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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“be” should be added after “a spray head configured to” in ln. 4.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“of” or “according to” should be removed in ln. 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Contadini et al. (US 6267297).
With respect to claim 1, Contadini discloses a liquid fragrance dispenser (10, Figs. 1-2) comprising a dispensing device (30, Fig. 1) and a refill bottle (20, Fig. 1) configured to store liquid fragrance (Col. 12, Ln. 11-32), wherein:
the refill bottle (20, Fig. 1) comprises a body configured to form a reservoir (22, Fig. 1) to store the liquid fragrance (Col. 12, Ln. 11-32) and a spray head (24, Fig. 1) configured to moved relative to the body to activate a spray mechanism comprising a pump to dispense liquid from the reservoir (Col. 12, Ln. 11-32);
the dispensing device (30, Fig. 1) comprises a motor (not shown in figures, referenced in Col. 12, Ln. 50-52) configured to move the spray head downwards to activate the pump to move the liquid fragrance from the reservoir and dispense the liquid fragrance from the spray head (24, Fig. 1, Col. 12, Ln. 33-52);
the dispensing device (30, Fig. 1) further comprises a low voltage detector (40, “voltage measuring circuit”, Col. 9, Ln. 58-65, Col. 12, Ln. 53 to Col. 13, Ln. 4) configured to determine whether a voltage is below a threshold value (Col. 9, Ln. 58-65); and
the dispensing device (30, Fig. 1) is configured to stop dispensing the liquid fragrance when the low voltage detector determines that the voltage is below the threshold value (Col. 9, Ln. 51-65, Col. 12, Ln. 53 to Col. 13, Ln. 4, Claim 1).
With respect to claim 2, Contadini discloses the liquid fragrance dispenser of claim 1, wherein:
the dispensing device (30, Fig. 1) further comprises a microprocessor unit and the microprocessor unit is configured to cease to provide a spray signal once the low voltage detector determines that the voltage is below the threshold value (Col. 9, Ln. 40-65, Col. 13, Ln. 1-4).
With respect to claim 7, Contadini discloses the liquid fragrance dispenser of according to claim 1, wherein the dispensing device (30, Fig. 1) is configured to require a reset to restart dispensing when the low voltage detector determines that the voltage is below the threshold value (Col. 9, Ln. 40-65, Col. 12, Ln. 53 to Col. 13, Ln. 4).
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.
Claims 3-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contadini et al. (US 6267297).
Regarding claim 3, Contadini discloses the liquid fragrance dispenser of claim 1. Contadini discloses all aspects of the present invention except for wherein the low voltage detector is configured to determine whether the voltage is below a threshold value by executing 16 voltage checks over a 2 second period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the low voltage detector is configured to determine whether the voltage is below a threshold value by executing 16 voltage checks over a 2 second period, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the number of voltage checks over a period of time, which achieves the recognized result of indicating when the source needs to be replaced or the remaining life of the source (Contadini, Col. 9, Ln. 49-52), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, pg. 4, ln. 26-28 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 4, Contadini discloses the liquid fragrance dispenser of claim 1. Contadini discloses all aspects of the present invention except for wherein the low voltage detector is configured to determine whether the voltage is below a threshold value every 5 seconds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the low voltage detector is configured to determine whether the voltage is below a threshold value every 5 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the period of time to check a voltage, which achieves the recognized result of indicating when the source needs to be replaced or the remaining life of the source (Contadini, Col. 9, Ln. 49-52), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, pg. 4, ln. 15-20 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 5, Contadini discloses the liquid fragrance dispenser of claim 1. Contadini discloses all aspects of the present invention except for wherein the low voltage detector is activated 2 to 7 seconds after power up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the low voltage detector is activated 2 to 7 seconds after power up, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the time to activate the low voltage detector after power up, which achieves the recognized result of programming specific instructions to the dispenser (Contadini, Col. 9, Ln. 29-39, Col. 12, Ln. 53 to Col. 13, Ln. 4), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, pg. 4, ln. 15-20 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Contadini discloses the liquid fragrance dispenser according to claim 1. Contadini discloses all aspects of the present invention except for wherein the threshold of the low voltage detector is between 83% and 90% of the total voltage of a battery which powers the dispensing device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the threshold of the low voltage detector is between 83% and 90% of the total voltage of a battery which powers the dispensing device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the percentage of the total voltage of a battery, which achieves the recognized result of indicating when the source needs to be replaced or the remaining life of the source (Contadini, Col. 9, Ln. 49-52), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, pg. 4, ln. 29-34 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 8, Contadini discloses the liquid fragrance dispenser of claim 1. Contadini discloses all aspects of the present invention except for wherein the low voltage detector is activated 3 seconds after power up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the low voltage detector is activated 3 seconds after power up, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the time to activate the low voltage detector after power up, which achieves the recognized result of programming specific instructions to the dispenser (Contadini, Col. 9, Ln. 29-39, Col. 12, Ln. 53 to Col. 13, Ln. 4), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, pg. 4, ln. 15-20 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 9, Contadini discloses the liquid fragrance dispenser according to claim 1. Contadini discloses all aspects of the present invention except for wherein the threshold of the low voltage detector is between 85% and 88% of the total voltage of a battery which powers the dispensing device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the threshold of the low voltage detector is between 85% and 88% of the total voltage of a battery which powers the dispensing device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the percentage of the total voltage of a battery, which achieves the recognized result of indicating when the source needs to be replaced or the remaining life of the source (Contadini, Col. 9, Ln. 49-52), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, pg. 4, ln. 29-34 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Contadini discloses the liquid fragrance dispenser according to claim 1. Contadini discloses all aspects of the present invention except for wherein the threshold of the low voltage detector is between 86% and 87% of the total voltage of a battery which powers the dispensing device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the threshold of the low voltage detector is between 86% and 87% of the total voltage of a battery which powers the dispensing device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the percentage of the total voltage of a battery, which achieves the recognized result of indicating when the source needs to be replaced or the remaining life of the source (Contadini, Col. 9, Ln. 49-52), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, pg. 4, ln. 29-34 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
