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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation “storage means for storing information regarding the liquid jet device” in claim 6 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to an EPROM chip arranged on motherboard 30 and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “display means for displaying information regarding the liquid jet device” in claim 7 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to an LCD screen and equivalents thereof.
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 1–3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giusti et al. (US 2021/0177061 A1; hereinafter “Giusti”).
Regarding claim 1, Giusti teaches:
An inhalation device (dispensing apparatus 1 / electronic cigarette) (¶ [0005]) with at least one liquid jet device (spray nozzle 18 of microfluidic cartridge 5) (¶ [0009]).
to produce liquid drops on demand (when ASIC 6 drives heater 33, liquid in chamber 30 is rapidly heated, vapor bubbles are formed, and a drop of liquid is emitted from nozzle 30B) (¶ [0016]).
wherein the liquid jet device is replaceable (microfluidic cartridge 5 carrying spray nozzle 18 is disposable and removable from cartridge chamber 8 through flip door 11) (¶ [0005]; ¶ [0007]).
wherein the inhalation device has an elongated shape with a longitudinal axis (dispensing apparatus 1 / electronic cigarette has an elongate casing 2 extending from cartridge chamber 8 toward mouthpiece 14, defining a longitudinal axis along the device length) (¶ [0005]; ¶ [0007]; Fig. 1).
the liquid jet device being removable in a direction essentially transverse to the longitudinal axis (microfluidic cartridge 5 carrying spray nozzle 18 is removed outward through side flip door 11, across the width of elongate casing 2 and transverse to the lengthwise axis) (¶ [0007]; Fig. 1).
wherein the liquid jet device is mounted on a daughterboard (spray nozzle 18 is carried by substrate/daughterboard 20, i.e., a board-like support for the liquid-jet structure) (¶ [0010]; Fig. 2A).
the daughterboard extending essentially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the inhalation device (substrate/daughterboard 20 is substantially flat and, when cartridge 5 is installed in side-accessible cartridge chamber 8, extends across the width of casing 2 perpendicular to the lengthwise axis) (¶ [0007]; ¶ [0010]; Figs. 1, 2A).
Regarding claim 2, Giusti teaches wherein the liquid jet device is in the form of a MEMS (microfluidic dispensing device 50, i.e., a micro-scale electromechanical liquid-ejection structure, includes microfluidic chambers, nozzles, and actuators formed on substrate/daughterboard 200) (¶ [0034]; ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Giusti teaches wherein the daughterboard is replaceable (substrate/daughterboard 20 is part of spray nozzle 18 carried by disposable microfluidic cartridge 5, which is removable from cartridge chamber 8 through flip door 11) (¶ [0005]; ¶ [0007]; ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 5, Giusti teaches wherein the liquid jet device is movable or made accessible by a pin or tool insertable from outside the inhalation device or adapted to open a door (spray nozzle 18 of microfluidic cartridge 5 is made accessible through flip door 11) (¶ [0007]). The pin or tool is not positively recited as a structural component of the claimed inhalation device.
Regarding claim 8, Giusti teaches further comprising a reservoir for containing a liquid; wherein the liquid jet device and the reservoir are structurally distinct (microfluidic cartridge 5 includes tank 17 containing liquid and spray nozzle 18 borne by the external face of cartridge 5, separate from tank 17) (¶ [0009]; Fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giusti in view of Lau et al. (US 2019/0116880 A1; hereinafter “Lau”).
Regarding claim 4, Giusti teaches the inhalation device of claim 1, including wherein the liquid jet device is mounted on a daughterboard (spray nozzle 18 carried by substrate/daughterboard 20) (¶ [0010]; Fig. 2A).
Giusti does not expressly teach wherein the daughterboard is connected to a motherboard by a pin and socket connection.
Lau teaches wherein the daughterboard is connected to a motherboard by a pin and socket connection (PCB interface 34 of cartridge PCB substrate 32 is received in PCB edge female connector 58 mounted on relay board 56, which is electrically connected to power supply PCB 61) (¶ [0061]). Lau further teaches that cartridge 30 is firmly held in place within cartridge housing 16 when PCB interface 34 is inserted into PCB edge female connector 58 (¶ [0061]).
Giusti and Lau are analogous art because both are directed to electronic cigarette/inhalation devices using liquid dispensing cartridges for generating inhalable aerosol (Giusti ¶ [0005]; Lau ¶ [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giusti’s removable liquid-jet/daughterboard arrangement to use Lau’s PCB interface/female connector arrangement because Lau’s arrangement provides a removable electrical interface between the replaceable jet dispensing cartridge and the device circuitry while firmly holding the cartridge in place. Such a modification would have predictably allowed Giusti’s replaceable liquid jet device to be electrically connected to the inhalation device circuitry while maintaining secure removable cartridge placement.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giusti in view of Imai (US 2010/0206307 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Giusti teaches the inhalation device of claim 1, including at least one liquid jet device (spray nozzle 18 of microfluidic cartridge 5) (¶ [0009]).
Giusti does not expressly teach storage means for storing information regarding the liquid jet device.
Imai teaches storage means for storing information regarding the liquid jet device (RAM or ROM storing medicine remaining-quantity information, where the remaining quantity is obtained by subtracting the total amount ejected by the ejection head unit from the initial reservoir amount; thus, the stored information regards operation of the ejection head/liquid jet device) (¶ [0076]). Imai’s RAM or ROM is an equivalent storage structure to the claimed EPROM chip.
Giusti and Imai in the same field of endeavor because both are directed to inhalation/ejection devices for delivering inhalable liquid/medicine using an ejection head or liquid jet structure (Giusti ¶ [0005]; Imai ¶ [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giusti’s inhalation device to include Imai’s RAM/ROM storage arrangement because Imai stores ejection-related information used to determine remaining medicine quantity and whether sufficient medicine remains for inhalation. Such a modification would have predictably allowed Giusti’s device to store information regarding liquid-jet/ejection operation for monitoring use and replacement conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Giusti teaches the inhalation device of claim 1, including at least one liquid jet device (spray nozzle 18 of microfluidic cartridge 5) (¶ [0009]).
Giusti does not expressly teach display means for displaying information regarding the liquid jet device.
Imai teaches display means for displaying information regarding the liquid jet device (display unit 15 provided on access cover 18) (¶ [0059]). Imai further teaches displaying an alarm when the ejection head unit is not inserted, displaying an alarm when heater disconnection is detected, and displaying an alarm/message when the remaining medicine quantity is insufficient for inhalation (¶ [0074]; ¶ [0075]; ¶ [0076]). Imai’s display unit 15 is an equivalent display structure to the claimed LCD screen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giusti’s inhalation device to include Imai’s display unit for displaying information regarding the liquid jet/ejection head device, in order to inform the user of ejection-head status, heater disconnection, and remaining liquid conditions affecting inhalation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights