ARoma 360 LLC v. Air Esscentials Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00705
• Patent #: 9,527,094
• Filed: March 18, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Aroma360, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Air Esscentials, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 7-9 and 11

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Quiet Fluid Dispersion Assembly
• Brief Description: The ’094 patent is directed to a fluid dispersion assembly, such as an essential oil diffuser, designed to operate quietly while generating a fluid dispersion of substantially uniform particle size. The invention purports to solve issues of unacceptable noise and non-uniform particle distribution in prior art devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 7-9 and 11 are obvious over Sevy

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sevy (Application # 2010/0084484).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sevy, which teaches an essential-oil atomizer, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Sevy’s atomizer (16) was mapped to the claimed "diffusion unit," its hollow interior ("separator chamber" 120) to the "diffusion chamber," and its outlet port (106) to the "discharge port." Critically, Petitioner contended that Sevy's "separator plate" (98), which has apertures to restrict droplet size and disrupt fluid flow, functions as the claimed "baffle" within a "silencer assembly." Petitioner asserted that a structure disrupting fluid flow, as Sevy's plate does, inherently dampens sound, thereby meeting the functional requirements of the claimed silencer.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner argued that while Sevy does not explicitly state it produces "substantially uniform droplets," its objective of achieving "better atomization" and producing droplets within a narrow 1-to-5-micron range would be understood by a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) as teaching this feature for improved dispersion.

Ground 2: Claims 7-9 and 11 are obvious over Sevy in view of Zeng

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sevy (Application # 2010/0084484) and Zeng (Taiwanese Patent Publication 200528150).
• Core Argument for this Ground: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, specifically to bolster the teaching of a sound-dampening "silencer assembly."
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner relied on Sevy for the majority of the claim limitations as detailed in Ground 1. The argument added Zeng, which explicitly discloses an atomizer with a "noise reduction head" (20) that functions as a silencer to reduce the "hissing" sound during operation.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Zeng’s explicit noise reduction head with Sevy’s atomizer to solve the known problem of noise in such devices. Petitioner argued that since both references aim to improve atomization and user experience, incorporating an element expressly for silencing (from Zeng) into a known atomizer design (Sevy) would be a simple and predictable design choice to achieve both improved atomization and quieter operation.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (Sevy's separator plate) with another known element (Zeng's silencer assembly) to achieve the desired, predictable effects of both uniform atomization and noise reduction.

Ground 3: Claims 7-9 and 11 are obvious over Goubet

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Goubet (French Patent Publication No. 2886160).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Goubet’s essential oil diffuser teaches all claim limitations. Goubet’s "vaporization means," comprising two concentric circular enclosures (12, 13) and a passage (14), was asserted to be the claimed "diffusion unit" and "diffusion chamber." The path droplets follow through these enclosures, where they collide with walls and break into smaller micro-droplets, was argued to be a "baffle." Petitioner contended this structure constitutes a "silencer assembly" because Goubet explicitly states its design enables the vapor to be "silently diffused."
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner argued that Goubet’s stated goal of reducing droplet size "as much as possible" through a tortuous path inherently suggests the resulting micro-droplets would be substantially uniform, thereby meeting the "fluid dispersion" limitation.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including Goubet in view of Kaiser (a 2003 journal article teaching that uniform droplets were well-known), Gao (a Chinese utility model) alone, and Gao in view of Zeng. These grounds relied on similar theories, using Kaiser to explicitly supply the "uniform droplet" teaching if Goubet was found insufficient, and using Zeng to explicitly supply the "noise reduction" teaching if Gao's baffle was found insufficient.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the term "silencer chamber" in claim 7 contains an inadvertent clerical error and should be construed to mean "silencer assembly," consistent with the Patent Owner's position in parallel district court litigation. The petition's analysis proceeded under this construction.
• Petitioner also noted that the Patent Owner construes "fluid dispersion" differently depending on its location in the device (i.e., requiring "substantially uniform droplets" in the diffusion chamber but not in the mixing chamber). Petitioner's arguments addressed these differing constructions.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) - Same Art/Arguments: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial because Grounds 2-6 rely on prior art (Goubet, Zeng, Gao, Kaiser) never presented to the examiner. While Sevy was considered during prosecution, Petitioner asserted that its teachings on sound dampening via its separator plate were not argued or appreciated by the examiner.
• §314(a) - Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued for institution under the Fintiv factors by stipulating that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in the parallel district court litigation any invalidity ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the petition.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 7-9 and 11 of the ’094 patent as unpatentable.