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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 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 "aerosolized drug" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “distally” in line 3. The claim fails to define a reference to determine a distal direction.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "atomization" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the drug" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “aerosolized drug” recited in line 1 and/or the “liquid film” recited in line 7.
The term “optimized” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimized” 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 amplitude limited by the claim is uncertain.
Clam 1 recites the limitation “a proximal end” in line 10. The claim fails to define a reference to determine “proximal.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "tubing" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clam 1 recites the limitation “a proximal end” in line 14. The claim fails to define a reference to determine “proximal.”
Clam 1 recites the limitation “a distal end” in line 15. The claim fails to define a reference to determine “proximal.”
The term “maximum” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum” 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 amplification limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “reduce” in line 2. The claim fails to define a reference to determine “reduce.”
The term “fine” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” 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 atomization limited by the claim is uncertain.
The term “adjacent” in claim 12 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 location/distance limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it depends on itself.
The term “adjacent” in claim 13 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 location/distance limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "frequency" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "vibration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “drug” in line 3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “drug” recited in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "its liquid form" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the frequency" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "titanium metal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "titanium alloy" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a drug” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “drug” recited in claim 1.
In claim 18, the recitation “having frequency 20 - 80 KHz” is grammatically incorrect.
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.
The above listing is only exemplary. Applicant is required to review and amend all of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant should not misconstrue the lack of art rejection as an indication of allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
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