DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/17/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, the term “compounds” should read as “compound”.
In claim 18, line 1, the term “compounds” should read as “compound”.
In claim 20, line 3, the term “ins” should read as “in”.
In claim 21, line 2, the term “compounds” should read as “compound”.
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 1-24 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 1, it is unclear what is included or by the phrase “a substantially-closed exposure chamber”. This phrase is unclear because the Examiner is unable to find a clear definition within the Applicants specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the term “substantially-closed”.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what is included or by the phrase “a substantially-enclosed fashion”. This phrase is unclear because the Examiner is unable to find a clear definition within the Applicants specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the term “substantially-enclosed”.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear what is included or by the phrase “a substantially-closed exposure chamber”. This phrase is unclear because the Examiner is unable to find a clear definition within the Applicants specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the term “substantially-closed”.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear what is included or by the phrase “a substantially-closed exposure chamber”. This phrase is unclear because the Examiner is unable to find a clear definition within the Applicants specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the term “substantially-closed”.
Furthermore, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase “said exhaust fan”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “an exhaust fan”.
Regarding claims 2-13, 15-17, 19-20, and 22-24, these claims are rejected for failing to remedy the rejection of claims 1, 14, 18, and 21 above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackley (US PGPUB 2016/0363567 A1, hereinafter Blackley).
Regarding claim 21, Blackley teaches an analytical testing device for testing the impact of an aerosolized compounds on human airway tissue (see Fig. 1, analytical testing device 100; see also [0081], device 100 for testing aerosolized compound on biological tissue, considered by the Examiner as capable of including human airway tissue), the device comprising: an intake fan assembly comprising an intake fan (see Fig. 1, intake fan 130) and an intake fan electric motor operatively connected to the intake fan to drive rotation of the intake fan when the intake fan electric motor is energized (see Fig. 1, intake fan 130 inherently has a intake fan electric motor to drive the intake fan 100); a housing defining a substantially-closed exposure chamber (see Fig. 1 and [0081], housing of chamber 141 may include door and defines a closed chamber), said housing defining an intake port in fluid communication with said intake fan and inlet openings in fluid communication with said intake port and said exposure chamber (see Fig. 1 and [0081], chamber 141 housing includes intake port in fluid communication with the intake fan 130 and includes the analysis chamber 141 such that the Examiner considers that the housing includes inlet openings in communication with the intake port and chamber as shown); a holder supported on said housing and configured to support an aerosol- generating device operable to generate an aerosolized compound (see Fig. 1, holder 126 holds aerosol-generating device 108 for generating an aerosolized compound); and a control system operable to selectively energize said intake fan electric motor to cause said intake fan to draw the aerosolized compound into said exposure chamber (see Fig. 1, [0056], [0067], and [0077], control system 102 causes the vaporizer 108 to vaporize the material within the vaporizer via the fan electric motor of fan 130 to draw the fluid in the analysis chamber 141).
Blackley fails to specifically teach said housing further defining an exhaust port in fluid communication with an exhaust fan and exhaust openings in fluid communication with said exhaust port and said exposure chamber.
However, Blackley does teach that the fan may include both an inlet fan and an exhaust fan (see Fig. 1 and [0077], fan 130 may include an exhaust fan for expelling vapor from the testing device 100).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to include in the device of Blackley an exhaust port in fluid communication with said exhaust fan and exhaust openings in fluid communication with said exhaust port and said exposure chamber. This would provide the necessary well-known structural elements allowing for the exhaust fan to efficiently expel air/vapor from the device in a manner as suggested by Blackley (see [0077]).
Regarding claim 24, Blackley above teaches all of the limitations of claim 21.
Blackley above fails to specifically teach an exhaust fan assembly comprising an exhaust fan and an exhaust fan electric motor operatively connected to the exhaust fan to drive rotation of the exhaust fan when the exhaust fan electric motor is energized; wherein said control system is further operable to selectively energize said exhaust fan electric motor to cause said exhaust fan assembly to exhaust the aerosolized compound from said exposure chamber.
However, as described above, Blackley does teach that the fan may include both an inlet fan and an exhaust fan (see Fig. 1 and [0077], fan 130 may include an exhaust fan for expelling vapor from the testing device 100); wherein the device includes a control system for controlling the devices and modules of the device (see Fig. 1, control system 102; see also [0055], control system includes programming for controlling the devices or modules of the device 100).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to include in the device of Blackley an exhaust fan assembly and selective control over the exhaust fan assembly. This would allow for control over the amount and length of time the vaporized material is in contact with the biological tissue in order to study the stress on the biological tissue as suggested by Blackley (see [0081]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-20, Blackley represents the best art of record. However, Blackley fails to encompass all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 18 as best understood.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Blackley teaches an analytical testing device for testing the impact of an aerosolized compounds on human airway tissue and a method for testing the impact of an aerosolized compound on human airway tissue (see Fig. 1, analytical testing device 100; see also [0081], device 100 and method for testing aerosolized compound on biological tissue, considered by the Examiner as capable of including human airway tissue), the method and device comprising: an intake fan assembly comprising an intake fan (see Fig. 1, intake fan 130) and an intake fan electric motor operatively connected to the intake fan to drive rotation of the intake fan when the intake fan electric motor is energized (see Fig. 1, intake fan 130 inherently has a intake fan electric motor to drive the intake fan 100); a housing defining a substantially-closed exposure chamber (see Fig. 1 and [0081], housing of chamber 141 may include door and defines a closed chamber), said housing defining an intake port in fluid communication with said intake fan and inlet openings in fluid communication with said intake port and said exposure chamber (see Fig. 1 and [0081], chamber 141 housing includes intake port in fluid communication with the intake fan 130 and includes the analysis chamber 141 such that the Examiner considers that the housing includes inlet openings in communication with the intake port and chamber as shown); a holder supported on said housing and configured to support an aerosol-generating device operable to generate an aerosolized compound in response to actuation of a switch (see Fig. 1, holder 126 holds aerosol-generating device 108 for generating an aerosolized compound, wherein the actuation of the device to generate the aerosolized compound is considered to include a manual switch); and a control system operable to selectively energize said intake fan electric motor to cause said intake fan to draw the aerosolized compound into said exposure chamber (see Fig. 1, [0056], [0067], and [0077], control system 102 causes the vaporizer 108 to vaporize the material within the vaporizer via the fan electric motor of fan 130 to draw the fluid in the analysis chamber 141).
Blackley fails to specifically teach said housing further defining an exhaust fan assembly comprising an exhaust fan and an electric motor operatively connected to the exhaust fan to drive rotation of the exhaust fan when the exhaust fan electric motor is energized; and wherein the control system is operable to selectively energize said exhaust fan electric motor to cause said exhaust fan assembly to exhaust the aerosolized compound from said exposure chamber.
However, Blackley does teach that the fan may include both an inlet fan and an exhaust fan (see Fig. 1 and [0077], fan 130 may include an exhaust fan for expelling vapor from the testing device 100); wherein the device includes a control system for controlling the devices and modules of the device (see Fig. 1, control system 102; see also [0055], control system includes programming for controlling the devices or modules of the device 100).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to include in the device of Blackley an exhaust fan assembly and selective control over the exhaust fan assembly. This would allow for control over the amount and length of time the vaporized material is in contact with the biological tissue in order to study the stress on the biological tissue as suggested by Blackley (see [0081]).
Furthermore, Blackley fails to critically teach an actuator supported on said housing and configured to be movable between an operative position that causes the aerosol-generating device's switch to be in a position that will cause generating of the aerosolized compound, and an inoperative position that causes the aerosol-generating device's switch to be in a position that will not cause generating of the aerosolized compound; and a control system operable to selectively operate said actuator to cause generation of an aerosolized compound.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claims 1 and 18 and the examiner can find no teachings for an analytical testing device for testing the impact of an aerosolized compound on human airway tissue or a method for testing the impact of an aerosolized compound on human airway tissue as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Claims 22 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Blackley represents the best art of record. However, Blackley fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claim 22 as best understood.
Regarding claim 22, Blackley above teaches all of the limitations of claim 21.
However, Blackley fails to critically teach an actuator supported on said housing and configured to be movable between an operative position that causes the aerosol-generating device to generate the aerosolized compound, and an inoperative position that does not cause the aerosol-generating device to generate the aerosolized compound; wherein said control system is further operable to selectively operate said actuator to cause generation of the aerosolized compound by the aerosol-generating device.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claim 22 and the examiner can find no teachings for an analytical testing device for testing the impact of an aerosolized compound on human airway tissue or a method for testing the impact of an aerosolized compound on human airway tissue as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights