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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the teaching of the Sakakibura reference, regarding a temperature sensor that measures an ambient temperature of a sauna room, does not satisfy the limitations of claim 1 (“a temperature sensor configured to identify temperature readings associated with the aerosolizer”; see Remarks, Page 5, second paragraph) or currently amended claim 15 (“a temperature sensor configured to monitor temperature readings of the aerosolizer”; see Remarks, Page 6, first paragraph). Applicant appears to argue that both of the limitations should be interpreted to require a temperature sensor that directly measures a temperature of the aerosolizer (element 104 in the instant disclosure). Examiner maintains the interpretation described in the previous Office Action dated 4/7/2026 (and repeated below) in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, and further notes that Applicant’s suggested interpretation does not appear to be sufficiently supported in the instant disclosure.
Regarding the language of claim 1, Applicant argues that “The phrase "associated with the aerosolizer" directs the sensing toward the aerosolizer unit itself, not the ambient environment surrounding the user” (Remarks, Page 5, second paragraph). 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 sensor measuring a temperature of the aerosolizer itself) 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).
Examiner notes that the phrase "associated with the aerosolizer" does not appear in the instant specification. Applicant cites Paragraph 0023 as support for the proposed interpretation, but Examiner notes that the cited passage only refers to “a temperature of the halotherapy module 100, as well as a temperature of contents of a cartridge coupled to receiving port 110”, and that there is no description of a temperature of the aerosolizer 104 itself, which is only one component of several within module 100 (see Fig. 1). Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to interpret the claim as Applicant proposes. If applicant wishes to distinguish the invention of claim 1 from the prior art of record, the relevant structure(s) should be further delineated in the claim language.
Examiner additionally refers to the previous Office Action dated 6/20/2025 and Applicant’s Arguments and Amendments filed 9/15/2025, in which the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on the claim language “housing associated with a sauna” was clarified as “housing of the system for use in a sauna” (see Remarks dated 9/15/2025, Page 8, under section “35 U.S.C. 112”) to distinguish from the housing that directly makes up the sauna structure. Thus, it appears from the prosecution history that the phrase “associated with” is not necessarily used to imply such a direct relationship as presented in the instant Remarks.
Regarding the language of claim 15, Examiner notes that the full context of the relevant limitation is “generating, using a sensor, one or more measurements based on ambient conditions of a housing coupled to the port, wherein the sensor is a temperature sensor configured to monitor temperature readings of the aerosolizer” (emphasis added). As noted in the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below, it is unclear how the amended claim language “of the aerosolizer” is intended to further define the step of generating measurements based on ambient conditions of a housing. However, Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret this claim to require a measurement of ambient temperature, as taught by Sakakibara. Further, Paragraphs 0047-0048 of the instant specification describe a method of using such temperature readings as: “the operational conditions may identify [. . .] a change in ambient temperature and/or humidity, a change in temperature of the halotherapy module, [. . .] such operational conditions may be identified based on one or more sensors included in the sauna and/or halotherapy module”, and “in response to identifying the operational conditions during operation 414, the operational and activation parameters may be updated during operation 416 to update the operation of the aerosolizer and the halotherapy module. For example, in response to identifying a particular change in temperature and/or humidity, an output of the aerosolizer may be modulated”. In light of this description, one having ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the claim to require any steps that are not disclosed in or obvious in view of the cited references.
For at least the reasons described above, Examiner maintains the rejections of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a sensor configured to generate one or more measurements based on ambient conditions of a housing of the system for use in a sauna” in lines 4-5, as well as “a temperature sensor configured to identify temperature readings associated with the aerosolizer” in lines 7-8. Examiner notes that Paragraph 0023 of the specification describes “one or more sensors, such as sensor 118, that are configured to monitor one or more conditions of halotherapy module 100” and that “sensor 118 is a temperature sensor that is configured to provide one or more temperature readings” which “may be a temperature of halotherapy module 100, as well as a temperature of contents of a cartridge” that may be used to “generate operational parameters for aerosolizer 104”. Examiner understands the temperature sensor recited in line 7 to correspond with the description of sensor 118 cited above. However, in light of Applicant’s Remarks discussed above, Examiner is unsure of Applicant’s intent. Thus, to prevent misinterpretation of the underlined phrase above, the claim should be amended to use language consistent with the relevant passages of the specification. As noted in the below rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 103, Examiner’s interpretation of the current claim language is considered to be consistent with the specification and with the language of previously presented claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 15-20 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.
Regarding claim 15, the claim has been amended to recite “wherein the sensor is a temperature sensor configured to monitor temperature readings of the aerosolizer” in lines 5-6. It is unclear whether this limitation is supported in the specification. Paragraph 0023 describes a temperature reading that “may be a temperature of halotherapy module 100, as well as a temperature of contents of a cartridge coupled to receiving port 110”, and Paragraphs 0047-0048 describe a method involving “operational conditions” that may identify “a change in ambient temperature and/or humidity” or “a change in temperature of the halotherapy module”. Considering that the limitation is included in the step of “generating, using a sensor, one or more measurements based on ambient conditions of a housing coupled to the port”, it is unclear how the limitation reciting “of the aerosolizer” impacts the scope of the claim. For purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding in light of the specification, namely that a method in which a temperature measurement based on ambient conditions of a housing coupled to the port would satisfy the limitation. Claims 16-20 are dependent upon claim 15 and thus inherit its deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert et al. (US 7,930,068) in view of Sakakibara et al. (US 4,833,739) and Tiba et al. (US 2012/0018526).
Regarding claim 1, Robert et al. disclose a system (including appliance 52, embodied as 100 or 150) comprising: a receiving port (see Figs. 2a, 3a) configured to receive a cartridge (102 or 152) configured to store a material capable of being aerosolized (Col. 3, lines 6-7); a sensor (70, Fig. 1) configured to generate one or more measurements based on ambient conditions (Col. 6, lines 21-26) of a housing of the system (housing of appliance, see Figs. 2a or 3a) for use in a sauna (The device of Robert et al. is able to be used in any environment, including a sauna. Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).); an aerosolizer (appliance treats space 50 with airborne diffused liquids; Col. 2, lines 54-56) configured to aerosolize the material in response to receiving a signal; and a controller (106, Fig. 2a) comprising one or more processors configured to generate the signal provided to the aerosolizer, and further configured to control operation of the aerosolizer via the signal (controller operates appliance via control schemes; Col. 3, line 61 - Col. 4, line 21).
Robert et al. further disclose that the system may include multiple types of sensors providing readings that are used to adjust operational parameters for the aerosolizer (“Sensor(s) 70 can be used to override/adjust operational parameters of appliance 52”, Col. 6, lines 20-22; “Sensors 70 may be used to alter the operation of appliance 52 based on the conditions within space 50”, Col. 6, lines 33-34). Robert et al. provides exemplary descriptions of such adjustments based on chemical concentrations or the activity level of a space (Col. 6, lines 10-61). However, Robert et al. does not explicitly disclose that one of those sensors is a temperature sensor configured to identify temperature readings that are used to adjust the operational parameters of the aerosolizer.
Sakakibara et al. teach a device for generating an aerosol (via ultrasonic oscillator 18) in a sauna (see the Abstract) having a temperature sensor (101; Fig. 13) configured to identify temperature readings associated with the aerosolizer (sensor measures temperature of room 19, i.e., a sauna; Col. 8, lines 1-8; according to Examiner’s best understanding, such temperature readings would be “associated with the aerosolizer” in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and consistent with the specification, i.e., Paragraph 0023 of the written description). Sakakibara et al. teach that the temperature of the treated space is monitored to control operation of an aerosolizer based on conditions in the space reaching a particular state (“After a temperature equilibrium state or the most pleasant serviceable condition is reached in the whole room air, the ultrasonic unit 18 is put into operation”, Col. 4, lines 21-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the system of Robert et al. with a temperature sensor, as taught by Sakakibara et al., in order to control the operation of the aerosolizer based on conditions in the space reaching a particular state. For example, when employed in a high-temperature environment, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the desired operation of the aerosolizer may change once a particular temperature is reached (as is described in the sauna of Sakakibara et al.). Since Robert et al. already teach multiple sensors providing readings to a controller for adjusting operational parameters based on changing conditions (e.g., see the “initiation phase” described in Col. 5, line 46 - Col. 6, line 19), one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results.
Having done so, the modified system of Robert et al. would disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, except that the material is a saline solution and the aerosolizer generates aerosolized salt particles. However, Tiba et al. teach an aerosolizer (10, Fig. 1) that generates aerosolized salt particles from a saline solution (Paragraph 0018). Tiba et al. note that delivering aerosolized salt provides treatment for respiratory ailments, as well as general respiratory hygiene (Paragraph 0001), and that it can be implemented anywhere (Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the system of Robert et al., modified in view of Sakakibara et al. as described above, with a saline solution so that the aerosolizer generates aerosolized salt particles, as taught by Tiba et al., in order to achieve desirable respiratory effects.
Regarding claim 6, the invention of Robert et al., modified as described above, renders the system of claim 1 obvious. Tiba et al. further teaches that the material comprises the saline solution with an additional substance (other solutions or additives, Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 7, the invention of Robert et al., modified as described above, renders the system of claim 1 obvious. Robert et al. further disclose that the housing (as part of appliance 52) can be mounted within the space to be treated (Fig. 1). The embodiments of Figs. 2-2a and Figs. 3-3a are both shown with housings capable of being removably coupled to an interior of a sauna.
Regarding claim 8, Robert et al. disclose a device (appliance 52, embodied as 100 or 150) comprising: a housing of the device (housing of appliance, see Figs. 2a or 3a, located in space 50) for use in a sauna (see above regarding claim 1); an aerosolizer (appliance treats space 50 with airborne diffused liquids; Col. 2, lines 54-56) configured to aerosolize a material in response to receiving a signal; and a controller (106, Fig. 2a) comprising one or more processors configured to generate the signal provided to the aerosolizer, and further configured to control operation of the aerosolizer via the signal (controller operates appliance via control schemes; Col. 3, line 61 - Col. 4, line 21).
Robert et al. further disclose that the device may employ multiple types of sensors providing readings that are used to adjust operational parameters for the aerosolizer (“Sensor(s) 70 can be used to override/adjust operational parameters of appliance 52”, Col. 6, lines 20-22; “Sensors 70 may be used to alter the operation of appliance 52 based on the conditions within space 50”, Col. 6, lines 33-34). Robert et al. provides exemplary descriptions of such adjustments based on chemical concentrations or the activity level of a space (Col. 6, lines 10-61). However, Robert et al. does not explicitly disclose that one of those sensors is a temperature sensor configured to identify temperature readings that are used to adjust the operational parameters of the aerosolizer.
Sakakibara et al. teach a device for generating an aerosol (via ultrasonic oscillator 18) in a sauna (see the Abstract) having a temperature sensor (101; Fig. 13) configured to identify temperature readings associated with the aerosolizer (sensor measures temperature of room 19, i.e., a sauna; Col. 8, lines 1-8; according to Examiner’s best understanding, such temperature readings would be “associated with the aerosolizer” in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and consistent with the specification, i.e., Paragraph 0023 of the written description). Sakakibara et al. teach that the temperature of the treated space is monitored to control operation of an aerosolizer based on conditions in the space reaching a particular state (“After a temperature equilibrium state or the most pleasant serviceable condition is reached in the whole room air, the ultrasonic unit 18 is put into operation”, Col. 4, lines 21-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the device of Robert et al. with a temperature sensor, as taught by Sakakibara et al., in order to control the operation of the aerosolizer based on conditions in the space reaching a particular state. For example, when employed in a high-temperature environment, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the desired operation of the aerosolizer may change once a particular temperature is reached (as is described in the sauna of Sakakibara et al.). Since Robert et al. already teach multiple sensors providing readings to a controller for adjusting operational parameters based on changing conditions (e.g., see the “initiation phase” described in Col. 5, line 46 - Col. 6, line 19), one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results.
Having done so, the modified device of Robert et al. would disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, except that the material is a saline solution and the aerosolizer generates aerosolized salt particles. However, Tiba et al. teach an aerosolizer (10, Fig. 1) that generates aerosolized salt particles from a saline solution (Paragraph 0018). Tiba et al. note that delivering aerosolized salt provides treatment for respiratory ailments, as well as general respiratory hygiene (Paragraph 0001), and that it can be implemented anywhere (Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the system of Robert et al., modified in view of Sakakibara et al. as described above, with a saline solution so that the aerosolizer generates aerosolized salt particles, as taught by Tiba et al., in order to achieve desirable respiratory effects.
Regarding claim 13, the invention of Robert et al., modified as described above, renders the device of claim 8 obvious. Tiba et al. further teaches that the material comprises the saline solution with an additional substance (other solutions or additives, Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 14, the invention of Robert et al., modified as described above, renders the device of claim 8 obvious. Robert et al. further disclose that the housing (as part of appliance 52) can be mounted within the space to be treated (Fig. 1). The embodiments of Figs. 2-2a and Figs. 3-3a are both shown with housings capable of being removably coupled to an interior of a sauna.
Regarding claim 15, Robert et al. substantially disclose the claimed method, including: receiving, at a port, a cartridge (102 or 152) configured to store a material capable of being aerosolized (Col. 2, lines 57-60); generating, using a sensor (70), one or more measurements based on ambient conditions (Col. 6, lines 10-26) of a housing (housing of appliance 52) coupled to the port (see embodiments of Figs. 2-2a, 3-3a); generating, using a controller (106), a signal based on a plurality of operational parameters, wherein the signal is a control signal for an aerosolizer included in the housing (control schemes define timing of operation and flow rate; Col. 3, line 61 - Col. 4, line 2), the housing associated with a sauna (see above regarding claim 1); and aerosolizing contents of the cartridge in response to receiving a signal (see claim 1 of Robert et al.).
Robert et al. further disclose that the sensor used in the method may be one of multiple types of sensors providing readings that are used to adjust operational parameters for the aerosolizer (“Sensor(s) 70 can be used to override/adjust operational parameters of appliance 52”, Col. 6, lines 20-22; “Sensors 70 may be used to alter the operation of appliance 52 based on the conditions within space 50”, Col. 6, lines 33-34). Robert et al. provides exemplary descriptions of such adjustments based on chemical concentrations or the activity level of a space (Col. 6, lines 10-61). However, Robert et al. does not explicitly disclose that one of those sensors is a temperature sensor configured to identify temperature readings that are used to adjust the operational parameters of the aerosolizer.
Sakakibara et al. teach a device for generating an aerosol (via ultrasonic oscillator 18) in a sauna (see the Abstract) having a temperature sensor (101; Fig. 13) configured to identify temperature readings of the aerosolizer (see above regarding the associated rejection of the instant claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); since Robert et al. disclose the housing sharing a space with sensor(s) 70, the temperature measurement would be based on ambient conditions of a housing coupled to the port). Sakakibara et al. teach that the temperature of the treated space is monitored to control operation of an aerosolizer based on conditions in the space reaching a particular state (“After a temperature equilibrium state or the most pleasant serviceable condition is reached in the whole room air, the ultrasonic unit 18 is put into operation”, Col. 4, lines 21-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to practice the method of Robert et al. using a temperature sensor, as taught by Sakakibara et al., in order to control the operation of the aerosolizer based on conditions in the space reaching a particular state. For example, when employed in a high-temperature environment, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the desired operation of the aerosolizer may change once a particular temperature is reached (as is described in the sauna of Sakakibara et al.). Since Robert et al. already teach multiple sensors providing readings to a controller for adjusting operational parameters based on changing conditions (e.g., see the “initiation phase” described in Col. 5, line 46 - Col. 6, line 19), one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results.
Thus the method of Robert et al., modified as described above, would disclose all of the steps of the claimed invention, except that the material is a saline solution and the aerosolizer generates aerosolized salt particles. However, Tiba et al. teach a method for aerosolizing a saline solution that includes receiving a cartridge containing a saline solution (Paragraph 0026). Tiba et al. note that delivering aerosolized salt provides treatment for respiratory ailments, as well as general respiratory hygiene (Paragraph 0001) and that it can be implemented anywhere (Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to practice the method of Robert et al., modified as described above, using a cartridge storing a saline solution, as taught by Tiba et al., in order to achieve desirable respiratory effects from the aerosolizing.
Claims 2-5, 9-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert et al. in view of Sakakibara et al. and Tiba et al., as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Scheck et al.
Regarding claim 2, the invention of Robert et al, modified as described above, renders the system of claim 1 obvious. The invention as modified does not disclose an aerosolizer having a driver and a plurality of meshes. However, Robert et al. note that various means of liquid diffusion are anticipated (Col. 3, lines 47-52) for use in the system.
Scheck et al. teaches an aerosolizer (230, Fig. 2) having a driver (oscillation means 245) and a plurality of meshes (240 and 250). Scheck et al. teach that each mesh has a different porosity, and that this configuration allows characteristics of the aerosol to be controlled (Paragraph 0121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the aerosolizer in the modified invention with a driver and plurality of meshes, as taught by Scheck et al., as the means of diffusion, in order to enable greater control over the qualities of the aerosolized saline solution particles.
Regarding claims 3-4, the invention of Robert et al, modified as described above regarding claim 2, renders the system of claim 2 obvious. Scheck et al. further teach that the driver is a mechanical driver configured to vibrate at least one of the plurality of meshes (Paragraph 0122), and that the vibration of at least one of the plurality of meshes is implemented based on a signal (command via regulator 225, Paragraph 0122). Scheck et al. teach that this enables regulation of the quantity of the liquid to be aerosolized (Paragraph 0114) based on varying the vibration frequency (Paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the signal from the controller disclosed by Robert et al. to implement the vibration of at least one of the plurality of meshes via a mechanical driver, as taught by Scheck et al., in order to have precise control over the quantity of the solution that is aerosolized.
Regarding claim 5, the invention of Robert et al, modified as described above regarding claim 2, renders the system of claim 2 obvious. Scheck et al. further teach that the plurality of meshes comprises a plurality of layers (Fig. 2) each having a different dimension and geometry (each mesh has a different porosity, with openings that differ in length, height and/or width; Paragraph 0121), and that these differences enable variation in the flowrate and/or characteristics of the aerosol (Paragraph 0121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the plurality of meshes of the modified invention, as described above regarding claim 2, with a plurality of layers each having a different dimension and geometry, as taught by Scheck et al., in order to enable control over the flowrate and/or characteristics of the aerosolized salt particles.
Regarding claims 9-12, the invention of Robert et al., modified as described above regarding claim 8, renders the device of claim 8 obvious. The limitations of claims 9-12 are identical to the limitations of claims 2-5, and the differences between the system of claim 1 and the device of claim 8 have no effect on the application of the teachings of Scheck et al. Thus, the aerosolizer of claims 9-12 could be modified in the same way and using the same reasoning as described above for claims 2-5, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, the method of Robert et al, modified as described above regarding claim 15, renders the method of claim 15 obvious. The combined method does not disclose vibrating a plurality of meshes.
Scheck et al. teaches the use of an aerosolizer (230, Fig. 2) including vibrating a plurality of meshes (Paragraph 0025). Scheck et al. teach that each mesh has a different porosity, and that this step allows characteristics of the aerosol to be controlled (Paragraph 0121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to practice the aerosolizing step of the combined method by vibrating a plurality of meshes, as taught by Scheck et al., in order to enable greater control over the qualities of the aerosolized saline solution particles.
Regarding claims 17-18, the method of Robert et al, modified as described above regarding claim 16, renders the method of claim 16 obvious. Scheck et al. further teach the use of a mechanical driver to vibrate at least one of the plurality of meshes (Paragraph 0122), and that the vibration of the at least one of the plurality of meshes is implemented based on a signal (command via regulator 225, Paragraph 0122). Scheck et al. teach that this enables regulation of the quantity of the liquid to be aerosolized (Paragraph 0114) based on varying the vibration frequency (Paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to practice the method of claim 16 using a mechanical driver to vibrate at least one of the plurality of meshes, as taught by Scheck et al., based on the signal, in order to have precise control over the quantity of the solution that is aerosolized.
Regarding claim 19, the method of Robert et al, modified as described above regarding claim 16, renders the method of claim 16 obvious. Scheck et al. further teach the use of a plurality of meshes with a plurality of layers (Fig. 2) each having a different dimension and geometry (each mesh has a different porosity, with openings that differ in length, height and/or width; Paragraph 0121), and that these differences enable variation in the flowrate and/or characteristics of the aerosol (Paragraph 0121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to practice the method of claim 16 using the plurality of meshes with a plurality of layers each having a different dimension and geometry, as taught by Scheck et al., in order to enable control over the flowrate and/or characteristics of the aerosolized material.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert et al. in view of Sakakibara et al. and Tiba et al., as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kaps et al. (US 2019/0167519).
The method of Robert et al., modified as described above regarding claim 15, renders the method of claim 15 obvious. The modified method does not disclose the additional step of activating a plurality of heaters included in a sauna.
Kaps et al. disclose a method (700, Fig. 7) that includes activating a plurality of heaters included in a sauna based on input from a sensor measuring ambient conditions of the sauna (Paragraph 0047). Kaps et al. teaches that this method is implemented by a controller (Paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to supplement the modified method of Robert et al. with the additional step of activating a plurality of heaters included in a sauna, as taught by Kaps et al., in order to enhance the treatments available to the users of the sauna. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this would yield predictable results, especially considering that a sensor and controller are already being utilized in a sauna when practicing the combined method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, see Reinhart et al. (EP 3666316), which teaches “a temperature sensor (13) which is configured to detect a temperature of the vibrator (7)”; see the Abstract and Fig. 1).
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 MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights