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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 16 – 32 in the reply filed on 9/23/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 33 – 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/23/26.
Status of Claims
Claims 16 – 32 are pending and are the subject of this office action. This is the first office action
on the merits of the claims.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 16 – 18, 20, 21, 24 – 26 and 29 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6575162 B1 (Rand) and further in view of US 20170099877 A1 (Worm).
Regarding claim 16, Rand teaches an inhalation device which dispenses medicament in an aerosol formulation (claims 7, 20, 32 and 44), with a mouthpiece reversibly movable from a storage position wherein the mouthpiece is within the body (column 2 lines 31 - 32). Figure 2a shows the body (10) with a downstream portion with a downstream opening where the mouthpiece (90) protrudes. The body (10) also has an end cap (16) wherein the end cap (16) is reversibly attached to the body (10) by a snap fit mechanism (30,32) (column 3 lines 55 – 57; figure 1). As the end cap is reversibly attachable to the body, the body would then contain an upstream opening at the point of attachment of the end cap, and medicament could be received into the cavity via the upstream opening. Additionally, Rand teaches an embodiment in which the body (310) is provided with a medicament compartment (320) which is accessible for loading of medicament by opening of the door (322) (column 4 lines 66 – 67 and column 5 lines 1 – 2; figures 6, 7a & 7b). The area within the body containing the mouthpiece and medicament reads on the claim limitation of a cavity with an upstream and downstream opening. Figures 1, 2a and 2b further show a transition piece (40) slidably mounted within the cavity and configured to both retract the mouthpiece (90) into the cavity and push the medicament (20) out of the cavity. Rand teaches that the mouthpiece (90) communicates with the hollow interior of the transition piece (40), which itself communicates with medicament container (20) (column 4 lines 18 – 21). The transition piece (40) reads on the claim limitation of a connection element.
Rand does not teach a sterilization radiation source configured for irradiating at least parts of the downstream portion of the cavity for sterilizing the mouthpiece. Worm teaches an aerosol delivery device (100) which includes an ultraviolet emitter (196) configured to emit ultraviolet light. The ultraviolet emitter (196) may be configured and positioned to direct ultraviolet light at the mouthpiece (220) of the cartridge (200) when the cartridge is in the retracted configuration (paragraph 182; figure 1).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1 – figure 2a of US 6575162 B1 (Rand). Cavity is circled in black while the upstream and downstream end are indicated along with the location of the upstream opening)]
PNG
media_image1.png
213
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aerosol delivery device of Rand with the UV emitter of Worm, with reasonable expectation of success, because Worm indicates that the ultraviolet light can kill microorganisms such as pathogens, viruses, and molds (paragraph 181).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 16. Rand further teaches that the mouthpiece (90) is reversibly movable from a storage position wherein the mouthpiece is within the body to an in-use position wherein a portion of the mouthpiece protrudes from the body (column 2 lines 31 – 34; figures 2a & 2b).
Regarding claim 20, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 16. Figures 2a of Rand further shows the transition piece (40) in a first position in the downstream end of the cavity while the mouthpiece (90) is in a protracted position. Figure 2b shows the transition piece (40) in the upstream portion of the cavity when the mouthpiece (90) is in the retracted position. Figures 2a and 2b together show that the transition piece (40) is capable of sliding within the cavity. The transition piece (40) reads on the claim limitation of a connection element.
Regarding claim 21, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 20. Figure 2b of Rand further shows that the transition piece (40) pushes the medicament (20) out of the cavity and into the endcap (16). The transition piece (40) is also shown as generally tubular (figure 1), and the portion connecting to the medicament (20) reads on the claim limitation of the upstream part. The medicament (20) reads on the claim limitation of an aerosol-generating article.
Regarding claim 24, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol generating device as described by claim 16. Figure 2b of Rand further shows the cover (50) covering the downstream opening of the cavity when the mouthpiece is retracted into the cavity.
Regarding claim 25, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 24. Worm further teaches that a reflective coating may be positioned within the housing (102) such that it substantially surrounds the mouthpiece (220) when the cartridge (200) is retracted into the housing and thereby reflects the ultraviolet light around and against the periphery of the mouthpiece (paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of Rand with the reflective coating of Worm, with reasonable expectation of success, because Worm indicates that the reflective coating can direct the ultraviolet light towards the entirety of the external surface of the mouthpiece to ensure total sterilization (paragraph 182). Furthermore, an opaque or reflective cover ensures that harmful ultraviolet radiation does not escape the device and harm the user.
Regarding claim 26, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 16. Worm further teaches that the aerosol delivery device (100) includes an ultraviolet emitter (196) configured to emit ultraviolet light. The ultraviolet emitter (196) may be configured and positioned to direct ultraviolet light at the mouthpiece (220) of the cartridge (200) when the cartridge is in the retracted configuration (paragraph 182; figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aerosol delivery device of Rand with the UV emitter of Worm, with reasonable expectation of success, because Worm indicates that the ultraviolet light can kill microorganisms such as pathogens, viruses, and molds (paragraph 181).
Regarding claim 29, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 16. Rand further teaches that the inhalation device contains medicament containers in an aerosol formulation (claims 7, 20, 32 & 44) which read on the claim limitation of an aerosol generating article.
Regarding claim 30, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol generating system as described by claim 29. Figures 1, 2a and 2b of Rand show the transition piece (40) as having a tubular shape. The transition piece (40) reads on the claim limitation of a connection element. The portion of the transition piece (40) connected to the medicament (20) reads on the claim limitation of an upstream element, and the medicament (20) reads on the claim limitation of an aerosol generating article. Rand teaches that the mouthpiece (90) communicates with the hollow interior of the transition piece (40), which itself communicates with medicament container (20) (column 4 lines 18 – 21). Figure 2b further shows the transition piece (40) is capable of pushing the medicament out of the out of the interior cavity and is adjacent to the medicament.
Regarding claim 31, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating system as described by claim 29. Rand further teaches that the inhalation device contains medicament in an aerosol formulation (claims 7, 20, 32 & 44).
Regarding claim 32, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating system as described by claim 31. Rand further teaches that the inhalation device contains medicament in a powder formulation (claims 8, 21, 33 & 45).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6575162 B1 (Rand) and US 20170099877 A1 (Worm) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US 11000067 B1 (Bijpai).
Regarding claim 19, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 17. Rand modified by Worm does not teach that the mouthpiece is detachably connected to the connection element. Bijpai teaches a system comprising a wireless charging station and a portable electronic vaporizing device (paragraph 7). Bijpai further teaches that the mouthpiece (4) of the device is removably attachable to the base (2) (paragraph 38; figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mouthpiece of Rand modified by Worm to be detachable as in Bijpai, with reasonable expectation of success, because Bijpai indicates that a detachable mouthpiece allows the user to easily clean and/or replace the mouthpiece (paragraph 38).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6575162 B1 (Rand) and US 20170099877 A1 (Worm) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 20220117309 A1 (Emmett).
Regarding claim 22, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 16. Rand modified by Worm does not teach that the mouthpiece comprises a Venturi element. Emmett teaches an aerosol-generating system comprising an aerosol-forming substrate and a Venturi element (paragraph 6). The Venturi element (12) may be part of a mouthpiece (34) of the aerosol-generating device (paragraph 189; figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mouthpiece of Rand modified by Worm with the Venturi element of Emmett, with reasonable expectation of success, because Emmett indicates that providing a Venturi element enhances aerosol generation. Optimized droplets of aerosol may be generated within the Venturi element. And the Venturi element is configured to generate an aerosol having an advantageous droplet size or advantageous ranges of preferred droplet sizes or an advantageous droplet size distribution (paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 23, Rand modified by Worm and Emmett teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 22. Figure 4 of Emmett shows the Venturi element (12) as located on the device side (34) of the mouthpiece rather than the air outlet side, which reads on the claim limitation of an upstream end of the mouthpiece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Venturi element of Rand modified by Worm and Emmett to be on the upstream side of the mouthpiece as in Emmett, with reasonable expectation of success, because Emmett indicates that different attaching directions of the Venturi element correspond with different user experiences. For example, attaching the Venturi element to be closer to the device may provide a smoother user experience than attaching the Venturi element to be closer to the air outlet of the mouthpiece (paragraph 23)
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6575162 B1 (Rand) and US 20170099877 A1 (Worm) as applied to claims 16 and 26 above, and further in view of KR 20110002996 U (‘996).
Regarding claim 27, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 26. Rand modified by Worm does not teach that the sterilization radiation source is configured to emit UV radiation in a wavelength range from 100nm to 280nm. ‘996 teaches an electronic cigarette in which a cap is installed on the mouthpiece allowing for cleaning and sterilization of contamination caused by contact with the oral cavity (page 2 paragraph 1). ‘996 further teaches that an ultraviolet irradiation unit (140) is installed inside the cap (130) to sterilize the discharge port (106) that comes into contact with the smoker’s mouth (page 10 paragraph 1). Excellent sterilization efficiency can be obtained when irradiating ultraviolet rays of a specific wavelength. For a blue LED chip having a wavelength of 200 to 300nm, the sterilization ability is significantly superior compared to LED chips of other wavelengths (page 10 paragraphs 1 & 2; figure 3). A wavelength range of 200 – 300nm overlaps the claimed range of 100 – 280 nm. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the UV emitter of Rand modified by Worm to utilize the UV wavelengths of ‘996 with reasonable expectation of success, because ‘996 indicates that the UV wavelength range of 200 – 300nm has superior sterilization ability compared to other wavelengths which allows for more efficient sterilization of bacteria and microorganisms in the air and residing on the device allowing for more hygienic operation of the device (paragraph 2 page 10).
Regarding claim 28, Rand modified by Worm teaches an aerosol-generating device as described by claim 16. Rand modified by Worm does not teach that the sterilization radiation source comprises an array of one or both of: UV radiation emitting LEDs and UV radiation emitting OLEDs. ‘996 teaches that the ultraviolet radiation unit (140) is preferably an LED module comprising a substrate (142) and an LED package (144) mounted on the substrate (142) (page 4 paragraph 2; figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the UV emitter of Rand modified by Worm to be an LED module as in ‘996 with reasonable expectation of success, because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that swapping the UV emitter of Rand modified by Worm with the LED of ‘996 is a simple substitution of parts that would produce a predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendon Juengst whose telephone number is (571)272-8750. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/BRENDON THOMAS JUENGST/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights