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 a preliminary amendment filed on 7/16/2024. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-33 were cancelled and new claims 34-53 were added. Thus, claims 34-53 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Presently, no limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 112(f).
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 46-53 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 46, the limitation “preferably in a range of 155° to 175°…preferably in a range of 70° to 85°…preferably in a range of 120° to 140°” (lines 3, 5, and 7) is unclear if the range after the limitation “preferably” in lines 3, 5 and 7 are being positively claimed or not, the term “preferably” is indefinite.
Regarding claim 46, the limitation “a first horizontal direction…a second horizontal direction” (lines 2 and 4) is unclear if the first horizontal direction is the same as or different from the “horizontal direction” being claimed in claim 45, line 3 and is unclear if the second horizontal direction is the same as or different from the “horizontal direction” being claimed in claim 45, line 3.
Regarding claim 46, the limitation “a vertical direction” (line 6) is unclear if the vertical direction is the same as or different from “a vertical direction” being claimed in claim 45, line 3.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “preferably in a range of 67° to 87°…preferably in a range of 155° to 178°…preferably in a range of 40° to 55°” (lines 3, 5-6, and 7-8) is unclear if the range after the limitation “preferably” in lines 3, 5-6 and 7-7 are being positively claimed or not, the term “preferably” is indefinite.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “a first horizontal direction…a second horizontal direction” (lines 2 and 4-5) is unclear if the first horizontal direction is the same as or different from the “horizontal direction” being claimed in claim 45, line 3 and is unclear if the second horizontal direction is the same as or different from the “horizontal direction” being claimed in claim 45, line 3.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “a vertical direction” (lines 6-7) is unclear if the vertical direction is the same as or different from “a vertical direction” being claimed in claim 45, line 3.
Regarding claim 48, the limitation “preferably in a range of 5° to 30°…preferably in a range of 5° to 20°” (lines 3 and 5) is unclear if the range after the limitation “preferably” in lines 3 and 5 are being positively claimed or not, the term “preferably” is indefinite.
Regarding claim 48, the limitation “a horizontal direction” (line 4) is unclear if the horizontal direction is the same as or different from the “horizontal direction” being claimed in claim 45, line 3.
Regarding claim 48, the limitation “a projection” (line 4) is unclear if the projection in line 4 is the same as or different from “a projection” being claimed in claim 48, line 2.
Regarding claim 49, the limitation “the trigger assembly” (line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear if the trigger assembly is the same as or different from “a trigger” being claimed in claim 49, line 1. For examination purposes, the limitation “a trigger” in claim 49, line 1 is being interpreted as --a trigger assembly--.
Regarding claim 50, the limitation “the trigger ring is in the form of a switch button of the atomizer, or the trigger ring is connected to the switch button of the atomizer…the switch button” (lines 2-4) is unclear if “the switch button” is the same as the switch button being claimed in claim 50, line 2, the usage of the term “the switch button” implies that the switch button in lines 3 and 4 are referring to “a switch button”, however, if they are the same, then it is unclear how can the button formed the trigger ring but also is connected to the trigger ring.
Regarding claim 53, the limitation “an axial direction” (line 3) is unclear if the axial direction in line 3 of claim 53 is the same as or different from “an axial direction” being claimed in claim 49, line 13.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 34-39 and 41-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stuart (2022/0323696).
PNG
media_image1.png
1251
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
913
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Stuart discloses a trigger assembly for an atomizer (entire atomizer 100 in figs. 1A-1B, paragraph 0083), the trigger assembly comprising a trigger ring (108, figs. 2A-2B, paragraphs 0083, 0086 and 0088-0091) and a delivery tube holder (104, figs. 1A-1B, paragraphs 0083 and 0086), wherein the trigger ring comprises a ring body and a first locking portion (portion of 203 comprising 223, 207, 225, figs. 2A-2B, paragraph 0084) arranged on the ring body (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B above), and at least one surface of the first locking portion forms a first locking surface (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B), wherein the delivery tube holder comprises a tube holder body and a second locking portion (205 comprising 211, 237, 239 and 209, fig. 4) arranged on the tube holder body and at least one surface of the second locking portion forms a second locking surface (see the annotated-Stuart fig. 4 above, see paragraphs 0086 and 0088-0089), wherein the trigger assembly has a locked position and an unlocked position, in the locked position, the first locking surface abuts against the second locking surface, so that the trigger ring and the delivery tube holder stop each other (see figs. 5A-5B and paragraph 0088 for the locked position when the first locking surface abuts against the second locking surface), and in the unlocked position, the first locking surface is not in contact with the second locking surface (see figs. 5E-5F, at the point shown in figs. 5E-5F, the atomizer is primed and the first locking surface is not in contact with the second locking surface, see paragraphs 0087-0091), so that the delivery tube holder is movable in an axial direction relative to the trigger ring (see figs. 5A-5H and paragraphs 0087-0090, as shown, the delivery tube holder is movable in an axial direction relative to the trigger ring).
Regarding claim 35, Stuart discloses that the first locking portion is in the form of a locking protrusion extending out from at least one side of the trigger ring (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B above, the locking portion can be viewed as a locking protrusion extending out from at least one side of the trigger ring, by interpreting it as such would mean that the locking protrusion is extending out from one side of the trigger ring), and the second locking portion is in the form of a locking notch recessed on at least one side of the tube holder body (see the annotated-Stuart fig. 4 above, as shown, when viewing 104 and outer surface of 205 as part of the tube holder body, the second locking portion can defined as being in the form of a locking notch).
Regarding claim 36, Stuart discloses that the first locking portion is in the form of a locking notch recessed on at least one side of the trigger ring (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B above, the locking portion can be viewed as a locking notch recess on at least one side of the trigger ring under the interpretation that the outer surface of 203 is treated as part of the trigger ring), and the second locking portion is in the form of a locking protrusion extending out from at least one side of the tube holder body (see the annotated-Stuart fig. 4 above, as shown, when viewing 104, one can view 205 as a locking protrusion extending out from at least one side of the tube holder body).
Regarding claim 37, Stuart discloses that the trigger ring and the delivery tube holder stopping each other consist in that the trigger ring prevents a vertical movement of the delivery tube holder and the delivery tube holder prevents horizontal movements of the trigger ring (see figs. 5A-5H and paragraphs 0087-0090, depending on the stage of engagement between the trigger ring and the delivery tube holder, there, would be a point where the trigger ring and the delivery tube holder stops each other would consist in that the trigger ring prevents a vertical movement (the delivery tube holder is prevented from moving below, alternatively, the delivery tube holder is prevented from moving above the trigger ring), furthermore, as shown, the delivery tube holder prevents horizontal movements of the trigger ring).
Regarding claim 38, Stuart discloses that in the unlocked position, the delivery tube holder is movable through the trigger ring in the axial direction (see fig. 5F, during the transition, there would be a point where the first locking surface is not in contact with the second locking surface, see paragraphs 0087-0090).
PNG
media_image3.png
1009
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, Stuart discloses an outer diameter of the delivery tube holder is less than an inner diameter of the trigger ring (see the annotated-Stuart fig. 5B above).
Regarding claim 41, Stuart discloses that the locking protrusion extends outwardly from a bottom side of the ring body of the trigger ring, and the locking notch is arranged on a top side of the tube holder body of the delivery tube holder (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B and 4 above, the inhaler/atomizer 100 is portable and can be oriented such that the locking protrusion extends from a bottom side of the ring body of the trigger ring and the locking notch is arranged on a top side of the tube holder body of the delivery tube holder).
Regarding claim 42, Stuart discloses that the first locking surface is in the form of a radially outward surface of the locking protrusion, and the second locking surface is in the form of a radially inward surface of the delivery tube holder (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B and 4 above, relatively to the “reference surface” of 108, the first locking surface is in the form a radially outward surface of the locking protrusion, furthermore, relative to the reference surface for claim 42, the second locking surface is in the form of a radially inward surface of the delivery tube holder).
Regarding claim 43, Stuart discloses only one locking protrusion is provided on at least one side of the trigger ring, and a plurality of locking notches are provided on at least one side of the delivery tube holder (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B above, the locking protrusion and the “side of the trigger ring” can be defined such that there is only one locking protrusion that is provided on the side of the trigger side, see the annotated-Stuart fig. 4 above, the side of the delivery tube holder can be defined such that there are multiple locking notches).
Regarding claim 44, Stuart discloses that the plurality of locking notches are arranged at equal angular intervals in a circumferential direction on a side of the delivery tube holder that mates with the locking protrusion (see the annotated-Stuart fig. 4 above, the notches are spaced 180 degrees apart, therefore, can be defined as having equal angular intervals, see paragraphs 0090-0091).
Regarding claim 45, Stuart discloses that the first locking surface is in the form of a flat inclined surface, and the inclined surface is inclined with respect to both a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (see the annotated-Stuart fig. 2B above, as shown the surface formed by 223 is a flat inclined surface that would be inclined relative to both the horizontal direction and vertical direction, it is noted that because the atomizer 100 is portable, any direction can be interpreted as a vertical direction and any can be interpreted as horizontal direction, since the surface can be oriented to be inclined relative to any direction).
Regarding claim 46, Stuart discloses an included angle between a normal direction of the first locking surface and a first horizontal direction of the trigger ring is in a range of 135° to 178° (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B above, a first horizontal direction of the first locking surface can be arranged/oriented such that the angle between the normal direction of the first locking surface and the first horizontal directions of the trigger ring is in a range of 135 to 178°, any direction can be a first horizontal direction depending on how the trigger ring is being oriented, it is noted that the claim does not restrict such interpretation, the claim merely claims a first horizontal direction of the trigger ring); an included angle between the normal direction of the first locking surface and a second horizontal direction of the trigger ring is in a range of 65° to 90° (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B above, a second horizontal direction of the first locking surface can be arranged/oriented such that the angle between the normal direction of the first locking surface and second horizontal direction of the trigger ring is in a range of 65 to 90°, any direction can be a second horizontal direction depending on how the trigger ring is being oriented, it is noted that the claim does not restrict such interpretation, the claim merely claims a second horizontal direction of the trigger ring); and an included angle between the normal direction of the first locking surface and a vertical direction of the trigger ring is in a range of 115° to 145°(see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B above, a vertical direction of the first locking surface can be arranged/oriented such that the angle between the normal direction of the first locking surface and the vertical direction of the trigger ring is in a range of 115 to 145°, any direction can be a vertical direction depending on how the trigger ring is being oriented, it is noted that the claim does not restrict such interpretation, the claim merely claims a vertical direction of the trigger ring).
Regarding claim 47, Stuart discloses an included angle between a normal direction of the second locking surface and a first horizontal direction of the delivery tube holder is in a range of 55° to 90° (see the annotated-Stuart fig. 4 above, a first horizontal direction of the second locking surface can be arranged/oriented such that the angle between the normal direction of the second locking surface and the first horizontal direction of the delivery tube holder is in a range of 55-90°, any direction can be a first horizontal direction depending on how the delivery tube holder is being oriented, it is noted that the claim does not restrict such interpretation, the claim merely claims a first horizontal direction of the delivery tube holder); an included angle between the normal direction of the second locking surface and a second horizontal direction of the delivery tube holder is in a range of 145° to 185° (see the annotated-Stuart fig. 4 above, a second horizontal direction of the delivery tube holder can be arranged/oriented such that the angle between the normal direction of the second locking surface and second horizontal direction of the delivery tube holder is in a range of 145 to 185°, it is noted that there are multiple horizontal direction, any direction can be a second horizontal direction depending on how the delivery tube holder is being oriented, it is noted that the claim does not restrict such interpretation, the claim merely claims a second horizontal direction of the delivery tube holder); and an included angle between the normal direction of the second locking surface and a vertical direction of the delivery tube holder is in a range of 30° to 60°(see the annotated-Stuart fig. 4 above, a vertical direction of the second locking surface can be arranged/oriented such that the angle between the normal direction of the second locking surface and the vertical direction of the delivery tube holder is in a range of 30 to 60°, any direction can be a vertical direction depending on how the delivery tube holder is being oriented, it is noted that the claim does not restrict such interpretation, the claim merely claims a vertical direction of the delivery tube holder).
PNG
media_image4.png
659
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 48, Stuart discloses that an included angle between a projection of the first locking surface on a horizontal plane and a first radial direction of the trigger ring is in a range of 5° to 50° (see the annotated-Stuart for claim 48 fig. 2B above, a plane can be defined such that a projection of the first locking surface on a horizontal plane can be sectioned off such that the angle between the projection and the first radial direction of the trigger ring is in a range of 5° to 50°, the “projection” is three dimensional therefore, extends in all directions, therefore, depends on how one view the projection relative to the first radial direction, it would be angled in a range within 5 to 50°, it is noted that the claim is claiming that the angle is between a projection and a radial direction), and an included angle between a projection of the first locking surface in a horizontal direction and a second radial direction of the trigger ring is in a range of 3° to 60° (see the annotated-Stuart for claim 48 fig. 2B above, the projection can be sectioned into another projection that is three dimensional and relatively, the projection is in a horizontal direction and would be within a range of 3 to 60° relative to a second radial direction, the “projection” is three dimensional therefore, extends in all directions, therefore, depends on how one view the projection relative to the second radial direction, it would be angled in a range within 3 to 60°, it is noted that the claim is claiming that the angle is between a projection and a radial direction).
Regarding claim 49, Stuart discloses an atomizer (entire atomizer 100 in figs. 1A-1B, paragraph 0083) comprising a trigger assembly for triggering the atomizer to spray an atomized liquid, wherein the trigger assembly comprising a trigger ring (108, figs. 2A-2B, paragraphs 0083, 0086 and 0088-0091) and a delivery tube holder (104, figs. 1A-1B, paragraphs 0083 and 0086), wherein the trigger ring comprises a ring body and a first locking portion (portion of 203 comprising 223, 207, 225, figs. 2A-2B, paragraph 0084) arranged on the ring body (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B above), and at least one surface of the first locking portion forms a first locking surface (see the annotated-Stuart figs. 2A-2B), wherein the delivery tube holder comprises a tube holder body and a second locking portion (205 comprising 211, 237, 239 and 209, fig. 4) arranged on the tube holder body and wherein at least one surface of the second locking portion forms a second locking surface (see the annotated-Stuart fig. 4 above, see paragraphs 0086 and 0088-0089), wherein the trigger assembly has a locked position and an unlocked position, in the locked position, the first locking surface abuts against the second locking surface, so that the trigger ring and the delivery tube holder stop each other (see figs. 5A-5B and paragraph 0088 for the locked position when the first locking surface abuts against the second locking surface), and in the unlocked position, the first locking surface is not in contact with the second locking surface (see figs. 5E-5F, at this point, the atomizer is primed and the first locking surface is not in contact with the second locking surface, see paragraphs 0087-0091), so that the delivery tube holder is movable in an axial direction relative to the trigger ring (see figs. 5A-5H and paragraphs 0087-0090, as shown, the delivery tube holder is movable in an axial direction relative to the trigger ring).
Regarding claim 50, Stuart discloses that the trigger ring is connected to the switch button of the atomizer, so that the trigger ring is movable as the switch button is pressed (see switch button 112 in figs. 1A-1B and 5A-5H and paragraphs 0083, 0085, and 0090-0091).
Regarding claim 51, Stuart discloses that when the atomizer is in an initial position, the trigger assembly is located in the unlocked position; and when the atomizer is in a pre-trigger position, the trigger assembly is located in the locked position (see paragraphs 0087-0091, the initial position can be interpreted as a position that would include the trigger assembly being in an unlocked position and when the trigger assembly is located in the locked position, the atomizer can be in a pre-trigger position, since Stuart discloses a resettable trigger assembly, the term “initial position” and “pre-trigger position” are relative terms, that is, when the trigger assembly is located in the unlocked position and the first and second locking surfaces are not in contact, that position can be interpreted as an initial position, initial relative to the next action that takes place within the atomizer, while the pre-trigger position is when the trigger assembly is located in the locked position where the first and second locking surfaces are in contact because it takes place before the button 112 is being triggered).
Regarding claim 52, Stuart discloses that the delivery tube holder is movable vertically in the unlocked position (see figs. 5D-5F, as the delivery tube holder is transitioning to the unlocked position, the tube holder is movable vertically, here, the unlocked position can be interpreted as a transition period/position where the delivery tube holder 104 is movable to 5F or from 5F, see paragraphs 0087-0091), such that the atomizer moves from the initial position to the pre-trigger position, and the trigger ring is capable of being pressed in the locked position to move horizontally, such that the atomizer moves from the pre-trigger position back to the initial position (see paragraphs 0061-0063 and 0087-0091, Stuart discloses a resettable mechanism, therefore, the atomizer would move from the initial position to the pre-trigger position, and the trigger ring is capable of being pressed in the locked position to move horizontally by the button 112, such that the atomizer moves from the pre-trigger position back to the initial position).
Regarding claim 53, Stuart discloses that the atomizer further comprises a spring (231) at a bottom of the delivery tube holder, for applying a thrust to the delivery tube holder to urge the delivery tube holder to pass through the trigger ring in an axial direction (see spring 231 in fig. 5B with reference to figs. 5A-5H and paragraphs 0061-0063 and 0087-0091).
Claims 34 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eicher (6,453,795).
PNG
media_image5.png
1203
916
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Eicher discloses a trigger assembly for an atomizer (atomizer in figs. 1a-1b, col 3, lines 38-65), the trigger assembly comprising a trigger ring (6 and 7, fig. 10) and a delivery tube holder (5, fig. 1A, col 3, lines 38-65), wherein the trigger ring comprises a ring body (body of 6, see the annotated-Eicher figs. 1A-1B above) and a first locking portion arranged on the ring body, and at least one surface of the first locking portion forms a first locking surface, wherein the delivery tube holder comprises a tube holder body and a second locking portion arranged on the tube holder body and at least one surface of the second locking portion forms a second locking surface (see the annotated-Eicher figs. 1A-1B above, as shown, the ring body of 6 comprises a first locking portion arranged on the ring body that has a surface forming a first locking surface and the delivery tube holder 5 comprises a second locking portion that has a second locking surface), wherein the trigger assembly has a locked position and an unlocked position, in the locked position, the first locking surface abuts against the second locking surface, so that the trigger ring and the delivery tube holder stop each other (fig. 1b shows the locked position where the first locking surface abuts against the second locking surface), and in the unlocked position, the first locking surface is not in contact with the second locking surface, so that the delivery tube holder is movable in an axial direction relative to the trigger ring (fig. 1a shows a final position of the unlocked position where the first locking surface is not in contact with the second locking surface, it is noted that when button 7 is pressed, 5 would move axially upward, therefore, there is a position that is an unlocked position, see col 3, line 38 to col 5, line 34).
Regarding claim 40, Eicher discloses that in the locked position, the trigger ring is arranged non-coaxially with respect to the delivery tube holder (see figs. 1b and 2b, as shown, in the locked position, the trigger ring is arranged non-coaxially with respect to the delivery tube holder), and in the unlocked position, the trigger ring is arranged coaxially with respective to the delivery tube holder (see figs. 1a and 2a, as shown, in the unlocked position, the trigger ring is arranged coaxially with respect to the delivery tube, see col 4, lines 20-49).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sall (2022/0054775).
PNG
media_image6.png
1120
745
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1096
780
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Sall discloses a trigger assembly for an atomizer (1, figs. 1-8, paragraphs 0037-0047), the trigger assembly comprising a trigger ring (ring 16 comprising 16a and 16c, see figs. 7b-7c, paragraphs 0055-0065) and a delivery tube holder (11, figs. 7a-7c, paragraphs 0044-0046), wherein the trigger ring comprises a ring body (see the annotated-Sall fig. 7b above) and a first locking portion (16c, figs. 7b-7e and paragraphs 0061-0063) arranged on the ring body, and at least one surface of the first locking portion forms a first locking surface (see the annotated-Sall figs. 7b-7c above), wherein the delivery tube holder comprises a tube holder body and a second locking portion (see the annotated-Sall figs. 7d-7e above) arranged on the tube holder body and at least one surface of the second locking portion forms a second locking surface (see the annotated-Sall figs. 7d-7e above), wherein the trigger assembly has a locked position and an unlocked position, in the locked position, the first locking surface abuts against the second locking surface, so that the trigger ring and the delivery tube holder stop each other (see the annotated-Sall fig. 7d, as shown, in the locked position, the first locking surface abuts against the second locking surface), and in the unlocked position, the first locking surface is not in contact with the second locking surface, so that the delivery tube holder is movable in an axial direction relative to the trigger ring (see fig. 7e, as shown, in the unlocked position, the first locking surface is not in contact with the second locking surface as 11 moves vertically upward (axial direction) and through the trigger ring, see paragraphs 0057-0065).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gu (CN 109172960) is cited to show an inhaler comprising a trigger assembly.
Shepherd (2023/0310763) is cited to show a drug delivery device comprising a rotary and an axial movement.
Stuart (2022/0316536) is cited to show a trigger assembly.
Geser (2011/0011393) is cited to show an atomizer.
Besseler (2018/0221603) (2021/0093807) is cited to show a trigger assembly.
Richardson (2019/0022339) is cited to show an inhaler comprising a trigger mechanism.
Cottenden (2020/0297945) is cited to show an inhaler comprising a trigger mechanism.
Wuttke (2003/0042336) is cited to show a trigger mechanism for an inhaler.
Treneman (2021/0008302) is cited to show an inhaler comprising a trigger mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights