DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conroy (US 2015/0297779) in view of Kelsen (US 2020/0289694).
Regarding claim 1, Conroy discloses a diffuser comprising:
a pump (2418);
a plurality of atomizers (2424), each atomizer of the plurality of atomizers coupled to the pump via a respective conduit (paragraph 79, tubes attached to the pump), and a valve (2410) associated with each of the conduits and configured to selectively permit flow from the pump to the respective atomizer (Paragraphs 79 and 121) wherein the diffuser is configured to control and balance a rate of flow from each atomizer based on a RFID tag corresponding with each atomizer of the plurality of atomizers (Paragraph 261, The diffuser is capable of controlling the atomizer to have a rate of flow of zero from each atomizer based upon data received from RFID tags of each atomizer; The device is capable of balancing elements of a discharge to have a particular flow rate based upon its delegated portion of the discharge), but fails to disclose that the RFID tags provide oil properties, that control the operation of the diffuser.
Kelsen discloses an improved device that features RFID tags provide oil properties, and a diffuser is configured to control a rate of flow based on the oil properties received from the RFID tags (Paragraphs 93 and 98, The system gathers molecular weight of the fragrance from the RFID tag, and adjusts flow rate based upon the molecular weight).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conroy with the disclosures of Kelsen, providing the RFID tags (of Conroy) to provide oil properties, and the diffuser is (of Conroy) configured to control a rate of flow from each atomizer (2424) based on the oil properties received from the RFID tags (Kelsen, Paragraphs 93 and 98, The system gathers molecular weight of the fragrance from the RFID tag, and adjusts flow rate based upon the molecular weight), in order to provide for improved compensation for scents interaction with air and human senses, as disclosed by Kelsen (Paragraph 93).
Regarding claim 2, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 1, wherein the plurality of atomizers comprises four or more atomizers (Paragraph 96, at least two reservoirs and Paragraph 106, four packages).
Regarding claim 3, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 1, wherein the plurality of atomizers is configured to hold one or more oils (Paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 4, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 1, wherein each atomizer of the plurality of atomizers comprises a connection portion (2304) configured to be coupled to the respective conduit (Paragraph 19), the connection portion configured to be removably coupled to a chamber portion configured to hold oil (Paragraph 100, The connection may occur by a twist lock or the like).
Regarding claim 5, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 1, further comprising: a base portion (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) configured to house the pump (Figure 22 and 24, the base portion is capable of housing the pump); and a stem portion extending from the base portion (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), wherein the conduits are configured to extend from the pump through the stem portion (The conduits are capable of extend from the pump, and being plugged into the stem portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 6, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 5, wherein each atomizer of the plurality of atomizers is configured to be removably coupled to the respective conduit via the stem portion (The reservoirs are capable of being secured into the stem portion).
Regarding claim 7, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 5, further comprising a cover configured to be removably coupled to the base, the cover surrounding the stem portion when coupled to the base (Examiner’s Annotated figure 1, The cover is capable of being removed from the base, as it is screwed to the base).
Regarding claim 8, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 1, further comprising a control module (remote computer) operatively coupled to the pump (Paragraph 78) and the valve (Paragraph 115), the control module configured to activate the pump and selectively activate the valve to permit flow from the pump to the respective atomizer responsive to actuation (Paragraphs 78 and 115).
Regarding claim 9, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 8, wherein the control module is configured to permit a user to select at least one of length of diffusion, interval of diffusion, or length of operation of diffuser (Paragraph 23, duration of flow may be selected by a user).
Regarding claim 10, Conroy discloses an atomizer comprising: a connection portion (2304 and tube connecting to pump) comprising an inlet (inlet of tube) configured to be coupled to a pump (Paragraph 79), an outlet (outlet of tube), and a discharge chamber (The area about the fan 2408) in fluid communication with the inlet and the outlet (Paragraph 74), the connection portion configured to be removably and fluidly coupled to a chamber portion configured to hold oil (Paragraph 100), wherein the outlet comprises a tortuous pathway configured to prevent diffusion of droplets of the oil exceeding a predetermined size upon actuation of the pump (Figure 22, the length of the tube is torturous in arrangement; The tube is capable of performing the claimed function), and wherein diffusion of the oil from the atomizer is based on a RFID tag corresponding with the atomizer, such that a rate of diffusion is controlled and balanced based on the one or more properties (Paragraph 261, The atomizer will only operate to diffuse the oil, dependent upon data from the RFID tag; As such, the flow and makeup of the independent quantities of the elements of the discharge are based upon the properties of the RFID tage), but fails to disclose that the RFID tag provide oil properties, that control the operation of the diffuser.
Kelsen discloses an improved device that features RFID tags provide oil properties, and a diffuser is configured to control and balance a rate of flow based on the oil properties received from the RFID tags (Paragraphs 93 and 98, The system gathers molecular weight of the fragrance from the RFID tag, and adjusts flow rate based upon the molecular weight; Paragraph 98, “To create a uniform fragrance perception, the inventive digital aroma system can apply variable airflow controls based upon the fragrance being dispersed”)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conroy with the disclosures of Kelsen, providing the RFID tag (of Conroy) to provide oil properties, and the diffusion (of Conroy) based on the oil properties received from the RFID tags (Kelsen, Paragraphs 93 and 98, The system gathers molecular weight of the fragrance from the RFID tag, and adjusts flow rate, and therefore portion of each element’s contribution to the discharge, based upon the molecular weight), in order to provide for improved compensation for scents interaction with air and human senses, as disclosed by Kelsen (Paragraph 93).
PNG
media_image2.png
356
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claims 11-12, Conroy discloses the atomizer of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the tortuous pathway comprises a T-shape or wherein the tortuous pathway comprises a zig zag shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the pathway to have the claimed shape since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 14, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the atomizer of claim 10, wherein undiffused droplets of oil within the connection portion are configured to return to the chamber portion (The droplets are capable of returning to the chamber portion, dependent upon the droplet sizes).
Regarding claim 15, Conroy discloses a diffuser comprising: a pump; a plurality of atomizers, each atomizer of the plurality of atomizers coupled to the pump via a respective conduit; a valve associated with each of the conduits and configured to selectively permit flow from the pump to the respective atomizer (See above); and an oil balancer comprising:
a plurality of RFID readers, a plurality of RFID tags (Paragraph 21, the system includes a plurality of diffusion devices; Paragraph 88, Each diffusion device may include a rfid tag and an onboard RFID reader), and a controller (See above); wherein the oil balancer is configured to and balance control the rate of flow from the pump to the respective atomizer (Paragraph 91, the system may be controlled to operate or not operate, which examiner interprets as a determining a rate of flow, based upon readings from the RFID reader; The device is capable of balancing elements of a discharge to have a particular flow rate based upon its delegated portion of the discharge), based on each of the plurality of RFID tags (Paragraph 261, The system is capable of controlling the device to have a rate of flow of zero, based on data from each of the RFID tags) as to enable balanced simultaneous diffusion (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight), but fails to disclose that the RFID tags provide oil properties, that control the operation of the diffuser.
Kelsen discloses an improved device that features RFID tags provide oil properties, and a diffuser is configured to control a rate of flow based on the oil properties received from the RFID tags (Paragraphs 93 and 98, The system gathers molecular weight of the fragrance from the RFID tag, and adjusts flow rate based upon the molecular weight).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conroy with the disclosures of Kelsen, providing the RFID tags (of Conroy) to provide oil properties, and the diffuser is (of Conroy) configured to control a rate of flow the pump to the atomizer based on the oil properties received from the RFID tags (Kelsen, Paragraphs 93 and 98, The system gathers molecular weight of the fragrance from the RFID tag, and adjusts flow rate based upon the molecular weight), in order to provide for improved compensation for scents interaction with air and human senses, as disclosed by Kelsen (Paragraph 93).
Regarding claim 16, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses she diffuser of claim 15, further comprising: a base portion configured to house the pump; and a stem portion extending from the base portion, wherein the conduits are configured to extend from the pump through the stem portion (See above).
Regarding claim 17, Conroy discloses the diffuser of claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein each RFID reader of the plurality of RFID readers is located on the stem portion of the diffuser.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conroy to include each RFID reader of the plurality of RFID readers located on the stem portion of the diffuser, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 18, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 15, wherein each atomizer of the plurality of atomizers comprises an oil (See above).
