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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites the limitation that at least one liquid dispersion assembly comprises an aerosolization device, however claim 1 from which claim 4 depends from already requires that the liquid dispersion assembly includes an aerosolization device. Therefore claim 4 fails to properly further limit the claimed invention further with respect to claims 2 and 1 from which the claim depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onninen (WO 2018/091766) in view of Freeman (US 2019/0118210) in view of Davis (US 2025/0242074).
Regarding claim 1, Onninen (WO 2018/091766) discloses –
A scent presentation device (Title, Abstract), the device comprising:
a plurality of scent reservoirs each configured to contain a liquid (Figs. 4 and 8-9, cartridges 104, p. 8 ln 19-32 discloses a liquid scent impregnated in a solid carrier);
at least one liquid dispersion assembly configured to disperse liquid into an environment (fig. 8 blower 202 is used for dispersing the liquid from the cartridge, which reads on the limitation of a diffuser device according to fig. 2 of the instant application, where that device disperses liquid by vapor diffusion which is th same function the blower 202 would perform), ;
a control module (control unit 110) configured to cause
the at least one liquid dispersion assembly to selectively disperse liquid from a first scent reservoir of the plurality of scent reservoirs for a first duration (p. 12 ln 20-23, p. 12 ln 32 – p. 13 ln 3 and ln 23-26 describe the function of the control unit including instructions to selectively activate the dispersion assembly to disperse) by repositioning or receiving liquid from a first reservoir (the liquid scent present in reservoir 104 is repositioned from the cartridge to the scent outlet 116 before being ejected and dispersed from scent outlet 122 as shown in fig. 8; p. 14 ln. 5-17), and
to disperse liquid from a second scent reservoir of the plurality of scent reservoirs for a second duration (p. 12 ln 20-23, p. 12 ln 32 – p. 13 ln 3 describe the function of the control unit including instructions to selectively activate the dispersion assembly to disperse) by repositioning or receiving liquid from a second reservoir (the liquid scent present in reservoir 104 is repositioned from the cartridge to the scent outlet 116 before being ejected and dispersed from scent outlet 122 as shown in fig. 8; p. 14 ln. 5-17).
Onninen appears to be silent with regards to an aerosolization device and a break period.
Freeman (US 2019/0118210) discloses a scent presentation device (title, abstract) including a plurality of scent reservoirs with scents (containers 12, fig. 8a-b, 10) where at least one of the plurality of liquid dispersion assemblies comprises an aerosolization device (par. 50 disclosing an aerosol being created, par. 47 disclosing the device being an ultrasonic nebulizing device). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Onninen such that at least one of the plurality of liquid dispersion assemblies comprises an aerosolization device to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to utilize a known-effective scent diffusion and dispersion means to disperse scent as desired to arrive at an improved device. The simple substitution of familiar prior art elements, including different kinds of scent dispersion means for the same purpose within the system, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Davis (US 2025/0242074) discloses a scent diffusion system (title, abstract) wherein two periods of emission are separated by a break period in which there is no scent dispersion (Figs. 2A-B ; pars. 49 and 56 disclosing the delay period between burst periods where no scent is emitted). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Onninen such that there is a break period between after the first duration where there is no dispersion activity. One would have been motivated to do so to avoid nose blindness (see par. 29 of Davis) to enhance the effect of the scent experienced by the user to arrive at an improved scent presentation device.
Regarding claim 2, Onninen is set forth with regards to claim 1 above but appears to be silent with regards to a plurality of liquid dispersion assemblies in the cited embodiment of figs. 8-9.
Figs. 1A-B shows an embodiment where there are at least two and therefore a plurality of blower outlets 120 for vaporizing the scent fluid (see fig. 1A-B). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Figs. 8-9 of Onninen such that there are a plurality of liquid dispersion assemblies to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to further control the emission of scent as desired, and the modification amounts to a mere duplication of parts. The mere duplication of existing parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. There is no new nor unexpected result expected from the inclusion of additional liquid dispersion assembly as they are expected to disperse liquid as desired according to their understood function, which is nothing more than expected. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 3, modified Onninen further teaches each of the plurality of liquid dispersion assemblies is configured to disperse liquid from a different respective liquid reservoir (Figs. 1A-1B, p. 14 ln 18-23).
Regarding claim 4, Onninen is set forth above with regards to claim 2 above but appears to be silent with regards to an aerosolization device.
Freeman (US 2019/0118210) discloses a scent presentation device (title, abstract) including a plurality of scent reservoirs with scents (containers 12, fig. 8a-b, 10) where at least one of the plurality of liquid dispersion assemblies comprises an aerosolization device (par. 50 disclosing an aerosol being created, par. 47 disclosing the device being an ultrasonic nebulizing device). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Onninen such that at least one of the plurality of liquid dispersion assemblies comprises an aerosolization device to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to utilize a known-effective scent diffusion and dispersion means to disperse scent as desired to arrive at an improved device. The simple substitution of familiar prior art elements, including different kinds of scent dispersion means for the same purpose within the system, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 5, modified Onninen further teaches the aerosolization device comprises an ultrasonic diffuser (par. 50 disclosing an aerosol being created, par. 47 disclosing the device being an ultrasonic nebulizing device).
Regarding claim 6, modified Onninen further teaches the aerosolization device comprising a nebulizer (par. 50 disclosing an aerosol being created, par. 47 disclosing the device being an ultrasonic nebulizing device).
Regarding claim 7, modified Onninen further teaches the nebulizer comprises one or more of an ultrasonic nebulizer, a jet nebulizer, or a mesh nebulizer (par. 47 disclosing the device being an ultrasonic nebulizing device and/or a jet or mesh nebulizer).
Regarding claim 8, modified Onninen further teaches the aerosolization device comprises an atomizer (par. 47 discloses an ultrasonic atomizer).
Regarding claim 9, Onninen is set forth above with regards to claim 2 above but appears to be silent with regards to a vaporizer configured to convert at least some of the liquid into gas.
Freeman discloses a scent presentation device (title, abstract) including a plurality of scent reservoirs with scents (containers 12, fig. 8a-b, 10) where at least one of the plurality of liquid dispersion assemblies comprises a vaporizer configured to convert at least some of the liquid into gas (par. 47 discloses the diffuser system 100 vaporizing the aromatic liquid by using a vaporizer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Onninen such that at least one of the plurality of liquid dispersion assemblies comprises a vaporizer for converting the liquid into gas to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to utilize a known-effective scent diffusion and dispersion means to disperse scent as desired to arrive at an improved device. The simple substitution of familiar prior art elements, including different kinds of scent dispersion means for the same purpose within the system, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Onninen further teaches a dispersion reservoir having fluid communication with the plurality of scent reservoirs and to the at least one liquid dispersion assembly (the shared reservoir at the outlet 122 of the device that joins the plurality of individual outlets 116 which is in fluid communication with the plurality of scent reservoirs and the dispersion assembly).
Regarding claim 11, Onninen further teaches the control module is further configured to cause liquid from the first scent reservoir to transfer to the dispersion reservoir (the shared reservoir at the outlet 122 of the device that joins the plurality of individual outlets 116 which is in fluid communication with the plurality of scent reservoirs and the dispersion assembly, receives the liquid from a first reservoir), and wherein the at least one liquid dispersion assembly is configured to disperse liquid from the dispersion reservoir for the first duration (p. 12 ln 20-23, p. 12 ln 32 – p. 13 ln 3, the device dispersing liquid as a vapor analogous to the embodiment of fig. 2 of the instant application for a predetermined amount of time from the outlet 122).
Regarding claim 12, Onninen further teaches the control module is further configured to cause a second liquid (p. 8 ln 20-24 disclose the scent sources 118 all including different scents) from a second scent reservoir to transfer to the dispersion reservoir after the first duration is completed, and wherein the at least one liquid dispersion assembly is configured to disperse the second liquid from the dispersion reservoir for the second duration (the shared reservoir at the outlet 122 of the device, p. 12 ln 20-23, p. 12 ln 32 – p. 13 ln 3, the device dispersing liquid as a vapor analogous to the embodiment of fig. 2 of the instant application for a predetermined amount of time from the outlet 122).
Regarding claim 13, Onninen is set forth with regards to claim 12 above but appears to be silent with regards to a break period between first and second durations, where the period represents a period where there is no dispersion activity.
Davis (US 2025/0242074) discloses a scent diffusion system (title, abstract) wherein two periods of emission are separated by a break period in which there is no scent dispersion (Figs. 2A-B ; pars. 49 and 56 disclosing the delay period between burst periods where no scent is emitted). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Onninen such that there is a break period between the two durations where there is no dispersion activity. One would have been motivated to do so to avoid nose blindness (see par. 29 of Davis) to enhance the effect of the scent experienced by the user to arrive at an improved scent presentation device.
Regarding claim 14, modified Onninen further teaches the first and second durations are of different lengths (pars. 56 of Davis discloses burst periods having different intervals of emission and further that the burst periods are unequal in period interval and thus inherently or at least obviously of a different duration) and wherein a scent presented in the first duration and a scent presented in the second duration are different (p. 8 ln 20-24 disclose the scent sources 118 all including different scents and therefore the sequential emission would include different scents).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onninen (WO 2018/091766) in view of Freeman (US 2019/0118210) in view of Davis (US 2025/0242074) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Dring (US 2015/0352575).
Regarding claim 15, modified Onninen is set forth above with regards to claim 14 but appears to be silent with regards to the scents being presented in the first and second duration being of different categories of scents.
Dring (US 2015/0352575) discloses the different categories of scent including top, middle, and base notes of scents are distinguished from one another based on the persistence and intensity of the scent, where the two properties are generally inversely proportional (par. 22) – and furthermore that the inclusion of different notes are crucial for a user’s experience (par. 23). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Onninen such that the scents emitted during the first and second duration are of different categories of scents. One would have been motivated to do so to present a well-rounded and satisfyingly persistent scent profile in the space desired to arrive at an improve scent presentation device.
Regarding claim 16, modified Onninen is set forth above with regards to claim 15 but appears to be silent with regards to the break period depending on whether the scent is a base, middle, or top note.
Dring (US 2015/0352575) discloses a scent emitter for emitting different categories of scents including base, middle, and top notes (par. 22), and that base notes are perceived at a later time than middle notes which are perceived at a later time than top notes, and that the duration of the lingering of each is similarly shorter from top to middle to base notes (par. 22, 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Onninen such that the length of the break period depends on whether the scent presented is a base, middle, or top note as taught by Dring to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to allow for each individual scent in each individual category to be fully perceived and appreciated by a user and to avoid undesirable interference to present the most complete scent profile as suggested by Dring to arrive at a more efficient and effective scent dispersing device.
Regarding claim 17, modified Onninen is set forth above with regards to claim 16 but appears to be silent with regards to the particular relative durations of break periods of the scent notes. However, the modification such that the break period is longer following a base note than a middle or top note and the break period after a middle note being longer than that following a top scent note to arrive at the claimed invention would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This modification is obvious to try, and a patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try.
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143(I)(E). It is a known characteristic and design constraint within the art that different notes of scents have different durations which impedes or interrupts the perception of others emitted or has the result of a scent fading relatively quickly compared to others. Particularly, it is known that base notes take a while to be perceived fully and linger while middle and top notes are progressively perceived and then fade more quickly. Therefore, as the duration of emission and duration of a break period between emissions are selectable according to modified Onninen, and ordinary artisan would pursue the finite number of solutions including modifying a duration and time between emissions in order to address this known problem, and the solutions themselves would also be predictable because the emission characteristics of the different notes are well-understood as set forth by Dring. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to accentuate the perception of each individual scent according to the duration which it takes a person to perceive the scent and the duration which each individual scent lingers to arrive at a scent emission apparatus that avoids scent interference as desired by Onninen and Dring. Furthermore, since this relationship of the scents is suggested by Dring, an ordinary artisan would have a reasonable belief that this modification would result in success. Therefore, the modification and thus the claim is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 102 rejection of claim 1 are moot as the claim is now rejected under 103 as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 103 rejections are not persuasive as Applicant fails to address the references in combination as they are relied upon in the rejection above. Therefore claim 1 remains rejected.
The remaining claims remain rejected similarly.
Conclusion
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 BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights