DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the claim amendments filed on 10/28/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 6, 9, and 20 have been amended; claims 2, 11, and 14-17 have been cancelled; claims 18-19 have been withdrawn; and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3-10, 12-13, 18-24 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 regarding claim 1 are considered moot in view of claim 1 amendments. As the amended limitations of claim 1 differentiate over the prior art of record. Examiner notes no arguments regarding claim 3 were received.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "access to the payload comprising liquid or solid material" in line 2 of claim 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “liquid or solid material” limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests "access to the payload comprising a liquid or a solid material".
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,779,831 B1 to Von Hollen et al. in view of US 2013/0029030 A1 to Larsen.
In regard to claim 3:
An aerosol provision (AP) system (Fig. 1 elements 30 and 60), comprising: a hand-held case (Fig. 1 external shells of module elements 30, and 60) enclosing: a power supply (Para. 24 “ The device electronics 300 operatively connect to the piezoelectric transducer 200 to energize the transducer 200. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the device electronics deliver A/C current to the transducer 200 to drive the transducer 200 at a frequency, e.g., 2.5 MHz.”(emphasis added)); an airflow generator powered in operation by the power supply (Para. 44 “The piezoelectric transducer 200 generates acoustic waves, which propagate sequentially through the transmitting medium 230, the barrier 210, the coupling medium 160, the barrier 130, and the drug solution 120. The drug solution 120 present at the focal point of the acoustic waves will absorb the ultrasonic energy to create a fountain from drug solution 120 present in the reservoir 110. That is, the focused acoustic waves will generate a focused stream of drug solution 120, which stream begins at a point that can also be considered the beginning of the fountain. The fountain extends up through the guide tube 100. Towards the top of the stream or fountain, the energized drug solution 120 within drug solution reservoir 110 is nebulized to form aerosolized drug solution 120 particles.” (Emphasis added), Para. 24 “The device electronics 300 operatively connect to the piezoelectric transducer 200 to energize the transducer 200. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the device electronics deliver A/C current to the transducer 200 to drive the transducer 200 at a frequency, e.g., 2.5 MHz.”); a nozzle extending from the hand-held case (Fig. 1 elements 30, 100 and 80, para. 12 “The mouthpiece module 30 includes a guide tube 100 to direct a stream of drug solution 120, as described below. Prior to delivery of nebulized drug solution particles via the outlet port 80, the mouthpiece module 30”); and a receiver arranged to receive a separate, second AP systemcomprising an atomizer (Fig. 1 elements 50 and 200. Para. 10 “the device 10 may be formed from four modules, including a mouthpiece module 30, a cup module 40, an ultrasonic wave generating module 50, and a base module 60 that can be coupled and decoupled from one another.”), wherein the airflow generator is arranged in operation to generate an airflow that passes firstly through the atomizer to generate an aerosolized payload, and secondly through the nozzle (para. 44 cited above, para. 12 “the mouthpiece module 30 includes a guide tube 100 to direct a stream of drug solution 120, as described below. Prior to delivery of nebulized drug solution particles via the outlet port 80,”), and the nozzle is arranged in operation to emit the aerosolized payload (Para. 44 “The drug solution 120 present at the focal point of the acoustic waves will absorb the ultrasonic energy to create a fountain from drug solution 120 present in the reservoir 110. That is, the focused acoustic waves will generate a focused stream of drug solution 120, which stream begins at a point that can also be considered the beginning of the fountain. The fountain extends up through the guide tube 100. Towards the top of the stream or fountain, the energized drug solution 120 within drug solution reservoir 110 is nebulized to form aerosolized drug solution 120 particles”), for inhalation by a user without the need to touch the aerosol provision system with lips of the user (Para. 57 “While the illustrated embodiments are designed to aerosolize a liquid drug solution for inhalation by a patient, one or more embodiments of the present invention may alternatively be used to aerosolize a variety of other solutions without deviating from the scope of the present invention (e.g., liquid air freshener, disinfectant, water, etc.)”(emphasis added). Alternative solutions to be aerosolized considered evidence the device is fully capable of inhalation without the need to the aerosol provision system with the lips as it does not require the user’s inhalation to function.).
Von Hollen does not explicitly disclose having a dispersion angle in a range of 0 to 5 degrees during a first 3 centimeters beyond the nozzle in an absence of disruptive air flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the dispersion angle of Von Hollen to be within a range of 0-5 degrees within the first 3 centimeters beyond the nozzle in an absence of disruptive air flow, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of Von Hollen discloses the nozzle and atomizer. Merely determining, through routine experimentation, the nozzle parameters to achieve the workable dispersion angles is therefore not considered novel and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Von Hollen does not explicitly disclose emitting the payload as a ribbon. Larsen teaches, and the nozzle is arranged in operation to emit the aerosolized payload as a ribbon (Fig. 1B “Flat”).
Larsen is considered analogous art as it is working to solve the same problem of nozzle spray patterns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the payload delivery shape taught by Von Hollen to be a ribbon as taught by Larsen. This would have been motivated by Larsen Para. 152 “Its purpose is to spread out the spray. Some applications require that the spray be very narrow. In those cases, the atomizing surface is sculptured into a flat or nearly-flat surface. Depending on the width requirements of the spray pattern and the required flow rate, the atomizing surface may have a very small diameter or an extended, flat section. Non limiting possibilities are shown in FIG. 1B.”. This would have been further motivated by design choice as merely picking between known spray pattern shapes is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Spray pattern shape is considered known as it is demonstrated to be known by Larsen Fib. 1B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 12-13, and 21-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims in this application are allowed because the prior art of record fails to disclose either singly or in combination the claimed aerosol provision system.
12. The closest prior art of record is US 7,779,831 B1 to Von Hollen et al.
13. Regarding claim 1, Von Hollen fails to teach among all the limitations or render obvious “an atomizer comprising a heater configured to generate vapor from a payload” in combination with “the airflow generator is arranged in operation to generate an airflow that passes firstly through the atomizer to combine with the vapor to generate an aerosolized payload”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Mark A Igel whose telephone number is (571)272-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 11 am to 5 pm EST.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/M.A.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/BHISMA MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783