DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on April 7, 2026, which has been fully considered in this action. Claims 39, 44, 49, 51-53 and 55 are amended, claims 50 and 56-58 are canceled and claims 59-62 are newly added. Claims 39-49, 51-55 and 59-62 remain in the application and an action as to the merits follows.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 39-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 39, line 4, the claim recites “an annular recess”, however, the specification is silent to this recitation and only provides support for “a recess” and therefore, the recitation “annular recess” is considered new matter. The Specification only provides support for “recess” as disclosed on page 7, line 30 and recess 3, page 9, line 33 and recess 43, page 10, line 11 and recess 63, page 10, line 21 and recess 63, page 19, lines 6 and 7 and recess 103, and page 21, line 9 and recess 403. The Specification and drawings to not provide ant support for an “annular” recess.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 39(as best understood), 40 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0167078 A1(Hogan et al).
Hogan et al ‘078 discloses an aerosol generator core 100 comprising a body 2 having a support 3 supporting an integral membrane 1; and a vibration drive 2/10/11 adapted to be connected to an electrical voltage supply, see paragraph [0064] and electrical power connecting the piezoelectric body 2 and conducting pins 10 and 11; wherein the support and the integral membrane form an annular recess(as best understood) on a downstream side of the aerosol generator core, see marked up Fig. 4 below. See paragraphs [0061-0065] and Figs. 3-6.
As to claim 40, see piezoelectric body 2 which is configured to vibrate with application of an electrical voltage across it, see paragraphs [0062-0064].
As to claim 59, Hogan et al ‘078 discloses an aerosol generator core 100 comprising a body 2 having an annular support 3, see Fig. 5 and 6, and a membrane 1 integral with the annular support; and a vibration drive comprising the body, see paragraph [0061] and vibration generator; and at least two power conductors 10/11 for delivering power to the vibration drive, see paragraph [0064].
PNG
media_image1.png
332
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0167078 A1(Hogan et al) in view of US 2020/0235283 A1(Domingues Dos Santos et al).
As to claims 41-46, Hogan et al ‘078 discloses all the featured elements of the instant invention except for the body comprising a piezoelectric polymer and the piezoelectric polymer comprising a PVDF, a PVDF copolymer, and the piezoelectric polymer comprises (P(VDF-TrFE) or (P(VDF-TFE). Domingues Dos Santos et al ‘283 discloses using PVDF copolymer and polymers comprising (P(VDF-TrFE) or (P(VDF-TFE) in piezoelectric MEMS and actuators. Domingues Dos Santos et al ‘283 discloses using PVDF copolymer and polymers comprising (P(VDF-TrFE) or (P(VDF-TFE) in piezoelectric MEMS and actuators. See paragraphs [0003-0006]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body comprise a piezoelectric polymer comprising a PVDF, a PVDF copolymer, and the piezoelectric polymer comprises (P(VDF-TrFE) or (P(VDF-TFE) in the apparatus of Hogan et al ‘078, as taught by Domingues Dos Santos et al ‘283, since a a PVDF, a PVDF copolymer, (P(VDF-TrFE) and (P(VDF-TFE) exhibit specific electroactive properties. These polymers belong to the class of ferroelectric or relaxor ferroelectric materials. After an appropriate processing in a film form, these materials exhibit a large polarization versus electric field hysteresis behavior characterized by a remnant polarization and a coercive field. Once poled, films made from PVDF or some P(VDF-TrFE) and P(VDF-TFE) copolymers may then exhibit piezoelectric properties. They will deform under an applied voltage with limited deformation (typically 0.5%) and generate a voltage when subjected to a mechanical stress or deformation and would work equally as well in the apparatus of Hogan et al ‘078.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 49, 51-55 are allowed.
Claims 60-62 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter of claims 49 and 51-55: The closest prior art being Hogan et al ‘078 did not teach or suggest an aerosol generator as claimed by the applicant, specifically aerosol generator as currently amended in independent claim 49, together in combination with the other claimed features of applicant’s invention.
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 STEVEN J GANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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 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.
STEVEN J. GANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN J GANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights