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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 01/30/2026.
Claims 21 and 25-42 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 21 is amended.
Claims 41-42 are newly added.
Claims 38-40 are previously withdrawn.
Claims 22-24 are previously cancelled.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner maintains the Double Patenting rejection of claim 21 over copending Application No. 17/928,857 and claims 21-22, 25, 27, 29-30 and 32-37 over U.S. Patent No. 11,206,872 in view of Rayner (US 20180272367 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9, regarding the 102 rejection of claim 21, filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Claim 21 has been amended to recite the limitation that “the first chamber being spatially positioned between the second chamber and the outlet” not previously presented. Rayner does not explicitly teach this structure. Therefore, the 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration Rayner makes obvious the limitations and a new obviousness ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rayner.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claims 21, 29-30, 32 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner (US 20180272367 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Rayner teaches a stable-foam inhalation device (container 1; [0114]) configured to dispense a stable foam to be inhaled by a user over a prolonged duration ([0104]), the inhalation device comprising:
a foam-generating-component receiving portion (chamber 50; [0115]) having a first chamber (first container portion 2a having cavity 52a; [0180]) and a second chamber (second container portion 2e having second cavity 52e; Fig. 4A; [0180]);
stable-foam-generating components configured to generate the stable foam, the stable-foam-generating components comprising a solid (foaming material 100; [0107], [0136]) and a liquid (foaming agent 200; [0108], [137]), the solid received in the first chamber, and the liquid received in the second chamber ([0180]), the solid and liquid being segregated from one another by an openable barrier between the first chamber and the second chamber ([0163]);
an outlet configured to dispense the stable foam to the user (outlet 61; [0119]);
a fluid flow path (delivery mechanism 20; [0116]) between the second chamber and the outlet 61 which fluidly communicates the second chamber 52e with the outlet ([0116-0117]), the first chamber 52e defining at least part of the fluid flow path (see Fig. 4A) and the stable-foam inhalation device configured so that when the barrier is opened the components interact to generate the stable foam which flows to the outlet via the first chamber 52a and along the fluid flow path to be inhaled by the user over a prolonged duration ([0119], [0163], [0181]).
Rayner does not explicitly teach the first chamber being spatially positioned between the second chamber and the outlet.
However, Rayner does teach that in other embodiments, the second chamber may be located in different positions, including at the bottom of the first chamber (sub-chamber 2c; Fig. 3; [0139], [0176]; see also [0140-0146] for description of another embodiment).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second chamber of Rayner by rearranging it to be at the bottom of the first container as taught by the other embodiments of the same invention because this involves applying a known configuration to a similar embodiment of the same device to yield predictable results. Furthermore, rearrangement of parts, such as moving the second chamber from one end of the chamber to another, is prima facie obvious when the rearrangement would not modify the operation of the device. The modified chambers would result in a first chamber being positioned between the bottom second chamber and the outlet.
Regarding claim 27, Rayner teaches that the fluid flow path comprises a conduit (conduit 41a; Fig. 4A; [0181]) which is any one of at or adjacent to the outlet 61 and an expansion chamber (translating element 30) between the foam-generating-component receiving portion 50 and the conduit ([0181]).
Regarding claim 28, Rayner teaches that the conduit has an inlet opening (valve 40; Fig. 4A; [0181], [0186]).
Rayner does not explicitly teach that the conduit inlet opening is off-center relative to the expansion chamber.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rayner such that the inlet is off-center relative to the expansion chamber, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two positions for the inlet opening, centered and off-center, Rayner is silent as to the exact positioning of the inlet opening, and this involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, rearrangement such as moving an inlet between a centered and an off-center position, would be an obvious matter of design choice in order to optimize foam throughput.
Regarding claim 29, Rayner teaches that the conduit has an inlet opening (valve 40; Fig. 4A; [0181], [0186]) and a longitudinal extent (see Fig. 4A) which locates the inlet opening closer to the foam-generating- component receiving portion 50 than to the outlet 61.
Regarding claim 30, Rayner teaches that the openable barrier may be opened by piercing or puncturing by an actuator ([0145-0146], [0158]).
Rayner does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a protrusion.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rayner by making the actuator a protrusion because one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that a protrusion would be used to perform puncturing or piercing, and this involves applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results.
Thus, Rayner makes obvious a protrusion configured to assist with dispensation of one of the stable-foam-generating components by perforating the openable barrier.
Regarding claim 32, Rayner teaches a valve (valve 40; [0021-0022]) that may be a one-way valve ([0123]) configured to permit movement of foam from the foam-generating-component receiving portion to the outlet and any one of preventing or limiting movement of fluid from the outlet to the foam-generating-component receiving portion ([0022], [0123]).
Regarding claim 35, Rayner teaches that the barrier is opened by being broken ([0029], [0044], [0085]).
Regarding claim 36, Rayner teaches that at least one of the stable-foam-generating components comprises a stabilizer ([0211]).
Regarding claim 37, Rayner teaches that at least one of the stable-foam-generating components comprises a thickener ([0211]).
Regarding claim 41, Rayner teaches that the first chamber is received within the second chamber (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 42, Rayner does not explicitly teach that the first chamber has a first chamber volume and the second chamber has a second chamber volume, the second chamber volume being greater than the first chamber volume.
However, Rayner does teach that the foam-generation receiving portion (the container and the chambers within) may be any size or shape that retains a material ([0014], [0114]). Rayner further teaches that the volume of the foam-generation receiving portion and its respective chambers may be adjusted ([0207]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rayner by adjusting the size of the chambers, including to a configuration in which the second chamber has a greater volume than the first chamber because this involves applying alternate structural configurations to the same device to yield predictable results. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that volumes may be adjusted to accommodate different foam-generating agents and their anticipated reactions. For example, if a larger volume of foaming agent 200 is needed to completely react with foaming material 100, it would be obvious to provide a larger second chamber to accommodate that larger quantity. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only three possible relationships of the two volumes (the volume of the second chamber may be greater than, equal to, or less than the volume of the first chamber) and thus it would be obvious to try having the second chamber have a greater volume than the first chamber as this involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 25-26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner (US 20180272367 A1) as applied to claims 21 and 30 above, and further in view of Hochrainer (US 7213593 B2).
Regarding claim 25, Rayner does not explicitly teach that the barrier is a planar seal.
Hochrainer, directed to a device (1; Fig. 1) comprising a first receiving portion (container 4 with interior 4b), components (solvent and active substance) configured to be received in the component receiving portion, at least one of said components being segregated by an openable barrier (14) so that when the barrier is opened the components interact (col. 1, lines 46-52; col. 2, lines 51-66), depicts that the barrier is a planar seal (Fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rayner by making the barrier a planar seal as taught by Hochrainer because both Rayner and Hochrainer are directed to devices comprising barriers, Hochrainer teaches that it is known in the art for a barrier between chambers to be a planar seal, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 26, Rayner does not explicitly teach that the openable barrier comprises a foil.
Hochrainer (US 7213593 B2), directed to a device (1; Fig. 1) comprising a first receiving portion (container 4 with interior 4b), components (solvent and active substance) configured to be received in the component receiving portion, at least one of said components being segregated by an openable barrier (14) so that when the barrier is opened the components interact (col. 1, lines 46-52; col. 2, lines 51-66), teaches that the barrier may comprise a foil (col. 2, lines 60-61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rayner by making the barrier comprise a foil as taught by Hochrainer because both Rayner and Hochrainer are directed to devices comprising barriers, Hochrainer teaches that it is known in the art for barriers to comprise foil, Rayner is silent to a specific material of the barrier and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable barrier, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 31, Rayner teaches that the protrusion is configured to perforate the openable barrier ([0145-0146], [0158]).
Rayner does not explicitly teach that the protrusion includes a passageway configured to permit passage of stable-foam-generating component therethrough.
Hochrainer (US 7213593 B2), directed to a device (1; Fig. 1) comprising a first receiving portion (container 4 with interior 4b), components (solvent and active substance) configured to be received in the component receiving portion, at least one of said components being segregated by an openable barrier (14) so that when the barrier is opened the components interact (col. 1, lines 46-52; col. 2, lines 51-66), teaches that the barrier may be pierced by a cannula to permit the components to interact (col. 2, lines 60-61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the protrusion of Rayner by making it include a cannula having a passageway configured to permit passage of a component therethrough, because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cannula as used by Hochrainer is an example of a pointed protrusion that is used to pierce or perforate a seal to allow transfer from one chamber to another, and this involves applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner (US 20180272367 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Gupta (US 20170007540 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Rayner teaches that the foam-generating-components may comprise an acid/base pair.
Rayner does not explicitly teach that the foam-generating-components comprise a carbonate and an acid.
Gupta, directed to a stable-foam inhalation device (foam delivery device 420; Fig. 4; [0041]) comprising a receiving portion (foam inlet 402; [0041]), foam generating components ([0037]), an outlet (foam outlet 311; [0041]) and a fluid flow path (tube 310; [0041]), teaches that the foam generating components may comprise a carbonate and an acid ([0037]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rayner by using a carbonate and an acid as the foam generating components as taught by Gupta because both Rayner and Gupta are directed to stable-foam inhalation device comprising foam generating components, Gupta teaches that carbonate and acid are known foam generating components, and this involves substituting one pair of foam generating components for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 34, Rayner teaches that at least one of the carbonate and acid is a powder ([0025-0026]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Rejection 1
Claims 21-22, 25, 27, 29-30 and 32-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-9 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,872 in view of Rayner (US 20180272367 A1).
Regarding claim 21, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a stable-foam inhalation device configured to dispense a stable foam to be inhaled by a user over a prolonged duration, the inhalation device comprising:
a foam-generating-component receiving portion;
stable-foam-generating components configured to generate the stable foam, said components configured to be received in the component receiving portion, at least one of said components being segregated by an openable barrier;
an outlet configured to dispense the stable foam to the user;
a fluid flow path which fluidly communicates the foam-generating-component receiving portion with the outlet so that when the barrier is opened the components interact to generate the stable foam which flows to the outlet via the fluid flow path to be inhaled by the user over a prolonged duration.
The claims differ in that claim 1 of the conflicting claims does not explicitly teach a first chamber receiving a solid foam-generating component and a second chamber receiving a liquid foam-generating component.
Rayner, directed to a stable-foam inhalation device (container 1; [0114]) configured to dispense a stable foam to be inhaled by a user over a prolonged duration ([0104]), the inhalation device comprising a foam-generating-component receiving portion (chamber 50; [0115]), teaches that the foam generating portion may have a first chamber (first container portion 2c having cavity 52a; [0180]) and a second chamber (second container portion 2e having second cavity 52e; Fig. 4A; [0180]) and stable-foam-generating components comprising a solid (foaming material 100; [0107], [0136]) and a liquid (foaming agent 200; [0108], [137]), the solid received in the first chamber, and the liquid received in the second chamber ([0180]) and a fluid flow path (delivery mechanism 20; [0116]) between the second chamber and the outlet 61 which fluidly communicates the second chamber 52e with the outlet ([0116-0117]), the first chamber 52e defining at least part of the fluid flow path (see Fig. 4A) and the stable-foam inhalation device configured so that when the barrier is opened the components interact to generate the stable foam which flows to the outlet via the first chamber 52a and along the fluid flow path to be inhaled by the user over a prolonged duration ([0119], [0163], [0181]). Furthermore, Rayner teaches that in some configurations the first chamber is spatially positioned between the second chamber and the outlet (Fig. 3; [0139], [0176]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the conflicting claims by adding first and second chambers comprising a liquid and a solid, respectively, and positioned such that the first chamber is spatially positioned between the second chamber and the outlet as taught by Rayner because both the conflicting claims and Rayner are directed to stable-foam inhalation device comprising multiple chambers, Rayner teaches an exact configuration for the chambers, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The claims differ in that claim 1 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 1 still includes all required components of rejected claim 21. Therefore, all elements of rejected claim 21 are present and obvious over the conflicting claims.
Regarding claim 22, conflicting claim 13 teaches that at least one of the stable-foam-generating components comprises a liquid. The claims differ in that claim 13 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 13 still includes all required components of rejected claim 22.
Regarding claim 25, conflicting claim 2 teaches that the openable barrier is a planar seal. The claims differ in that claim 2 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 2 still includes all required components of rejected claim 25.
Regarding claim 27, conflicting claim 1 teaches that the fluid flow path comprises a conduit which is any one of at and adjacent to the outlet and an expansion chamber between the foam-generating-component receiving portion and the conduit. The claims differ in that claim 1 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 1 still includes all required components of rejected claim 27.
Regarding claim 29, conflicting claim 4 teaches that the conduit has an inlet opening and a longitudinal extent which locates the inlet opening closer to the foam-generating- component receiving portion than to the outlet. The claims differ in that claim 4 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 4 still includes all required components of rejected claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, conflicting claim 1 teaches a protrusion configured to assist with dispensation of one of the stable-foam-generating components. The claims differ in that claim 1 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 1 still includes all required components of rejected claim 30.
Regarding claim 32, conflicting claim 5 teaches a one- way valve configured to permit movement of foam from the foam-generating-component receiving portion to the outlet and any one of preventing and limiting movement of fluid from the outlet to the foam-generating-component receiving portion. The claims differ in that claim 5 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 5 still includes all required components of rejected claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, conflicting claim 1 teaches that the stable-foam-generating components together comprise a carbonate and an acid. The claims differ in that claim 1 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 1 still includes all required components of rejected claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, conflicting claim 6 teaches that at least one of the carbonate and acid is a powder. The claims differ in that claim 6 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 6 still includes all required components of rejected claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, conflicting claim 7 teaches that the barrier is opened by being broken. The claims differ in that claim 7 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 7 still includes all required components of rejected claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, conflicting claim 8 teaches that at least one of the stable-foam-generating components comprises a stabilizer. The claims differ in that claim 8 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 8 still includes all required components of rejected claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, conflicting claim 9 teaches that at least one of the stable-foam-generating components comprises a thickener. The claims differ in that claim 9 of the conflicting claims teaches additional limitations directed to the foam inhalation device. However, conflicting claim 9 still includes all required components of rejected claim 37.
Rejection 2
Claim 21 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of copending Application No. 17/928,857 in view of Rayner (US 20180272367 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 21, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a stable-foam inhalation device configured to dispense a stable foam to be inhaled by a user over a prolonged duration, the inhalation device comprising:
a foam-generating-component receiving portion;
stable-foam-generating components configured to generate the stable foam, said components configured to be received in the component receiving portion, at least one of said components being segregated by an openable barrier;
an outlet configured to dispense the stable foam to the user;
a fluid flow path which fluidly communicates the foam-generating-component receiving portion with the outlet so that when the barrier is opened the components interact to generate the stable foam which flows to the outlet via the fluid flow path to be inhaled by the user over a prolonged duration.
The claims further differ in that claim 1 and 14 of the conflicting claims do not explicitly teach a first chamber receiving a solid foam-generating component and a second chamber receiving a liquid foam-generating component.
Rayner, directed to a stable-foam inhalation device (container 1; [0114]) configured to dispense a stable foam to be inhaled by a user over a prolonged duration ([0104]), the inhalation device comprising a foam-generating-component receiving portion (chamber 50; [0115]), teaches that the foam generating portion may have a first chamber (first container portion 2a having cavity 52a; [0180]) and a second chamber (second container portion 2e having second cavity 52e; Fig. 4A; [0180]) and stable-foam-generating components comprising a solid (foaming material 100; [0107], [0136]) and a liquid (foaming agent 200; [0108], [137]), the solid received in the first chamber, and the liquid received in the second chamber ([0180]) and a fluid flow path (delivery mechanism 20; [0116]) between the second chamber and the outlet 61 which fluidly communicates the second chamber 52e with the outlet ([0116-0117]), the first chamber 52e defining at least part of the fluid flow path (see Fig. 4A) and the stable-foam inhalation device configured so that when the barrier is opened the components interact to generate the stable foam which flows to the outlet via the first chamber 52a and along the fluid flow path to be inhaled by the user over a prolonged duration ([0119], [0163], [0181]). Furthermore, Rayner teaches that in some configurations the first chamber is spatially positioned between the second chamber and the outlet (Fig. 3; [0139], [0176]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the conflicting claims by adding first and second chambers comprising a liquid and a solid, respectively, and positioned such that the first chamber is spatially positioned between the second chamber and the outlet as taught by Rayner because both the conflicting claims and Rayner are directed to stable-foam inhalation device comprising multiple chambers, Rayner teaches an exact configuration for the chambers, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Therefore, all elements of rejected claim 21 are present and obvious over the conflicting claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755