DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A1, and Species B2, corresponding to claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-18, in the reply filed on 7/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 6, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/20/2026.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 3, 6, and 19-20 are withdrawn.
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 10 and 15 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 10 recites the limitation "the side walls of the housing" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office action, “the side walls of the housing” is interpreted as “side walls of the housing”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the filling aperture" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office action, “the filling aperture” is interpreted as “a filling aperture”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 2016/0213866 A1) in view of Reevell (US 2022/0046990 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tan discloses a mist generator device for delivering a mist to a user (“nebulizer 10” other than “high frequency signal generator 50”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069), the mist generator device for use with a driver device (“high frequency signal generator 50”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069), wherein the mist generator device comprises:
a housing (“removable tank assembly 70”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0075) comprising a liquid chamber for containing a liquid to be atomised (cavity within the housing storing “an amount of vaping liquid 74”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0075);
a sonication assembly (combination of “body 12” and “top portion mouthpiece 14”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069) coupled to the housing, the sonication assembly comprising:
an ultrasonic transducer (combination of “transduction portion 24”, “sonotrode 28”, and “bolt 32”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0070, 0072) comprising a first electrical connection and a second electrical connection (“supply wires 42 and 44”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069, with supply wire 44 being the first electrical connection and supply wire 42 being the second electrical connection), the first electrical connection and the second electrical connection for receiving an AC drive signal from a driver device (“supply wires 42 and 44 connected to a high frequency signal generator 50”, ¶ 0069);
a first assembly portion (portion of the sonication assembly below the top surface of 38 in Fig. 1) comprising a recess (cavity beneath 38 in Fig. 1) that retains the ultrasonic transducer (see Fig. 1);
a second assembly portion (portion of the sonication assembly above the top surface of 38 in Fig. 1) coupled to the first assembly portion (see Fig. 1), the second assembly portion comprising:
a sonication recess (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner) which is superimposed on the ultrasonic transducer to form a sonication chamber (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner);
a sonication assembly air inlet port (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner) in fluid communication with the sonication recess (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner);
a sonication assembly mist outlet port (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner) in fluid communication with the sonication recess (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner); and
an airflow path (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner) extending from the sonication assembly air inlet port through the sonication recess to the sonication assembly mist outlet port (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner), wherein:
at least one of the first assembly portion and the second assembly portion comprises a section (“Acoustic isolator 38”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069) that forms a seal between the first assembly portion and the second assembly portion which minimises or prevents a fluid from leaking between the first assembly portion and the second assembly portion (“Acoustic isolator 38 also acts as a seal to prevent nebulized droplets from straying into other components of the nebulizer 10”, ¶ 0069)
wherein the mist generator device further comprises:
a capillary (“wick 76”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0075) extending from the liquid chamber to the sonication chamber such that a first portion of the capillary (right side of the capillary in Fig. 1) is within the liquid chamber and a second portion of the capillary (left side of the capillary in Fig. 1) is within the sonication chamber (see Fig. 1), wherein the second portion of the capillary is superimposed on the atomisation surface of the ultrasonic transducer such that when the ultrasonic transducer is driven by an AC drive signal from the driver device, the atomisation surface vibrates and atomises the liquid carried by the second portion of the capillary to generate a mist comprising the atomised liquid and air within the sonication chamber, the mist flowing out through the sonication assembly mist outlet port for inhalation by a user (“The wick 76 is placed appropriately so that there is sufficient contact with the distal end of the velocity transformer 30, and allows for a capillary amount of vaping liquid to flow onto the distal end of the velocity transformer 30 for nebulization”, ¶ 0075).
However, Tan does not explicitly disclose the material of the section that forms a seal to determine if it comprises a resiliently deformable material. Tan discloses that the section that forms the seal is an acoustic isolator to dampen vibrations (“acoustic isolators 40 and 38, so as to dampen the vibrations”, ¶ 0069). Tan also discloses that resiliently deformable material may be used to dampen vibrations (“resilient and pliable materials such as silicone or thermoplastic elastomer or any material that can . . . acoustically dampen[]”, ¶ 0076). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a resiliently deformable material for the section that forms a seal of Tan, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at dampening vibrations (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Further, Tan does not disclose a barrier portion comprising a resiliently deformable seal that is positioned between the sonication assembly and the housing which minimises or prevents fluid leakage, the barrier portion comprising a capillary aperture having a wall that is resiliently deformable.
Reevell, in the same field of endeavor, discloses using a barrier portion comprising a resiliently deformable seal between components (“The resiliently deformable member 160 may be a gasket or an O-ring”, ¶ 0041). Reevell also discloses a benefit to using a barrier portion in that is assists in keeping components in place (“The resiliently deformable member 160 may provide sufficient friction as to create an interference fit to keep the insulating member 152 in place”, ¶ 0041). As the housing of Tan is separable from the sonication assembly (“a removable tank assembly 70”, ¶ 0075), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a barrier portion in the shape of an O-ring comprising a resiliently deformable seal, as taught by Reevell, positioned in the gap between the sonication assembly and the housing of Tan around the outlet of the housing (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner), in order to obtain this benefit. In the resulting configuration, the barrier minimises or prevents fluid leakage (it prevents fluid leakage from the sonication recess via the lateral side of the sonication recess) and the barrier portion comprises a capillary aperture having a wall that is resiliently deformable through which the capillary extends (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner).
PNG
media_image1.png
736
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein the first assembly portion is of a resiliently deformable material (“acoustic isolator 38”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069, which as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, is of a resiliently deformable material in the obvious modification of Tan) and part of the first assembly portion forms the seal between the first assembly portion and the second assembly portion material (“acoustic isolator 38”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069).
Regarding claim 4, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein the second assembly portion comprises:
a body (portion of 12 within the second assembly portion in Fig. 1) which is provided with the sonication recess (see Fig. 1); and
a cover (“top portion mouthpiece 14”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069) which is coupled to the body (see Fig. 1), the cover being provided with a channel defining at least a part of the airflow path (see Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 1 above, annotated by examiner), wherein one end of the channel forms the air inlet port and the other end of the channel forms the mist outlet port (see Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 1 above, annotated by examiner).
Regarding claim 5, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein the second assembly portion comprises at least one biasing member (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner) that is provided within the sonication recess, the biasing member exerting a biasing force on the second portion of the capillary which biases the second portion of the capillary against the atomization surface of the ultrasonic transducer (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
736
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 7, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 5 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein the biasing member comprises an attachment end (right half in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 5 above) that is attached to the second assembly portion and a distal end (left half in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 5 above) which contacts the second portion of the capillary, the distal end being narrower than the attachment end (see Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 5 above, annotated by examiner).
Regarding claim 8, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 5 as discussed above. Tan does not disclose that the biasing member is substantially conical in shape. However, as there is no persuasive evidence that the biasing member being “substantially conical in shape” is significant, changing the shape of the biasing member of Tan to be substantially conical would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 9, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein the housing comprises an internal cavity (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner; as a portion of the internal cavity is within the housing, the housing is considered as comprising the internal cavity) that is defined by a base and sidewalls that project upwardly from the base (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner), wherein the liquid chamber is formed in part of the internal cavity adjacent to the base and the sonication assembly is at least partially received in the internal cavity (“velocity transformer 30” of the sonication assembly is received within the internal cavity as seen in Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner, ¶ 0070), the liquid chamber being positioned between the sonication assembly and the base (as a liquid chamber is positioned between a portion of the sonication assembly (“top portion mouthpiece 14”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069) and the base, the liquid chamber is considered as being between the sonication assembly and the base).
PNG
media_image3.png
736
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 10, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 9 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein the sonication assembly contacts sidewalls of the housing (the side walls of the housing in Fig. 1, which directly contact the sonication assembly) and forms a seal which minimises or prevents a fluid flowing between the sonication assembly and the side walls of the housing (the side walls are a physical barrier which prevents fluid flow between the sonication assembly and the side walls).
Regarding claim 11, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 9 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein the sonication assembly comprises a filling bore (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner; as the filling bore is partially within the sonication assembly, the sonication assembly is considered as comprising the filling bore) which extends from a filling aperture (opening at the left side of the filling bore in Fig. 1) through part of the sonication assembly to the liquid chamber (see Fig. 1) to allow a liquid to be injected into the liquid chamber through the filling bore (if the liquid chamber were emptied the sonication recess filled with liquid, liquid to be injected into the liquid chamber through the filling bore).
PNG
media_image4.png
736
752
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 12, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 9 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein the device comprises a mouthpiece (“top portion mouthpiece 14”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069) that is attached to the housing to substantially close the internal cavity (see Fig. 1), the mouthpiece comprising a mist outlet aperture (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner) that is in fluid communication with the sonication assembly mist outlet port to provide a mist flow path form the sonication assembly to the mist outlet aperture (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
736
557
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, Annotated by Examiner
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 2016/0213866 A1) in view of Reevell (US 2022/0046990 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Memari et al. (US 2015/0245668 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 12 as discussed above. Tan does not disclose a foam layer as claimed.
Memari, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a liquid absorption structure which includes a foam layer (“foam insert”, Fig. 65, ¶ 0609). Memari also discloses a benefit to using a liquid absorption structure in that it can “prevent vapour build up” (¶ 0609). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to insert a foam layer, as taught by Memari, positioned proximate to the mist flow path of Reevell, in order to obtain this benefit (a rendering of the combination shown in Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner). In the resulting configuration, the foam layer will absorb droplets of liquid that are in excess of a predetermined size (the minimum size that can be absorbed by the foam layer) from the mist flowing along the mist flow path.
PNG
media_image6.png
736
557
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 14, Tan in view of Reevell and Memari discloses the device of claim 13 as discussed above. Further, in the modification of Tan in view of Memari, the foam layer is positioned between the sonication assembly and a divider (see Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 13 above, modified in view of Memari), the divider comprising a mist outlet aperture (hole within the sidewall of the divider, to allow mist to flow from the foam layer past the divider (see Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 13 above, modified in view of Memari).
Regarding claim 15, Tan in view of Reevell and Memari discloses the device of claim 14 as discussed above. Further, in the modification of Tan in view of Memari, the divider comprises a plug (bottom surface of the divider) which seals a filling aperture (bottom surface of the foam layer) to minimise or prevent liquid leaking from the liquid chamber to the exterior of the device (the plug prevents an amount of liquid absorbed in the foam layer from leaking out of the bottom surface of the foam layer which prevents the amount of liquid from leaking from the liquid container to the exterior of the device).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 2016/0213866 A1) in view of Reevell (US 2022/0046990 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bessant et al. (US 2018/0177238 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Tan in view of Reevell discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein the ultrasonic tranducer is received within an ultrasonic transducer stack (combination of “anvil 26” and unlabeled shell seen in Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner, ¶ 0072), the ultrasonic transducer stack comprising:
a base (“anvil 26”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0072) that is provided with a central aperture through which part of a first electric transducer contact (“bolt 32”, ¶ 0072) extends to connect electrically to the first electrical connection of the ultrasonic transducer (see Fig. 1); and
a shell (see Fig. 1 below, annotated by examiner) that at least partly surrounds the base, the shell comprising a lip (top surface) which engages at least part of a periphery of the ultrasonic transducer to retain the ultrasonic transducer in a position relative to the base (see Fig. 1), part of the shell (the part of the shell connected to wire 42 in Fig. 1) being a second electrical transducer contact that connects electrically to the second electrical connection of the ultrasonic transducer (see Fig. 1).
However, Tan does not explicitly disclose the composition of the shell to determine if it comprises metal. Bessant, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that electrical contacts can be made of metal ("The electrodes may comprise any suitable electrically conductive material. Suitable electrically conductive materials include metals", ¶ 0138). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using metal for electrical contacts in that metals have low resistance, resulting in a more efficient transfer of electricity. As the shell of Tan is an electrical contact, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use metal for the shell, in order to obtain this benefit.
PNG
media_image7.png
736
752
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 17, Tan in view of Reevell and Bessant discloses the device of claim 16 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein part of the metal shell (central part) is cut away to provide access for a first device terminal (see Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 16 above, annotated by examiner) to connect electrically to the first electrical transducer contact, and wherein a second device terminal contact (see Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 16 above, annotated by examiner) is connected electrically to the metal shell, wherein the first and second device terminals receive an AC drive signal from a driver device (“signal generator 50”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0069) and transmit the AC drive signal to the ultrasonic transducer (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Tan in view of Reevell and Bessant discloses the device of claim 16 as discussed above. Tan further discloses wherein the airflow path comprises a plurality of turns that change the direction of the flow of air a plurality of times as the air flows from the air inlet port to the sonication recess (see Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 1 above, annotated by examiner).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. 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.
/COURTNEY G CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
