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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Universal Atomizer Utilizing an Elastic Driving Force.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7, 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2 should read “equal”
Claim 7, line 2 should read “silicone” because it is clear that flexible polymer material is intended instead of a hard, brittle element
Claim 10, line 3 should read “the
Claim 19, line 3 should read “wherein the
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-19 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.
Regarding claim 8 (and thus its dependent claims 9-18), claim 8 recites the limitation "the medicament guiding tube" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To address this rejection, Applicant could 1) amend claim 8 to depend from claim 2, which would provide the requisite antecedent basis, or 2) amend claim 8, line 2, to read either “a medicament guiding tube” or “the medicament delivering vessel”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the broadest interpretation of “a medicament guiding tube” will be applied in the rejections below.
Regarding claim 9 (and thus its dependent claims 10-15), it is unclear in the claim what it is meant for the atomizing unit to be “facing towards the atomizing area.” As best understood from e.g. instant Fig. 14, for purposes of examination, a vibrating mesh atomizer where the apertured layer abuts/forms a wall of/is in direct contact with an atomizing area as claimed is one that is “facing toward” the atomizing area.
Claim 17 (and thus its dependent claim 18) recites the limitation "the outside" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could address this rejection by amending claim 17 to read “an outside of the atomizer.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the injection port communicated to the feeding passage" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could address this rejection by amending claim 19 to read “so that ion”.
Claim Interpretation
In light of e.g. instant paras [00139-142] and Figs. 20-21, the term “curved” is understood to be broadly used in contrast to “linear/straight”, i.e. “curved” means comprising at least one bend, but given the sharp/90-degree angles of the bends shown in e.g. instant Fig. 21, i.e. from 1511 to 1513 or from 1513 to 1514, smooth bends are not understood to be required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “medicament feeding unit” in claims 1 and 2 [note: claim 19 recites sufficient structure for the medicament feeding unit such that claim 19 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)] and “atomizing unit” in claims 1, 8, 9 and 15 [note: claim 20 recites sufficient structure for the atomizing unit such that claim 20 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Per instant para [0083], the disclose structure of a “medicament feeding unit” is a valve and, per instant para [0089], the disclosed structure of an “atomizing unit” is an ultrasonic vibrating mesh atomizer.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR 2022-0066467 A; hereinafter “Park,” wherein the citations below refer to the translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an atomizer (Fig. 5), comprising:
a medicament feeding unit (valve 230 and/or valve 220);
a medicament delivering vessel (body 120) (last para on page 2); and
an atomizing unit (ultrasonic humidifier 150) (second full para on page 5), wherein when medicament liquid (chemical solution may be distilled water…drug may be included in the distilled water, third para from the bottom on page 2) is fed into the medicament delivering vessel through the medicament feeding unit, the medicament delivering vessel is capable of generating an elastic driving force for driving the medicament liquid to be fed towards the atomizing unit for atomizing the medicament liquid (chemical solution…stored inside the body 120, and the chemical solution storage tube 186 with elasticity so that it can be discharged…provided to the ultrasonic humidifier 150…tube 186 is formed of a rubber or silicone material, expands as the chemical is injected, and contracts by elasticity to discharge the chemical, last para on page 2 to first full para on page 3).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the atomizer, as recited in claim 1, the medicament delivering vessel comprises a medicament guiding tube (comprising chemical injection and discharge pipe 112 and guide tube 184) communicated to the medicament feeding unit (Fig. 5; bottom of page 2 and the first half of page 3), and an elastic membrane bladder (tube 186) wrapped around the medicament guiding tube (Fig. 5; first full para on page 2), wherein an inflating chamber is defined between the elastic membrane bladder and the medicament guiding tube (the space within tube 186, see Fig. 5), wherein the medicament guiding tube has a guiding channel (the channel within pipe 112) and one or more liquid passage holes communicating the guiding channel to the inflating chamber (the upper opening of pipe 112, best seen in Fig. 6) (bottom of page 2 and the first half of page 3).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the atomizer, as recited in claim 2, wherein a material of the elastic membrane bladder is one of silicon[e] material and polyethylene terephthalate (tube 186 is formed of a rubber or silicone material, first full para on page 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bateman et al. (WO 2015/150721 A1; hereinafter “Bateman”).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses the atomizer, as recited in claim 2, wherein Park discloses wherein the elastic membrane bladder (186) comprises a middle section (between clamps 187 and 188) and two end sections (under clamps 187 and 188) connected to two ends of the middle section (Fig.5), but Park is silent regarding wherein a thickness of the middle section is smaller than a thickness of each of the two end sections. However, Bateman teaches that it was known in the inflatable medical bladder art/to solve the problem of securing an inflatable bladder to a tube before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a thickness of the middle section (central main body portion 33) is smaller than a thickness of each of the two end sections (collars 31, 32) (Fig. 2A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to include wherein a thickness of the middle section is smaller than a thickness of each of the two end sections as taught by Bateman, in order to provide the predictable result of more robust ends for ensuring and maintaining a tight connection to the tube while providing/maintaining a desired degree of expandability at the belly of the bladder.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bateman as applied to claim 3 and Park as applied to claim 2, respectively, and further in view of Hessel (US 4,915,693; hereinafter “Hessel”).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Park in view of Bateman teaches the atomizer, as recited in claim 3, but modified Park is silent regarding wherein the medicament guiding tube comprises one or more retaining rings at each of two ends thereof for frictional engagement with the corresponding end section of the elastic membrane bladder, wherein each of the one or more retaining rings has gradually reducing diameters along a direction towards the one or more liquid passage holes. However, Hessel teaches that it was known in the art of medicament fluid pressurization using an elastic bladder/to solve the problem of securing an elastic fluid pressurizer to a tube before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the medicament guiding tube (cylindrical internal stress member 4) comprises one or more retaining rings (annular flange 35) at an end thereof (Fig. 5) for frictional engagement with the corresponding end section of the elastic membrane bladder (elastomeric collapsing bladder 2), wherein each of the one or more retaining rings has gradually reducing diameters along a direction towards the one or more liquid passage holes (ducts 14, 24) (Fig. 5; col. 6, lines 10-23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Park to include wherein the medicament guiding tube comprises one or more retaining rings at each of two ends thereof for frictional engagement with the corresponding end section of the elastic membrane bladder, wherein each of the one or more retaining rings has gradually reducing diameters along a direction towards the one or more liquid passage hole, in view of the teachings of Hessel, in order to provide the predictable result of aiding in and enhancing preventing migration of the bladder at both ends thereof (Hessel col. 6, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses the atomizer, as recited in claim 2, but Park is silent wherein an inner diameter of the elastic membrane bladder is smaller than or equal to an outer diameter of the medicament guiding tube. However, Hessel teaches that it was known in the art of medicament fluid pressurization using an elastic bladder/to solve the problem of providing an elastic fluid pressurizer before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein an inner diameter of the elastic membrane bladder (elastomeric collapsing bladder 2) is equal to an outer diameter of the medicament guiding tube (cylindrical internal stress member 4) (Figs. 2 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park by substituting the sliding bladder/tube arrangement of Park with a stationary bladder/tube arrangement such as that taught by Hessel, including wherein an inner diameter of the elastic membrane bladder is smaller than or equal to an outer diameter of the medicament guiding tube, in order to provide the predictable results of an elastic bladder pressurizer that doesn’t require a sliding mechanism for simplicity/reduction of parts, and that is configured to fully evacuate the bladder in the collapsed state to reduce drug waste and/or cross-contamination if switching medicaments.
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Feriani et al. (US 2013/0247902 A1; hereinafter “Feriani”).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the atomizer, as recited in claim 1, wherein Park further teaches a depressurization receptacle (holder 152) connected (via pipe 210) to [a] medicament guiding tube (pipe 215) (Fig. 5), wherein the depressurization receptacle has a medicament delivery passage (the channel through holder 152) for causing pressure loss of the medicament liquid (Fig. 5, where pipe 210 has a small inner diameter and opens out into holder 152, which has a larger inner diameter, such that the fluid in the pipe will depressurize upon entering holder 152 due to fluid dynamics, i.e. Bernoulli’s principle, see para [00139] of the instant specification as further evidence), wherein the medicament delivery passage is communicated to the medicament delivering vessel (120) for feeding the medicament liquid toward the atomizing unit (150) (Fig. 5; bottom of page 2 and the first half of page 3), but Park is silent regarding wherein the medicament delivery passage is curved. However, Feriani teaches that it was known in the respiratory atomizer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the depressurization receptacle (comprising fluidic interface 25) (Fig. 2a) has a curved medicament delivery passage (comprising channel 28) for causing pressure loss of the medicament liquid (Fig. 2a, where the bend in channel 28 will cause at least some loss in pressure due to fluid dynamics, as evidenced by para [00139] of the instant specification). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to include wherein the medicament delivery passage is curved as taught by Feriani, in order to utilize a known fluid delivery arrangement to predictably provide fluid to the atomizer of Park, particularly one that allows for fluid to flow across/through the atomization area by virtue of the fluid being introduced from the side rather than perpendicularly to the atomization face, so as to reduce the buildup up of bubbles thereon.
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Feriani teaches the atomizer, as recited in claim 8, wherein Feriani further educates modified Park to include wherein the curved medicament delivery passage comprises a receiving chamber (reservoir 21) (Feriani Fig. 2a) communicated to the medicament delivering vessel and a plurality of branch channels (the horizontal portions of channel 28 in Feriani Fig. 2a) communicated to the receiving chamber (Feriani Fig. 2a), and an atomizing area (proximate 211 in Feriani Fig. 2a) communicated to the plurality of branch channels, wherein the atomizing unit (piezoelectric spray head 29) is facing towards the atomizing area (Feriani Fig. 2a), in order to integrate the structure of Feriani 2a into the holder 152 of Park to achieve the results discussed above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Park in view of Feriani teaches the atomizer, as recited in claim 9, wherein Feriani further educates modified Park to include wherein an extending direction of each of the branch channels (horizontal channels in Feriani Fig. 2a) is vertical to a plane of the atomizing area (which extends vertically in Feriani Fig. 2a), in order to integrate the structure of Feriani 2a into the holder 152 of Park to achieve the results discussed above regarding claim 8.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Card, Jr. (US 2,009,575; hereinafter “Card”).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses the atomizer, as recited in claim 1, but Park is silent regarding the internal structure of (valve 230 and/or valve 220), such that Park is silent regarding wherein the medicament feeding unit comprises a sealing housing, a sealing plunger arranged in the sealing housing, a resilient valve ring, and a spring which is connected to the sealing plunger and the sealing housing, wherein the wherein the medicament feeding unit has an injection port and a feeding passage, wherein the sealing plunger comprises a plunger rod and an abutting ring connected to the plunger rod, the sealing housing has an inner step, the resilient valve ring is provided between the inner step of the sealing housing and the abutting ring of the sealing plunger, so that the injection port communicated to the feeding passage between the sealing plunger and the sealing housing is capable of being sealed by the resilient valve ring. However, Card teaches that it was known in the valve art/to solve the problem of providing one-way flow through a valve before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a valve to comprise a sealing housing (tubular member 31) (Fig. 1), a sealing plunger (comprising central stem 36) arranged in the sealing housing, a resilient valve ring (washer 35 of rubber), and a spring (spring 40) which is connected to the sealing plunger and the sealing housing (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 15-25), wherein the wherein the valve has an injection port (to the left in Fig. 1) and a feeding passage (bore 32), wherein the sealing plunger comprises a plunger rod (central stem 36) and an abutting ring (annular seat 38) connected to the plunger rod, the sealing housing has an inner step (projecting seat 34), the resilient valve ring is provided between the inner step of the sealing housing and the abutting ring of the sealing plunger (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 5-13), so that the injection port communicated to the feeding passage between the sealing plunger and the sealing housing is capable of being sealed by the resilient valve ring (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 1-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to include wherein the medicament feeding unit comprises a sealing housing, a sealing plunger arranged in the sealing housing, a resilient valve ring, and a spring which is connected to the sealing plunger and the sealing housing, wherein the wherein the medicament feeding unit has an injection port and a feeding passage, wherein the sealing plunger comprises a plunger rod and an abutting ring connected to the plunger rod, the sealing housing has an inner step, the resilient valve ring is provided between the inner step of the sealing housing and the abutting ring of the sealing plunger, so that the injection port communicated to the feeding passage between the sealing plunger and the sealing housing is capable of being sealed by the resilient valve ring as taught by Card, in order to provide the predictable result of a common one-way valve structure for ensuring that fluid does not flow back along route A of Park Fig. 5 (Park middle of page 3).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Leonard (US 2019/0366022 A1; hereinafter “Leonard”).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses the atomizer, as recited in claim 1, wherein Park further teaches/suggests wherein the atomizing unit comprises an atomizing layer and a ring-shaped piezoelectric layer stacked on the atomizing layer (see the disc layer and ring-shaped structure depicted for vibrator 151 in Park Fig. 3, where an artisan would have been familiar with these common structures/arrangement of an ultrasonic atomizer), but Park does not explicitly disclose that the ring-shaped layer is a ceramic piezoelectric layer stacked on the atomizing layer. However, Leonard teaches that it was known in the ultrasonic atomizer art before the effective filing date to include wherein the ring-shaped layer (transducer 152) is a ceramic piezoelectric layer stacked on the atomizing layer (mesh 156) (Figs. 5 and 10; transducer 152 may be a piezoelectric element, such as a piezoelectric ceramic, para [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to include wherein that the ring-shaped layer is a ceramic piezoelectric layer stacked on the atomizing layer as taught by Leonard, in order to utilize common materials and common construction to predictable provide the ultrasonic atomizer.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: If claim 1 were amended to recite the all of the limitations of claim 2, with line 2 of claim 2 amended to read “communicated between the medicament feeding unit at one end of the medicament guiding tube and the atomizing unit at an opposite end of the medicament guiding tube,” this would define all of the claims over the prior art because, while pressurizing arrangements such as those of claim 2 as proposed to be amended were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as demonstrated by e.g. Kowalski et al. (US 5,137,175), the pressurization unit of Park has the same inlet and outlet, and there is no motivation absent improper hindsight to rearrange the flow paths of Park in addition to including a different pressurization arrangement/structure.
Even without incorporating claim 2 amended as proposed above, claims 10-15, 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because while Hess et al. US 2003/0080214 A1 teaches a protrusion in an atomizing area (at 5b in Hess Fig. 2), it is not a plurality of diversion protrusions as recited by instant claim 10, and the prior art is silent regarding one or more side channels with gas permeable film communicated to a receiving chamber as recited by claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional reference that could be applied under 35 USC 102 to reject at least claim 1: Klimowicz et al. (US 2002/0185125 A1). Additional references regarding elastic bladder pressurizers, including for use with ultrasonic nebulizers: Childers (US 2005/0172956 A1; Fig. 2, paras [0023-24]); Xie et al. (CN 207521218 U); Ruth (US 3,406,722); Barth et al. (US 2012/0085449 A1); Mercier (US 3,209,785); Lasonde et al. (US 5,529,214); Leeper et al. (US 4,419,096); Nye (US 5,303,853); Scheuber et al. (US 2024/0246747 A1); Schuler et al. (US 2005/0051162 A1; Figs. 3A-B). Additional references regarding non-linear fluid delivery passages for nebulizers: Hess et al. (US 2004/0263567 A1); Chen et al. (CN 104028410 A); Martner (US 3,804,329). Additional reference regarding expandable bladders with thicker ends: Bazell et al. (US 3,884,242; Fig. 10). Additional references regarding injector valves: Landreth (US 2,764,324); Nashed (US 10,086,166 B1); Zoll (US 3,800,825).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, T/Th 8:30a-2:30p, W 11:30a-4:30p, F 1-4p ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights