DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment
Amendment received on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 9 and 11-13 have previously been canceled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-8 and 10 are currently pending in the application.
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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sur et al. (WO 2021/137139 A1) (IDS of 07/12/2023; #6) in view of Lee Won Kyeong et al. (KR20220025523 A) (IDS of 07/12/2023; #3).
Claims 1. Sur et al. (Sur) discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a mouthpiece; Fig 2; 224
a reservoir configured to store an aerosol; Fig. 2; 218, and
a valve, and a connection path configured to connect the mouthpiece to the reservoir; Fig. 2; 104
Sur further teaches that a valve can be provided adjacent to the reservoir, said valve is configured to control an amount of aerosol delivered from the reservoir, [0048]-[0051]
wherein the electronic device is a device configured to provide the aerosol to the user. Fig. 2; [0074] – [0077]
Sur does not specifically teach when negative pressure is generated in the connection path based on a user inhaling through the mouthpiece, a position of a piston connected to the valve varies according to the position of the piston, wherein the aerosol is provided from the reservoir through the connection path as a state of the valve changes, which is disclosed in Lee Won Kyeong et al. (Kyeong) Abstract; Figs. 1-3. Further, it is apparent from Kyeong’s drawings that in operation, an amount of aerosol to be inhaled by the user is controllable based on a level of the generated negative pressure, as evidenced by various position of moving portions of the valves, said portions of the valves moves based on the negative pressure applied by the user. (pages 18 and 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sur to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Kyeong, because it would advantageously provide a reliable mechanism to deliver consistent dose of drug.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sur to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Kyeong, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claims 2. The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one biometric sensor configured to measure biometric information; Sur, [0074] – [0077]; and
a processor configured to transmit the biometric information to a server. Sur, Fig. 3; [0088]-[0091]
Claim 3. The electronic device of claim 2, wherein a first biometric sensor among the at least one biometric sensor is located in the mouthpiece of the electronic device.
Claim 4. The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the first biometric sensor is configured to measure first biometric information by detecting a target substance included in at least one of liquid and gas in an exhalation of the user, Kyeong, Abstract; Figs. 1-3. Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Claim 5. The electronic device of claim 3, wherein a biometric sensor among the at least one biometric sensor is configured to measure second biometric information by measuring an electrocardiogram, a heart rate, or blood oxygen saturation of the user. Sur; [0090]; [0092]; [0093] (Sur’s device is configured to measure an electrocardiogram, a heart rate, or blood oxygen saturation of the user.) As per the “second” sensor limitation, it appears that Sur’s device would perform the same functions as recited in the claim regardless of how many sensors employed, e.g. a first and/or a second sensors. Thus, without affecting the functioning of the Sur’s device, it appears to be an obvious matter of design choice to employ any number of sensors, including a first and a second sensor.
Claim 6. The electronic device of claim 5, wherein the server is configured to obtain standard biometric information of the user; and determine a current state of the user based on the standard biometric information and the biometric information. Sur; [0090]; [0092]; [0093]
Claim 7. The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the standard biometric information is a standard electrocardiogram, a standard heart rate, or standard blood oxygen saturation of the user, which is pre-stored. Sur; [0090]; [0092]; [0093]
Claim 8. The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the biometric information is biometric information of the user in a state in which the aerosol is provided. [0090]; [0092]; [0093]
Claim 10. The electronic device of claim 2, wherein a first biometric sensor among the at least one biometric sensor is located in the mouthpiece or the connection path. Fig. 2-3
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kyeong merely describes intake and exhaust valves that are opened or closed for respiratory analysis, and fails to disclose that the valve opening is adjusted based on inhalation strength, thereby allowing a user to control the amount of inhaled aerosol by varying negative pressure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. Following Applicant logic, the user would not be able to affect the position of the valves by inhaling. However, based on Kyeong’s disclosure, the positions of the valves are controlled by the user, as the user inhales the air from the mouthpiece and, thereby, creates a negative pressure inside the chamber. Therefore, the combination of Sur and Kyeong discloses the recited limitations.
Citations of pertinent art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references disclose various aerosol generation and delivery arrangements comprising a mouthpiece, a reservoir, and a valve, wherein a position of the valve is controlled by a negative pressure generated within the airpath:
Hamaguchi et al. - US 2008/0083409 A1
WENSLEY et al. - GB 2508520 A
XU et al. - CN 106730193 A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Igor Borissov whose telephone number is 571-272-6801. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/IGOR N BORISSOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2/6/2026