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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 04/09/2024. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-18 were amended and claims 19-23 were newly added. Thus, claims 1-23 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) dated 04/09/2024 and 06/01/2026 have been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 appears to be missing a semicolon: “…a switch galvanically connecting the energy-source to, and galvanically separating the energy-source from, the evaluation electronics; the switch having a button…”
Claim 12 appears to have introduced a grammatical error with the amended language: “wherein the medicament-dispenser is a metered-dose inhaler and an upwardly open receiving shank for receiving a medicament container, and a mouthpiece angled relative to the shank” should read “wherein the medicament-dispenser is a metered-dose inhaler comprising
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 contains the trademark/trade name Diskus®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an inhaler type and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. It is suggested to use a generic term such as “disc-shaped inhaler” or similar.
Claim 23 is rejected for the limitation "the actuating trigger" in line 2 and “the delivery state” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. It appears that the amendment to parent claim 18 introduced the antecedent basis issue. This claim has been interpreted to read “an actuating trigger” and “a delivery state” in order to advance prosecution.
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jewett (US 5544647), hereafter Jewett.
Regarding Claim 8, Jewett discloses a set comprising: a medicament-dispenser (fig. 1, inhaler 10, col. 4 line 7), the medicament-dispenser comprising a wall (fig. 4, 12, col. 4 line 8), a receiving chamber for storing a medicament prior to discharge (fig. 1, hollow 20, col. 4 line 20) and a discharge opening (fig. 1, 22, col. 4 line 22); an evaluation unit (fig. 1, the electronics enclosed in 30, col. 4 lines 64-67), the evaluation unit comprising: an abutment face (fig. 4, the portion of wall 12 aligned with the evaluation unit) configured for abutment against the wall of the medicament-dispenser (figs. 1 and 3 shows 12 abutting the wall of inhaler 10); an electrical energy-source (fig. 4, 32 col. 5 lines 20-21); an evaluation electronics comprising at least one integrated circuit (fig. 4, 36, col. 5 line 25) and at least one sensor (col. 5 lines 25-27); and a switch (figs. 3-4, 42, col. 5 line 43) galvanically connecting the energy-source to the evaluation electronics (col. 6 lines 62-66, the switch is closed to actuate the counter), the switch being separated from the evaluation electronics (fig. 4 shows switch 46 as a separate component from 32 and 36), the switch having a button for application of mechanical force for establishing a galvanic connection between the energy-source and the evaluation electronics (fig. 3, 3-4, barrier 46, col. 7 lines 46-50), the button being located in a region of the abutment face (figs. 3-4 show 46 located at abutment face 12), such that in a coupled state of the evaluation unit on or within the medicament-dispenser, the button of the switch has a force applied to it by the medicament-dispenser, so that the galvanic connection between the energy-source and the evaluation electronics of the evaluation unit is established (figs. 1 and 3 show this configuration, col. 7 52-54).
Regarding Claim 9, Jewett discloses a set as claimed in claim 8, wherein the medicament-dispenser and the evaluation unit are in a pre-coupling state in which they are already detachably connected to one another but are offset from each other in comparison with the coupled state (figs. 1 and 3, when 30 is coupled to 12 during manufacture, this state would occur), such that the galvanic connection between the energy-source and the evaluation electronics of the evaluation unit is not yet established, the switch being capable of having a force applied to it by the medicament-dispenser by application of force to the medicament-dispenser and to the evaluation unit, and the galvanic connection between the energy-source and the evaluation electronics is capable of being established.
Regarding Claim 10, Jewett discloses a set as claimed in claim 8, wherein the medicament-dispenser comprises a liquid-dispenser (fig. 1, 16 is an aerosol canister, col. 4 line 10; it may contain a liquid, col. 3 line 14).
Regarding Claim 11, Jewett discloses a set as claimed in claim 8, wherein the medicament-dispenser comprises an actuation face (see annotated fig. 1, col. 4 lines 34-36), and the evaluation unit is disposed in a region of the actuation face of the medicament-dispenser, or the evaluation unit disposed in region of the discharge opening of the medicament-dispenser (fig. 1, evaluation electronics unit 30 is disposed in the general region of the discharge opening 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
691
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Jewett discloses a set as claimed in claim 8, wherein the medicament-dispenser is a metered-dose inhaler (fig. 1, col. 4 line 7) and an upwardly open receiving shank (fig. 1, upright portion of 20, col. 4 line 20) for receiving a medicament container (fig. 1, canister 16, col. 4 line 10), and a mouthpiece angled relative to the shank (fig. 1, open end 22 forms a mouthpiece at an angle to upright portion of 20, col. 4 lines 21-25).
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 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 1-2, 5-7, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jewett in view of Scarrott et al. (US 2021/0170120 A1), hereafter Scarrott.
Regarding Claim 1, Jewett discloses an evaluation unit (fig. 1, the components enclosed by 30, col. 4 lines 66-67) for a medicament-dispenser (fig. 1, 10, col. 4 line 7) comprising an abutment face (fig. 4, 12, col. 4 line 8) configured for abutment against a wall of the medicament-dispenser (fig. 3, 12 abuts against aerosol canister 16, col. 4 line 10); an electrical energy-source (fig. 4, power source 32, col. 5 lines 20-21); an evaluation electronics comprising at least one integrated circuit (fig. 4, ASIC 36, col. 5 line 25) and at least one sensor (col. 5 lines 25-27); a switch (figs. 3-4, 42, col. 5 line 43) galvanically connecting the energy-source to, and galvanically separating the energy-source from, the evaluation electronics (col. 6 lines 62-66, the switch is closed to actuate the counter and is understood to remain open between actuations); the switch having a button for application of mechanical force for establishing the galvanic connection between the energy-source and the evaluation electronics (figs. 3-4, barrier 46, col. 7 lines 46-50) and the button being located in a region of the abutment face such that the button has a force applied to it by abutment against the medicament-dispenser and in consequence of this the galvanic connection is established (figs. 1 and 3 show this configuration, col. 7 52-54).
Jewett does not clearly disclose whether the switch galvanically separates the energy source from the evaluation electronics (fig. 6, the position of the switch does not clearly show whether the battery is isolated from the ASIC when the switch is open; Examiner’s note: “galvanically separating” is interpreted to mean that there is no electrical connection between the battery and the evaluation electronics).
Scarrott teaches a dose counting device (fig. 34, TMAI 6, [0089] and abstract) which includes evaluation electronics (fig. 34, 4 [0090-0100]) in which a switch (fig. 33 612 [0109]) connects and disconnects power from the battery ([0109]).
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 Jewett’s switch to also disconnect the energy source from the evaluation electronics in order to conserve power (Scarrott [0109]).
Regarding Claim 2, Jewett discloses an evaluation unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit is configured for attachment to the medicament-dispenser such that no part of the evaluation unit comes into contact with the medicament during discharge (fig. 3 shows the evaluation unit as securely enclosed in 30, col. 5 lines 58-63).
Regarding Claim 5, Jewett discloses an evaluation unit as claimed in claim 1, but the embodiment of figs. 1-6 is silent on wherein the evaluation unit comprises an electrical temporary-storage unit, the electrical temporary-storage unit supplying the evaluation electronics with electrical energy even after galvanic separation from the energy-source.
However, Jewett’s evaluation unit in the embodiment of fig. 10 comprises an electrical temporary-storage unit (col. 9 lines 3-4, the switch 42’’ comprises a capacitor), the electrical temporary-storage unit supplying the evaluation electronics with electrical energy even after galvanic separation from the energy-source (col. 9 lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electronics used in Jewett’s evaluation unit to include an electrical temporary-storage unit, in the form of a capacitor, in order to supply the circuit with low-energy consumption of power for the switch (Jewett col. 9 lines 3-10).
Regarding Claim 6, Jewett discloses an evaluation unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit comprises a ring- shaped or bowl-shaped segment (figs. 1-2, 30 is bowl-shaped; examiner notes that “bowl shaped” is interpreted to mean having a concave shape with an open top), the abutment face and the switch being disposed on an inner side of the ring-shaped or bowl-shaped segment (figs. 4-3, 12 and 42 are disposed on the inner side of 30).
Regarding Claim 7, Jewett discloses an evaluation unit as claimed in claim 1, but is silent on wherein the evaluation electronics comprises at least one wireless network interface (Jewett discloses an input/output unit to print and review a patient’s record, col. 9 lines 44-49).
However, Scarrott teaches the use of a wireless network interface ([0106] Bluetooth low energy transceiver) in order to both transmit and receive communications from a smart phone to enable certain functionality of the electronics module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one wireless network interface in Jewett’s device to replace Jewett’s printer input/output in order to be able to transmit and receive wireless communications from a smartphone, as taught by Scarrott ([0106]).
Regarding Claim 19, Jewett discloses an evaluation unit as claimed in claim 7, wherein: the at least one wireless network interface comprises a Bluetooth interface (as modified by Scarrott, the wireless interface is Bluetooth), a WLAN or GSM interface, a 3G interface, a 4G interface, or a 5G interface; and/or the at least one sensor comprises a motion sensor; and/or the at least one sensor comprises a sensor for recording a flow-rate of air or liquid; and/or the at least one sensor comprises a microphone (examiner notes that the “or” option is selected from the remaining limitations and are not required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 20, Jewett discloses a set as claimed in claim 12, but the embodiment of fig. 1 is silent on wherein the evaluation unit is attached to the mouthpiece, or the evaluation unit is attached to an upper end of the receiving shank or to the medicament container.
However, Jewett discloses a variation of the arrangement in fig. 7 in which the evaluation unit (fig. 7, 30) is attached to the upper end of the receiving shank (fig. 7, col. 8 lines 27-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jewett’s embodiment of fig. 1 to that of fig. 7 having the evaluation unit attached to an upper end of the receiving shank as an obvious modification of the evaluation device that would function equally well as the position of fig. 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jewett and Scarrott, further in view of Genova et al. (US 2006/0254581 A1), hereafter Genova.
Regarding Claim 4, Jewett discloses an evaluation unit as claimed in claim 1, but is silent on wherein the switch comprises a spring-loaded push-button, the spring-loaded push-button establishing the galvanic connection in a pressed-in state.
Genova teaches a spring-loaded push button for a switch (fig. 2, spring 13 on plunger 12 to contact switch 14 [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a spring in Jewett’s button, as taught by Genova, in order to absorb any over-travel of the canister (Genova [0031]), as well as to assist the button in returning to its starting position.
Claims 13-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jewett, further in view of Ruckdeschel et al. (US 2006/0243275), hereafter Ruckdeschel.
Regarding Claim 13, Jewett discloses a set as claimed in claim 8, with a liquid reservoir (fig. 1, aerosol canister 16, col. 4 line 10) and a discharge head (fig. 1, 22, col. 4 line 22), and the evaluation unit is attached to an outside of the liquid reservoir or of the discharge head (fig. 1, evaluation unit 30 is attached to the canister 16 via wall 12), but is silent on wherein the medicament-dispenser is a drop-dispenser, the discharge head comprising a discharge opening with drop-forming geometry.
Ruckdeschel teaches a similarly configured device to Jewett (see fig. 3 and [0036]) which includes drop dispensing ([0054]) with a liquid reservoir (fig. 3, canister 46 [0035]) and a discharge head (fig. 3, vortex nozzle 49 [0035]), the discharge head comprising a discharge opening with drop-forming geometry ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jewett’s discharge head to include drop dispensing by including the discharge head with drop-forming geometry as taught by Ruckdeschel, for the benefit of a higher, more uniform dose of medication reaching the patient ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 14, Jewett discloses a set as claimed in claim 8, wherein the medicament-dispenser is a powder-inhaler (col. 3 lines 13-14) with a housing (fig. 1, assembled tube 12, col. 4 line 19), but is silent on a swiveling swivel cover articulated thereto, the swiveling swivel cover being capable of being swiveled for clearing a mouthpiece and/or for providing a dose of powder.
Ruckdeschel teaches a similarly configured device that includes a housing (fig. 1, housing structure 100 [0031]) that includes a swiveling swivel cover articulated thereto (figs. 1 and 4, mouthpiece cover 7 [0032]), the swiveling swivel cover being capable of providing a dose ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a swiveling swivel cover in Jewett’s device, as taught above by Ruckdeschel, for the benefit of preventing a misfire due to accidental impact or other unanticipated events (Ruckdeschel [0049]).
Regarding Claim 15, Jewett discloses a set as claimed in claim 8, wherein the medicament-dispenser is a nasal dispenser with a nasal applicator (col. 4 lines 26-27, the opening 22 can be modified for nasal application), but is silent on a swirl chamber configured for swirling liquid.
Ruckdeschel teaches a swirl chamber configured for swirling liquid (fig. 3, 49 [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a swirl chamber for swirling liquid for the benefit of the aerosolization or atomization of the sprayed medicament resulting in a higher, more uniform dose of medication reaching the patient (Ruckdeschel [0053]).
Regarding Claim 21, Jewett as modified discloses a set as claimed in claim 15, but is silent on wherein the evaluation unit is attached to an actuating trigger of the medicament-dispenser disposed opposite the nasal applicator.
However, Jewett also discloses an embodiment in which the evaluation unit is positioned near the top of the medicament dispenser (fig. 7, 30, col. 8 lines 27-52) which acts as a trigger (fig. 7, button 42 contacts stop 60 to actuate the microelectronics, col. 8 lines 38-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the evaluation unit to an actuating trigger disposed opposite the nasal applicator, since Jewett discloses that this is an alternative structure to the embodiment of fig. 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jewett, further in view of Engelhard et al. (US 9035765 B2), hereafter Engelhard.
Regarding Claim 17, Jewett discloses a set as claimed in claim 8, but is silent on wherein the medicament-dispenser is a Diskus inhaler.
Engelhard teaches a counting device similar in construction to Jewett (fig. 10, button 418, fig. 1, sensor 28, microcontroller 34, power source 36; col. 19 lines 46-56) that may be used on a metered dose inhaler similarly to Jewett’s device (fig. 4, dispenser 304 and accessory 302, col. 25 lines 25-28), as well as on a variety of other shaped containers (figs. 14 through 20), in particular, a Diskus-type inhaler (fig. 20, col. 36 lines 14-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jewett’s counter to be placed on a Diskus inhaler, as taught by Engelhard in order to track dosage administration of different container shapes (Engelhard col. 34 line 55-col. 35 line 6).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jewett, further in view of Morrison et al. (US 2016/0325057 A1), hereafter Morrison.
Regarding Claim 18, Jewett disclose a set as claimed in claim 8, but is silent on wherein the receiving chamber is relocatable as a whole in relation to the discharge opening, and is relocatable by application of force to an actuation face contrary to a piston.
However, Morrison teaches a configuration of metered dose inhaler which has a receiving chamber (figs. 10A-C) in which the receiving chamber is relocatable as a whole in relation to the discharge opening (fig. 10A compared to fig. 10C, the yoke 1090 moves in relation to the discharge opening [0108-0110], the discharge opening is seen in fig. 8A, mouthpiece 870 [0104]), and is relocatable by application of force (mouthpiece cap not shown in fig. 10 [0107] is understood to operate similarly to 880 in fig. 8A [0104], which pulls the yoke 1090 downward) to an actuation face (fig. 8A, the actuation face is the hinge connection between the yoke and the hinged mouthpiece cap [0104] and [0107]) contrary to a piston (fig. 10A, bellows 1091 creates a piston action of the yoke relative to the outer canister [0107]).
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 actuation of Jewett’s canister to the claimed arrangement, as taught by Morrison, in order to include a bellows, which relieves strain on the switch (Morrison [0109]) and wakes the PCB of the counting device ([0220]).
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jewett, further in view of Jewett et al. (US 5622163), hereafter Jewett ‘163.
Regarding Claim 16, Jewett discloses a set as claimed in claim 8, wherein the medicament-dispenser comprises an actuating trigger (fig. 1, spray stem 18, col. 4 line 14) capable of being pressed down with respect to a storage body (fig. 3, 18 is pressed down relative to storage body, canister 16, col. 4 line 14 and lines 34-37); however, Jewett is silent on the receiving chamber being disposed in the storage body (the receiving chamber 20 is outside the storage body 16).
Jewett ‘163 teaches an alternative embodiment of a medicament dispenser having a trigger (fig. 2 is similar to Jewett; fig. 5 shows a trigger 17a, col. 7 lines 17-21) capable of being pressed down with respect to a storage body (fig. 5, 16a, col. 7 line 18), which has a receiving chamber (see annotated fig. 5, the device is understood to be a conventional spray pump in which fluid is drawn into the receiving chamber indicated and is understood to remain there until the trigger is pressed).
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 arrangement of Jewett’s evaluation electronics to be positioned on a trigger as claimed, since Jewett ‘163 teaches that the claimed arrangement is an alternative construction that operates equally well to count a dispensed dose from a spray container having a trigger (Jewett ‘163 col. 7 lines 17-21).
PNG
media_image2.png
682
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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;
Regarding Claim 3, Jewett discloses an evaluation unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the energy-source comprises a sole energy-source (fig. 4, 32 is the only energy source), but is silent on the evaluation electronics are completely separated from the energy-source of the evaluation unit when the button does not have a force applied to it.
There does not appear to be prior art of record which clearly indicates that an energy source is completely separated from evaluation electronics, as defined in claim 1 to comprise an integrated circuit and at least one sensor, when the button, having a switch, does not have a force applied to it.
Oliveras et al. (US 2017/0274163 A1) discloses waking electronics from a sleep state using a switch ([0024] and fig. 1B) but it is not clear if a sleep state also includes a complete separation between the battery (fig. 1, 155) and the evaluation electronics (fig. 1B PCB 150).
Thus, claim 3 would be allowed over the prior art if rewritten to include all the limitations of base claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22, while Jewett as modified discloses a set as claimed in claim 16, there does not appear to be prior art of record which also includes wherein: the evaluation unit has an annular segment attached circumferentially to the storage body and an actuating section projecting beyond the actuating trigger in the coupled state, the actuating section being capable of being pressed down together with the actuating trigger relative to the storage body; or the medicament dispenser comprises a sleeve surrounding the storage body, the actuating trigger being capable of being pressed down with respect to the sleeve, the evaluation unit being disposed within the sleeve below the storage body.
Neither configuration appears to be present in the prior art along with the all of the limitations of parent claims 16 and 8. The closest prior art noted is Decock (WO 2021/084093 A1) which includes an evaluation unit (fig. 1, 11 [0078]), a sleeve (fig. 3, 17 [0078]) surrounding a storage body (fig. 3, tank 24 [0077]), an actuating trigger (fig. 3, 23 [0079]), the actuating trigger being capable of being pressed down with respect to the sleeve (fig. 3, [0076]), the evaluation unit being disposed withing the sleeve below the storage body (fig. 3). However, Decock does not also include the requirements of claim 16.
Thus claim 22 would be allowable over the prior art, should it be rewritten to include all of the limitations of parent claims 8 and 16.
Regarding Claim 23, Jewett as modified discloses a set as claimed in claim 18, but is silent on wherein the evaluation unit is attached to an actuating trigger in a region of the actuating face, the evaluation unit in a delivery state being attached to the actuating trigger such that the switch is not actuated and the galvanic connection between the energy-source and the evaluation electronics is not established.
There does not appear to be prior art of record which includes the configuration of claim 18 as well as a trigger in a region of an actuating face. Morrison figs. 10A-10C teach the configuration of the evaluation electronics in a delivery state being attached to the actuating trigger such that the switch is not actuated and the galvanic connection between the energy-source and the evaluation electronics is not established (fig. 10A, if 1092 is considered an actuating trigger [0108], the switch 1095 is attached at this stage. However, when the delivery state is actuated in fig. 10C, the switch is not attached to the actuating trigger.
Thus, claim 23 would be allowable over the prior art, should it be rewritten to include all of the limitations of parent claims 18 and 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5363842 fig. 2A shows a counting device with a button 244
US 6029659 fig. 5
US 2009/0151723 A1 figs. 5-6a [0055-0057]
US 2011/0303221 A1 fig. 1-2
US 2013/0025609 A1 fig. 1
US 2015/0357839 A1 [0006]
US 2017/0087312 A1 fig. 5
US 2018/0221600 A1 figs. 7-8
US 2018/0236187 A1 fig. 3
US 2020/0206430 which includes inhalation, spray, pill or tablet, dropper, etc. [0003]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 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 S. 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights