DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed 19 November 2025 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1, 3, and 5-15 are presently pending, with claims 10-15 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1, 3, and 5-9 being examined herein.
3. All objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. Rejections of claims 1 and dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
4. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated to reflect the amended language of the abstract idea. Rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding the limitation “the aircraft’s cabin air supply” is maintained as the limitation still lacks antecedent basis.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 1, 3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
8. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fragrance source" in the tenth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a plurality of fragrance sources are introduced and specific reference should be made if referencing the specific source of the determined appropriate fragrance.
9. Claims 3 and 5-9 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
10. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the aircraft’s cabin air supply" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
11. Claims 1, 3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a series of steps that include “receiving a current aircraft status from the aircraft’s environmental control system” and “determining an appropriate fragrance for the current aircraft status” along with the implied step “the appropriate fragrance is selected to induce a change in taste”, actions that do not have a tangible form or result. These abstract ideas, best characterized as mental processes, i.e., actions that can be performed in the mind, do not fit neatly into one of the four statutory categories and are analyzed for patent eligibility as follows.
12. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the claims are found to recite statutory subject matter outside of the limitations in question (Step 1: Yes) and are analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Step 2A: Prong 1). In the instant application, the “receiving” and “determining” steps in the context of this claim refer to mental processes, method steps that can be performed in the human mind and treated equally under the judicial exception to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Even if receiving the status were to be treated as outside the judicial exception, i.e., as a tangible action taken by a controller, the mere collection of data does not elevate the limitations in question above the judicial exception for an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). For the purposes of analysis, these two instances of a judicial exception are treated together in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
13. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any additional elements that reflect an improvement to technology or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (Step 2A, Prong 2: No). In the independent claim, the mental processes are intended for “releasing the appropriate fragrance from the fragrance source for the current aircraft status into the aircraft’s cabin”, an application of the abstract “determining” step that is stated with a high degree of generality as there are a plurality of fragrance sources that can presumably be supplied with fragrances that can be released to induce an olfactory effect. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the claim language fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished using the control method, simply amounting to a recitation of the words “apply it” to the stated control problem. See MPEP 2106.05(f). To overcome this, Examiner recommends reciting a clear causal relationship between at least one specific aircraft status and its corresponding appropriate fragrance being released.
14. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all elements within the claimed system are all well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No). See MPEP 2106.05(h). Becker et al (US 20170173203 A1) teaches a piezoelectric/ultrasonic atomizer for diffusing fragrances at controllable rates (pars 0079 and 0081-0083). Fantuzzi et al (US 20170253338 A1) teaches fragrance diffusers in communication with an aircraft environmental control system (pars 0025-0028). The controller introduced in the Specification but not claimed is understood as conventional controller hardware, and the implementation of the method is not described as anything more than could be accomplished using known control logic (e.g. as taught by Becker in pars 0072-0076). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself and, as such, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fantuzzi et al (US 20170253338 A1) in view of Becker et al (US 20170173203 A1).
17. Regarding claim 1, Fantuzzi teaches a method of fragrance release within an aircraft (system and method for dispensing fragrances in an aircraft, pars 0004 and 0015) having a cabin and an environmental control system for controlling a cabin environment (aircraft that includes a fuselage defining a cabin interior and an environmental control system, par 0004), the method comprising:
receiving a current aircraft status (fragrance delivery system can be integrated with Environmental Control System zones, par 0028),
determining an appropriate fragrance for the current aircraft status from a plurality of fragrance sources (user selects independent fragrances from a palette or controller for each zone, multiple zones or the entire cabin, pars 0026-0028), wherein the plurality of fragrance sources are contained in a fragrance source holder configured to retain a plurality of fragrance sources (fragrance delivery system includes a first fragrance dispensing unit that includes a first fragrance cartridge with a first scent and a second fragrance cartridge with a second scent, par 0009) and installed on the aircraft (fragrance delivery system disposed in the aircraft cabin interior, par 0009);
and releasing the appropriate fragrance from the fragrance source for the current aircraft status into the aircraft's cabin (upon selection of the desired fragrance, the controller commands the FDU or FDUs in the selected zone to open the fragrance cartridge and operate the fan for fragrance dispersion, par 0114).
Examiner notes that a prior art device anticipates a claimed process if the device carries out the claimed process under normal operation, see MPEP 2112.02(I). In operating the system of Fantuzzi manually, a user would determine the appropriate fragrance then activate its release based on sensory and/or other cues from the environment, i.e., a status of the environment that is controlled systematically by the environmental control system (pars 0023-0028). Thus the status may be received from the environmental control system. Fantuzzi teaches that the fragrance dispensing system can be controlled manually or automatically such that fragrances are dispensed at predetermined times or at predetermined altitudes (par 0033).
Fantuzzi does not specifically teach that the current aircraft status comprises at least one of: boarding, take-off, breakfast service, lunch service, dinner service, beverage service, sleep mode, cruise, landing, deboarding and emergency. However, by virtue of the control system identifying predetermined times and altitudes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to correlate these times and altitudes to an aircraft status as claimed. The statuses of take-off, landing, and cruise are directly a function of altitude, and the statuses of breakfast, lunch, dinner, and beverage service would be expected to correspond to predetermined times within a flight. Once the statuses are resolved from the predetermined times and predetermined altitudes as taught by Fantuzzi, the release of a fragrance in response to determining an appropriate fragrance based on aircraft status can be readily executed with the system of Fantuzzi.
Although Fantuzzi teaches in general terms that scents may be used to induce a positive feeling in a food and beverage establishment (par 0003), Fantuzzi does not teach specifically that the appropriate fragrance is selected to induce a change in taste for people within the cabin.
Becker teaches an analogous method of managing scent in an environment (par 0029) such as an aircraft (par 0256) wherein a scent management system can monitor an environment for an indicator that a service is being delivered (par 0221), such as a food service (par 0221), and changes the scent to be a companion or complement to the service (par 0221). The scent may achieve a functional benefit by being active by taste (par 0220), i.e., inducing a change of taste for people where the scent is released.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select as an appropriate fragrance in the method of Fantuzzi a scent to induce a change of taste as taught by Becker. Doing so would predictably achieve a similar functional benefit as taught by Becker (par 0220) complementing the scent e.g., to food service (par 0221).
18. Regarding claim 5, Fantuzzi as modified by Becker teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting each of the plurality of fragrance sources via at least one identifier corresponding to each fragrance source (fragrance cartridge also contains a near field communication (NFC) chip which is encoded with information, such as a unique identifier…NFC chip communicates the encoded information to the controller, Fantuzzi par 0029; controller keeps track of which fragrance cartridges i.e., plurality of fragrance sources are installed in each FDU, Fantuzzi par 0029).
19. Regarding claim 6, Fantuzzi as modified by Becker teaches the method of claim 1, wherein releasing the appropriate fragrance comprises evaporating fragrance (evaporates scented oil into the air as a result of the flow of air along the airflow path P1, Fantuzzi par 0081) from the fragrance source holder (controller commands the FDU or FDUs in the selected zone to open the fragrance cartridge, Fantuzzi par 0114) into the aircraft's cabin air supply (fragrance can be delivered into the cabin in at least two ways using the ECS, injecting the fragrance into the mixer unit or introducing directly into the ducts to scent cabin areas independently, Fantuzzi pars 0116-0118).
20. Regarding claim 7, Fantuzzi as modified by Becker teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the appropriate fragrance is evaporated from the appropriate fragrance source by blowing air across a wetted wick (Fantuzzi par 0105). Fantuzzi does not teach that this evaporation occurs by activating a piezoelectric device for the appropriate fragrance source.
Becker further teaches wherein a controller activates at least one scent diffusion device to emit a scent that is intended to be a companion to the service (par 0029), analogous to releasing fragrance from an appropriate fragrance source. The scent diffusion device involves a piezoelectric device to cause a vibration in the fragrance package to effect atomization of the liquid (par 0079) into the surrounding environment to be treated (par 0111).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the scent wick used in the method of modified Fantuzzi for a piezoelectric device that is activated for the appropriate fragrance source as taught by Becker. Doing so would predictably enable suitable atomization of the fragrance liquid to deliver and disperse it into the surrounding air with minimal fallout as taught by Becker (par 0076).
21. Regarding claim 8, Fantuzzi as modified by Becker teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ability to control the dispersion of one or more scents is included (par 0119). While the system of Fantuzzi as modified would presumably be capable of emitting multiple fragrances simultaneously from the plurality of fragrance sources, the combination does not specifically teach wherein a chosen appropriate fragrance would be a combination of two or more of the plurality of fragrance sources.
Becker further teaches wherein the diffusion device may be capable of dispersing multiple fragrances (par 0115), for example, by diffusing scent B while reducing the scents A and C (par 0115). The result may be a fragrance chord wherein each fragrance package may house a different complementary fragrance note (par 0116), an artful way of teaching the same principle of combining two or more fragrance sources at predetermined rates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select as an appropriate fragrance for the method of Fantuzzi a combination of two or more of the plurality of fragrance sources evaporated at predetermined rates as taught by Becker. Doing so would predictably provide the similar ability to form fragrance chords as shown desirable by Becker (par 0116).
22. Regarding claim 9, Fantuzzi as modified by Becker teaches the method of claim 8, wherein two or more fragrances (for example, diffusion device can accept four packages where two packages house a first scent and the other two packages house a second scent, Becker par 0115) are evaporated at predetermined rates to release the appropriate fragrance (switch to diffusing scent B while devices diffusing scent A are reduced, Becker par 0115; fragrance chord may be a particular combination of each fragrance note, Becker par 0116).
23. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fantuzzi et al (US 20170253338 A1) and Becker et al (US 20170173203 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Labbe et al (Non-Patent Literature, “Subthreshold Olfactory Stimulation Can Enhance Sweetness”).
Regarding claim 3, Fantuzzi as modified by Becker teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fragrance dispensing system can be controlled automatically such that fragrances are dispensed at predetermined times or at predetermined altitudes (Fantuzzi par 0033). Although the combination teaches that when the aircraft status corresponds to one of breakfast service, lunch service, dinner service or beverage service, the appropriate fragrance would be a fragrance that induces a change in taste (Becker pars 0220-0221, see rejection of claim 1 above), the combination does not teach that this would be a change that enhances the perception of taste.
Labbe supplementarily teaches that various odorants, even present at subthreshold levels, can enhance the perception of sweetness (Abstract, pgs 210-211).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select as an appropriate fragrance to be a complement to the breakfast, lunch, dinner, or beverage service when said service is being delivered in the method of modified Fantuzzi an odorant that enhances the perception of sweetness as taught by Labbe. Doing so would predictably enhance the sweetness of airplane food during established mealtimes, as Becker teaches the merits of complementing scents to food service events (par 0221).
Response to Arguments
24. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 19 November 2025 pages 6-7, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that as a human mind cannot release a fragrance, the method claim does not direct to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 that the abstract idea comprises the mental steps of “determining an appropriate fragrance” and “receiving an aircraft status”, as these steps may be performed in the mind by a human. The subsequent release of fragrance is recited generally as a drafting attempt to monopolize the judicial exception as no meaningful limit to this release is imposed (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), therefore the concrete actions taken based on the method are not sufficient to rise to a particular practical application.
25. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 19 November 2025 pages 7-8, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a fragrance controller that receives an aircraft status) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(III), In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)), as this method can be accomplished, e.g., by a flight attendant who receives an aircraft status indication and chooses a fragrance for the fragrance source to release.
Conclusion
26. 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.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758