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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification states that a lifting ring is shown in fig 3 but the specification does not assign a reference number to the lifting ring.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lifting ring (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The specification says that the lifting ring is shown in fig 3 but does not assign a reference number. It is not clear from the drawings what is the lifting ring.
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 10 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.
With regards to claim 10, it is not clear what constitutes a lifting ring. Nothing in the specification appears to be lifting anything. The specification does not give a reference number to show the lifting ring in the figures. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are given the confusion on what is a lifting ring in the context of the specification.
Given the confusion prior art is not able to be applied to claim 10 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiehler et al. (US 2016/0236542) in view of Kuiper (US 2005/0224595).
With regards to claim 1, Stiehler et al. teaches an aroma-type ventilation tube (10), comprising a tube body (housing 21), wherein a ventilation passage (passage with airflow arrows 17) for air to pass through is arranged inside the tube body, wherein an aroma base (chamber at bottom with cartridges 11 inside), an aroma cartridge (11) placed in the aroma base, and an aroma (fragrance) replaceably placed in the aroma cartridge (can be replaced if desired) are arranged on the tube body (bottom), wherein an aroma diffusion hole (opening in bottom side of tube coverable by closure elements 12) is provided on the aroma base, and an aroma ventilation hole (opening at top of cartridge; para [0055]) is provided on the aroma cartridge (fig 2; abstract). The flow pattern is the aroma gas released by the aroma is released sequentially through the aroma ventilation hole and the aroma diffusion hole to the air passing through the ventilation passage (arrows in fig 2).
Stiehler et al. teaches using an actuator to rotate closures (12) to open and close off the release of fragrance from the cartridge (11) (para [0047]) but does not teach rotating the cartridge in the aroma base to align or stagger the ventilation hole and the diffusion hole.
Kuiper teaches a fragrance dispenser where the release of fragrance is controlled by rotating a cartridge (2) to align or stagger vent holes (15, 16) with a hole (12) in the base holding the cartridge (housing portion 1) (compare fig 1 position (closed) to fig 2 position (open)). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted on rotating closure arrangement for another motivated by an expectation of successfully controlling the release of fragrance from a mounted fragrance cartridge.
The combination results in the aroma cartridge rotates in the aroma base, and drives the aroma ventilation hole of the aroma cartridge to be staggered from the aroma diffusion hole of the aroma base, to prevent an aroma gas released by the aroma from entering the ventilation passage; and the aroma cartridge rotates in the aroma base, and drives the aroma ventilation hole of the aroma cartridge to overlap the aroma diffusion hole of the aroma base.
With regards to claim 2, the aroma ventilation hole and the aroma diffusion hole are used for adjusting, through different overlapping areas, different amounts of aroma gas entering the ventilation passage (is intended use which it is capable of doing and is taught to do at least as 0 overlap versus total overlap).
With regards to claim 3, Stiehler et al. teaches a driving member (electromotor) for driving rotation to open and close the fragrance dispensing (para [0047]). The combination with Kuiper above would result in the drive rotating the aroma cartridge in the base. As to being at the top of the cartridge, it is taken that the electromotor is near and thus at the top. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have positioned the electromotor anywhere relative to the cartridge where it is able to affect the rotation of the cartridge motivated by an expectation of successfully providing the taught rotation.
With regards to claim 6, Stiehler et al. teaches a seal around the top of the cartridge opening (para [0049]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have provided a sealing ring as claimed in order to prevent unwanted leakage of fragrance from the cartridge when mounted in position in the base. The resulting seal of the combination would be rotational as the cartridge rotates to open/close.
With regards to claim 7, Stiehler et al. teaches the aroma cartridge comprises a cartridge body (body of cartridge) and a cartridge cover (outer wall of the chamber holding the cartridges)) detachably covering the cartridge body (with enough effort can be removed; also needs to be removed to replace cartridges), and the aroma ventilation hole is provided at a bottom of the cartridge body (when the device is so oriented) (fig 2).
With regards to claim 8, Stiehler et al. teaches that the fragrance in the cartridge can be a liquid fragrance on a non-woven carrier (para [0020]; outgases in the headspace of the cartridge as well so is also a gas; para [0055]). That different types of the aroma are selected according to actual usage conditions is an intended use and one could load different aroma material as desired into the cartridges (para [0029] and [0030] teach using different fragrances which would be different types).
With regards to claim 9, the aroma base is fixedly mounted to the tube wall of the tube body (fig 2). A persona having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the parts stationary to each other integral as a matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 V. B.).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiehler et al. (US 2016/0236542) in view of Kuiper (US 2005/0224595) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of Bordier (US 2012/0000989).
With regards to claim 4, Stiehler et al. does not teach an anti-detachment structure between the cartridge and base to hold the cartridge in place as claimed. Bordier teaches using various things including a magnet to hold a cartridge in a scent diffuser in place as desired (abstract and para [0132]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a magnet between the cartridge and base in order to hold the cartridge in place in the scent diffuser as desired.
The combination results in an anti-detachment structure is arranged between the aroma cartridge and the aroma base, and the aroma cartridge does not detach from the aroma base while rotating relative to the aroma base by using the anti-detachment structure.
With regards to claim 5, the combination results in the anti-detachment structure is a magnetic attraction structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights