United States Patent 4,664,107 (Inhalation-Activatable Aerosol Dispenser): Claim Scope, Interpretation, and Landscape
What does US 4,664,107 claim in plain mechanical terms?
US 4,664,107 claims an inhalation-activatable inhaler/dispenser that couples a pressurized aerosol container with an aerosol valve stem. The dispenser blocks actuation of the aerosol valve unless the patient inhales through a mouthpiece. When inhalation occurs, a vane in an airflow path moves from blocking to non-blocking position, enabling a biasing force (manual or spring-driven) to move the container/support block and in turn drive the valve hollow stem from an outer closed position to an inner discharge position. The core claimed architecture is an airflow-actuated latch tied to stem actuation.
Independent claim 1: element-by-element scope
Claim 1 requires all of the following structural and functional features:
-
A dispenser for use with an aerosol container that has a valve for dispensing aerosol from an outlet, where the valve has a hollow stem movable relative to the container between:
- Outer closed position; and
- Inner discharging position.
-
A housing with:
- a mouthpiece, and
- an air passage that terminates at the mouthpiece.
-
The housing is adapted to receive the aerosol container and includes a:
- support block with a socket adapted to receive the valve hollow stem, and
- a through orifice communicating between the socket and the air passage.
-
Latch means having parts movable between:
- an engaged position that prevents movement of the container and support block toward each other when a force biases them toward each other, and
- a release position that allows such movement in response to the force, so that the force moves the valve stem into the inner discharging position to dispense aerosol into the air passage for patient inhalation.
-
Airflow-actuated vane latch:
- “parts of said latch means comprising a vane mounted on said housing in said air passageway between said orifice and said mouthpiece,”
- the vane moves toward the mouthpiece “solely under the influence of inhalation through said mouthpiece,”
- the vane changes “from a blocking to a non-blocking position with respect to said passageway during the application of said force to move said parts from said engage to said release position,” and
- inhalation-induced vane movement causes release of the latch so that the biasing force can move the stem to discharge aerosol into the passage.
Functional coupling that matters: the claim requires that the vane be positioned between the orifice and mouthpiece, that it respond to inhalation, and that its blocking vs non-blocking state gates the latch transition during application of the biasing force.
Dependent claim 2: additional gating constraint
Claim 2 adds a specific prevention behavior:
- The latch means includes means for preventing movement of the latch parts to the release position when the vane is in its non-blocking position prior to application of the biasing force.
Scope effect: This closes an edge case where a vane might already be in a non-blocking position (for example, due to orientation, airflow, or residual motion) before the biasing force is applied. The claim requires a time/sequence relationship: release requires vane motion during the force application step, not merely a vane already in non-blocking position before the biasing force begins.
Dependent claim 3: defined mechanical drive train
Claim 3 specifies a particular linkage geometry:
- The vane is pivotal about an axis and has a drive surface forming an arc around that axis.
- Latch means includes:
- a rocker pivotable about a fulcrum,
- a catch pivotably mounted on the rocker about a remote pivot axis,
- the catch has:
- a driven edge surface forming an arc around its pivot axis adapted to engage the vane drive surface, and
- a side surface arranged so that as the vane pivots from blocking to non-blocking during force application, frictional driving engagement pivots the catch and pivots the rocker.
- Rocker movement then drives the support block and container toward each other.
Scope effect: Claim 3 tightens the latch mechanism to an arcuate-friction drive interaction between vane drive surface and a driven edge surface on a catch, transferring motion through a rocker to container/support block movement.
Dependent claim 4: manual force variant
Claim 4 limits a configuration:
- Support block fixed on the housing.
- The housing affords manual application of the force between the container and housing.
Scope effect: This reads on embodiments where a user mechanically presses the container against a fixed support block.
Dependent claim 5: container fixed; support block movable with spring force
Claim 5 limits another configuration:
- Container fixed on the housing.
- Support block fixed on a member movable relative to the housing.
- A spring applies the biasing force between container and support block.
Scope effect: This reads on spring-powered stem actuation controlled by the inhalation gate.
Dependent claim 6: mouthpiece cover compresses the spring
Claim 6 adds:
- a cover for the mouthpiece pivotably mounted on the housing.
- cover movement from closed to open compresses the spring.
Scope effect: This makes the spring compression tied to pivoting a mouthpiece cover, integrating user handling with the biasing-force step.
How broad is claim 1 versus how narrow are claims 2-6?
Claim 1 breadth (high-level)
Claim 1 is broad as to the biasing force source (manual or spring, though embodiments are narrowed by dependents). It is also broad regarding the aerosol container and valve stem as long as there is a hollow stem movable between closed and discharging positions.
The key limiting novelty is the inhalation-activated vane gating the latch that releases stem actuation.
Claims 2-6 tighten scope via sequence and mechanism
- Claim 2: sequence limitation on vane position relative to application of biasing force.
- Claim 3: specific arcuate friction-drive linkage (vane drive surface and driven edge on a catch with rocker).
- Claims 4-6: specific force application architecture (manual force; spring between fixed container and movable support block; mouthpiece cover compressing spring).
Net effect: Claim 1 captures a class of inhalation-gated disposers, while dependents narrow toward particular mechanical implementations.
What is the implied claim “center of gravity” for infringement risk?
The center of gravity is the inhalation-vane-to-latch-release coupling:
- A vane located in the airflow path between an upstream orifice (communicating with the aerosol stem socket) and the mouthpiece.
- Vane movement is caused by inhalation and transitions from blocking to non-blocking.
- That vane movement is used to move latch parts from engaged to release during the application of a biasing force that ultimately drives the hollow valve stem inward.
A device that instead:
- actuates based on pressure differential without a vane, or
- actuates stem movement without gating release from an inhalation-responsive component,
is outside claim 1’s core requirement.
What would “design-around” typically target under this claim set?
Without relying on any speculative prior art, the claim language itself identifies typical bypass targets:
- Remove or relocate the vane from the “between said orifice and said mouthpiece” position.
- Eliminate the linkage where vane movement gates latch release during force application.
- Avoid the hollow-stem container/valve arrangement as claimed (if the stem architecture is materially different).
- For designs aiming to avoid dependents:
- avoid the sequence limitation of claim 2,
- avoid the specific arcuate friction drive of claim 3,
- avoid the fixed/movable constraints of claims 4-6, such as coupling spring compression to a pivoted mouthpiece cover.
Where does US 4,664,107 sit in the patent landscape for inhalation-actuated aerosol devices?
Landscape positioning (functional class)
US 4,664,107 belongs to a functional class of inhalers/disposers that:
- prevent aerosol discharge unless a patient inhales, and
- use mechanical gating tied to airflow to enable valve actuation.
This is distinct from:
- “breath-actuated” devices using pressure-sensing/electronic triggering (not represented in the claim language),
- passive breath-actuated nebulization concepts (different mechanism),
- purely manual pMDI actuation with no inhalation gating.
Landscape positioning within claim architecture
Within mechanical inhalation gating systems, the claimed architecture emphasizes:
- a physical obstruction element (vane) in the airflow path,
- gating of a latch that permits a container/support-block motion under applied force,
- transmission to a hollow stem.
This is an “inhalation-to-mechanical-release” paradigm, not a “sensor-to-solenoid” paradigm.
Claim chart style map (condensed)
| Claim requirement |
Claim 1 exact character |
Impact for scope |
| Aerosol container + valve stem |
Valve has hollow stem movable between outer closed and inner discharge positions |
Requires a compatible aerosol container architecture |
| Air path |
Housing has air passage terminating at mouthpiece |
Device must create an inhalation airflow through housing |
| Gating latch |
Latch prevents motion of container and support block toward each other until release |
Motion gating is mandatory |
| Vane location |
Vane mounted in air passageway between orifice and mouthpiece |
Spatial limitation is strict |
| Vane actuation |
Vane moves “solely under the influence of inhalation” |
Inhalation-only trigger |
| Vane state transitions |
Blocking to non-blocking during application of force |
Trigger must coincide with force application |
| Stem actuation coupling |
Release allows force to move stem inward so aerosol dispenses into air passage |
The discharge must be enabled by latch release |
| Claim 2 sequence |
Prevent release if vane is already non-blocking before force |
Adds timing constraint |
| Claim 3 linkage geometry |
Pivotal vane arc drive, friction engagement with catch, rocker fulcrum |
Highly specific mechanism for dependent coverage |
| Claims 4-6 mechanics |
manual force (4), spring force with movable support member (5), mouthpiece cover compresses spring (6) |
Implementation-specific |
Patent landscape implications for diligence
For diligence and freedom-to-operate screening, the determinative questions are mechanical and positional:
- Does the device have a vane (or equivalent obstructing element) in an airflow path between an upstream aerosol entry point and the mouthpiece?
- Does inhalation move that vane in a way that gates release of a latch controlling stem actuation?
- Is aerosol discharge permitted only after inhalation-induced vane movement transitions the latch from engaged to release while the biasing force is applied?
- Are dependents met (if relevant) through specific mechanical sequences and linkage geometry, such as arcuate friction-drive between vane and catch (claim 3) and the “vane already non-blocking before force” prevention logic (claim 2)?
Key Takeaways
- Claim 1 is centered on inhalation-driven vane gating that controls a latch releasing mechanical motion to drive a hollow valve stem into an aerosol-discharge position.
- The vane’s placement and inhalation-only movement between the orifice and mouthpiece are core scope limiters.
- Claim 2 adds a sequence limitation: release must not occur if the vane is already non-blocking before biasing force begins.
- Claim 3 adds a specific arcuate friction drive linkage (vane arc drive to catch driven edge via rocker).
- Claims 4-6 narrow force-application architecture, including manual pressing, spring bias with a movable support member, and spring compression via a pivoting mouthpiece cover.
FAQs
-
Does claim 1 require a spring?
No. Claim 1 requires a “force to bias” the container/support block toward each other, but the source of that force is not limited in claim 1.
-
Is inhalation required only to start actuation or also during latch transition?
Claim 1 requires vane movement “during the application of said force” to move latch parts from engage to release position.
-
Where must the vane be located?
Between the “through orifice” and the mouthpiece, i.e., in the air passageway between those two points.
-
What does claim 2 specifically change versus claim 1?
It blocks movement to the release position if the vane is already in the non-blocking position before the biasing force is applied.
-
Is the mechanism in claim 3 broad?
No. Claim 3 defines particular arcuate drive surfaces and a friction-driving interaction between the vane and a catch, transferred through a rocker.
References
[1] U.S. Patent No. 4,664,107.
