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 amendments filed 9/2/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-22 are pending with claims 8-22 being withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claim 1-7 in the reply filed on 9/2/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/2/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ a navigation system” and “a fragrance dispersal system” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“a navigation system” is taken to be a propeller and motor (para [0020], [0037])
“a fragrance dispersal system” is taken to be one of a variety of devices such as a pump, nozzles, or plunger (para [0041], [0042]).
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 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Policicchio et al. US 2018/0155026) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0152254).
With regards to claim 1, Policicchio et al. teaches a fragrance distribution drone (drone 10; abstract; para [0049]) comprising a drone body (the body of drone 10), a navigation system (rotors 12 and motors 13) connected to the drone body (para [0015]); a fragrance housing (housing of air treatment dispenser 21) connected to the drone body (para [0016]); a fragrance dispersal system (the treatment device 21 has a nozzle and a powered delivery system) (para [0041]-[0044]) connected to the drone body; and a controller (central controller 15) in communication with the navigation system and the fragrance dispersal system, the controller uses instructions to autonomously cause the controller to control the fragrance dispersal system and the navigation system to at least one of (para [0015]): distribute a fragrance at a predetermined time while executing a flight pattern, distribute a fragrance at a target location while executing a flight pattern (para [0051], [0054]), distribute a fragrance while executing a flight pattern in response to an activating event (para [0051], [0054]), distribute a plurality of fragrances simultaneously at a target ratio while executing a flight pattern (para [0040], [0051], [0054]), and distribute a plurality of fragrances sequentially while executing a flight pattern (para [0040], [0051], [0054], [0074]).
It is not clear whether the central controller includes a memory and a processor as claimed. Lee et al. teaches a drone and teaches that the controller uses memory and a processor to carryout the programmed control (para [0110]; abstract). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a non transitory memory (programmed instructions) and a processor motivated by an expectation of successfully carrying out the taught automated control.
With regards to claim 4, Policicchio et al. teaches at least one sensor to collect data and provide the data to the controller, the sensor data comprising at least one of: a location of the drone (para [0023]), a proximity of a person or object (para [0025]), an identification of a person or object (para [0025]), and a fragrance concentration (intensity) (para [0046]) ([0015]).
With regards to claim 5, Policicchio et al. teaches wherein in response to the sensor data, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the controller to control at least one of the fragrance dispersal system and the navigation system to at least one of: distribute a fragrance (para [0015]), adjust a rate of distribution of a fragrance (para [0055]), adjust a rate of distribution or cease distribution of at least one of the plurality of fragrances set to achieve the target ratio (para [0055]; [0046]), adjust the target location (para [0055]; [0046]), trigger a flight pattern of the navigation system (para [0023]), adjust the flight pattern of the navigation system (fig 2).
With regards to claim 6, Policicchio et al. teaches the fragrance housing configured to selectively secure and release a fragrance cartridge (para [0055]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Policicchio et al. US 2018/0155026) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0152254) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Noesisrobotics.
With regards to claim 2, Policicchio et al. teaches at least one sensor that collects sensor data for the controller, the sensor data indicates a change in quantity of fragrance in the fragrance housing (para [0047]). Policicchio does not teach and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the controller to adjust operating parameters of the navigation system in response to the sensor data indicating the change in the quantity of fragrance within the fragrance housing.
Noesisrobotics teaches a cleaning robot that sprays liquid from a reservoir and teaches that when the spray liquid (water) is low it navigates to a home base dock to refill automatically. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have given programmed instructions executed by the processor in order to adjust the navigation system (rotors and motors) in response to sensor data (low spray liquid) in order to refill the drone/robot automatically.
The combination results in wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the controller to adjust operating parameters of the navigation system in response to the sensor data indicating the change in the quantity of fragrance within the fragrance housing.
With regards to claim 3, the combination above results in adjusting the rotors to steer. The combination results in changing at least one of a propeller speed, quantity of propellers of a plurality of propellers in operation, and location of propellers of a plurality of propellers in operation (para [0015] of Policicchio).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Policicchio et al. US 2018/0155026) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0152254) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Walter et al. (AU 2003291510).
With regards to claim 7, the combination above does not teach that the instructions include a plurality of modes as claimed. Walter et al. teaches a fragrance dispenser (abstract) and teaches having the controller switch between modes of different intensities (claim 9). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the controller/processor to carryout instructions to vary different intensity modes in order to achieve the desired fragrance profile.
The combination results in wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the controller to control the fragrance dispersal system and the navigation system (navs system is controlled to distribute in different areas) according to one of a plurality of modes, the plurality of modes including an intensive mode for rapid fragrance distribution (higher dispensing intensity) and a maintenance mode for sustaining a consistent fragrance concentration (lower dispensing intensity).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights