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 April 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “so as to atomize the drug” in line 7. The recitation “atomize” appears to be a double inclusion of the “aerosolized from” recited in lines 1-2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “to attain a particle size of the drug to 46 to 176 nm” in lines 9-10. The specification discloses, in paragraph 0055, “Two piezoelectric transducers are housed between body members (107 and 102) with a pre-stress ranging between 1.8 N/sq mm and 3.25 N/sq mm to attain optimized amplitude of standing waves. The ratio of cross-sectional area of body member (107) with that of elongated shaft (108) is in the region of 11 to 14, preferably at 12.75, in order to have maximum amplification factor for a given length of the nozzle with respect to the application. With this range, or pre-stress values, particle size achieved is 46-176 nm (nanometers).” The specification discloses that “The ratio of cross-sectional area of body member (107) with that of elongated shaft (108) is in the region of 11 to 14, preferably at 12.75, in order to have maximum amplification factor for a given length of the nozzle with respect to the application” in order to achieve the 46-176 nm particle size. The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function required by the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "roughness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "gravity-fed tubing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a nano-particle mist” in line 3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “aerosolized form,” the “atomize the drug,” and/or the “particle size of the drug of 46 to 176 nm” recited in claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the tubing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 17, the recitation “capillary waves” appears to be a double inclusion of the “capillary waves” recited in claim 1, line 7.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “capillary waves” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “capillary waves” recited in claim 17.
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
Prosecution Insights