PTAB

IPR2025-00706

ARoma 360 LLC v. Air Esscentials Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Fluid Dispersion Assembly
Brief Description: The ’449 patent is directed to a fluid dispersion assembly, powered by compressed air, for delivering fragrant oils into the air. The patent’s specification states a need for a quiet assembly that generates a fluid dispersion with a uniform particle size distribution by disrupting the fluid flow path to dampen sound waves.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Sevy (Application # 2010/0084484).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sevy, which discloses an integrated essential-oil atomizer, teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Sevy’s atomizer includes a separator chamber (diffusion chamber), a discharge port, and an atomizer assembly with an air inlet, fluid inlet, mixing chamber, and exhaust aperture. Although Sevy does not explicitly state its droplets are “substantially uniform,” it discloses a separator plate with apertures that restrict droplets over a certain size from being discharged. This mechanism produces a cloud of "finely divided droplets" with an effective diameter of approximately 1 to 5 microns, which Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand to be substantially uniform and meet the "fluid dispersion" limitation.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This is a single-reference ground. Sevy’s own stated goal was to achieve "a better atomization or a smaller mean or average size of droplet," which provided the motivation to create the disclosed droplet-filtering structures.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have an expectation of success that implementing Sevy’s separator plate would result in a narrower, more uniform droplet distribution, as this is the explicit purpose of such filtering mechanisms in the art.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Goubet (French Patent Publication No. 2886160).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Goubet’s essential oil diffuser teaches all claim limitations. Goubet’s diffuser head comprises vaporization means with at least two concentric circular enclosures that form a baffled path for atomized droplets. This structure serves as the claimed diffusion unit and chamber. As droplets collide with the walls of this baffled path, they are broken into smaller microdroplets. Petitioner argued this process inherently creates a more uniform droplet size distribution. Goubet further discloses an air inlet, a fluid inlet for drawing oil from a reservoir, and a mixing chamber where air and oil are combined.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This is a single-reference ground. Goubet’s motivation was to solve the problem of harsh, uncontrolled diffusion in prior art devices. It sought to create a "circular and very particular path" that allows the droplet size to be "reduced as much as possible" for a more pleasant, silent diffusion, which would inherently lead to more uniform droplets.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect that forcing droplets through a tortuous, baffled path, as taught by Goubet, would filter out larger particles and result in a more uniform distribution of smaller microdroplets exiting the device.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gao (Chinese Utility Model Patent 201832737).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Gao discloses every element of the challenged claims, rendering them anticipated. Gao teaches an atomizer for essential oil comprising a main body (diffusion unit) with a lower cavity (diffusion chamber) where atomization occurs. A gas flow pipe (air inlet) connects to an air pump (compressed air source), and a liquid pipeline (fluid inlet) draws oil from a bottle. The air and liquid mix in an atomizing cavity (mixing chamber). The resulting mist is ejected against an inner wall, and only the smallest particles (below 3 microns) drift around a baffle and out through a gas outlet (discharge port). Crucially, Gao explicitly stated that "the atomized particles are finer and more uniform."
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 1, 4, and 7-10 are obvious over Sevy in view of Gao, and over Goubet in view of Kaiser (a 2003 journal article). These grounds were presented as alternatives in case the primary references alone were deemed insufficient to teach the "substantially uniform droplets" limitation, with Gao and Kaiser providing explicit teachings of uniform droplet formation to remedy any alleged deficiency.

"fluid dispersion": The parties stipulated in the parallel district court litigation that this term should be construed to mean a “mixture of operative fluid in air comprising a plurality of substantially uniform droplets (having substantially the same diameter) of the operative fluid dispersed throughout the air.” This construction is central to Petitioner's arguments, as each ground focuses on how the prior art achieves this uniformity, either explicitly or inherently.

§325(d) - Same or Substantially Same Art/Arguments: Petitioner argued denial under §325(d) is inappropriate. It asserted that Grounds 2-5 rely on Goubet, Gao, and Kaiser, none of which were presented to or considered by the Examiner during prosecution. While Sevy was of record, Petitioner contended the Examiner did not consider its teachings in the manner argued in the petition, particularly regarding its inherent disclosure of uniform droplets.
§314(a) - Fintiv Factors: To avoid discretionary denial under Fintiv, Petitioner stipulated that if the Board institutes this inter partes review (IPR), it will not seek resolution in the parallel district court litigation of any invalidity ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the petition.

Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 4, and 7-10 of the ’449 patent as unpatentable.