Regarding claim 19, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 18, wherein each RFID tag of the plurality of RFID tags is located on a corresponding atomizer of the plurality of atomizers (Figure 12 and Paragraph 88), and wherein the RFID tag corresponds with the oil of the atomizer on which the RFID tag is located (The disclosure suggests that the tag corresponds to the oil, as the device will not operate unless the tag is recognized).
Regarding claim 20, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the diffuser of claim 19, wherein each RFID reader of the plurality of RFID readers is configured to read a corresponding RFID tag of the plurality of RFID tags (Paragraph 88), such that when a user selects one or more of the plurality of atomizers for diffusion, each RFID reader reads data from the corresponding RFID tag and transmits the data to the controller (Paragraph 92, scent diffusion is based upon reading from the anti-tampering/RFID structure; Paragraph 22, upon detection of a proper cartridge, data is sent to a remote computer for dispersion and determination of operation parameters), wherein the controller uses the data to determine the optimal flow rate for each atomizer when more than one atomizer is selected, so as to enable balanced simultaneous diffusion (Paragraph 23, flow rate is amongst the operation parameters for the device).
Pertaining to claims 10, 13
Regarding claim 10, Conroy discloses an atomizer comprising: a connection portion (2304 and tube connecting to pump) comprising an inlet (the head of the cap) configured to be coupled to a pump (Paragraph 79), an outlet (the tube is the outlet of the pump), and a discharge chamber (The area about the fan 2408) in fluid communication with the inlet and the outlet (Paragraph 74), the connection portion configured to be removably and fluidly coupled to a chamber portion configured to hold oil (Paragraph 100), wherein the outlet comprises a tortuous pathway configured to prevent diffusion of droplets of the oil exceeding a predetermined size upon actuation of the pump (Figure 22, the length of the tube is torturous in arrangement; The tube is capable of performing the claimed function), and wherein diffusion of the oil from the atomizer is based on a RFID tag corresponding with the atomizer, such that a rate of diffusion is controlled and balanced based upon the RFID tag (Paragraph 261, The atomizer will only operate to diffuse the oil, dependent upon data from the RFID tag), but fails to disclose that the RFID tags provide oil properties, that control the operation of the diffuser.
Kelsen discloses an improved device that features RFID tags provide oil properties, and a diffuser is configured to control and balance a rate of flow based on the oil properties received from the RFID tags (Paragraphs 93 and 98, The system gathers molecular weight of the fragrance from the RFID tag, and adjusts flow rate based upon the molecular weight; As such, the contribution of individual elements is balanced (Paragraph 98, “To create a uniform fragrance perception, the inventive digital aroma system can apply variable airflow controls based upon the fragrance being dispersed”)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conroy with the disclosures of Kelsen, providing the RFID tag (of Conroy) to provide oil properties, and the diffusion (of Conroy) based on the oil properties received from the RFID tags, such that a rate of diffusion is balanced and controlled (Kelsen, Paragraphs 93 and 98, The system gathers molecular weight of the fragrance from the RFID tag, and adjusts flow rate based upon the molecular weight; As such, diffusion rate of individual elements is balanced), in order to provide for improved compensation for scents interaction with air and human senses, as disclosed by Kelsen (Paragraph 93) .
Regarding claim 13, Conroy in view of Kelsen discloses the atomizer of claim 10, wherein the inlet of the connection portion comprises a lip configured to engage with a groove of a housing of the pump (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2, The lip is received in the groove).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicants position that Kelsen fails to disclose balancing in order to prevent overpowering of a particular fragrance relative to another, Applicant does not put forth comparative software in the claims. Applicant puts forth an oil balancer that disperses relative to detected properties. Paragraph 98 of Kelsen states, “To create a uniform fragrance perception, the inventive digital aroma system can apply variable airflow controls based upon the fragrance being dispersed.” The structure corresponds with the balancing and controlling limitation, as the flow rate is controlled, and the flow rate is balanced based upon the environment and consideration of other dispersion. Examiner recommends highlighting and putting forth comparative structure from the specification, in order to afford consideration as presented.
The combination of Conroy and Kelsen puts forth providing dispersion as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached on (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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752