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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 07/17/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 17 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2, 5-7, 9-16, and 18-24 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Though overall some of the same prior art references are used herein, the request for continued examination required a change in the grounds of rejection as detailed below in the prior art rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneider (Patent No. US 4,286,735 A) in view of Meierhoefer (Patent No. US 4,533,068 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sneider teaches a system for applying a lavage fluid to a surface (system is used to dispense lavage fluid and fully capable of applying a fluid to a surface; Abstract; Figure 1; Column 3, lines 52-63), the system comprising:
a compressible body forming a housing (container 10 has a body and forms a housing; Figure 1; Column 3, lines 4-10 and Column 3, lines 37-51), wherein the housing forms a chamber containing a lavage fluid (container 10 housing forms a chamber to hold fluid; Figure 1; Column 3, lines 37-51), and wherein the body is configured such that at least a portion of the lavage fluid is dispensed upon compression of the body (body 10 of container is squeezed to dispense fluid out from the container; Column 3, lines 37-63);
an application member in fluid communication with the body (spout 32 in fluid communication with container 10; Figure 1; Column 3, lines 37-51), wherein the application member is configured to dispense the lavage fluid along a flow path and through a discharge aperture (spout 32 is configured to dispense the fluid along a flow path through the spout 32 and out the discharge aperture/opening of spout 32; Figure 1; Column 3, lines 18-22 and Column 3, lines 37-51); and
a venting adaptor (cap 18 having a tubular conductor 30 with tubing 36; Figure 1; Column 3, lines 18-34), wherein the venting adaptor comprises:
a fluid channel configured to provide fluid communication between the housing and an external environment for equalizing pressure within the compressible body (tubular portion 28 on cap 18 to provides fluid communication between body 10 and external environment for pressure equalizing; Figure 1; Column 3, lines 15-17 and Column 3, line 66 to Column 4, line 1),
a first connection portion configured to connect with a body connection portion of the body (cap 18 has a first connection portion that is the screw thread 20 that mates with thread 16 of body 10; Figure 1; Column 3, lines 11-17),
a second connection portion configured to connect with the application member (cap 18 has a second connection portion that is the tubular conductor 30 to connect to spout 32; Figure 1; Column 3, lines 18-21),
wherein the venting adaptor comprises at least a portion of the flow path along which the lavage fluid is dispensed (flow path comprises tubing 36 and conductor 30 to dispense fluid; Figure 1; Column 3, lines 52-63),
wherein at least a portion of the fluid channel is separate from the fluid flow path and is configured to provide air from the external environment to the same chamber that contains the lavage fluid upon a re-equilibrium period (channel 28 is separate of flow path comprising tubing 36 and conductor 30 and provides air from external environment into chamber of body 10 upon a re-equilibrium period, or when the bottle 10 is released after being squeezed; Column 3, line 63 to Column 4, line 1),
wherein the fluid channel comprises at least one one-way valve that prevents lavage fluid from passing through the fluid channel (one way ball valve 24 prevents fluid from passing through the channel 28; Figure 1; Column 3, line 55-63), and
wherein the one-way valve has a first, closed position that prevents fluid passage from inside the body and a second, open position that allows fluid passage from the external environment (ball valve 24 has a closed position to prevent air from leaving the channel 28 from inside the body 10 and an open position to allow for air to enter into chamber from external environment; Column 3, line 52 to Column 4, line 1). Sneider does not teach at least one filter provided relative to the fluid channel sufficient to filter air passing through the fluid channel.
However, Meierhoefer teaches at least one filter provided relative to the fluid channel sufficient to filter air passing through the fluid channel (filter 52 is provided within air inlet port 18 at the inward terminus 50 to filter air passing through; Figure 2; Column 4, lines 52-68).
Meierhoefer and Sneider are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid dispensing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sneider to incorporate the teachings of Meierhoefer and have the filter of Meierhoefer in the fluid channel of Sneider. This allows for the air traveling through to be filtered from micro-organisms and to prevent liquid from passing through (Meierhoefer; Column 4, lines 52-68).
Regarding claim 3, Sneider in view of Meierhoefer teaches the system of claim 1. Sneider does not teach wherein: the venting adaptor comprises a restrictive feature at a position along the flow path, and the restrictive feature is configured to prevent gas from the external environment from entering the body via the flow path.
However, Meierhoefer teaches wherein: the venting adaptor comprises a restrictive feature at a position along the flow path (check valve 28 is in the position of the spout 20; Figure 2; Column 4, lines 23-40), and the restrictive feature is configured to prevent gas from the external environment from entering the body via the flow path (check valve 28 prevents external environment air from entering in; Column 4, lines 23-40).
Meierhoefer and Sneider are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid dispensing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sneider to incorporate the teachings of Meierhoefer and have the one-way valve of Meierhoefer in the flow path in the venting adapter of Sneider. This permits for only one way flow of fluid to dispense out of the flow path and prevent external air and fluid from entering in (Meierhoefer; Column 4, lines 23-40).
Regarding claim 4, Sneider in view of Meierhoefer teaches the system of claim 3. The combination of Sneider in view of Meierhoefer further teaches wherein the restrictive feature comprises a one-way valve (Meierhoefer; check valve 28 is a one-way valve; Column 4, lines 23-40), the one-way valve comprising:
a first, closed position (Meierhoefer; check valve 28 is closed; Column 4, lines 23-40 and Column 4, lines 47-51); and
a second, open position (Meierhoefer; check valve 28 is opened; Column 4, lines 23-40 and Column 4, lines 45-47),
wherein the one-way valve is configured to be in the first position when subjected to pressure from a first direction (Meierhoefer; valve 28 is closed when pressure is applied from the Column 4, lines 45-47),
wherein the one-way valve is configured to move to the second position when subjected to pressure from a second direction (Meierhoefer; valve opens when pressure from compressed squeeze bottle is pushed outwards; Column 4, lines 40-46),
wherein the second direction is different from the first direction (Meierhoefer; Column 4, lines 40-51).
Regarding claim 17, Sneider in view of Meierhoefer teaches the system of claim 1. However, Sneider in view of Meierhoefer does not expressly teach that the filter has an average pore size of up to about 10 pm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filter has an average pore size of up to about 10 pm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04)(IV)(A). In the instant case, the lavage system of Sneider in view of Meierhoefer would not operate differently with the claimed filter’s pore size since it has the same function of filtering contaminants from the environment to deliver clean fluid to the wound area. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the pore is “about” within the claimed ranges (specification; paragraph 00111).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneider (Patent No. US 4,286,735 A) in view of Meierhoefer (Patent No. US 4,533,068 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drinan (U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0145849 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sneider in view of Meierhoefer teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination of Sneider in view of Meierhoefer does not teach wherein the fluid channel further comprises a selective membrane.
However, Drinan teaches wherein the fluid channel further comprises a selective membrane (fluid channel with valve 109 has filter 108; Figure 7B).
Drinan and Sneider in view of Meierhoefer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lavage/irrigation devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sneider in view of Meierhoefer to incorporate the teachings of Drinan have the filter of Drinan be a restrictive feature in the fluid channel of Sneider in view of Meierhoefer. This allows for the excess gas that is incoming from the cavity to be filtered into the device, but not the fluid from the cavity (Drinan; Paragraph 0072).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights