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 responsive to a preliminary amendment filed on 2/7/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 5-7, 11-12 and 16-18 were amended, no claims were cancelled nor added. Thus, claims 1-19 are presently pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species VI, fig. 7 and subspecies III-figs. 5A-5B in the reply filed on 2/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology, (i.e., the term “comprises” in line 2 of the abstract). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0003, line 2, the term “inhalation mediation” is suggested to be changed to --inhalation medication-- in order to clarify the specification.
In paragraph 0024, lines 2-3, the term “inhalation mediation” is suggested to be changed to --inhalation medication-- in order to clarify the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, the term “at least medication” is suggested to be changed to --at least one medication-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 2, line 2, the term “at least medication” is suggested to be changed to --at least one medication-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 11, line 8, the term “at least medication” is suggested to be changed to --at least one medication-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 11, line 23, the term “at least medication” is suggested to be changed to --at least one medication-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 12, line 5, the term “at least medication” is suggested to be changed to --at least one medication-- in order to clarify the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein one end of the mouth piece fits a patient’s mouth” (claim 1, line 11) appears to positively claiming human body parts. Applicant is suggested to use --for--, --adapted to--, --configured to-- or --whereby-- clause in order to avoid positively claiming the human body parts.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “wherein one end of the mouth piece fits a patient’s mouth” (claim 11, line 10) appears to positively claiming human body parts. Applicant is suggested to use --for--, --adapted to--, --configured to-- or --whereby-- clause in order to avoid positively claiming the human body parts.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “wherein the base body comprising a slot forming the drug chamber to be inserted between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber” (claim 1, lines 5-6) in combination with the rest of the claim is not supported by the original disclosure and is therefore, new matter. The original disclosure does not disclose that the slot forming the drug chamber to be inserted between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber. Fig. 7 and paragraph 0033 of the specification discloses “Additionally, FIG. 7 illustrates an insertable medication chamber for a different implementation of the CID. The insertable medication chamber can be insert into a slot of a base body, which acts the purpose of the mouth piece and the air flow chamber described above. As an advantage, the insertable medication chamber can be replaced after used and the reusable base body may be made in customized design, shape or material”, but does not disclose that the base body comprising a slot forming the drug chamber to be inserted between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber.
The limitation “the one-way valve of the drug chamber is closed using a valve stop while the patient is not in use” (claim 9, lines 1-2) in combination with the limitation “wherein the base body comprising a slot forming the drug chamber to be inserted between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber” (claim 1, lines 5-6) is not supported by the original disclosure and is therefore, new matter. The original disclosure does not disclose a slot forming the drug chamber that is to be inserted between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber and the one-way valve is part of that drug chamber. There is no disclosure stating that the medication chamber of fig. 7 comprises a one-way valve.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “which is similar to a cigarette” (line 8) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “similar”, the term “similar” is too relative. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what feature is the term “similar to a cigarette” applicable to, the shape, dimension, function or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the base body comprising a slot forming the drug chamber to be inserted between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber” (lines 5-6) is unclear and confusing as to what the claim is trying to claim, it is unclear as to what structure is forming the drug chamber, the base body or the slot. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what structure is “to be inserted between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber”, the base body, the slot, or the drug chamber. If the base body is what is being inserted between the mouthpiece and the air flow chamber, it is unclear how a base body that comprises a mouthpiece and an air flow chamber (see claim 1, line 2) is also be configured to be inserted between the mouthpiece and the airflow chamber. If the slot or the drug chamber is what is being inserted, it is unclear how a slot can form a drug chamber that is inserted, a slot is just an opening according to fig. 7 and paragraph 0033 of the instant specification, how can the opening be inserted. Furthermore, if what forms the drug chamber is the slot, the limitation “a slot forming the drug chamber” appears to be claiming that the slot is forming an opening or space, but the limitation “the slot forming the drug chamber to be inserted” appears to be claiming that the slot is what forms a physical structural drug chamber, which is then being inserted, therefore, it is unclear if a slot is an opening or a physical structure being inserted in between the mouthpiece and the air flow chamber, furthermore, it appears that the claim is misdescribing the disclosure, since the slot is an opening that is configured to receive a medication chamber, the medication chamber is what is being inserted through the slot.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “convenient and even available to use in public places without being noticed by surrounding with compliance rate increased and medication reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively” (lines 2-4) is unclear as to how to define the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define what is convenient, the term “convenient” is too relative, furthermore, it is unclear as to what is being referred to by “without being noticed by surrounding”, what is the surrounding and the surrounding of what, furthermore, the term “reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively” is unclear as to how to define “more effectively”, more effectively relative to what, furthermore, the term “most” is too relative, it is unclear as to what degree is considered as “most”. The specification does not define what “most” means.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the dry powder medication” (lines 2-3) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a mechanism by twisting at connection with adjacent part or one-way valve” (lines 2-3) is unclear as to what is the structural relationship between a mechanism and the compact inhalation device. Furthermore, it is unclear if the mechanism is referring to the twisted close/open mechanism (claim 1), the flapped close/open mechanism (claim 1) or a different mechanism. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what is the structural relationship between the compact inhalation device and the one-way valve or the compact inhalation device and the adjacent part.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the drug chamber release medication just prior to inhaling by a patient in a mechanism by twisting at connection with adjacent part or one-way valve to a direction the patient who start giving suction source” (lines 1-4) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear if the applicant wants the patient to not inhale or inhale, the claim stated “prior to inhaling” but also stated “to the patient who start giving suction force”.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the one-way valve of the drug chamber is closed using a valve stop while the patient is not in use” (lines 1-2) is unclear as to what is the structural relationship between the valve stop and the device. Furthermore, it is unclear and confusing as to what the limitation is trying to claim, specifically” what is meant by “the patient is not in use”, what is not using the patient, and what is the patient not being used for. Furthermore, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to positively claim the patient.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “thin plastic, hard rubber…thin glass” (line 4) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “thin” and “hard”, the terms “thin” and “hard” are too relative. The specification fails to disclose what is “hard” and what is “thin”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “which is similar to a cigarette” (line 7) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “similar”, the term “similar” is too relative. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what feature is the term “similar to a cigarette” applicable to, the shape, dimension, function or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “convenient and even available to use in public places without being noticed by surrounding with compliance rate increased and medication reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively” (lines 27-29) is unclear as to how to define the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define what is convenient, the term “convenient” is too relative, furthermore, it is unclear as to what is being referred to by “without being noticed by surrounding”, what is the surrounding and the surrounding of what, furthermore, the term “reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively” is unclear as to how to define “more effectively”, more effectively relative to what, furthermore, the term “most” is too relative, it is unclear as to what degree is considered as “most”. The specification does not define what “most” means.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “inhalation mediation” (line 2) is unclear if the intent is to claim mediation or medication. If the intent it so claim “medication” it is unclear if “at least medication” being claimed in claim 12, line 5 is the same as or different from the medication in line 2. Furthermore, if the intention is to claim “inhalation mediation”, then it is unclear as to what an inhalation mediation is, the term is not an art recognized term.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “convenient and even available to use in public places without being noticed by surrounding with compliance rate increased and medication reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively” (lines 2-4) is unclear as to how to define the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define what is convenient, the term “convenient” is too relative, furthermore, it is unclear as to what is being referred to by “without being noticed by surrounding”, what is the surrounding and the surrounding of what, furthermore, the term “reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively” is unclear as to how to define “more effectively”, more effectively relative to what, furthermore, the term “most” is too relative, it is unclear as to what degree is considered as “most”. The specification does not define what “most” means.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the dry powder medication” (lines 2-3) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “a mechanism by twisting at connection with adjacent part or one-way valve” (lines 2-3) is unclear as to what is the structural relationship between a mechanism and the compact inhalation device. Furthermore, it is unclear if the mechanism is referring to the twisted close/open mechanism (claim 12), the flapped close/open mechanism (claim 12) or a different mechanism. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what is the structural relationship between the compact inhalation device and the one-way valve or the compact inhalation device and the adjacent part.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “releasing, by the drug chamber, medication just prior to inhaling by a patient in a mechanism by twisting at connection with adjacent part or one-way valve to a direction the patient who start giving suction source” (lines 1-4) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear if the applicant wants the patient to not inhale or inhale, the claim stated “prior to inhaling” but also stated “to the patient who start giving suction force”.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-10 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (FR 2 654 002) in view of Ishii (TW 201332461) and Fallon (2019/0098930) and alternatively in view of Siller (CN 101522063) and Ishii (TW 201332461).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
979
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
967
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Pierre discloses a compact inhalation device (CID)(entire device in fig. 1 and paragraphs 0003-0005 of the English translation) comprising: a base body (2 and 4, fig. 1) comprising a mouthpiece (8, fig. 1, paragraph 0005) and an airflow chamber (air flow chamber formed by 4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above), and drug chamber (drug chamber is formed by portion of 2, fig. 1 and paragraph 0005), wherein the mouth piece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber form a cylinder-shaped device (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005, Pierre discloses that the inhalation device takes the form of a cigarette or cigar, a cigarette or cigar by definition is cylinder-shaped), which is similar to a cigarette (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005); wherein the drug chamber and the air flow chamber are coupled to provide at least medication (see paragraphs 0004-0005, the drug chamber formed by 2 comprises medication chamber 5 which comprises aromatic essences or essential oils that suit a particular treatment, therefore, would be considered as a medication, furthermore, relatively, any of the essential oils can be a medication/drug due to the physiological role of the essences and essential oils) contained in the drug chamber to a patient via the mouth piece (see paragraph 0005); wherein one end of the mouth piece fits a patient’s mouth (paragraph 0005), drug chamber comprising a first end (see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above) connected to the mouthpiece, wherein a second end of the drug chamber is connected to the one end of the air flow chamber (chamber formed by 4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above) using the flapped flow close/open mechanism (formed by portion 3 of 4 and valve 12, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above and paragraph 0005); and other end of the air flow chamber has an opening for flow with ambient air (see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above, the opening formed by 9, paragraph 0005), wherein the flapped flow close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with an opening on a first surface of the two surfaces and a flap on a second surface of the two surfaces to close or open a flow through the opening (see the annotated-Pierre detail of fig. 1 above and paragraph 0005) and a valve (15, fig. 1, paragraph 0005) between the mouthpiece and the drug chamber, Pierre discloses a medication chamber (5, fig. 1, paragraph 0005), but fails to disclose an other end of the mouth piece is connected to a first end of the drug chamber using a twisted close/open mechanism, wherein the twisted close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with at least one opening on each surface, wherein aligning the at least one opening by twisting provides an open flow condition and unaligned to block the at least one opening by twisting provides a close flow condition.
PNG
media_image3.png
874
935
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Ishii teaches a mouthpiece (22, fig. 7, paragraph 0041) comprising a fist end configured to be inserted into a mouth of a user and an other end of the mouth piece is connected to a first end of a drug chamber (drug chamber is where the fragrance is stored in, which is chamber where 52 is positioned in, see fig. 1) using a twisted close/open mechanism (portion comprising 42 and portion comprising 44, see fig. 7 with reference to figs. 6 and 8), wherein the twisted close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with at least one opening on each surface, wherein aligning the at least one opening by twisting provides an open flow condition and unaligned to block the at least one opening by twisting provides a close flow condition (see paragraphs 0043-0050 and see the annotated-Ishii fig. 7 above with reference to figs. 6 and 8, see gaps 54 formed by 44 and 42 when 44 and 42 are aligned).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mouthpiece, the drug chamber and the valve (15) of Pierre to modify the valve (15) to be the twisted close/open mechanism as taught by Ishii for the purpose of providing an alternative valve that would provide the predictable result of allowing the user to close the valve to prevent fluid communication between the drug chamber and the mouthpiece when the device is not in use, thereby, preventing the drug from being depleted and to prevent contamination to enter the drug chamber (see paragraphs 0043-0050 of Ishii).
After the modification with Ishii, the drug chamber formed by 2 is inserted between the mouthpiece and the air flow chamber (4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above), the modified Pierre further discloses that the mouthpiece, drug chamber and airflow chamber are connected to form a cylinder-shaped device, and the mouthpiece, the drug chamber and the air flow chambers are coupled to provide at least medication contained in the drug chamber to the patient via the mouth piece (after the modification with Ishii, the mouthpiece would be connected to the drug chamber).
The modified Pierre fails to disclose that the base body comprising a slot forming the drug chamber to be inserted between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber.
However, Fallon teaches a base body (7 or 9, figs. 1-4) comprising a slot (slot within 7 or 9 for receiving 100, figs. 1-5) forming a part of a drug chamber, a medication chamber (100) to be inserted into the slot (paragraphs 0051-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base body and the drug chamber of the modified Pierre to have the slot for receiving the medication chamber (5 of Pierre) as taught by Fallon for the purpose of providing a device that would allow the medication chamber to be replaced with a new medication chamber, thereby providing convenience to the user by allowing the device to be reused (see paragraph 0078 of Fallon).
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the mouth piece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber are connected to form a cylinder-shaped device.
Siller teaches a mouthpiece and drug chamber and air flow chamber that form a cylinder-shaped device (see fig. 1a and page 8, Siller discloses that the device 10 which comprises a mouthpiece (see proximal end that is placed in the mouth), a drug chamber (chamber 52) and air flow chamber (chamber 80)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the entire device comprising mouthpiece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber of the modified Pierre to be cylinder-shaped as taught by Siller for the purpose of providing a shape that resembles a cigarette and that would provide the predictable result of allowing the user to hold and inhale through the mouthpiece.
Alternatively, the feature of choosing cylinder-shaped is considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the modified Pierre discloses a flapped close/open mechanism.
Ishii teaches a flapped close/open mechanism (see 58, 58a and 58b, fig. 12 and paragraphs 0056-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve 12 of the modified Pierre to be the flapped close/open mechanism as taught by Ishii for the purpose of providing an alternative one-way valve that would perform equally well in having an opened position in response to a user’s inhalation and a closed position when the user is not inhaling through the mouthpiece (paragraphs 0056-0057 of Ishii).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Pierre discloses that the compact inhalation device is a cigarette shaped device to use (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005 of Pierre and alternatively, see the modification with Siller and design choice above), convenient and even available to use in public places without being noticed by surrounding with compliance rate increased and medication reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively (since the device has the cigarette shape as claimed, the device is convenient and even available to use in public places without being noticed by surrounding with compliance rate increased and medication reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively since the drug is a volatile substance).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Pierre discloses that at least one opening of the each surface of the twisted close/open mechanism have one of a circular shape (see figs. 5 and 8 of Ishii, opening 54 comprises a circular profile as defined by 44/42 and 40/40a or alternatively, the circular part of the opening 54 that interface with cylindrical projecting portion 46, see paragraphs 0044-0047 of Ishii). If there is any doubt that the modified Pierre discloses a circular shape for the opening, the feature of choosing to have the opening having a circular shape or triangle shape is considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Pierre discloses that the drug chamber releases medication just prior to inhaling by a patient in a mechanism by twisting at connection with adjacent part or one-way valve to a direction to the patient who start giving suction force (see paragraphs 0003-0005 of Pierre, the drug chamber contain volatile essence or essential oil, therefore, when the user twist the twist close/open mechanism to the open position, the medication would be released prior to the user inhaling through the mouthpiece or prior to the user inhaling that takes place at a later time and the flow is in the direction of the patient who start giving suction force, the mechanism by twisting at connection with adjacent part is interpreted as the twisted close/open mechanism and adjacent part is the shields 44 or 42 and the connection is the connection between 44 and 42 of Ishii, alternatively, the one-way valve is the portion of 12 of Pierre, when the user applies the suction force, the medication would flow in direction of the user that is providing that suction force, under the alternative interpretation, the “prior to inhaling” is interpreted as an inhaling step that takes place after the suction force is being provided).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Pierre discloses that the one-way valve of the drug chamber is closed using a valve stop while the patient is not in use (the one-way valve is the flap 12 of Pierre, which is interpreted as part of the drug chamber and the drug chamber is interpreted as the chamber formed by 2 of Pierre, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above and paragraphs 0005-0007 of Pierre, Pierre discloses a one way valve that is a flap that is opened when air is flown through, for the valve 12 to work as a one-way valve, there, would be a surface that would stop the flap, see the annotated-Pierre Detail of fig. 1 above, alternatively, see 58b and 58a of Ishii that is alternately modified to replace 12 of Pierre).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Pierre discloses that the CID has an elongated cylindrical body (see paragraph 0005 and the explanation in the rejection to claim one regarding cylinder-shaped body and alternatively, see modification for the cylinder-shaped with Siller and design choice), made with reusable materials, wherein the reusable materials comprises thin plastics (see paragraph 0005 of Pierre, Pierre discloses that the hollow body 2 and front part 4 of the device can be made of one or more known materials combined together, including plastic, relatively, the plastic is thin plastic, furthermore, plastic would be reusable).
Claims 2-3 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (FR 2 654 002) in view of Ishii (TW 201332461) and Fallon (2019/0098930) and alternatively in view of Siller (CN 101522063) and Ishii (TW 201332461) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caldwell (844,097) and Kinsey (2017/0216538).
Regarding claims 2-3, the modified Pierre discloses a medication, but fails to disclose that the medication is a dry powder medication to treat Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and wherein the drug chamber has a size for measured amount of the dry powder medication for a dose.
However, Caldwell teaches that the medicament can be a liquid inhalant or dry powder (see page 1, lines 57-73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medication chamber (5 of Pierre) of the modified Pierre to comprise a dry powder as taught by Caldwell for the purpose of providing an alternative form of drug that can treat a patient in need of such drug by using the device of the modified Pierre (see page 1, lines 57-73 of Caldwell).
The modified Pierre fails to disclose that the medication is a dry powder medication to treat Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and wherein the drug chamber has a size for measured amount of the dry powder medication for a dose.
However, Kinsey teaches a cartridge comprising a drug chamber having a dry powder medication for treating Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (see paragraph 0011) and wherein the drug chamber has a size for measured amount of the dry powder medication for a dose (see cartridge positioned in cartridge cup 30 in fig. 3, paragraphs 0048-0051 and 0061-0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medication chamber (5 of Pierre) of the modified Pierre to have the dry powder for treating Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) as taught by Kinsey for the purpose of utilizing the inhaler of the modified Pierre to have a medication that can treat Asthma and COPD, thereby providing comfort to patient in need of such medication.
Claim 5 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (FR 2 654 002) in view of Ishii (TW 201332461) and Fallon (2019/0098930) and alternatively in view of Siller (CN 101522063) and Ishii (TW 201332461) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caldwell (844,097).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Pierre discloses that the drug chamber contains at least one small tube for a measured amount of medication for a dose (see cartridge 5 in fig. 1 which is in the form of a tube), but fails to disclose that the medication is a dry powder.
However, Caldwell teaches that the medicament can be a liquid inhalant or dry powder (see page 1, lines 57-73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medication chamber (5 of Pierre) of the modified Pierre to have a dry powder as taught by Caldwell for the purpose of providing an alternative form of drug that can treat a patient in need of such drug by using the device of the modified Pierre (see page 1, lines 57-73 of Caldwell).
Claim 6 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (FR 2 654 002) in view of Ishii (TW 201332461), Fallon (2019/0098930) and Caldwell (844,097) and alternatively in view of Siller (CN 101522063) and Ishii (TW 201332461) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sampson (2016/0007649).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Pierre discloses that the twisted close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with at least one opening on the each surface for the dose and wherein a joint between the two surfaces (see paragraphs 0043-0050 and see the annotated-Ishii fig. 7 above with reference to figs. 6 and 8, see gaps 54 when 44 and 42 are aligned), but fails to disclose that the joint is marked for a distance to be twisted for the at least one opening.
However, Sampson teaches a twisting mechanism having a joint that is marked for a distance to be twisted for at least one opening (see the mouthpiece 12 being rotatable relative to the collar 38 between flavour “OFF” and “ON” positions, see opening formed by passage 60 being aligned with 56 or 63/57, the markings are the indentation and the indicia “ON” and “OFF”, see paragraphs 0076-0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the joint of Pierre to have the marking as taught by Sampson for the purpose of allowing the user to know when the twisted close/open mechanism of the modified Pierre is on or off (see paragraphs 0076-0088 of Sampson).
Claim 1 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (FR 2 654 002) in view of Ishii (TW 201332461) and Fallon (2019/0098930) and alternatively in view of Siller (CN 101522063) and Ishii (TW 201332461).
Regarding claim 1, Pierre discloses a compact inhalation device (CID)(entire device in fig. 1 and paragraphs 0003-0005 of the English translation) comprising: a base body (2 and 4, fig. 1) comprising a mouthpiece (8, fig. 1, paragraph 0005) and an airflow chamber (air flow chamber formed by 4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above), and drug chamber (drug chamber is cartridge 5, fig. 1 and paragraph 0005), wherein the mouth piece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber form a cylinder-shaped device (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005, Pierre discloses that the inhalation device takes the form of a cigarette or cigar, a cigarette or cigar by definition is cylinder-shaped), which is similar to a cigarette (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005); wherein the drug chamber and the air flow chamber are coupled to provide at least medication (see paragraphs 0004-0005, the drug chamber formed by 5 comprises aromatic essences or essential oils that suits a particular treatment, therefore, would be considered as a medication, furthermore, relatively, any of the essential oils can be a medication/drug due to the physiological role of the essences and essential oils) contained in the drug chamber to a patient via the mouth piece (see paragraph 0005); wherein one end of the mouth piece fits a patient’s mouth (paragraph 0005), drug chamber comprising a first end (end of 5 closest to the mouthpiece, see fig. 1) connected to the mouthpiece, wherein a second end (end of 5 on the opposite side of the first end of the drug chamber 5, fig. 1) of the drug chamber is connected to the one end of the air flow chamber (chamber formed by 4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above) using the flapped flow close/open mechanism (formed by portion 3 of 4 and valve 12, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above and paragraph 0005); and other end of the air flow chamber has an opening for flow with ambient air (see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above, the opening formed by 9, paragraph 0005), wherein the flapped flow close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with an opening on a first surface of the two surfaces and a flap on a second surface of the two surfaces to close or open a flow through the opening (see the annotated-Pierre detail of fig. 1 above and paragraph 0005) and a valve (15, fig. 1, paragraph 0005) between the mouthpiece and the drug chamber, a chamber (portion of 2) for holding the drug chamber (5), but fails to disclose an other end of the mouth piece is connected to a first end of the drug chamber using a twisted close/open mechanism, wherein the twisted close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with at least one opening on each surface, wherein aligning the at least one opening by twisting provides an open flow condition and unaligned to block the at least one opening by twisting provides a close flow condition.
However, Ishii teaches a mouthpiece (22, fig. 7, paragraph 0041) comprising a fist end configured to be inserted into a mouth of a user and an other end of the mouth piece is connected to a first end of a drug chamber (drug chamber is where the fragrance is stored in, which is chamber where 52 is positioned in, see fig. 1) using a twisted close/open mechanism (portion comprising 42 and portion comprising 44, see fig. 7 with reference to figs. 6 and 8), wherein the twisted close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with at least one opening on each surface, wherein aligning the at least one opening by twisting provides an open flow condition and unaligned to block the at least one opening by twisting provides a close flow condition (see paragraphs 0043-0050 and see the annotated-Ishii fig. 7 above with reference to figs. 6 and 8, see gaps 54 formed by 44 and 42 when 44 and 42 are aligned).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mouthpiece, the chamber (2) and the valve (15) of Pierre to modify the valve (15) of Pierre to be the twisted close/open mechanism as taught by Ishii for the purpose of providing an alternative valve that would provide the predictable result of allowing the user to close the valve to prevent fluid communication between the drug chamber and the mouthpiece when the device is not in use, thereby, preventing the drug from being depleted and to prevent contamination to enter the drug chamber (see paragraphs 0043-0050 of Ishii).
After the modification with Ishii, the drug chamber formed by 2 is inserted between the mouthpiece and the air flow chamber (4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above), the modified Pierre further discloses that the mouthpiece, drug chamber and airflow chamber are connected to form a cylinder-shaped device, and the mouthpiece, the drug chamber and the air flow chambers are coupled to provide at least medication contained in the drug chamber to the patient via the mouth piece (after the modification with Ishii, the mouthpiece would be connected to the drug chamber).
The modified Pierre fails to disclose that the base body comprising a slot forming the drug chamber to be inserted between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber.
However, Fallon teaches a base body (7 or 9, figs. 1-4) comprising a slot (slot within 7 or 9 for receiving 100, figs. 1-5) forming a part of a drug chamber, a medication chamber (100) to be inserted into the slot (paragraphs 0051-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base body and the drug chamber of the modified Pierre to have the slot for receiving the medication chamber (5 of Pierre) as taught by Fallon for the purpose of providing a device that would allow the medication chamber to be replaced with a new medication chamber, thereby providing convenience to the user by allowing the device to be reused (see paragraph 0078 of Fallon).
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the mouth piece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber are connected to form a cylinder-shaped device.
Siller teaches a mouthpiece and drug chamber and air flow chamber that form a cylinder-shaped device (see fig. 1a and page 8, Siller discloses that the device 10 which comprises a mouthpiece (see proximal end that is placed in the mouth), a drug chamber (chamber 52) and air flow chamber (chamber 80)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the entire device comprising mouthpiece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber of the modified Pierre to be cylinder-shaped as taught by Siller for the purpose of providing a shape that resembles a cigarette and that would provide the predictable result of allowing the user to hold and inhale through the mouthpiece.
Alternatively, the feature of choosing cylinder-shaped is considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the modified Pierre discloses a flapped close/open mechanism.
Ishii teaches a flapped close/open mechanism (see 58, 58a and 58b, fig. 12 and paragraphs 0056-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve 12 of the modified Pierre to be the flapped close/open mechanism as taught by Ishii for the purpose of providing an alternative one-way valve that would perform equally well in having an opened position in response to a user’s inhalation and a closed position when the user is not inhaling through the mouthpiece (paragraphs 0056-0057 of Ishii).
Claim 11 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (FR 2 654 002) in view of Ishii (TW 201332461), Fallon (2019/0098930), Caldwell (844,097) and Kinsey (2017/0216538) and alternatively in view of Siller (CN 101522063) and Ishii (TW 201332461).
Regarding claim 11, Pierre discloses a compact inhalation device (CID)(entire device in fig. 1 and paragraphs 0003-0005 of the English translation) comprising: a drug chamber (chamber formed by cartridge 5, see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005), a base body (2 and 4, fig. 1) comprising a mouthpiece (8, fig. 1, paragraph 0005) and an airflow chamber (air flow chamber formed by 4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above), a chamber (chamber formed by portion of 2 that holds 5, see fig. 1) for holding the drug chamber (5, fig. 1, paragraph 0005), the CID forms as a cylinder-shaped device (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005, Pierre discloses that the inhalation device takes the form of a cigarette or cigar, a cigarette or cigar by definition is cylinder-shaped), which is similar to a cigarette (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005); wherein the mouth piece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber are coupled to provide at least medication (see paragraphs 0004-0005, drug chamber 5 which comprises aromatic essences or essential oils that suits a particular treatment, therefore, would be considered as a medication, furthermore, relatively, any of the essential oils can be a medication/drug due to the physiological role of the essences and essential oils) contained in the drug chamber to a patient via the mouth piece (see paragraph 0005); wherein one end of the mouth piece fits a patient’s mouth (paragraph 0005), drug chamber comprising a first end (see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above) connected to the mouthpiece, wherein a second end of the drug chamber is connected to the one end of the air flow chamber (chamber formed by 4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above) using the flapped flow close/open mechanism (formed by portion 3 of 4 and valve 12, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above and paragraph 0005); and other end of the air flow chamber has an opening for flow with ambient air (see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above, the opening formed by 9, paragraph 0005), wherein the flapped flow close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with an opening on a first surface of the two surfaces and a flap on a second surface of the two surfaces to close or open a flow through the opening (see the annotated-Pierre detail of fig. 1 above and paragraph 0005) and a valve (15, fig. 1, paragraph 0005) between the mouthpiece and the drug chamber, but fails to disclose an other end of the mouth piece is connected to a first end of the drug chamber using a twisted close/open mechanism, wherein the twisted close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with at least one opening on each surface, wherein aligning the at least one opening by twisting provides an open flow condition and unaligned to block the at least one opening by twisting provides a close flow condition.
