “Relational database”, “The scent diffusing control information management unit 150 may match a scent diffusing condition process based on the scent diffusing condition information stored in the storage unit 140, and may store and manage scent diffusing control information corresponding to the scent diffusing condition process. The scent diffusing condition process may be classified based on the scent diffusing condition information.” Page 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc D Honrath whose telephone number is (571)272-6219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Charles A Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/M.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791