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 § 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 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manne (US 20050028819 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Manne teaches a belt comprising: a band having a plurality of scent reservoirs (Figure 2a belt “22” with scent containers “30”), wherein each of the plurality of scent reservoirs releases a scent when heated (heater mounted near belt for heating the scent to be released, paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 2, Manne teaches wherein each of the plurality of scent reservoirs contains a different scent (belt can have multiple scents, paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 3, Manne teaches wherein adjacent scent reservoirs of the plurality of scent reservoirs have different scents (belt can have multiple scents, paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 4, Manne teaches wherein each of the plurality of scent reservoirs comprises a scent source material that emits a vapor when heated (releasing scent selectively heats the microcapsules so that the desired scent source is heated a certain portion of the scent molecules are liberated and allowed to diffuse to the olfactory receptors, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Manne teaches wherein the vapor from the scent source material escapes the scent reservoir upon heating of the scent source material (releasing scent selectively heats the microcapsules so that the desired scent source is heated a certain portion of the scent molecules are liberated and allowed to diffuse to the olfactory receptors, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Manne teaches wherein the band comprises a continuous band (endless belt rotatably mounted in housing, paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Manne teaches wherein the band comprises a plurality of belt sections, each belt section comprising a first attachment at a first end of the belt section and second attachment feature at a second end of the belt section, wherein the first attachment feature of a first belt section is configured to attach to the second attachment feature of a second belt section (belt can be a chain, paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Manne teaches wherein the plurality of scent reservoirs are embedded in the band (belt is pre-formed with encapsulated scent, paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 11, Manne teaches one or more identifying markers configured to provide information on one or more scent reservoirs or a position of the belt (sensors are employed to provide feedback as to the location of the scent containers to allow the processor to control the placement and know the location of the scent container, paragraph [0132]).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manne in view of Edwards (US 20140377130 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Manne teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the scent source material, as held in each scent reservoir, is in a mixture of wax. However, Edwards teaches wherein the scent source material, as held in each scent reservoir, is in a mixture of wax (temperature activated scent media may take the form of a wax impregnated with a scent substance, paragraph [0014]).
Manne and Edwards 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 scent release device taught by Manne with the scent source of wax as taught by Edwards because Edwards teaches that wax has a neutral scent and low melting point making is good choice for scent carrying (paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Manne and Edwards teaches wherein the scent source material is held in each scent reservoir at least in part by a semi-permeable material that permits the vapor from the scent source material to escape (scent cartridge bears a volatile scent media is held in wax that is transformed into a liquid to release scent, paragraph [0018], Edwards).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 10-20 of copending Application No. 18/423,755 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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