However, Ishii teaches a mouthpiece (22, fig. 7, paragraph 0041) comprising a fist end configured to be inserted into a mouth of a user and an other end of the mouth piece is connected to a first end of a drug chamber (drug chamber is where the fragrance is stored in, which is chamber where 52 is positioned in, see fig. 1) using a twisted close/open mechanism (portion comprising 42 and portion comprising 44, see fig. 7 with reference to figs. 6 and 8), wherein the twisted close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with at least one opening on each surface, wherein aligning the at least one opening by twisting provides an open flow condition and unaligned to block the at least one opening by twisting provides a close flow condition (see paragraphs 0043-0050 and see the annotated-Ishii fig. 7 above with reference to figs. 6 and 8, see gaps 54 formed by 44 and 42 when 44 and 42 are aligned).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mouthpiece, the chamber (portion of 2 holding 5 of Pierre) and the valve (15) of Pierre to modify the valve (15) to be the twisted close/open mechanism as taught by Ishii for the purpose of providing an alternative valve that would provide the predictable result of allowing the user to close the valve to prevent fluid communication between the drug chamber and the mouthpiece when the device is not in use, thereby, preventing the drug from being depleted and to prevent contamination to enter the drug chamber (see paragraphs 0043-0050 of Ishii).
The modified Pierre fails to disclose that the base body comprising a slot, the drug chamber is insertable into a slot of the base body, and wherein the slot is located between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber.
However, Fallon teaches a base body (7 or 9, figs. 1-4) comprising a slot (slot within 7 or 9 for receiving 100, figs. 1-5), a drug chamber (100) is insertable into the slot (paragraphs 0051-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base body and the chamber (portion of 2 of Pierre) holding the drug chamber (5 of Pierre) of the modified Pierre to have the slot for receiving the drug chamber (5 of Pierre) as taught by Fallon for the purpose of providing a device that would allow the drug chamber to be replaced with a new drug chamber, thereby providing convenience to the user by allowing the device to be reused (see paragraph 0078 of Fallon).
After the modification with Fallon, the drug chamber (5 of Pierre) is insertable into the slot (slot of Fallon that is formed on portion of 2 of Pierre) and into the base body, and the slot is located between the mouth piece and the air flow chamber.
The modified Pierre discloses a medication, but fails to disclose that the medication is a dry powder medication to treat Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and wherein the drug chamber has a size for measured amount of the dry powder medication for a dose.
However, Caldwell teaches that the medicament can be a liquid inhalant or dry powder (see page 1, lines 57-73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drug chamber (5 of Pierre) of the modified Pierre to comprise a dry powder as taught by Caldwell for the purpose of providing an alternative form of drug that can treat a patient in need of such drug by using the device of the modified Pierre (see page 1, lines 57-73 of Caldwell).
The modified Pierre fails to disclose that the medication is a dry powder medication to treat Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and wherein the drug chamber has a size for measured amount of the dry powder medication for a dose.
However, Kinsey teaches a cartridge comprising a drug chamber having a dry powder medication for treating Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (see paragraph 0011) and wherein the drug chamber has a size for measured amount of the dry powder medication for a dose (see cartridge positioned in cartridge cup 30 in fig. 3, paragraphs 0048-0051 and 0061-0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drug chamber (5 of Pierre) of the modified Pierre to have the dry powder for treating Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) as taught by Kinsey for the purpose of utilizing the inhaler of the modified Pierre to have a medication that can treat Asthma and COPD, thereby providing comfort to patient in need of such medication.
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the mouth piece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber are connected to form a cylinder-shaped device.
Siller teaches a mouthpiece and drug chamber and air flow chamber that form a cylinder-shaped device (see fig. 1a and page 8, Siller discloses that the device 10 which comprises a mouthpiece (see proximal end that is placed in the mouth), a drug chamber (chamber 52) and air flow chamber (chamber 80)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the entire device comprising mouthpiece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber of the modified Pierre to be cylinder-shaped as taught by Siller for the purpose of providing a shape that resembles a cigarette and that would provide the predictable result of allowing the user to hold and inhale through the mouthpiece.
Alternatively, the feature of choosing cylinder-shaped is considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the modified Pierre discloses a flapped close/open mechanism.
Ishii teaches a flapped close/open mechanism (see 58, 58a and 58b, fig. 12 and paragraphs 0056-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve 12 of the modified Pierre to be the flapped close/open mechanism as taught by Ishii for the purpose of providing an alternative one-way valve that would perform equally well in having an opened position in response to a user’s inhalation and a closed position when the user is not inhaling through the mouthpiece (paragraphs 0056-0057 of Ishii).
The modified Pierre discloses that the compact inhalation device is a cigarette shaped device to use (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005 of Pierre and alternatively, see the modification with Siller and design choice above), convenient and even available to use in public places without being noticed by surrounding with compliance rate increased and medication reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively (since the device has the cigarette shape as claimed, the device is convenient and even available to use in public places without being noticed by surrounding with compliance rate increased and medication reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively since the drug is a volatile substance).
Claims 12, 15, 18 and 19 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (FR 2 654 002) in view of Ishii (TW 201332461) and alternatively in view of Siller (CN 101522063) and Ishii (TW 201332461).
Regarding claim 12, Pierre discloses a method for a compact inhalation device (CID)(entire device in fig. 1 and paragraphs 0003-0005 of the English translation, the disclosure of Pierre can be viewed as a method of using or making the CID) to effectively delivery inhalation medication to a patient (see paragraphs 0003-0005, Pierre discloses inhalation of essence and essential oil that provide physiological changes to the body, therefore, relatively is effectively delivering inhalation medication), the method comprising: coupling a mouthpiece (8, fig. 1, paragraph 0005) and a drug chamber (drug chamber is formed by portion of 2, fig. 1 and paragraph 0005) and an airflow chamber (air flow chamber formed by 4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above) to form a cylinder-shaped device (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005, Pierre discloses that the inhalation device takes the form of a cigarette or cigar, a cigarette or cigar by definition is cylinder-shaped), which is similar to a cigarette (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005); wherein the mouthpiece and the drug chamber and the air flow chamber are coupled to provide at least medication (see paragraphs 0004-0005, the drug chamber formed by 2 comprises medication chamber 5 which comprises aromatic essences or essential oils that suits a particular treatment, therefore, would be considered as a medication, furthermore, relatively, any of the essential oils can be a medication/drug due to the physiological role of the essences and essential oil) contained in the drug chamber to a patient via the mouth piece (see paragraph 0005); wherein one end of the mouth piece fits a patient’s mouth (paragraph 0005), drug chamber comprising a first end (see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above) connected to the mouthpiece, wherein a second end of the drug chamber is connected to the one end of the air flow chamber (chamber formed by 4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above) using the flapped flow close/open mechanism (formed by portion 3 of 4 and valve 12, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above and paragraph 0005); and other end of the air flow chamber has an opening for flow with ambient air (see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above, the opening formed by 9, paragraph 0005), wherein the flapped flow close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with an opening on a first surface of the two surfaces and a flap on a second surface of the two surfaces to close or open a flow through the opening (see the annotated-Pierre detail of fig. 1 above and paragraph 0005) and a valve (15, fig. 1, paragraph 0005) between the mouthpiece and the drug chamber, Pierre further discloses a medication chamber (5, fig. 1, paragraph 0005), but fails to disclose an other end of the mouth piece is connected to a first end of the drug chamber using a twisted close/open mechanism, wherein the twisted close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with at least one opening on each surface, wherein aligning the at least one opening by twisting provides an open flow condition and unaligned to block the at least one opening by twisting provides a close flow condition.
However, Ishii teaches a mouthpiece (22, fig. 7, paragraph 0041) comprising a fist end configured to be inserted into a mouth of a user and an other end of the mouth piece is connected to a first end of a drug chamber (drug chamber is where the fragrance is stored in, which is chamber where 52 is positioned in, see fig. 1) using a twisted close/open mechanism (portion comprising 42 and portion comprising 44, see fig. 7 with reference to figs. 6 and 8), wherein the twisted close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with at least one opening on each surface, wherein aligning the at least one opening by twisting provides an open flow condition and unaligned to block the at least one opening by twisting provides a close flow condition (see paragraphs 0043-0050 and see the annotated-Ishii fig. 7 above with reference to figs. 6 and 8, see gaps 54 formed by 44 and 42 when 44 and 42 are aligned).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mouthpiece, the drug chamber and the valve (15) of Pierre to modify the valve (15) to be the twisted close/open mechanism as taught by Ishii for the purpose of providing an alternative valve that would provide the predictable result of allowing the user to close the valve to prevent fluid communication between the drug chamber and the mouthpiece when the device is not in use, thereby, preventing the drug from being depleted and to prevent contamination to enter the drug chamber (see paragraphs 0043-0050 of Ishii).
After the modification with Ishii, the drug chamber formed by 2 is inserted between the mouthpiece and the air flow chamber (4, see the annotated-Pierre fig. 1 above), the modified Pierre further discloses that the mouthpiece, drug chamber and airflow chamber are connected to form a cylinder-shaped device, and the mouthpiece, the drug chamber and the air flow chambers are coupled to provide at least medication contained in the drug chamber to the patient via the mouth piece (after the modification with Ishii, the mouthpiece would be connected to the drug chamber).
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the mouth piece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber are connected to form a cylinder-shaped device.
Siller teaches a mouthpiece and drug chamber and air flow chamber that form a cylinder-shaped device (see fig. 1a and page 8, Siller discloses that the device 10 which comprises a mouthpiece (see proximal end that is placed in the mouth), a drug chamber (chamber 52) and air flow chamber (chamber 80)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the entire device comprising mouthpiece, the drug chamber and the air flow chamber of the modified Pierre to be cylinder-shaped as taught by Siller for the purpose of providing a shape that resembles a cigarette and that would provide the predictable result of allowing the user to hold and inhale through the mouthpiece.
Alternatively, the feature of choosing cylinder-shaped is considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the modified Pierre discloses a flapped close/open mechanism.
Ishii teaches a flapped close/open mechanism (see 58, 58a and 58b, fig. 12 and paragraphs 0056-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve 12 of the modified Pierre to be the flapped close/open mechanism as taught by Ishii for the purpose of providing an alternative one-way valve that would perform equally well in having an opened position in response to a user’s inhalation and a closed position when the user is not inhaling through the mouthpiece (paragraphs 0056-0057 of Ishii).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Pierre discloses that the compact inhalation device is a cigarette shaped device to use (see fig. 1 and paragraph 0005 of Pierre and alternatively, see the modification with Siller and design choice above), convenient and even available to use in public places without being noticed by surrounding with compliance rate increased and medication reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively (since the device has the cigarette shape as claimed, the device is convenient and even available to use in public places without being noticed by surrounding with compliance rate increased and medication reached to most peripheral parts of the lung more effectively since the drug is a volatile substance).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Pierre discloses that at least one opening of the each surface of the twisted close/open mechanism have one of a circular shape (see figs. 5 and 8 of Ishii, opening 54 comprises a circular profile as defined by 44/42 and 40/40a or alternatively, the circular part of the opening 54 that interface with cylindrical projecting portion 46, see paragraphs 0044-0047 of Ishii). If there is any doubt that the modified Pierre discloses a circular shape for the opening, the feature of choosing to have the opening having a circular shape or triangle shape is considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Pierre discloses that the method further comprises releasing, by the drug chamber, medication just prior to inhaling by a patient in a mechanism by twisting at connection with adjacent part or one-way valve to a direction to the patient who start giving suction force (see paragraphs 0003-0005 of Pierre, the drug chamber contain volatile essence or essential oil, therefore, when the user twist the twist close/open mechanism to the open position, the medication would be released prior to the user inhaling through the mouthpiece or prior to the user inhaling that takes place at a later time and the flow is in the direction of the patient who start giving suction force, the mechanism by twisting at connection with adjacent part is interpreted as the twisted close/open mechanism and adjacent part is the shields 44 or 42 and the connection is the connection between 44 and 42 of Ishii, alternatively, the one-way valve is the portion of 12 of Pierre, when the user applies the suction force, the medication would flow in direction of the user that is providing that suction force, under the alternative interpretation, the “prior to inhaling” is interpreted as an inhaling step that takes place after the suction force is being provided).
Claims 13-14 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (FR 2 654 002) in view of Ishii (TW 201332461) and alternatively in view of Siller (CN 101522063) and Ishii (TW 201332461) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Caldwell (844,097) and Kinsey (2017/0216538).
Regarding claims 13-14, the modified Pierre discloses a medication, but fails to disclose that the medication is a dry powder medication to treat Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and wherein the drug chamber has a size for measured amount of the dry powder medication for a dose.
However, Caldwell teaches that the medicament can be a liquid inhalant or dry powder (see page 1, lines 57-73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medication chamber (5 of Pierre) of the modified Pierre to comprise a dry powder as taught by Caldwell for the purpose of providing an alternative form of drug that can treat a patient in need of such drug by using the device of the modified Pierre (see page 1, lines 57-73 of Caldwell).
The modified Pierre fails to disclose that the medication is a dry powder medication to treat Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and wherein the drug chamber has a size for measured amount of the dry powder medication for a dose.
However, Kinsey teaches a cartridge comprising a drug chamber having a dry powder medication for treating Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (see paragraph 0011) and wherein the drug chamber has a size for measured amount of the dry powder medication for a dose (see cartridge positioned in cartridge cup 30 in fig. 3, paragraphs 0048-0051 and 0061-0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medication chamber (5 of Pierre) of the modified Pierre to have the dry powder for treating Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) as taught by Kinsey for the purpose of utilizing the inhaler of the modified Pierre to have a medication that can treat Asthma and COPD, thereby providing comfort to patient in need of such medication.
Claim 16 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (FR 2 654 002) in view of Ishii (TW 201332461) and alternatively in view of Siller (CN 101522063) and Ishii (TW 201332461) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Caldwell (844,097).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Pierre discloses that the drug chamber contains at least one small tube for a measured amount of medication for a dose (see cartridge 5 in fig. 1 which is in the form of a tube), but fails to disclose that the medication is a dry powder.
However, Caldwell teaches that the medicament can be a liquid inhalant or dry powder (see page 1, lines 57-73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medication chamber (5 of Pierre) of the modified Pierre to have a dry powder as taught by Caldwell for the purpose of providing an alternative form of drug that can treat a patient in need of such drug by using the device of the modified Pierre (see page 1, lines 57-73 of Caldwell).
Claim 17 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (FR 2 654 002) in view of Ishii (TW 201332461) and Caldwell (844,097) and alternatively in view of Siller (CN 101522063) and Ishii (TW 201332461) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sampson (2016/0007649).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Pierre discloses that the twisted close/open mechanism includes two surfaces with at least one opening on the each surface for the dose and wherein a joint between the two surfaces (see paragraphs 0043-0050 and see the annotated-Ishii fig. 7 above with reference to figs. 6 and 8, see gaps 54 when 44 and 42 are aligned), but fails to disclose that the joint is marked for a distance to be twisted for the at least one opening.
However, Sampson teaches a twisting mechanism having a joint that is marked for a distance to be twisted for at least one opening (see the mouthpiece 12 being rotatable relative to the collar 38 between flavour “OFF” and “ON” positions, see opening formed by passage 60 being aligned with 56 or 63/57, the markings are the indentation and the indicia “ON” and “OFF”, see paragraphs 0076-0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the joint of Pierre to have the marking as taught by Sampson for the purpose of allowing the user to know when the twisted close/open mechanism of the modified Pierre is on or off (see paragraphs 0076-0088 of Sampson).
Remarks
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pauls (2024/0108060) is cited to show an oral delivery device comprising a slot for receiving a cartridge.
Brown (2,642,063) is cited to show an inhaler comprising a tube having a powder medicament.
Steiner (2005/0155601) is cited to show a drug delivery device comprising a slot for receiving a cartridge.
Patoret (2020/0113234) is cited to show a twisting valve.
Schiewe (2004/0094146) is cited to show a body comprising a slot for receiving a cartridge.
Heisterkamp (2,503,732) is cited to show an inhalator comprising a flap valve.
Hepworth (2019/0254345) is cited to show a body comprising a slot for receiving a cartridge.
Ruderian (4,694,824) is cited to show a nasal inhalation system comprising a plurality of drug chambers.
Nelson (2007/0045288) is cited to show an inhaler comprising a slot for receiving a medication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785