DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/02/2026. Claims 16-17, 19-23, and 27-32 are amended. Claims 1-15 are canceled. Claims 18 and 24-26 are as previously presented. As such, claims 16-32 are pending in the instant application.
All objections and rejections pursuant of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
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 19-20, 28-29, and 31 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a modulation frequency of from 5 to 40 Hz” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the modulation frequency is in reference to the modulation frequency disclosed in claim 16 (line 8), such as to further specify the range of the modulation frequency, or if Applicant is attempting to disclose a new limitation. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as a further specification of the range of the modulation frequency disclosed in claim 16.
Similarly, claim 20 recites the limitation “a modulation frequency of about 10 Hz” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the modulation frequency is in reference to the modulation frequency disclosed in claim 16 (line 8), such as to further specify the range of the modulation frequency, or if Applicant is attempting to disclose a new limitation. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as a further specification of the range of the modulation frequency disclosed in claim 16.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “a modulation frequency of from 5 to 40 Hz” in line 2. It is unclear if the modulation frequency is in reference to the modulation frequency disclosed in claim 27 (lines 4-5), such as to further specify the range of the modulation frequency, or if Applicant is attempting to disclose a new limitation. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as a further specification of the range of the modulation frequency disclosed in claim 27.
Similarly, claim 29 recites the limitation “a modulation frequency of about 10 Hz” in line 2. It is unclear if the modulation frequency is in reference to the modulation frequency disclosed in claim 27 (lines 4-5), such as to further specify the range of the modulation frequency, or if Applicant is attempting to disclose a new limitation. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as a further specification of the range of the modulation frequency disclosed in claim 27.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “in step b) demodulating the output signal at the scanning frequency” in lines 3-4. It is unclear if the output signal is being demodulated at the modulation frequency, as recited in claim 27 (lines 6-7), if the output signal is being demodulated at the scanning frequency, if the scanning frequency is the modulation frequency, or if the output signal is being demodulated by both the modulation frequency (see claim 27, lines 6-7) and the scanning frequency. For the purpose of examination, the demodulation of the output signal in claim 31 will be interpreted as – the demodulation of the output signal at the scanning frequency.
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 16-21 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiner & Borgschulte (US 20060102178 A1; hereinafter “Feiner”), in view of Bentvelsen et al. (US 20140339323 A1; hereinafter “Bentvelsen”), in view of Wilkerson et al. (US 20140151457 A1; hereinafter “Wilkerson”), in further view of Sommer et al. (DE 10022795 A1; hereinafter “Sommer”).
Regarding claim 16, Feiner discloses an inhalation device (Fig. 3) comprising:
a channel (5; Fig. 3) having an air inlet opening (inlet opening 52 is received in, see Annotated Fig. 3 below) and an aerosol outlet opening (mouthpiece 5 outlet opening, see Annotated Fig. 3 below),
an aerosol generator (membrane nebulizer 52, chamber retaining 55, see Annotated Fig. 3 below) comprising a vibrator (54; Fig. 3) and a membrane (53; Fig. 3),
a reservoir for liquid to be aerosolized (chamber retaining 55, see Annotated Fig. 3 below, where 55 is the liquid to be nebulized, [0016]) which is fluidically connected to the membrane ([0016]),
an optical sensor (infrared transmitting means 7, first receiving means 8; Figs. 2 and 3; [0018]) for detecting the presence of aerosol within the channel ([0030]),
a controller (10; Fig. 3) which is configured
(i) to provide a driver signal (signals from controller 10 to operate excitation device 56; Fig. 3; [0029]) to operate the vibrator so that the membrane vibrates (controller 10 operates and controls excitation device 56, where excitation device 56 is the activation means of piezo element 54, where the activation of piezo element 54 vibrates membrane 53; [0029] and [0016]) and generates an aerosol in the channel (liquid 55 is nebulized by the vibration of membrane 53; [0016]);
(ii) to receive an output signal from the optical sensor (controller 10 receives output signal from first receiving means 8 of the optical sensor, [0018]); and
(iii) to determine whether aerosol is present in the channel (determination of whether aerosol is present in the mouthpiece 5 on the basis of the outputs signal from first receiving means 8 of the optical sensor, [0021], [0025], [0026]).
PNG
media_image1.png
190
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
336
417
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Feiner fails to explicitly disclose the controller (10; Fig. 3) is configured to modulate an amplitude of the driver signal at a modulation frequency; to demodulate the output signal at the modulation frequency; to determine whether aerosol is present in the channel (determination of whether aerosol is present in the mouthpiece 5 on the basis of the outputs signal from first receiving means 8 of the optical sensor, [0021], [0025], [0026]) based on the demodulated output signal.
However, Bentvelsen teaches an aerosol generation system (1; Abstract) with an optical sensor that is an aerosol density detector ([0021]) for the analysis and control of aerosol output from the aerosol generating device (Abstract; [0008] and [0021]). Bentvelsen further teaches modulating a drive signal of the aerosol generation system from a high frequency signal to a lower frequency ([0042]), where a timing measurement is determined based on the modulated drive signal ([0022], [0028], and [0040]) and a demodulated output signal of the aerosol density detector ([0040], [0043], and [0047]-[0048]) to determine a output velocity of the aerosol ([0040], [0051]-[0054], and [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feiner with Bentvelsen such that the controller (10; Fig. 3) is configured to modulate an amplitude of the driver signal at a modulation frequency (Bentvelsen [0042]); to demodulate the output signal at the modulation frequency (Bentvelsen [0040], [0043], and [0047]-[0048]); to determine whether aerosol is present in the channel based on the demodulated output signal (determination of whether aerosol is present in the mouthpiece 5 on the basis of the output signal from first receiving means 8 of the optical sensor, [0021], [0025], [0026], where the demodulated output signal is taught by Bentvelsen, see above and Bentvelsen [0051]-[0054]; Bentvelsen [0008]) to improve medication therapy dose accuracy through determination of an aerosol output rate (Bentvelsen [0004]-[0005] and [0066]).
Feiner as modified by Bentvelsen fails to explicitly teach a modulation frequency from 1 Hz to 100 Hz.
However, Wilkerson teaches an analogous droplet generation system ([0062]) with a piezoelectric ejector assembly including a piezoelectric actuator with a drive signal (sinusoidal excitation signal of the piezoelectric actuator, [0152]), where the drive signal has a modulation frequency from 1 Hz to 10 MHz (drive frequency may range from 1 Hz to 10 MHz, [0126]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feiner with Wilkerson such that the controller (10; Fig. 3) is configured to modulate the amplitude of the driver signal at a modulation frequency (Bentvelsen [0042]) of from 1 to 100 Hz (Wilkerson [0152] and [0126]), as it would have been recognized, by a person of ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious try to select an amplitude modulation range of a drive signal from 1 Hz to 100 Hz from the encompassing amplitude modulation range of 1 Hz to 10 MHz, as taught by Wilkerson, as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, see MPEP §2144.05).
While Feiner as modified above does teach determining a volume of aerosol within a delivery path to the patient (Bentvelsen [0008]), Feiner as modified above fails to explicitly teach the controller (10; Fig. 3) which is configured (iv) to stop operating the vibrator if it determines that no aerosol is present.
However, Feiner does teach the control method described in Sommer can be carried out based on the output signal of first receiving means (8; Fig. 3; [0029]), where Sommer teaches a control unit (9) controls an excitation device (56) based on an output signal of a receiver (8) of an optical sensor (transmitter 7 and receiver 8; [0064], see provided translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Feiner as modified to explicitly teach the controller (10; Fig. 3) which is configured (iv) to stop operating the vibrator if it determines that no aerosol is present (Sommer: [0064], see provided translation) to prevent waste of produced aerosol (Sommer: [0003], see provided translation).
Regarding claim 17, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 16, wherein the optical sensor operates in an infrared region (infrared transmitting means 7, first receiving means 8, second receiving means 9; Figs. 2 and 3; [0018]).
Regarding claim 18, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 16, wherein the optical sensor (infrared transmitting means 7, first receiving means 8, second receiving means 9; Figs. 2 and 3; [0018]) comprises an emitter (infrared transmitting means 7; Fig. 3; [0018]) and a detector (first receiving means 8; Fig. 3) that are arranged on opposite sides of the channel (7 and 8 are arranged on opposite sides of 5, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 16, wherein the controller (10; Fig. 3) is configured to modulate the amplitude of the driver signal at a modulation frequency (Bentvelsen [0042]) of from 5 to 40 Hz (Wilkerson [0126] and [0152], see claim 16 above; Examiner Note: the amplitude modulation range of 1 Hz to 10 MHz as taught by Wilkerson includes the invention’s disclosed amplitude modulation frequency of from 5 Hz to 40 Hz, hence it would have been recognized, by a person of ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious try to modulate the drive signal at a frequency of from 5 Hz to 40 Hz, as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 20, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 16, wherein the controller (10; Fig. 3) is configured to modulate the amplitude of the driver signal at a modulation frequency (Bentvelsen [0042]) of about 10 Hz (Wilkerson [0126] and [0152], see claim 16 above; Examiner Note: the amplitude modulation range of 1 Hz to 10 MHz as taught by Wilkerson includes the invention’s disclosed amplitude modulation frequency of about 10 Hz, hence it would have been recognized, by a person of ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious try to modulate the drive signal at a frequency of about 10 Hz, as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 21, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein the controller (10; Fig. 3) is configured to periodically perform a scan to determine a resonant frequency of the aerosol generator and/or the membrane; wherein the modulation frequency corresponds to the period between scans.
However, Wilkerson teaches a method to determine a resonance frequency of a piezoelectric actuator (Fig. 20), where periodic scans are performed to determine a resonant frequency of the piezoelectric actuator (Fig. 20; [0134]), where the modulation frequency is a scanning frequency that corresponds to the period between scans ([0093], where the electrical signal applied for a defined amount of time and then stopped suddenly is the drive signal 530, and this process is depicted in steps 2000 to 2020 of Fig. 20; [0125], lines 11 to then end of the paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Feiner with Wilkerson such that the controller (10; Fig. 3) is configured to periodically perform a scan to determine a resonant frequency of the aerosol generator and/or the membrane (Wilkerson: Fig. 20; [0134]); wherein the modulation frequency corresponds to the period between scans ([0093], where the electrical signal applied for a defined amount of time and then stopped suddenly is the drive signal 530, and this process is depicted in steps 2000 to 2020 of Fig. 20; [0125], lines 11 to then end of the paragraph) to provide feedback and improve the control and accuracy of the demodulation of the output signal (Wilkerson: [0125], last sentence).
Regarding claim 22, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 16, wherein the controller (10; Fig. 3) is configured to determine a phase difference between the modulated driver signal and the output signal (Bentvelsen Abstract and [0021], where a time difference between the modulated driver signal and the output signal is determined), and thereby to determine a velocity of the aerosol (Bentvelsen [0051]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 26, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the channel is part of a component that is removable from the rest of the device.
However, Bentvelsen teaches a mouthpiece detachable from a nebulizer ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the channel (mouthpiece 5; Fig. 3) of Feiner as modified with the mouthpiece taught by Bentvelsen such that the channel (5; Fig. 3) is part of a component that is removable from the rest of the device (Bentvelsen: [0012], where the structure of the mouthpiece is removable from the rest of the device) as this is a routine and well-known characteristic in the art for inhalation devices, specifically for nebulizers (Bentvelsen: [0012], lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 27, Feiner as modified teaches a method of operating an inhalation device (method of operating device depicted by Fig. 3) according to claim 16 (see claim 16 above), the method comprising:
providing the driver signal (signals from controller 10 to operate excitation device 56; Fig. 3; [0029]) to operate the vibrator so that the membrane vibrates (controller 10 operates and controls excitation device 56, where excitation device 56 is the activation means of piezo element 54, where the activation of piezo element 54 vibrates membrane 53; [0029] and [0016]) and generates an aerosol in the channel (liquid 55 is nebulized by the vibration of membrane 53; [0016]), and modulating the amplitude of the driver signal at a modulation frequency (Bentvelsen [0042]) of from 1 to 100 Hz (Wilkerson [0126] and [0152]; Examiner Note: the amplitude modulation range of 1 Hz to 10 MHz as taught by Wilkerson includes the invention’s disclosed amplitude modulation range of 1 Hz to 100 Hz, hence it would have been recognized, by a person of ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious try to select an amplitude modulation range of a drive signal from 1 Hz to 100 Hz as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, see MPEP §2144.05);
receiving the output signal from the optical sensor (controller 10 receives output signal from first receiving means 8 of the optical sensor, [0018]) and demodulating the output signal at the modulation frequency (Bentvelsen [0040], [0043], and [0047]-[0048]);
determining whether aerosol is present in the channel based on the demodulated output signal (determination of whether aerosol is present in the mouthpiece 5 on the basis of the output signal from first receiving means 8 of the optical sensor, [0021], [0025], [0026], where the demodulated output signal is taught by Bentvelsen, see above and Bentvelsen [0051]-[0054]; Bentvelsen [0008]); and
ceasing to operate the vibrator if it is determined in step c) that no aerosol is present (Sommer: [0064], see provided translation).
Regarding claim 28, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 27, wherein the amplitude of the driver signal is modulated at a modulation frequency (Bentvelsen [0042]) of from 5 to 40 Hz (Wilkerson [0126] and [0152]; Examiner Note: the amplitude modulation range of 1 Hz to 10 MHz as taught by Wilkerson overlaps with the claimed invention’s disclosed amplitude modulation frequency of from 5 Hz to 40 Hz, hence it would have been recognized, by a person of ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious try to modulate the drive signal at a frequency of from 5 Hz to 40 Hz, as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 29, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 27, wherein the amplitude of the driver signal is modulated at a modulation frequency (Bentvelsen [0042]) of about 10 Hz (Wilkerson [0126] and [0152]; Examiner Note: the amplitude modulation range of 1 Hz to 10 MHz as taught by Wilkerson includes the invention’s disclosed amplitude modulation frequency of about 10 Hz, hence it would have been recognized, by a person of ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious try to modulate the drive signal at a frequency of about 10 Hz, as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 30, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 27, wherein the amplitude of the driver signal is modulated (Bentvelsen [0042]) with a sinusoidal (Wilkerson [0152]), saw-tooth or square wave.
Regarding claim 31, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 27, the method further comprising: in step a), periodically performing a scan to determine a resonant frequency of the aerosol generator and/or the membrane (Wilkerson: Fig. 20; [0134]); in step b) demodulating the output signal at the scanning frequency ([0093], where the electrical signal applied for a defined amount of time and then stopped suddenly is the drive signal 530, and this process is depicted in steps 2000 to 2020 of Fig. 20; [0125], lines 11 to end of paragraph); and in step c), determining whether aerosol is present in the channel based on the demodulated output signal demodulated at the scanning frequency (determination of whether aerosol is present in the mouthpiece 5 on the basis of the output signal from first receiving means 8 of the optical sensor, [0021], [0025], [0026]; where the output signal from first receiving means 8 of the optical sensor is demodulated as taught by Bentvelsen, see (b) in claim 31 above).
Regarding claim 32, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 27, the method further comprising measuring the phase difference between the modulated driver signal and the output signal (determine a time difference between the modulated driver signal and the output signal as taught by Bentvelsen; Bentvelsen: Abstract; [0021), and thereby determining a velocity of the aerosol (Bentvelsen: [0023]).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiner in view of Bentvelsen in view of Wilkerson in view of Sommer as applied to claims 16 and 27 above, and further in view of Kolb et al. (WO 2013098334 A1) hereinafter Kolb.
Regarding claim 23, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 16, but does not teach a variable flow restrictor which restricts a flow rate of the air and aerosol to a maximum flow rate of about 20 L/min.
However, Kolb teaches a nebulizer with a vibrating mesh-type aerosol generator and a flow restrictor (pg. 25, lines 28-29), where the flow restrictor restricts the flow rate of the air and aerosol to about 18 L/min (pg. 25, line 30 to pg. 26, line 1; pg 26, lines 10-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feiner as modified with Kolb such that a variable flow restrictor (Kolb: flow restrictor: pg. 25, lines 28-29) which restricts the flow rate of the air and aerosol to a maximum flow rate of about 20 L/min (Kolb: pg. 25, line 30 to pg. 26, line 1; pg 26, lines 10-14; Examiner Note: a flow rate of 18 L/min is interpreted as a flow rate of about 20 L/min when interpreting “about 20 L/min” under BRI, hence a flow rate of 18 L/min reads on the limitation of a flow rate of about 20 L/min) to increase patient comfort during therapy (Kolb: pg. 3, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 24, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 16, but fails to teach a sensor for measuring pressure in the channel and a signalling device capable of emitting light of varying intensity, wherein the controller is configured (i) to receive a signal representing the measured pressure and (ii) to cause the signalling device to emit light of lower intensity the further the measured pressure deviates from a target pressure.
However, Kolb teaches Kolb teaches a nebulizer with a vibrating mesh-type aerosol generator and a feedback system (Abstract) and a sensing device including a pressure sensor (pg. 7, lines 29-31), where the sensing device can output a signal to emit a light of varying intensity (pg. 24, lines 20-26). Additionally, Kolb teaches the controller receives signals from the pressure sensor and controls the signaling device in response to the received signals from the pressure sensor and emits a light to indicate to a user if the measured pressure matches a predetermined target pressure value or range (pg. 8, lines 6-13; pg. 24, lines 20-26). Kolb further teaches the signaling device emits a light of higher intensity when the measured pressure value is within the predetermined target pressure range, and emits a light of a lower intensity when the measured pressure value is outside of the predetermine target pressure range (pg. 8, lines 22-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feiner as modified with Kolb such that Feiner as modified further comprises a sensor for measuring pressure in the channel (Kolb: pressure sensor; pg. 7, lines 29-31) and a signalling device capable of emitting light of varying intensity (Kolb: Abstract; pg. 24, lines 20-26), wherein the controller (10; Fig. 3) is configured (i) to receive a signal representing the measured pressure (Kolb: pg. 8, lines 6-13) and (ii) to cause the signalling device to emit light of lower intensity the further the measured pressure deviates from a target pressure (Kolb: pg. 8, lines 22-25) to improve the quality and consistency of therapy for a user (Kolb: pg. 20, lines 23-29).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiner in view of Bentvelsen in view of Wilkerson in view of Sommer as applied to claims 16 and 27 above, and further in view of Freeman & Freeman (US 20190247596 A1) hereinafter Freeman.
Regarding claim 25, Feiner as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 16, but fails to teach the channel(5; Fig. 3) has an internal volume between the membrane and the optical sensor of less than 5 cm3.
However, Freeman teaches an inhalation device with a third channel portion (217; Fig. 2) having a maximum diameter of 2 mm and a maximum length of 10 mm ([0071]), hence the third channel portion (217) has a maximum volume of 3.14 cm3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the volume of the channel taught by Feiner as modified with the volume of the third channel portion taught by Freeman such that the channel (5; Fig. 3) has an internal volume between the membrane and the optical sensor of less than 5 cm3 (Freeman: volume of 3.14 cm3, [0071]) to improve the consistency of air and aerosol flow (Freeman: [0071]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16 and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On pages 9-10 of the Remarks, filed on 04/02/2026, Applicant argues Wilkerson, alone or in combination with Feiner and Sommer, fails to disclose demodulation of the output signal at the modulation frequency. In light of the amendments to independent claims 16 and 27, where the output signal now must be demodulated specifically at the modulation frequency (see amended claim 16, line 9 and amended claim 27, lines 6-7), new grounds for rejection are necessitated. As such, Bentvelsen (US 20140339323 A1) is provided to teach the demodulation of the output signal at the modulation frequency (see 103 rejection of claims 16 and 27 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Achtzehner et al. (WO 2020120665 A1): Regarding a vibration head for an aerosol generator with an modulated drive signal and demodulated output signal.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ABIGAYLE DALE whose telephone number is (571)272-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:45am to 5:45pm ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/ABIGAYLE DALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights