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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 7, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is allowable. Claims 11-15 and 18, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on December 10, 2024, is hereby withdrawn and claims 11-15 and 18 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on September 7, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 has been amended. Thus, claims 1-6 and 10-18 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 7, 2026, with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive, specifically in regards to Hammack not teaching or disclosing the step of introducing the blunt instrument into the choroid. The rejection of claim 1 (and its dependents) has been withdrawn.
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 11-15 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11-15 recites the limitation "said microparticles" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is directed to a “size” of the substance. It is unclear to what this size in reference (e.g. a diameter, width, length, etc…).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 10, and 16, and 17 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 11-15 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims in this application are allowed because the prior art of record fails to disclose either singly or in combination the claimed method.
The closest prior art of record is Hammack (US 20120271272).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hammack fails to teach among all the limitations or render obvious the step of introducing a blunt instrument into the choroid, in combination with the total structure and function as claimed. As discussed previously in the Final Rejection mailed on 4/6/2026, Hammack teaches a substantially similar method which comprises introducing a blunt instrument (guard 18 in fig. 3) distally through an entrance created by a sharp instrument (paragraph 35). However, Hammack discloses that once the device reaches the suprachoroidal space, the guard deploys distally to separate the choroid inwardly from the sclera to open the suprachoroidal space (paragraph 36). As such, Hammack does not teach or disclose inserting the blunt instrument (guard 18) into the choroid, as required by the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (US 20070202186) teaches a method of delivering a substance into a suprachoroidal space comprising the step of penetrating the sclera with a sharp instrument (cutting tip 4 in fig. 3A), introducing a blunt instrument (distention tip 8 in fig. 3A) to mechanically create a separation between the sclera and choroid to provide an entry point into the suprachoroidal space (fig. 3B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY FREDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9 AM - 5 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, BHISMA MEHTA can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/COURTNEY FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights