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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim recites “wherein temperature readings are used to adjust operational parameters” (line 8 of claim 1, line 6 of claim 8, lines 6-7 of claim 15) after previously reciting “temperature readings” as part of the recitation of a temperature sensor. If Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the previously recited temperature readings, it should read --the temperature readings-- or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
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 associated with the aerosolizer (sensor measures temperature of room 19, i.e., a sauna; Col. 8, lines 1-8). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because: (1) the references lack motivation to combine, (2) the combination would not work as proposed, and (3) the claimed invention includes elements not disclosed or suggested by the cited references” (Remarks, Page 5, second paragraph). It appears that Applicant is primarily restating arguments that were presented in the Remarks dated 9/15/2025. Examiner maintains the responses detailed in the Office Action dated 11/26/2025. To reiterate:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Applicant’s statements that the Robert and Tiba references “address fundamentally different technical problems in unrelated fields” because “[a] person skilled in the art working with Robert’s commercial ambiance system would have no reason to consider Tiba’s medical treatment methodology” (Remarks page 5, fifth paragraph) are inconsistent with the disclosure of Robert et al., which notes “liquid 104 may be selected from one of a variety of known aerosol disinfectants or other bio-technical treatment options for providing a desired biological response within the space” (Col. 3, lines 30-34). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the device of Robert et al. would be capable of use in a home or health care setting (including within a sauna in such an environment), and that aerosolization of saline solution to generate aerosolized salt particles would be a potential use of the device for providing a desired biological response (e.g., for treatment of respiratory disease). Furthermore, with respect to the cited references being nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Robert et al. and Tiba et al. are reasonably pertinent to the objective of aerosolizing material for the implementation of one or more therapies for a user (see specification Paragraph 0015).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of references “would be technically inoperable” because Robert's system is “a venturi-based system” (Remarks page 5, sixth paragraph), Examiner notes that Robert et al. discloses a venturi system as only one possible embodiment of the diffusion means of the invention. Further embodiments are anticipated in the disclosure, particularly when smaller aerosolized particles are desired (Col. 3, lines 47-52).
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that applicant has not identified any particular features recited in the claims rejected in the Office Action dated 11/26/2025 that are not disclosed or suggested by the cited references. Examiner’s best understanding is that applicant is referring to features introduced in the current amendments dated 1/27/2026.
Examiner acknowledges that the amended claims distinguish the claimed invention from the disclosures of Robert et al., Tiba et al., and Scheck et al., since none of the references explicitly discloses a temperature sensor as claimed. However, upon further search and consideration, the Sakakibara et al. reference cited above was found to teach the limitation “a temperature sensor configured to identify temperature readings associated with the aerosolizer, wherein temperature readings are used to adjust operational parameters for the aerosolizer”, as cited above in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Since Applicant’s Remarks dated 1/27/2026 present arguments relevant to this new ground of rejection, those will be addressed here. In that regard, Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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., “automatically adjust[ing] vibrational frequency and intensity based on real-time temperature readings; Remarks, Page 7, first paragraph) 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).
Additionally, Applicant argues that the system of Robert et al. “operates entirely on predetermined control schemes” and “includes no sensors for monitoring operational parameters or adjusting system performance based on real-time conditions” Remarks Page 6, first full paragraph). This is inconsistent with the disclosure of Robert et al., which states, for example, that “one or a plurality of sensors 70 may be used to alter the operation of the appliances 52 from the control schemes (Col. 6, lines 55-61; see also claim 30, which discloses “a sensor operatively connected to the controller, wherein the controller may adjust the operational parameters of the appliance based on signals from the sensor related to the conditions within the space”).
As detailed in the above rejection of the amended independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Robert et al. discloses a system, device, and method for aerosolizing a liquid to treat a space using a sensor-based feedback control system. Tiba et al. teaches that a saline solution may be used in such a device for providing respiratory treatment, and Sakakibara et al. teaches that a temperature sensor may be used in such a system as part of the feedback control system, especially when employing the system in a temperature-controlled environment such as a sauna. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found these teachings relevant and would be capable of applying the teachings to the invention of Robert et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, thus arriving at the inventions as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Singh (US 6,039,212), Tomono et al. (US 2008/0223953), Reinhart et al. (US 2022/0047818), Vogeley (US 2007/0216256), and Modlin et al. (US 2010/0224697) provide examples of devices teaching the use of temperature sensors for various operational purposes in aerosolizers.
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 April 3, 2026