DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending as amended on 08/01/25,
claims 9 & 11-20 being withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
This final action is a response to the amendment filed on August 1, 2025. Claims 1-8 & 10 have been amended as a result of the previous action; the rejections have been redone accordingly.
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 1-8 & 10 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. Claim 1 recites “at least one or more tab part/reservoir/etc” (lines 12, 16, 19, 23, etc) which is grammatically improper & unclear; for clarity, such clauses should choose either “at least one” or “one or more” (as well as pluralizing any element which follows the latter clause). However, said new language also appears to be superfluous (e.g., see [0047] of Applicant’s specification). The new phrase “configured to be disposed onto” (line 6) also reads as improper, as this adhesive layer is simply disposed on the patch product, not ‘configured for’ some theoretical attachment thereto. See also confusing wordings like “wherein…settings being operable” or “configured to operable” which should be corrected to proper grammatical constructions. Claim 3 also recites “said middle compartment”, but has been amended to depend from claim 1, and so this term lacks proper antecedent basis. The claims should be generally reviewed for clarity & clear conformation to the language of the originally disclosed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al., US 2007/0264316 in view of Burkoth, US 2005/0176084 and further in view of Asrar, CA 2 654 707.
With regard to claim 1, Adachi teaches various known delivery patches which comprise a ‘front layer section’ (11/13/15) with adhesive perimeter seal (12) and absorbent face (11/21) comprising cotton or the like [0079], and an impervious rear layer backing (15/18), and a dispenser (14/17/20) and reservoir (18) for medicine or the like, so that one may seal the patch against an area and dispense fluent material into said sealed area in a well-known manner (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-12]).
While this reference does not expressly disclose at least one resealable patch access tab, such was also a well-known feature in this art, as shown for example by Burkoth (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-3]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Burkoth with those of Adachi, in order to provide a user with patch monitoring access as desired, and then re-establish a sealed environment for the dispensing patch.
While these references do not expressly disclose conventional ‘controls with automatic dispensing settings for different time intervals’, broadly automating the act of manual dispensing would have been prima facie obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(III), and further, Asrar is another example from this art which utilizes various embodiments with automated controls for dispensing material from a patch reservoir, including electronic devices which can “initiate, modulate, or terminate” the flow of material from the dispenser reservoir (e.g. [Pgs. 9, 14-15, 25]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Asrar with those of Adachi & Burkoth, in order to predictably provide advanced control of patch dispensing operations using known control features (which can be designed for the claimed time intervals). While Asrar is silent to a ‘manual button’ for control by a user, this is believed to be either understood or prima facie obvious, in order to provide additional user control using only well-known actuating means with predictable success (Adachi also operates from a manually pressed ‘button’, of course).
With regard to claim 2, the example reservoir of Adachi is considered to comprise a ‘middle compartment’ within the patch unit to contain a substance to be dispensed.
With regard to claims 3-4, Adachi also teaches the use of a conventional ‘metallic plastic’ barrier for its balloon-type reservoirs [0103]. Further, with regard to ‘balloon shape’, it is noted that such changes in shape are generally held to be prima facie obvious without more; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)B. While Applicant also claims a ‘balloon shape compartment configured to engage said front/rear layer sections’, this phrase was not set forth in the specification or drawings, and is thus presumed to be so well-known in the art that it would have been prima facie obvious. It would also be prima facie obvious for any such reservoir feature to either be attached/adhered or freely inserted between layers (the only possibilities to try for positioning such a feature).
With regard to claim 5, Asrar also discloses an ‘entry point’ to fill said compartment, the use of a gland or one-way valve joint (19) for its plastic reservoirs [FIG. 2], which would have been obvious to incorporate for their inherent filling benefit.
With regard to claim 6, as said reservoir comprises plastic, a plastic port therein would have been the most obvious choice as well, and further, making such an element broadly separable is held to be prima facie obvious; see MPEP 2144.04(V)C. While Applicant also claims ‘operable to twist or pop off to remove itself’, such was not set forth in the specification or drawings, and is thus presumed to be so well-known in the art that it would have been prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 7, while Applicant further claims ‘water resistant’ controls, such was not set forth in the specification or drawings, and is thus presumed to be so well-known in the art that it would have been prima facie obvious.
Claims 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al., US 2007/0264316 in view of in view of Burkoth, US 2005/0176084 & Asrar, CA 2 654 707 and further in view of Zawoy et al., 2017/0231823.
The teachings of Adachi & Burkoth & Asrar have been detailed above, and while they do not expressly disclose a ‘round/perfume-type spray nozzle’ to deliver a fluent substance over a wide area, such a variant was also known in this art, as shown for example by Zawoy, which uses a bandage with a round spray nozzle dispenser directed at a sealed area [0061], which would have been a prima facie obvious modification for one of ordinary skill, in order to be able to deliver a mist of the fluent material across a target radius in a known fashion.
Examiner also notes US 2003/0225360 as relevant to the pending claims
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, “Remarks,” filed August 1, 2025 with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are primarily drawn toward the claims as amended but are not persuasive.
With regard to Applicant’s assertions that the previously cited prior art does not teach or suggest liftable, resealable tabs, this is erroneous; Burkoth clearly teaches this well-known feature in common adhesive patches for covering wounds or the like. It would have been obvious to combine such a feature with the dispenser patch feature of Adachi in order to predictably provide internal access to the area the dispenser patch is targeting. Applicant’s confusing argument that one would not have modified a ‘protruding [piercing] portion’ of Adachi’s dispenser to incorporate such a tab is irrelevant, as no such modification was proposed – one of ordinary skill would readily understand that the patch layers of Adachi could be modified to incorporate the patch access tab of Burkoth with predictable success. To say that such a modification ‘requires space which Adachi does not provide’, Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill in this art could readily design such a patch to have a tabbed access area (or conversely, incorporate such a dispenser in the tabbed patch of Burkoth), as such a combination of beneficial features in one embodiment would have easily fallen well within the realm of ordinary skill.
With regard to Applicant’s assertions that the previously cited prior art does not teach or suggest dispensers with reservoirs, this is also erroneous; Adachi, Asrar, Tano, Zawoy all taught this conventional feature. With regard to the argument that the automatic dispenser of Asrar cannot be combined with the ‘protruding portion’ of Adachi, this is unpersuasive. Again, bodily incorporation is not the standard for obviousness, and one may alter or even substitute the low-tech ‘manually pierced diaphragm’ design of Adachi with another known, automated means for more controlled dispensing, as taught for example by Asrar, in order to predictably increase user control over dispensing (e.g. timed release) in a known manner.
Applicant’s further assertion that it would not be implicit or otherwise obvious to provide a user with a manual button on a control device such as those taught by Asrar is not persuasive; one of ordinary skill would absolutely either assume such a controller to have some sort of common button or other common control thereon, or otherwise find it prima facie obvious to provide one, for increased user control, as with virtually any other electronic equipment. Broadly adding a push button to a controller to help perform the same functions that the controller is said to automatically perform would certainly not be non-obvious (Asrar also teaches other species throughout which utilize direct pressure to dispense a material, such as nozzles, compressible bottles, and the like [Pgs. 9, 13, 14]). Examiner also notes that Applicant’s citation that some of Asrar’s control devices “may” be operated remotely (Pg 15) is itself a disclosure that these need not only be operated remotely, and that operation either remotely or on the device itself are each obvious to try as these represent a finite set of possibilities for such controls. If one may operate a television by pressing a button on a remote, it is prima facie obvious to press a button on said television as well. Applicant’s depicted circle ‘button,’ described only in passing as a ‘button for manual dispensing’, is not found to be a patentable invention. Note also for example, the drug dispensing patches of US 2003/0225360, which states that one may either control dispensing via remote control or preprogramming or sensor feedback [0092] or merely pressing a manual button on the patch [0172], any of which would have been considered plainly obvious alternative species for controlled dispensing by one of ordinary skill in this art.
Applicants have claimed a type of patch for dispensing a material beneath the patch, with various, well-known add-on features; it remains unclear which particular structural element of the disclosed patch is considered by Applicant to be the inventive one. Examiner recommends unambiguously setting forth any such feature in the independent claim in a clear & definite & originally disclosed manner and identifying same in Applicant’s arguments. The instant claims as written only recite that which was well-known at the time of invention, and are still not considered to be patentably distinguishable over the teachings & suggestions of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745