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) 1-10, 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fyffe (US 6963271) in view of Harris (US 8172405).
Fyffe discloses in reference to claim:
PNG
media_image1.png
512
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1. (Independent) A method comprising:
receiving an input via a user interface 22 to begin dispensing a first scent from a scent dispensing device 30, the input including control data (information 12 -- According to one embodiment, information 12 may also include an aroma selection. The aroma selection may include a selection of one or more aromas 48 that aroma station 30 may emit.) indicating that the first scent should be dispensed from a first scent vial 32;
responsive to receiving the input to dispense the first scent from a scent dispensing device having a scent dispensing mechanism configured to dispense the first scent from the first scent vial 32 and a second scent from a second scent vial 32, controlling the scent dispensing mechanism to dispense the first scent from the first scent vial;
presenting for display on a user device 34, a graphical user interface indicating that the first scent is being dispensed (see Figure 3, display 34 indicates what scent is being dispensed--where indicator 34 may include a screen display. For example, indicator 34 may comprise a screen suitable for displaying a picture that represents the aroma, a text identifying the aroma, or any other illustration suitable to display the selected aroma. Indicator 34 may display the selected aroma using a color illustration or a black and white illustration. Although a screen has been described in this embodiment, it is understood that any other suitable display may be used as indicator 34.);
[According to one embodiment, aroma 48 may be released for a predetermined amount of time. Inherent in this disclosure is the control information of when to start and further when to stop the release of a first aroma]
determining that the scent dispensing device should switch from the first scent to the second scent based on the control data indicating that the second scent should be dispensed from the second scent vial;
controlling the scent dispensing mechanism to dispense the second scent from the second scent vial and cease dispensing the first scent from the first scent vial; [Multiple vents 38 may allow for the emission of more than one aroma, simultaneously or at different times. This disclosure suggests to the artisan that the device is capable of dispensing a first aroma for a given time period, and then dispensing a second aroma at a different time—note that dispensing at different times requires ceasing dispensing of the first aroma and then starting the dispensing of a second, third, forth...etc.. aroma subject to the information 12 received] and
updating a region of the graphical user interface to indicate a deactivation of the first scent and an activation of the second scent. Note that the display 34 is used to display the scent being dispensed, as such it serves as an indication of a deactivation of one aroma and activation of another aroma, further note that the indication of activation or deactivation represents the updating of usage data.
Fyffe does not explicitly disclose the receiving an input via a graphical user interface on a user device separate from a scent dispensing device or displaying the usage data on the separate user device, nor the receiving of the information 12 via a computer network, . However, Fyffe discloses “functions may be performed using any suitable logic comprising software, hardware, other logic, or any suitable combination of the preceding. As user input is considered a function of the device, the user input can be understood to include being provided by a computer input including comprising software, hardware, other logic or any suitable combination of the preceding. The use of a graphical user interface is generally well known in the art and the inclusion in the Fyffe device though not explicitly discussed would have been plainly obvious to one of skill seeking to provide input means similar to that already known in the art.
Fyffe further discloses that:
“As yet another example, aroma station 30 may be modified to receive the aroma selection representing the user's selection of aroma 48.” Fyffe therefore can be said to suggest that modifications to the device with respect to how user input is received are contemplated.
Harris discloses a multiple scent dispensing device similar to Fyffe and including a user device (remote 130) having a graphical user interface , the scent dispensing device can be provided with a remote control 130 that allows the user to control any, or all, of the emission properties of the device (including, but not limited to changing the volatile material being emitted) without touching the device.
PNG
media_image2.png
485
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since Harris discloses the use of a remote having a graphical user interface, similar to that of Fyffe, and further that that any or all aspects of the control of the scent dispensing device can be controlled by the remote control 130, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the Fyffe device to include the remote 130 so that the scent dispensing device can be fully controlled from a remote location by the user. One of skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the graphical interface on the remote device to mirror the graphical interface on the scent dispensing device –inluding displaying and updating usage data, such as selected scent etc… By providing the fully capable remote taught by Harris, one would arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding newly added independent claim 21, the explanation with respect to claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, with respect to providing additional identical steps relating to a third (or more) aromas from a third (or more) aroma vial 32. Claims 22-30 likewise see claims 2-10, mutatis mutandis.
Note, implied in the disclosure that the device of Fyffe may allow for the emission of more than one aroma at different times is a general disclosure of a control processor which receives separate start and stop times for each of the different aromas and different times.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the control data includes a first start time that the first scent should be dispensed and a second start time that that the second scent should be dispensed.
Multiple vents 38 may allow for the emission of more than one aroma, simultaneously or at different times. This disclosure suggests to the artisan that the device is capable of dispensing a first aroma for a given time period, and then dispensing a second aroma at a different time—note that dispensing at different times requires ceasing dispensing of the first aroma and then starting the dispensing of a second, third, forth...etc.. aroma subject to the information 12 received]
3. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein determining that the scent dispensing device should switch from the first scent to the second scent based on the control data indicating that the second scent should be dispensed from the second vial further comprises determining that the second start time has occurred.
Multiple vents 38 may allow for the emission of more than one aroma, simultaneously or at different times. This disclosure suggests to the artisan that the device is capable of dispensing a first aroma for a given time period, and then dispensing a second aroma at a different time—note that dispensing at different times requires ceasing dispensing of the first aroma and then starting the dispensing of a second, third, forth...etc.. aroma subject to the information 12 received]. Note that a “given time period” would be understood to include both a start and end time.
4. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the control data includes a duration timer indicating how long the first scent should be dispensed. Note that Fyffe discloses processor 24 includes a timer, and that a “given time period” would be understood to include both a start and end time—such a timer being considered a duration timer.
5. (Original) The method of claim 4, wherein determining that the scent dispensing device should switch from the first scent to the second scent based on the control data indicating that the second scent should be dispensed from the second vial further comprises determining that the duration timer has ended. Again Multiple vents 38 may allow for the emission of more than one aroma, simultaneously or at different times. This disclosure suggests to the artisan that the device is capable of dispensing a first aroma for a given time period, and then dispensing a second aroma at a different time—note that dispensing at different times requires ceasing dispensing of the first aroma and then starting the dispensing of a second, third, fourth...etc.. aroma subject to the information 12 received]. Note that a “given time period” would be understood to include both a start and end time.
6. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein control data includes a request to switch from dispensing the first scent to dispensing the second scent. See above, information 12 would be understood to include information capable of informing the processor 24 which aroma to dispense at what time—those times including start and stop times for whatever aroma is to be dispensed at different times.
7. (Original) The method of claim 6, wherein determining that the scent dispensing device should switch from the first scent to the second scent based on the control data indicating that the second scent should be dispensed from the second vial further comprises receiving the request to switch. Implied in the processor switching aromas dispensed is a request received by the processor to switch.
8. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the control data 12 is a state setting instruction,
and wherein a dispenser management application communicates the control data to the scent dispensing device automatically. See Figure 1
PNG
media_image3.png
555
835
media_image3.png
Greyscale
9. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the first scent and the second scent are different. Note the distinction of different aromas is implied.
10. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein updating the region of the graphical user interface to refresh the current usage data being presented (indicate the deactivation of the first scent and the activation of the second scent) further comprises displaying an icon indicating which scent of the first scent and the second scent is currently being dispensed. See Figure 3. Note the presence of an icon depicting e.g. Coffee, is an indication of the deactivation of e.g. Bacon.
PNG
media_image4.png
512
762
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 21-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 at 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
Prosecution Insights