Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/402,376

NEBULIZING DEVICE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 02, 2024
Examiner
KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Dongguan Yih Teh Electric Products Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
705 granted / 1118 resolved
-6.9% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1164
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
38.3%
-1.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1118 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The response filed on January 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-17 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. The term “adjacent” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “adjacent” is defined as: near. Dictionary.com. What may be considered near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered near to another of ordinary skill in the art. The interpretation/determination of “adjacent” is subjective. In claim 1, lines 22-24, the recitation “wherein a portion of the spray head extending toward the nozzle is formed a first shrinkage conduit with a first triangle shape in cross-section” is grammatically and idiomatically incorrect. In claim 1, lines 25-26, the recitation “a portion of the tube extending towards the suction mouth is formed a second shrinkage conduit” is grammatically and idiomatically incorrect. In claim 1, line 29, the recitation “a portion of the lid extending toward the orifice is formed a third shrinkage conduit” grammatically and idiomatically incorrect. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the air flow axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “adjacent” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “adjacent” is defined as: near. Dictionary.com. What may be considered near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered near to another of ordinary skill in the art. The interpretation/determination of “adjacent” is subjective. The term “adjacent” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “adjacent” is defined as: near. Dictionary.com. What may be considered near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered near to another of ordinary skill in the art. The interpretation/determination of “adjacent” is subjective. Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the spray head and the tube are integrated in one.” The recitation is grammatically and idiomatically incorrect. Claim 12 recites the limitation "essential oil" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation "fragrance essential oil" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation "flower essential oil" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation "fragrance oil" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation "detergent" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation "alcohol" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-17 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejections. Conclusion 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 CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30. 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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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. /CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM Examiner Art Unit 3752 CK
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 02, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 02, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599730
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A FLUID DISPERSAL CARTRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594565
SPRAY GUN WITH ADJUSTABLE ATOMIZER AND REMOVABLE NOZZLE BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589399
WATER DISCHARGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12551741
RIDGE SEAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544785
APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING RECONFIGURABLE WALLS OF WATER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+21.2%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1118 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month