US 10668229

I'll verify the bibliographic data and check for any litigation/docket activity before summarizing.

US Patent 10,668,229 B2 — "Nebulizer Apparatus"

Searches performed: Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US10668229B2/en), the granted-PDF on patentimages.storage.googleapis.com (US10668229.pdf), PubChem patent record for US-10668229-B2, Justia Patents, RPX Insight, uspto.report, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for 10668229, and a docket search for CAFC 2026 / district-court activity. Results are reported literally, including apparent typographical/OCR artifacts.

1. Bibliographic data

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A nebulizer includes a housing having a chamber for holding an aerosol, an air outlet communicating with the chamber for permitting the aerosol to be withdrawn from the chamber, and a reservoir for holding a liquid to be aerosolized. The nebulizer also includes a liquid orifice located in the chamber, one or more liquid channels defined between the reservoir and the liquid orifice, the one or more liquid channels having a liquid volume, and a pressurized gas outlet located in the chamber adjacent to the liquid orifice. A baffle is located in the chamber and positioned relative to the pressurized gas outlet and the liquid outlet so as to divert pressurized gas from the pressurized gas outlet and over the liquid orifice. The baffle has a diverter surface area. The liquid volume is at least 80 mm³. The diverter surface area is less than 5.0 mm²."

3. Independent claims in plain language

The patent has two independent claims — claim 1 (a method) and claim 8 (an apparatus).

Claim 1 — "A method of providing nebulizer therapy" (plain language):

1. Receive a flow of pressurized gas through a gas outlet in the nebulizer chamber, where a liquid orifice sits in the chamber next to that gas outlet and at least one liquid channel connects a liquid-holding reservoir to the liquid orifice.
2. Divert that gas flow with a baffle positioned over the liquid orifice, the baffle having a diverter surface area of less than 5.0 mm², producing a diverted gas flow.
3. Use the diverted gas flow to draw liquid up through the liquid channel(s), where the liquid channel(s) have a liquid volume between 250 mm³ and 300 mm³.
4. Nebulize the reservoir liquid during inhalation in a breathing cycle (i.e., breath-actuated, inhalation-only aerosol generation).

Claim 8 — "A nebulizer" (plain language): An apparatus with a housing/chamber for aerosol, an air outlet from the chamber, a liquid reservoir, a liquid orifice in the chamber, at least one liquid channel between reservoir and orifice having a liquid volume between 250 mm³ and 300 mm³, a pressurized gas outlet adjacent the liquid orifice, and a baffle positioned to divert the gas flow over the liquid orifice with a diverter surface area less than 5.0 mm², wherein the nebulizer is configured to only nebulize liquid during inhalation in a breathing cycle.

Key numeric limitation to note: although the specification and abstract describe broader ranges (liquid volume at least 80 mm³, less than 1000 mm³; diverter area less than 5.0 mm²), the granted independent claims are narrowed to a liquid volume of 250–300 mm³ combined with a diverter surface area of less than 5.0 mm². This combination (small baffle + enlarged liquid channel volume) is the point of novelty the specification characterizes as "unexpected and counterintuitive."

Dependent claims (2–7 depend from claim 1; 9–14 appear to depend from claim 8): claim 2 — diverter surface area at least 50% of the liquid orifice cross-sectional area; claim 3 — pressurized gas at 15–30 psi; claim 4 — gas received from a home care compressor; claim 5 — aerosolized particles of diameter less than 4.7 μm; claim 6 — a second gas flow into the chamber at 4–10 lpm from a different source; claim 7 — that second source is a medical-treatment-facility gas source. I have verbatim text for claims 1–11; the exact wording of claims 12–14 is not in the sources retrieved, so I flag those as unverified.

4. Related family and prosecution

• Parent U.S. Pat. No. 9,539,408 (from application 14/067,651); provisional 61/720,678 (Oct. 31, 2012).
• PCT/IB2013/002419; EP 2914319 B1; CN 109172961 B ("Sprayer device," 特鲁德尔医学国际公司), all sharing the Oct. 31, 2012 priority date.
• Referenced/incorporated patents: U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,823,179; 6,044,841; 6,929,003; 6,450,163; 7,270,123; 7,634,995; 7,905,228; 8,397,712. Commercial device referenced throughout: the AEROECLIPSE® II breath-actuated nebulizer ("AEII"/"AEII BAN") from Trudell Medical International (London, Canada).

5. Litigation / docket findings (and a caution)

• The Google Patents page displays a Darts-IP "First worldwide family litigation filed" link for family 50545806, indicating litigation has been recorded somewhere in this patent family. I could not retrieve the underlying case list, so I cannot name a specific case or court for the '229 patent itself.
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database page for patent 10668229 lists one case: Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., Civil Action 2:23-cv-00229, E.D. Tex., filed May 24, 2023, asserter category "8 – Product company." This appears to me to be a database mis-mapping rather than a genuine assertion of US 10,668,229: the retrieved docket and complaint analysis for that case show it concerns wearable breast-pump patents (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 11,413,380; 11,260,151; D977,625; D995; '816; '228) between Willow Innovations (breast pumps) and Chiaro Technology d/b/a Elvie — an unrelated field from nebulizers. Per my instructions I am not auto-correcting or dismissing the database entry; I am reporting it as found and flagging the substantive mismatch as an uncertainty rather than asserting it is a real assertion of this patent.
• Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets: my search returned no Federal Circuit appeal, IPR, or other 2026 proceeding specifically identifying patent 10,668,229. Results for Trudell Medical appearing in Federal Circuit coverage concern Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC (remand for a new trial on untimely expert disclosure), which involves different Trudell patents (e.g., oscillating positive expiratory pressure devices such as U.S. Pat. No. 8,539,951), not the '229 nebulizer patent. I did not obtain authoritative confirmation of any 2026 CAFC docket naming 10,668,229, and I cannot rule out docket activity not indexed in the sources I could reach.

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. I did not directly query USPTO PatentCenter / USPTO Assignment for the '229 application; the assignment and status details above come from Google Patents, PubChem, and the granted-PDF front page.
2. The inventor-name rendering ("Pevler" vs. "Pever") and assignee rendering ("Trudell" vs. "Trude") differ across sources; both are reproduced literally and neither is corrected.
3. Claims 12–14 text is unverified (14 claims total are confirmed; claims 1–11 were retrieved verbatim).
4. The post-issue assignment of Apr. 3, 2024 to TRUDELL MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL INC. (with assignors including PACKARD MEDICAL SUPPLY CENTRE LTD and TRUDELL PARTNERSHIP HOLDINGS LIMITED) is reported as recorded on the Google Patents legal-events table; I did not independently verify the recorded documents.
5. No authoritative confirmation of any 2026 CAFC docket for this patent number was obtained.

Primary source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10668229/en ; granted PDF: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a7/4a/74/261a8fdf86b402/US10668229.pdf ; claims also at https://patents.justia.com/patent/10668229 and https://patents.google.com/patent/US10668229B2#1 ; bibliographic/dates at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-10668229-B2 ; litigation entry at https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10668229 .

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10668229 across patent litigation databases.

Interesting — one database returned a case, but it involves a breast-pump company rather than a nebulizer patent. Let me verify this carefully and check other litigation sources.

The docket text reveals something important: the Willow case asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,688,229 ("the '229 Patent"), which is a Willow breast-pump patent — not the 10,668,229 nebulizer patent. Let me dig deeper to determine whether 10,668,229 has ever been litigated.

Litigation Search Results for U.S. Patent No. 10,668,229

Bottom line

I found no confirmed litigation that actually asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,668,229 ("Nebulizer apparatus," Trudell Medical International / inventor Jennifer Pevler). One litigation database returns a hit for this number, but the underlying court record shows it is almost certainly a database mis-mapping to a different patent number. Details below.

The one database "hit" — and why it appears to be an error

Why this is not a real assertion of 10,668,229. The E.D. Tex. docket and the parties' filings show Willow asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,688,229 ("the '229 Patent") — a Willow Innovations breast pump patent — along with U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,398,816, 10,625,005, 10,722,624, 11,185,619, 10,434,228, D832,995, and D977,625. (See, e.g., Willow's Opening Claim Construction Brief exhibit list: "Exhibit B–Willow's U.S. Patent No. 10,688,229 (the '229 Patent)".)

• 10,668,229 = the Trudell Medical International nebulizer patent at issue here (inventor Jennifer Pevler; assignee Trudell Medical International; filed Dec. 5, 2016; granted June 2, 2020).
• 10,688,229 = a Willow Innovations breast pump patent.

These are two different patents that differ by a single transposed digit ("668" vs "688"). The case subject matter (wearable breast pumps, Elvie Pump) is wholly unrelated to nebulizers. The Stanford entry therefore appears to be a digit-transposition/mapping error in that database, not evidence of litigation against the '229 nebulizer patent.

Trudell Medical International's actual litigation activity (for context)

Per the same Stanford database, Trudell's recorded assertions are against OPEP/respiratory-device competitors — none of which involved 10,668,229:

None of these could involve 10,668,229, because that patent did not issue until June 2, 2020 and its application (Ser. No. 15/369,522) was not filed until Dec. 5, 2016.

Notes and caveats

• Google Patents flags "Family has litigation" via a Darts-IP link for the worldwide family (priority 2012-10-31). That family includes related patents such as US 9,539,408 (issued Jan. 10, 2017) and various foreign members (EP 2,914,319, AU 2013340468, CN 109172961). Any family litigation referenced there would most plausibly concern those earlier/foreign members, not necessarily 10,668,229 itself. I could not confirm which member was asserted.
• I did not find any PTAB/IPR or PGR proceeding, ITC Section 337 action, or CAFC appeal specifically identifying U.S. Patent No. 10,668,229. That is a negative finding from the searches I ran, not a certification.
• Verification recommended: Because the sole database hit is likely a transposition error, I recommend confirming directly against PACER docket 2:23-cv-00229 (E.D. Tex.) and the complaint/claim-construction exhibits, and against Darts-IP's family report, before representing that 10,668,229 has been asserted anywhere.

Conclusion: No known, verified litigation asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,668,229. The single database match is attributable to confusion with the similarly numbered U.S. Patent No. 10,688,229 asserted by Willow Innovations against Chiaro Technology.

I'll verify the empty structured list against live PTAB/CAFC sources before writing.

Let me run more targeted searches on the patent number and on Trudell's PTAB history.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings. The canonical source — the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block drawn from the USPTO Open Data Portal — reports no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming U.S. Patent No. 10,668,229, and nothing surfaced in live web searching to contradict that. Breakdown by status: active 0 · claims invalidated 0 · claims sustained 0 · settled 0 · institution denied 0. Every claim of the '229 patent — including the method claim 1 and the apparatus claim 8 identified in claim databases (RPX Insight, US10668229B2) — is untested at the Board. Defensively, this cuts both ways: the patent owner has never had to defend these claims in an AIA trial, so there is no surviving-claim precedent working against you, but there is also no free kill — no canceled claims you can point to, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel constraining any prior art you might want to run.

No proceedings to report

Because the structured list is empty and no supplemental proceeding could be verified, there is no per-proceeding entry to write. Stating the negative explicitly:

• No IPR petition against 10,668,229 was found in the ODP data, in PTAB E2E-indexed materials reachable by search (PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board), or in secondary monitors.
• No PGR — now time-barred in any event: a PGR petition on the '229 was due within 9 months of grant (i.e., by approximately 2021-03-02), and that window closed with no filing.
• No CBM — the '229 is a pneumatic nebulizer patent, not a "covered business method" or technological-invention patent, and the CBM program has itself sunset.
• No reexamination, no ITC § 337 action, and no Federal Circuit appeal tied to this patent number was found.

Adjacent proceedings — same patent owner, different patents (do not confuse them)

These are the only Trudell PTAB matters I could verify, and none of them involves 10,668,229. They are listed so you can rule them out, and because Trudell's litigation/PTAB posture is context for how it defends a respiratory patent.

Trudell's aggregate profile is reported as three PTAB cases faced and none filed (IP Verse / GreyB competitive analysis), which is consistent with the above and with no AIA trial against the '229.

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '229. Nothing is canceled, nothing is sustained, everything is untested. Claims 1 (method of providing nebulizer therapy) and 8 (nebulizer apparatus) both remain live and unadjudicated at the Board. Note the structural point that matters to any challenger: both independent claims are numerically bounded — liquid volume between 250 mm³ and 300 mm³, and a diverter surface area of less than 5.0 mm² (claim 1) — with the specification expressly teaching ranges of 80–1000 mm³ and 0.79–4.91 mm² and claiming criticality-type results (output-rate improvements of 23–89% in the described testing). That is the classic fact pattern for a § 103 range/optimization attack, but it is an unlitigated theory, not an established one. Also from the face of the patent: it is subject to a terminal disclaimer over parent U.S. 9,539,408 and carries a 65-day PTA; adjusted expiration is 2034-01-03. Because a terminal disclaimer was used to overcome non-statutory double patenting, remember that OTDP is not an available IPR ground — only § 102/§ 103 on patents and printed publications. Any OTDP theory has to be litigated in district court.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel in play at all, because there has been no IPR petitioner and no FWD. Practically, that means every prior-art ground you can find is available to you as a defendant — nothing is "reasonably could have raised"-barred. Conversely, there is no § 315(b) clock running either, because (per the litigation review above) no verified complaint asserting 10,668,229 has been served. Your own § 315(b) one-year clock starts only on service of your complaint, so timing is entirely in your control. The realistic risks to a petition are administrative, not estoppel-based: § 325(d) discretion if your art is cumulative of what the examiner considered, and Fintiv-type § 314(a) discretion if parallel litigation matures quickly.

Pattern signals. No serial petitioner, no PGR, no reexam, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) anywhere in the chain for this patent number. Trudell appears to litigate aggressively on its OPEP/'588 line and to settle early when challenged on older nebulizer patents (the RPC Formatec IPRs died pre-institution); it has never been forced to defend 10,668,229 on the merits. The Google Patents "Family has litigation" Darts-IP flag attached to this family (priority 2012-10-31) most plausibly reflects the earlier/foreign members (US 9,539,408; EP 2,914,319; AU 2013340468; CN 109172961) rather than the '229 itself — I could not confirm which member was asserted, and I am not asserting one was.

Recommended next steps

1. Treat the negative as provisional, not certified. Confirm directly on PTAB E2E by both patent number and by application number 15/369,522, and check the PTAB API/ODP for any petition filed after the last ingest (PTAB E2E; USPTO Open Data Portal). The ODP ingest lags, and a recently filed petition might not yet be indexed.
2. Verify the one ambiguous lead, don't rely on it. A third-party aggregator lists a single "opposition" tied to a "Nebulizer Apparatus" record dated 2023-08-09 (IP Verse / GreyB). That is an aggregator's own taxonomy and its date does not correspond to any U.S. PTAB filing I could locate; if it exists, it is far more likely a European Patent Office opposition against an ep family member than an AIA trial. Confirm on the EPO Register before citing it.
3. If you're a defendant, you have a clean slate and a rare one. No claim of 10,668,229 has ever been tested; you are not bound by anyone's estoppel and you face no adverse FWD. Two practical consequences: (a) if you file, there is no compelling § 325(d) "same art" story against you unless you recycle the examiner's references, so use new art; (b) statutory deadlines you would be signing up for are the § 316(a)(11) one-year-from-institution FWD deadline and the § 315(b) one-year-from-service petition bar. Trial-stage milestones (POPR, institution decision at ~6 months, PO response, FWD at ~12 months from institution) run on the Board's standard schedule once instituted.
4. Do not cite 10,688,229. Restating the prior section's cross-reference flag: the sole litigation-database hit for this number traces to Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00229 (E.D. Tex.), which asserts U.S. 10,688,229 — a Willow breast-pump patent — not the Trudell nebulizer patent. A single transposed digit separates the two. Any statement that 10,668,229 has been litigated rests on that database error; PACER docket 2:23-cv-00229 and Darts-IP's family report are the places to confirm before you put it in a brief.

Sources consulted: USPTO ODP/PTAB structured record (no index hits); PTAB E2E; PTAB petition documents at ptacts.uspto.gov (IPR2014-01127); D R Burton / Trudell materials at docketalarm.com (IPR2018-01025); Supreme Court No. 25-17; IP Verse / GreyB Trudell profile; RPX Insight, US10668229B2; Google Patents US10668229B2.

Confidence statement: I am highly confident that no AIA trial proceeding against U.S. 10,668,229 exists as of 2026-09-28 — the structured ODP record is empty and multiple searches returned nothing to the contrary. I am not certifying that no petition has ever been filed after the last ODP ingest; that residual gap should be closed against PTAB E2E before you rely on this in a filing.

I'll search the USPTO Assignment Center and related sources for the ownership record of US 10668229.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,668,229 ("Nebulizer apparatus")

Source note / data limitation (read first). I was able to retrieve the substance of this patent's ownership chain from the Google Patents legal-events record embedded in the authoritative patent text, and I corroborated the 2024 transfer against a parallel Canadian (CIPO) record and USPTO trademark filings. However, my searches did not return the reel/frame numbers or the named correspondent of record for the two US patent assignments specifically. I will not invent reel/frame values. Where a field is unavailable I say so explicitly rather than guessing. Verification against USPTO Assignment Center by patent number 10668229 is recommended to fill those two gaps.

Inventors

• Single-inventor patent. No co-inventors. No signature/chain anomalies that would suggest divided ownership.
• No "inventor flight" pattern. There is no evidence Pevler departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and none is implied by the record. Trudell is the assignee-of-record on the original assignment and the inventor expressly assigned her interest (2016-12-06 event, below). Nothing in the file hints at a portfolio fire-sale — the opposite is true (see Timeline).
• Related Trudell respiratory-device inventors (e.g., Adam Meyer, Dan Engelbreth) appear on sibling patents in the same family, but Pevler is the sole named inventor here.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Trudell Medical International (London, Ontario, Canada).
• Google Patents records the original assignee as "Trude Medical International" — this is a truncation/typo in the Google Patents field. The actual reassignment record (2016-12-06) names TRUDELL MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, and the entire rest of the file (TTAB, CIPO, PCT) uses "Trudell." Use "Trudell."
• Primary line of business: Operating medical-device manufacturer — aerosol drug-delivery and respiratory devices (nebulizers, valved holding chambers, oscillatory positive expiratory pressure devices, CPAP interfaces). Based at 725 Baransway (a.k.a. Third Street) Drive, London, Ontario N5V 5G4.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. The specification expressly benchmarks the invention against the AEROECLIPSE® II breath-actuated nebulizer (also "AEII"/"AEII BAN"), Trudell's own commercial product, and FIG. 4 is described as depicting "components and dimensions representative of those found in the AEROECLIPSE® II." Trudell sells this device commercially. This is a commercially practiced patent, not a paper asset.
• Current status: Operating. Trudell remains an active medical-device manufacturer and an active patent litigant (e.g., Trudell Medical Int'l v. D R Burton Healthcare, LLC, E.D.N.C. 4:18-cv-00009, Fed. Cir. No. 23-1777; Trudell v. Pari Respiratory Equipment). The 2024 reorganization below did not change the operating business — it changed the legal owner from a Canadian registered partnership to an Ontario corporation of the same group. Not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center does have recorded assignments for this patent — the chain is short (two post-filing recordals) and both are internal to the Trudell group. Exact reel/frame numbers and the correspondent of record were not retrievable in my searches; flagged accordingly.

Assignment 1 — Original assignment of inventorship interest

• 2016-12-05 (executed) / recorded 2016-12-06 — Reel/Frame not retrieved (present in Assignment Center; verify by patent number)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST — SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS")
  • Assignor: Jennifer Pevler (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: Trudell Medical International (London, Ontario, Canada)
  • Correspondent of record: Not retrieved. Note: Trudell's recurring IP attorney of record across its portfolio is Andrew J. Avsec, first at Brinks Gilson & Lione and later at Crowell & Moring LLP, P.O. Box 10395, Chicago, IL 60610 (docket prefix 506298.xxxx; emails aavsec@crowell.com / officeactions@crowell.com). He appears on Trudell's TTAB matters (e.g., Oppositions 91233391, 91290650, 91281420) and on its US trademark portfolio. I could not confirm he filed this patent assignment — treat as a strong lead, not a finding.
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment at filing (the application 15/369,522 was filed the same day the assignment was executed). No third party involved.

Assignment 2 — Group reorganization to the Ontario corporation

• Executed on/about 2024-02-29 / recorded 2024-04-03 — Reel/Frame not retrieved (verify by patent number in Assignment Center)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST — SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS")
  • Assignors (three): (1) Trudell Medical International — itself a registered name of an Ontario partnership; (2) Trudell Partnership Holdings Limited (Ontario corp.), and (3) Packard Medical Supply Centre Ltd. (Ontario corp.) — the two constituent partners
  • Assignee: Trudell Medical International Inc. (Ontario corporation)
  • Correspondent of record: Not retrieved for the patent recordal.
  • Context: Internal reorganization / change of legal owner. This is confirmed independently by the CIPO trademark record for ABILEX (TM 1851013): change of title registered 2024-09-11, date of change 2024-02-29, "FROM: TRUDELL MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, a registered name of an Ontario partnership comprised of Trudell Partnership Holdings Limited and Packard Medical Supply Centre Ltd. TO: Trudell Medical International Inc." The same entity change was recorded in Australia (IP Australia, full assignment to "Trudell Medical International Inc. an Ontario corporation") and is reflected in Trudell's US trademarks. This is a name/entity-conversion recordal, not a sale to a third party: no cash consideration, no new principals, same address (725 Baransway/Third Street, London ON), same business, same products.

Corroboration summary: The 2024 US recordal (recorded 2024-04-03) is the same transaction as the Canadian change of title (change dated 2024-02-29, registered 2024-09-11). Cross-jurisdiction consistency supports an intra-group reorganization rather than an arm's-length transfer.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10668229
    2012 : Priority date 31 Oct
    2016 : Application filed 05 Dec
         : Pevler assigns to Trudell Medical Intl
    2017 : Application published
    2020 : Patent granted 02 Jun
    2024 : Group reorg to Trudell Medical Intl Inc
         : Same owners same address same business

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: The entire recorded chain — the inventor assignment to Trudell Medical International (executed 2016-12-05, recorded 2016-12-06) and the intra-group reorganization to Trudell Medical International Inc. (change dated 2024-02-29, recorded 2024-04-03) — stays inside a single operating medical-device manufacturer that ships the AEROECLIPSE® II nebulizer expressly described at FIG. 4 of this very patent, at a stable Ontario address, with no licensing-LLC intermediary, no defensive aggregator, and no NPE-list party anywhere in the chain. Trudell does sue competitors (D R Burton Healthcare, Pari Respiratory) in its own name on related respiratory-device patents, which places it in the "operating-company assertion" posture rather than "defensive/non-asserting."

Caveats: (i) Neither reel/frame nor correspondent of record was retrieved from my searches — verify at the USPTO Assignment Center by patent number 10668229 and record the reel/frame for each of the two assignments. (ii) Trudell's litigation has been on other patents in the respiratory portfolio; this specific patent (10,668,229) has not been shown to be asserted. (iii) The "NPE — " verdicts are firmly excluded: there is not one strong or weak NPE signal present, so no NPE label applies.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 10,668,229, focusing specifically on that number and its cited references.

Let me get the specific "References Cited" section from the granted patent.

Let me retrieve the front-page "References Cited" list and dates, plus the Google Patents citation tables and examiner-cited art.

Scope, source, and compliance notes

• I searched for the patent number literally as 10668229 and, per your instruction, did not return results for look-alike numbers. In particular I excluded US 10,688,229 (the Willow Innovations breast‑pump patent flagged earlier) and did not import its references.
• The reference list below is the front‑page "References Cited" (56) data as exposed by Google Patents / PubChem for US 10,668,229 B2 and its continuation parent US 9,539,408 (application 14/067,651). I retrieved the identifiers and the first few entries verbatim (the granted‑PDF front page begins "…2,535,844 A 12/1950 Emerson; 2,882,026 A 4/1959 Eichelman…," Primary Examiner Victoria Murphy, Attorney Brinks Gilson & Lione). I did not obtain USPTO PatentCenter directly; Google Patents mirrors USPTO and PubChem carries the citation set.
• Honesty flag: I hit my tool‑call limit before I could verify every publication/filing date from the primary source. In the tables, dates that I could ground in a retrieved search result are marked (verified); dates that come from general knowledge/patent‑number mapping are marked (approx./unverified) and should be confirmed before being used in a filing or opinion. I have not silently corrected any identifier.
• Because this patent is a continuation of 14/067,651 (now US 9,539,408) and is subject to a terminal disclaimer, its face "References Cited" largely mirrors the parent's, and the same references are prior art against the '229 claims (priority 2012‑10‑31; actual filing 2016‑12‑05).

1. The "References Cited" inventory (as retrieved)

The retrievable citation set for the 10,668,229 family is (identifiers verbatim from PubChem's citation list):

U.S. patent documents (early / generic nebulizer‑atomizer art): US‑2535844‑A, US‑2882026‑A, US‑3001524‑A, US‑3269665‑A, US‑3467092‑A, US‑3490697‑A, US‑3580249‑A, US‑3584621‑A, US‑3630196‑A, US‑3658059‑A, US‑3664337‑A, US‑3762409‑A, US‑3826255‑A, US‑3838686‑A, US‑3874379‑A, US‑3990442‑A, US‑4093124‑A, US‑4094317‑A, US‑4106503‑A, US‑4116387‑A, US‑4649911‑A, US‑4746067‑A, US‑4951659‑A, US‑5054477‑A, US‑5209225‑A, US‑5235969‑A, US‑5312046‑A, US‑5503139‑A, US‑5533501‑A, US‑5533497‑A, US‑5687912‑A, US‑5875774‑A, US‑6129080‑A, US‑6131568‑A, US‑6612303‑B1, US‑6796513‑B2, US‑7051731‑B1, US‑RE40591‑E, US‑7568480‑B2, US‑758171… (truncated in the source; I could not resolve the final digits — do not assume this is US 7,581,710 without verification).

U.S. patent documents (Trudell family — cited by applicant / incorporated by reference): US‑5823179‑A, US‑6044841‑A, US‑6450163‑B1, US‑6929003‑B2, US‑7270123‑B2, plus (per the specification's incorporation list) US 7,634,995; US 7,905,228; US 8,397,712.

U.S. application publications: US‑2002020762‑A1, US‑2003089366‑A1, US‑2003136399‑A1, US‑2003197068‑A1, US‑2003209238‑A1, US‑2005145243‑A1, US‑2007068513‑A1, US‑2007289590‑A1.

Foreign / WO: WO‑9215354‑A1, EP‑0587380‑A1, EP‑0261649‑B2, EP‑0711609‑A2, EP‑0938906‑A2, EP‑0786263‑B1, EP‑1673124‑B1.

For the EP/EPO counterpart (EP 2 914 319) the "Patent Citations" set is smaller and consists only of sibling Trudell art: US 7,634,995 B2; US 6,450,163 B1; US 6,929,003 B2; US 2003/0136399 A1 (retrieved).

2. Most relevant prior art — full citation, date, description, § 102 analysis

These are the references that actually bear on the two independent claims (claim 1, method; claim 8, apparatus) and their dependents (2–7, 9–14). All of them are nebulizer references. The point of novelty in the granted claims is the combination of a small diverter surface area (< 5.0 mm²) with an enlarged liquid volume (250–300 mm³) in an inhalation‑only (breath‑actuated) nebulizer.

The Trudell family (applicant‑cited; two are expressly incorporated by reference in the '229 specification)

Caveat on the family: The Trudell sibling documents (WO 2014/068387, EP 2 914 319, CN 109172961) share the same 2012‑10‑31 priority and are not prior art to the '229 claims (they are the same invention) — I list them only so they are not mistaken for third‑party art.

Recent U.S. application publications in the cited set

3. Remaining references — the examiner‑cited "background" set

These are predominantly mid‑century and later generic nebulizer/atomizer patents disclosing pressurized‑gas + liquid‑orifice + baffle arrangements. They disclose elements of the claims (gas outlet, liquid orifice, baffle, chamber) but none of the retrieved ones is described as disclosing the specific combination of diverter surface area < 5.0 mm² and liquid volume 250–300 mm³, and none as inhalation‑gated in the claimed manner. They are therefore § 103 / background art, not § 102 anticipatory art, absent a verified showing of the numeric limits.

4. Bottom‑line § 102 assessment

1. No single retrieved cited reference discloses every limitation of independent claim 1 or claim 8. Both independent claims require the concurrence of (a) a diverter surface area < 5.0 mm², (b) a liquid volume of 250–300 mm³, and (c) nebulization only during inhalation. The Trudell references (US 6,929,003; US 5,823,179; US 6,044,841) supply the breath‑actuated baffle/nozzle architecture but describe a much larger baffle (the spec itself notes the commercial device's Ø4.20 mm disc ≈ 13.85 mm²) and no 250–300 mm³ liquid volume. The old atomizer patents supply only generic structure.
2. Accordingly, the cited art is best characterized as § 103 obviousness art, not § 102 anticipation art. The '229 specification frames the invention as an unexpected/counterintuitive result (smaller baffle + larger liquid volume yielding higher output), which is the classic posture of non‑obviousness over references that teach larger baffles.
3. The only references that come close are the applicant's own earlier Trudell patents (US 6,929,003 and US 5,823,179 / US 6,044,841 / US 6,450,163 / US 2003/0136399), which is why the examiner had to narrow the granted claims to the 250–300 mm³ + < 5.0 mm² combination (the pre‑grant publication carried the broader "at least 80 mm³ / less than 1000 mm³" language; the granted independents carry the narrow range).

5. Explicit uncertainties / verification steps

• Dates: Only the entries marked (verified) are grounded in a retrieved source (front page or EPO search report). All (approx.) dates are derived from patent numbering/general knowledge and must be confirmed against the front page of each document.
• The truncated citation US‑758171… and US RE40,591 E / US 7,568,480 B2 were not resolvable to a title/date in my searches — do not attribute content to them without checking.
• I did not retrieve the "Other Publications" (NPL) portion of the front page; if present, those NPL items (e.g., AEII product literature) would also be § 103 candidates.
• No § 102 conclusion here is a legal opinion — anticipation is claim‑by‑claim and reference‑specific, and would require reading each reference's full disclosure against the exact claim language (which I have only in summary for the granted independents).

Primary sources: Google Patents US10668229B2 and EP2914319A4 pages; PubChem US‑10668229‑B2 citation list; granted PDF (US10668229.pdf) front page; EPO search reports surfaced for the Trudell family (EP 1 417 982 A3 and the WO search reports) for the examiner category designations.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the actual prior-art references — both the ones the patent itself cites/explicitly describes as prior art, and any additional art. Let me verify the key references.

Now let me check the remaining key references and any published art on baffle-dimension effects.

This is a significant find — the European family member went through EPO opposition proceedings. Let me pull the opposition details and the other cited art.

Obviousness Analysis Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. Patent No. 10,668,229 ("Nebulizer Apparatus")

Two framing notes before the substance, per my operating rules:

1. The "Prior Art section" was not actually included in the materials I received. The task directs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," but the only previously generated sections attached are the Patent summary and the Litigation summary. Rather than invent a prior-art list, I have assembled and verified one from (a) the references on the face of the '229 and expressly incorporated by reference, (b) the references cited in the EPO opposition against family member EP 2 914 319, and (c) the applicant's own admissions in the specification. I flag this so you can reconcile it with whatever the actual Prior Art section contained.
2. Date inconsistency in the brief: the header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while my operating date and the fetch timestamp in the previously generated sections are 2026-09-28. I am analyzing as of the stated analysis date but nothing below turns on the gap.

No contradiction found with the prior sections, except one new fact they did not capture: EP 2 914 319 (the European family member of the '229) was opposed at the EPO and survived only in amended form (B2 published 2023-08-09). The U.S. granted PDF's own list of "Other publications" includes "Notice of Opposition to a European Patent No. EP2914319 dated Jul. 16, 2018 (43 pages)" — so that opposition was in the IDS and before the U.S. Examiner. This is materially important for §103 and is developed in Combinations C and D below.

1. Legal framework and the person of ordinary skill

Effective filing date. The '229 claims benefit of provisional 61/720,678 (2012-10-31) via application 14/067,651 (filed 2013-10-30). Its priority date is therefore October 31, 2012, and prior art must pre-date that for §102(a)(1) purposes (the application is AIA-era, filed 2016-12-05). All of the references below pre-date October 2012 except where noted.

Standard. Graham v. John Deere (scope/content, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations), as refined by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex: a claim is obvious if the differences from the prior art are such that "the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made," including where the claimed subject matter is "the product … of ordinary creativity" or of "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions." Two KSR rationales dominate here:

• Result-effective variable / optimization: In re Applied Materials; In re Aller ("where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges … involves only routine experimentation"); In re Boesch; In re Woodruff; In re Peterson.
• Predictable variation of a known device: "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious."

PHOSITA. A mechanical/medical-device engineer (B.S.M.E./B.S.B.E. or equivalent) with ~3–5 years of experience designing jet/breath-actuated nebulizers, familiar with the AEROECLIPSE® II and the Trudell patent family, and with hospital wall-outlet (45–55 psi, 4–10 L/min) and home-care compressor (15–30 psi, 3–5 L/min) operating regimes. This is the level at which the specification is written.

2. The verified prior-art set

3. Claim construction points that drive the outcome

1. "Diverter surface area" is a defined term: "the surface area … of the baffle located opposite from the gas outlet orifice and the liquid outlet orifice that is provided for obstructing the flow of air and gas" (desc.). It is a flat, measurable two-dimensional parameter — the claim is a dimensional limitation on an otherwise wholly disclosed structure. That makes it the paradigm "result-effective variable."
2. "Liquid volume" = "the aggregate volume between the outer tubular member and the inner tubular member (including any gaps, passageways, or slots) extending from the reservoir opening to the liquid outlet orifice" (desc.). Also a measurable dimensional parameter, not a structural element.
3. "Only nebulize … during inhalation" (claim 8) / "nebulizing liquid … during inhalation" (claim 1) is functional breath-actuation language, met by any breath-triggered nebulizer.
4. Claim 2, "diverter surface area at least 50% of a cross-sectional area of the liquid orifice," requires construction of "cross-sectional area of the liquid orifice" (annular flow area vs. outer-diameter disc). This is a live ambiguity worth flagging; under the annular reading (π/4·(2.52²−2.13²) ≈ 1.42 mm²) the FIG. 5 preferred embodiment (1.77 mm²) reads on the claim.

Net: every independent claim reduces to (i) a known breath-actuated jet-nebulizer architecture plus (ii) two numbers for two admitted design variables.

4. Element-by-element mapping

Claim 1 (method of providing nebulizer therapy)

Claim 8 (apparatus)

Identical mapping; the only additional element is "wherein the nebulizer is configured to only nebulize liquid during inhalation," which is a functional recitation satisfied by PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4.

Conclusion on the differences: the sole §103 delta between the claims and admitted/known prior art is the numerical limits on two admitted design variables (baffle area < 5.0 mm²; liquid channel volume 250–300 mm³).

5. The combinations and why a POSITA would have made them

Combination A (strongest — primary reference is the applicant's own admitted art)

PA-1 (AEII BAN) + PA-2/'003 + PA-4/'841 design-variable teachings + PA-8 (admitted operating regimes).

Motivation, in the applicant's own words:

• The '229 specification admits the AEII is prior art and gives its dimensions (FIG. 4).
• The '229 specification admits that "Baffle disc diameter (i.e., diverter surface area) and liquid volume … are key components to nebulizer performance" and that "varying the size of the baffle disc diameter and liquid volume can directly affect aerosol output rate, without negatively impacting particle size."
• PA-4/'841 states the aerosol "characteristics … in addition to the mass output … may be varied by varying the size and number of passageways."
• PA-2/'003 discloses a diverter of "predetermined area" at a "predetermined" distance from the gas orifice.
• PA-8 supplies the design incentive: nebulizers must work on home-care compressors at 15–30 psi as well as hospital wall outlets; the '229 specification itself frames the problem as maintaining/improving performance across those environments.

A POSITA reading PA-1 + PA-2 + PA-4 is told: (a) these are the two variables that control output; (b) they are freely selectable "predetermined" values; (c) the incentive is higher output at low supply pressure. Enlarging the liquid annulus and shrinking the diverter disc are the two most natural knob-turns in that design space. KSR ("known technique," "predictable variation," "design incentives and other market forces") squarely applies.

Combination B (family-internal combination)

PA-2/'003 + PA-3/'179 + PA-4/'841. All three are Trudell breath-actuated nebulizers that the '229 specification expressly names as describing the very embodiments of FIGS. 4–9, and all three are incorporated by reference. Combining them is not merely "motivated" — the applicant did it in the specification itself. For example, the specification states the FIG. 4/5/6 device "may be described as a nebulizer having a fixed baffle … and a liquid orifice … that is moveable, such as those described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,929,003," and the FIG. 9 device as "a moveable baffle … such as those described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,823,179 and 6,044,841." A combination of references the patentee itself treats as interchangeable variations of one design is a textbook obviousness case.

Combination C (the European opposition set — the newest, and most probative, evidence)

PA-2/'003 (or PA-1) + PA-6 (US 4,746,067; EP 0 261 649 B2; DE 197 00 106 A1; US 8,113,194 B2) + PA-7 (PARI LC Sprint Instructions for Use, July 2011, and the BOY mobile S / BOY SX compressor manuals).

• EP 2 914 319 — the same disclosure, same priority (2012-10-31), same inventor — was opposed (notice filed 2018-07-16) and was maintained only in amended form (B2, 2023-08-09); the EP registers record "Opposition procedure started" and "Patent maintained (B2 publication)." Sources: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/2b/9f/5f/3f42692b43e104/EP2914319B1.pdf (B1 text); https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2914319A4 (B2 publication date); https://mijnoctrooi.rvo.nl/… and https://eregister.ipoi.gov.ie/register/PTRegister.aspx?idappli=13852120.8 ("Amendment of patent specification as a result of opposition proceedings at the EPO on 09/08/2023").
• The NPL in the EP file — the PARI LC Sprint instructions and the BOY compressor manuals — is precisely the kind of art that teaches matching a commercial nebulizer's orifice/baffle geometry to a given compressor's pressure–flow output. That is the same technical problem the '229 solves "for lower air supply pressures, such as those seen on a home care compressor."
• Critically, this art was before the U.S. Examiner: the granted PDF's own "Other publications" list contains the Notice of Opposition. A challenger therefore does not have to establish that the art was previously unknown — only that the Examiner misweighed it.

Caveat (important): I have not verified the baffle dimensions or liquid volumes of the PARI LC Sprint or of US 4,746,067 / EP 0 261 649 / DE 197 00 106 / US 8,113,194, and I have not retrieved the opposition decision or its grounds. Combination C is a hypothesis about what the opponent argued, not a verified record. If any of PA-6/PA-7 discloses a diverter of < 5.0 mm² in a breath-actuated nebulizer, combination C converts from an "obvious to try" case into a much cleaner case.

Combination D (the "routine optimization / non-critical range" route — applies to all claims)

Even without a reference teaching a sub-5 mm² diverter, the claims are obvious as optimizations of a disclosed genus:

• The genus is disclosed: breath-actuated nebulizer with a baffle over a liquid orifice and a liquid channel from reservoir to orifice (PA-1 through PA-5).
• The variables are admitted to be result-effective ("key components to nebulizer performance").
• The claimed values are arbitrary points within the applicant's own disclosed continuum and, on the applicant's own data, sit on monotonic trends, not on a critical boundary:
  • Liquid volume: FIGS. 13–14 plot output rate against 36%, 50% and 135% increases in liquid-cylinder cross-sectional area and show a smooth monotonic increase; the claimed 250–300 mm³ band is simply the ~50% point (FIG. 5 = 286 mm³) with a ±25 mm³ margin. The specification gives no data showing discontinuity at 250 or 300 mm³.
  • Baffle: FIG. 11/12 show output decreasing monotonically with increasing baffle diameter (Ø1.50 vs Ø3.50 mm); the claim's "< 5.0 mm²" cap is set above the specification's own disclosed maximum of 4.91 mm² (FIG. 6), i.e., the claim is broader than the disclosed range at its upper end and is not co-extensive with any demonstrated criticality.
• Under In re Aller/In re Boesch/In re Woodruff, absent a showing that the endpoints are critical, narrowing to an optimum sub-range is routine experimentation. The specification never argues (beyond conclusory attorney language about "counterintuitive") that 250 vs. 240 or 300 vs. 310 mm³ produces a step-change.

Combination E ("obvious to try" within a finite design space)

The baffle is characterized as a disc whose diameter is between 1.0 and 2.5 mm, and the specification notes only a handful of alternatives (rib, cone, hemispherical). Discretely varying the baffle disc and the annular gap is exactly the "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" scenario of KSR. A POSITA running an ordinary DOE on baffle diameter × channel cross-section, at 15/20/50 psi (the applicant's own test matrix), would arrive at the claimed region as a matter of course.

6. Dependent claims

7. The patent's rebuttal case — and where it is vulnerable

The applicant's entire non-obviousness argument is expected results, and it is stated in the specification as follows: smaller baffles producing higher output is "unexpected and counterintuitive because normal expectations are that a larger vacuum would be provided by a larger baffle disc"; and larger liquid volume producing higher output is "also unexpected and counterintuitive because normal expectations are that a larger liquid cylinder cross-sectional area would require stronger negative pressure."

Strengths of the rebuttal

• The specification contains actual comparative data with a nexus to the claimed variables (FIGS. 10–14: ~23% improvement moving from Ø3.5 to Ø1.5 mm baffle; 45–89% improvement with increased liquid-cylinder cross-section; ~75% improvement at 15–20 psi for the combined modification). This is the kind of evidence (In re Soni; Rambus v. Hynix) that can defeat a prima facie case.
• The magnitude at low supply pressures (the home-care regime) is substantial and is tied to a specific commercial need.

Vulnerabilities the challenger should press

1. No mechanism, no criticality. The specification offers no explanation of why a smaller diverter yields more output. A POSITA would readily recognize the obvious mechanism — a smaller diverter means less re-impaction/coalescence of already-formed aerosol droplets on the diverter, a loss channel that is well understood in jet-nebulizer design (the '229 itself notes "the liquid medicine drawn out of the liquid orifice 46 has little or no impaction against the baffle 60"). If the effect is explainable by a recognized trade-off, it is a predictable effect and KSR defeats the "unexpected results" argument.
2. Trend, not discontinuity. The data show monotonic relationships across the tested range. Unexpected results must be commensurate with the claimed scope (In re Huang). The claims cover 250–300 mm³ and anything < 5.0 mm², but the data do not establish that either endpoint is critical. Expected competency: a challenger should demand data at, e.g., 240 vs. 250 and 300 vs. 310 mm³.
3. The range is not co-extensive with the disclosure. Claim 1/8's "< 5.0 mm²" is broader than the specification's disclosed 0.79–4.91 mm² (FIG. 6), and the "preferred" embodiment is 1.77 mm² / 286 mm³. Where a claim reaches beyond the demonstrated range, the unexpected-results showing cannot support the extra scope.
4. The terminal disclaimer. The prior section's findings (from Google Patents) record that US 10,668,229 "is subject to a terminal disclaimer." A terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome obviousness-type double patenting — i.e., an applicant/Office conclusion that the claims are not patentably distinct from another commonly-owned patent. If that reference is the parent US 9,539,408 (same specification, filed 2013-10-30), the applicant has effectively conceded that the added numerical limits did not create a patentable distinction over the same disclosure. Flag: I have not verified which patent the disclaimer runs against, and ODP is a separate doctrine from §103 — so this is corroborative, not dispositive.
5. No evidence of skepticism, copying, or licensing surfaced in my searches (consistent with the Litigation summary, which found no verified litigation asserting the '229). The only contested proceeding found is the EPO opposition, which ended with the patent maintained only in amended form — a signal that an expert tribunal found the granted claim scope problematic. However, I could not retrieve the opposition decision, so I do not know whether the amendment addressed inventive step (Art. 100(a)) or added-matter/support (Art. 100(c)). This must be verified before it is relied on.
6. Commercial success (the AEII) is unhelpful to the patentee because the AEII is the admitted prior art baseline; any success presumptively attaches to the pre-existing device, not to the claimed narrowing, defeating nexus (J.T. Eaton; Ormco v. Align).

8. Overall assessment

Strongest single articulation of the §103 rejection (claims 1 and 8):

The AEII BAN breath-actuated nebulizer — admitted prior art in applicant's own specification — discloses every structural element of claims 1 and 8 (chamber, gas outlet, adjacent liquid orifice, liquid channel(s) from reservoir to orifice, baffle diverting gas over the liquid orifice, and nebulization only during inhalation). The sole differences are the numerical limits "diverter surface area less than 5.0 mm²" and "liquid volume between 250 and 300 mm³." The specification itself admits that "baffle disc diameter … and liquid volume … are key components to nebulizer performance" and that "varying the size of the baffle disc diameter and liquid volume can directly affect aerosol output rate." U.S. Pat. No. 6,929,003 discloses a diverter of "predetermined area" and passageways of variable size; U.S. Pat. No. 6,044,841 teaches that aerosol "characteristics … in addition to the mass output of the nebulizer, may be varied by varying the size and number of passageways." A POSITA seeking the admitted goal — higher aerosol output, particularly on home-care compressors at 15–30 psi (admitted art) — would have been motivated to optimize exactly these two admitted result-effective variables through routine experimentation, and would have arrived at the claimed values with a reasonable expectation of success. The claimed range endpoints are arbitrary points on monotonic trends shown in the applicant's own FIGS. 11–14, and no criticality is demonstrated.

Combination-specific confidence:

Bottom line: All 14 claims face a credible §103 challenge, and the dependent claims 2–4 and 6–7 face what is close to an anticipation problem given the applicant's own admissions about hospital (4–10 L/min, 45–55 psi) and home-care (15–30 psi, 3–5 L/min) gas sources. The independent claims 1 and 8 present a genuine contest whose outcome turns on whether the applicant can show that the 250–300 mm³ and < 5.0 mm² endpoints are critical and produce results unexpected across the full claimed scope. The applicant has good raw data but has not shown criticality at either endpoint, has not offered a mechanism, and the trend data are monotonic — which is the challenger's best opening.

9. Explicit uncertainties and verification needed

1. I did not verify which patent the '229's terminal disclaimer runs against. If it is not the parent US 9,539,408, the corroborative inference in §7.4 falls away. Verify at USPTO PatentCenter / the '229 file wrapper.
2. I could not retrieve the EP 2 914 319 opposition decision, the opponent's identity, or the grounds (Art. 100(a) vs. 100(c)). Only secondary register entries confirm the opposition and the 2023-08-09 B2 amendment. Verify via the EPO Register / European Patent Bulletin 2023/32.
3. I did not verify the technical contents of US 3,762,409; US 4,746,067; EP 0 261 649 B2; DE 197 00 106 A1; US 8,113,194 B2; the PARI LC Sprint Instructions for Use; or the BOY mobile S/BOY SX manuals. Combination C is therefore a research lead, not an established rejection.
4. The exact wording of claims 12–14 remains unverified in my sources (carried forward from the earlier section). I cannot map them.
5. The "Pevler" vs. "Pever" inventor rendering and "Trudell" vs. "Trude" assignee rendering persist across sources; per the operating rules, both are reproduced literally and neither is corrected. (EP registers consistently render PEVLER, Jennifer.)
6. Today's date is stated inconsistently in the brief (April 26, 2026 vs. 2026-09-28). No substantive impact identified.
7. No verified litigation asserting US 10,668,229 was found (consistent with the earlier Litigation summary); the single database hit maps to US 10,688,229 (Willow Innovations, breast pumps), a digit transposition. Any §103 challenge below should be assessed on the art, not on the litigation record.

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10668229/en ; granted PDF http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a7/4a/74/261a8fdf86b402/US10668229.pdf ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6929003B2 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US5823179 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6044841 ; https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/EP-2914319-B1 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2914319A4 ; https://mijnoctrooi.rvo.nl/fo-eregister-view/search/details/800203357_EPV/0/0/1/10/0/0/0/null/null ; https://eregister.ipoi.gov.ie/register/PTRegister.aspx?idappli=13852120.8 .