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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicants amendments filed 02/20/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18, 20 and 23 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 1, 15-17 and 23 are amended.
Claims 4, 14, 19, 21-22 and 24 are cancelled.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner withdraws the double patenting rejection over US Patent No. 11,206,872 in view of Gupta (US 20170007540 A1), due to amendments to the claims filed 02/20/2026. The conflicting claims do not specify that the foam-generating components comprise both a solid and a liquid or that the first chamber has a first-chamber volume, the second chamber has a second-chamber volume, the second-chamber volume being greater than the first-chamber volume, as required by amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The Examiner withdraws the double patenting rejection over copending Application No. 17/917,380 in view of Gupta (US 20170007540 A1), due to amendments to the claims filed 02/20/2026. The conflicting claims do not specify that the foam-generating components comprise both a solid and a liquid or that the first chamber has a first-chamber volume, the second chamber has a second-chamber volume, the second-chamber volume being greater than the first-chamber volume, as required by amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 02/20/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 over Gupta have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 1 is amended to recite limitations to first and second chamber volume receiving a solid and liquid respectively and to an openable barrier. Prior art of record Gupta does not teach an openable barrier as newly required by amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
The Examiner notes that the 102 rejections of claims 8 and 23 and the 103 rejections of claims 2-3, 5-7, 9 and 18 over Gupta are withdrawn by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. However, upon further consideration, new obviousness grounds of rejection are made over Rayner.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 02/20/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 over Rayner have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to include limitations to the relative volumes of the first and second chambers. The Applicant argues that Rayner does not appropriately teach a smaller volume solid-receiving chamber being on the flow path between a larger volume liquid-receiving chamber and the outlet.
The Examiner disagrees.
Rayner teaches 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]), the first chamber being on the flow path between a second chamber and the outlet 61 ([0116-0117], [0119], [0163], [0181]). Rayner also teaches that either chamber may receive a solid or a liquid ([0107-0108], [0136-0137]).
Rayner further teaches that the foam-generation receiving portion (the container and the chamber within) may be of 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 heater 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 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.
The modified device would be expected to comprise a smaller volume solid-receiving chamber 52a being on the flow path between a larger volume liquid-receiving chamber 52e and the outlet 61.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 8-17, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner (US 20180272367 A1) in view of Gupta (US 20170007540 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rayner teaches a foam inhalation device (container 1; [0114]) configured to dispense a foam to be inhaled by a user, the foam inhalation device comprising ([0104]):
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]);
a plurality of foam-generating components configured to generate the foam (material 100; [0115]), the foam-generating components comprising a solid (foaming material 100; [0107], [0136]) and a liquid (foaming agent 200l [0108], [0137]), 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]);
a mouthpiece (nozzle 60; [0118]) which defines an outlet configured to dispense the foam to the user’s mouth (outlet 61; [0119]);
a fluid flow path (delivery mechanism 20; [0116]) which is configured to fluidly communicate the second chamber 52e with the outlet 61 ([0116-0117]), the first chamber 52a defining at least part of the fluid flow path (see Fig. 4A) and the foam inhalation device configured so that when the barrier is opened the components interact to generate the foam which flows to the outlet via the first chamber 52a and the fluid flow path to be inhaled by the user’s mouth ([0116-0117], [0119], [0163], [0181]).
Rayner does not teach (I) 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 or (II) that at least one of the foam-generating components includes at least one of nicotine, caffeine, tetrahydrocannabinol or cannabidiol.
Regarding (I), Rayner does teach that the foam-generation receiving portion (the container and the chamber within) may be of 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 heater 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 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.
Regarding (II), Gupta, directed to a foam inhalation device (foam delivery device 420; Fig. 4B; [0041]) configured to dispense a foam to be inhaled by a user, the foam inhalation device comprising: a foam-generating-component receiving portion (foam inlet 402; [0041]); a foam-generating component configured to generate the foam [0037]; an outlet configured to dispense the foam to the user (foam outlet 311; [0041]); a fluid flow path (tube 310) which is configured to fluidly communicate the foam-generating component receiving portion with the outlet so that the foam is generated by the foam-generating component and flows to the outlet via the fluid flow path to be inhaled by the user ([0041]), teaches that the foam generating component includes any one of nicotine, caffeine, tetrahydrocannabinol, and cannabidiol ([0025], [0028]).
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 foam generating component include any one of nicotine, caffeine, tetrahydrocannabinol, and cannabidiol as taught by Gupta because both Rayner and Gupta are directed to foam inhalation devices, Gupta teaches that nicotine, caffeine, tetrahydrocannabinol, and cannabidiol are known foam generating component ingredients and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Rayner teaches an air inlet in fluid communication with the fluid flow path between the outlet and the foam-generating-component receiving portion, the air inlet being spaced apart from and to a side of the outlet ([0059], [0121]).
Regarding claim 9, Rayner does not teach that the air inlet is spaced apart from the outlet by at least 20 mm.
However, any adjustment to the air inlet spacing would merely be a prima facie change in size/proportion which would not perform differently than the prior art device. Thus, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art device taught by Rayner. 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Rayner teaches a valve (valve 40; [0021-0122]) between the foam-generating component receiving portion and the outlet for selectively permitting foam to flow therebetween, the valve being at least any one of opened and closed via a user control ([0122]).
Regarding claim 11, Rayner teaches that the valve is biased to a closed condition so that the user control is required to be continuously operated to hold open the valve ([0122] teaches that the valve may be biased to a closed position).
Regarding claim 12, Rayner teaches that the valve is biased via a spring ([0122] teaches that the valve may be biased by a spring).
Regarding claim 13, Rayner teaches that the user control is a push button ([0122] teaches that the valve may be configured as a push valve; [0124] teaches that the user control 45 may be a push button).
Regarding claim 15, 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 pointed 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 pointed protrusion because one with ordinary skill in the art would expect that a pointed protrusion would be used to perform puncturing or piercing, and this involves applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Rayner teaches a pull tab configured to open the openable barrier ([0085], [0122], [0239] teach that a pull tab may be used to open an openable barrier).
Regarding claim 17, Rayner teaches that the openable barrier comprises a valve ([0163]), and the device further comprises a user control (valve actuator 27) configured to move the valve so as to communicate the foam-generating components ([0146], [0158]).
Regarding claim 20, Rayner teaches that the fluid-flow path comprises an expansion chamber (intermixing duct 52d; [0158]) in fluid communication with and upstream of the outlet.
Regarding claim 23, Rayner teaches that the foam-generating components may comprise an acid/base pair ([0212]).
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.
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner and Gupta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright et al. (US 20060062736 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Rayner does not explicitly teach a partial barrier.
Wright, directed to a foam inhalation device configured to dispense a foam to be inhaled by a user, the foam inhalation device comprising: a foam-generating-component receiving portion (inner chamber 14; [0210]); a foam-generating component configured to generate the foam (glass tube 20, 30 filled with foam-generating component; Fig. 6; [0213]); a mouthpiece (nozzle 57) which defines an outlet (nozzle end 57; Fig. 13; [0238-0239]) configured to dispense the foam to the user; a fluid flow path (path A; Fig. 6; [0218]) which is configured to fluidly communicate the foam-generating component receiving portion with the outlet so that the foam is generated by the foam-generating component and flows to the outlet via the fluid flow path to be inhaled by the user, teaches a partial barrier (mesh 52; Fig. 11; [0237]) which obstructs part of a cross-sectional area of the fluid flow path (Fig. 6) and which is configured to limit a volume of foam dispensed by the outlet ([0218]). Wright further teaches that the partial barrier is used for converting the components into a foam with fine bubble size/average size ~100um ([0218]).
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 adding the partial barrier as taught by Wright because both Rayner and Wright are directed to foam inhalation devices, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding the partial barrier may help to better mix the foam components and provide more consistent foam, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Wright teaches that the partial barrier is at the outlet (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Wright teaches that the partial barrier (mesh 52; Fig. 11; [0237]) comprises a porous material having a plurality of holes less than 2 mm diameter (Wright [0145] teaches holes of 1-200 microns).
Regarding claim 6, Wright teaches that the partial barrier comprises sintered material. (Wright [0153], [0240] teaches that partial barrier may be made of sinter).
Regarding claim 18, Rayner does not explicitly teach that the foam is stable.
Wright, directed to a foam inhalation device configured to dispense a foam to be inhaled by a user, the foam inhalation device comprising: a foam-generating-component receiving portion (inner chamber 14; [0210]); a foam-generating component configured to generate the foam (glass tube 20, 30 filled with foam-generating component; Fig. 6; [0213]); a mouthpiece (nozzle 57) which defines an outlet (nozzle end 57; Fig. 13; [0238-0239]) configured to dispense the foam to the user; a fluid flow path (path A; Fig. 6; [0218]) which is configured to fluidly communicate the foam-generating component receiving portion with the outlet so that the foam is generated by the foam-generating component and flows to the outlet via the fluid flow path to be inhaled by the user, teaches that the foam inhalation device is a stable-foam inhalation device configured to dispense a stable foam, and the foam- generating component is a stable-foam-generating component ([0149], [0152]).
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 foam stable as taught by Wright because both Rayner and Wright are directed to foam inhalation devices, Wright teaches that it is known in the art for foam generating device and components to be stable, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner, Gupta and Wright as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Matthews et al. (US 20050258192 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Wright does not teach that the partial barrier comprises sintered steel.
Matthews, directed to a foam-generating component (foaming component 222; Abstract, [0066]) comprising a partial barrier (air sparging plate 224; [0066]), teaches that steel is a known sinter material used for partial barriers ([0066]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wright by making the partial barrier a sintered steel material as taught by Matthews because Wright is silent to the specific sinter material used for the partial battier and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable sinter material, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar foam-generating product to yield predictable results.
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