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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 03/16/2026, are accepted and do not introduce new matter.
Previous 112(b) rejections of claims 4-7 are overcome by amendment; the relative terms in these claims have been removed.
Claims 1-17 and 19-23 are pending; claims 2, 10-12, 17, 19-22 are withdrawn; claim 18 was cancelled; claims 1, 3-9, 13-16 and 23 are examined hereafter.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the opposite end of the collar" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by Ferrer (U.S. 11,759,586) or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Ferrer (U.S. 11,759,586) in view of Capra et al (U.S. 4,174,055).
Regarding claim 1, Ferrer teaches a nasal spray guide (element 50, which goes on top of a nasal dispensing mechanism 120, as seen in Fig 7), comprising:
a collar (defined by bottom end 56, shown below) defining a lumen (defined by inner cavity of end 56, shown below; - the common definition of a lumen is: the cavity or channel within a tube) configured to receive a nasal spray tip (shown below), wherein the lumen is sized to allow for a distal end of the nasal spray tip to extend beyond the collar when exposed (as shown below and seen in Fig 6 - which shows the spray tip exposed, i.e. without cap 20 - the distal end of the nasal spray is exposed); and
a shoulder (defined by flap guidance 60) extending radially outward from the collar (60 extends radially outwards from 56), wherein the shoulder comprises a shoulder surface angled relative to the lumen (as seen in Fig 6, the surface of lumen 60 is angled with respect to the collar 56 and its inner cavity, i.e. lumen).
Examiner notes that the claim does not require the collar and the spray tip to be separate features that attach to one another. Nonetheless, if it is found that Ferrer does not teach the collar configured to receive a spray tip, i.e. the collar and the spray tip being separate structures that connect to one another, Capra teaches a spray dispenser that comprises a collar (33’ seen in Figs 4-6) that receives a spray tip (45’, as seen in Figs 4-6) in its lumen (defined by inner cavity of collar 33, labeled as skirt 34, as seen in Fig 6), wherein the collar and spray tip are separate and are configured to attach to each other.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferrer to incorporate the teachings of Capra to provide collar and spray tip as separate features that connect to each other in order to allow for easy removal of the spray tip in case it needs replacement or maintenance. Furthermore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the collar and the spray tip of Ferrer into two separate members, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves inly routine skill in the art, as it was determined in In re Dulberg, where it was held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the inside of a part, then it would be obvious to make that part separable (see MPEP 2144.04 V C). In the present case, it would be desirable to make the spray tip separable from the collar in order to service it or maintain it; therefore, it would be obvious to make the collar and the spray tip into two separate mating members.
Note: references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing Ferrer, unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 3, Ferrer and Capra teach the guide of claim 1, wherein the shoulder surface is obliquely angled relative to the lumen (as seen in Fig 6, the surface of lumen 60 is obliquely angled with respect to the collar 56 and its inner cavity, i.e. lumen).
Regarding claim 4, Ferrer and Capra teach the guide of claim 1, wherein the shoulder surface is angled relative to the lumen at an angle between 60 degrees and 80 degrees (col 3, lines 45-47 discloses angle α being 30 to 60 degrees; wherein α is the angle of the surface of the shoulder with respect to the bottom of base 172; therefore in the case α is 30 degrees, the angle between the shoulder surface to the lumen is 60 degrees, since the lumen is perpendicular to the bottom of base 172; thus reading on the claimed range of 60 to 80 degrees).
Regarding claim 5, Ferrer and Capra teach the guide of claim 1, wherein the shoulder surface surrounds the lumen (as seen in Figs 3-4, the shoulder surface 60 completely surrounds the collar 56, and its lumen) and/or is planar (the shoulder surface is angled and planar, see Fig 6).
Regarding claim 6, Ferrer and Capra teach the guide of claim 1, the cross-section of one end of the collar varies from the opposite end of the collar (as shown below, the collar has a wider end and a narrower end; thus reading on claim language).
Regarding claim 7, Ferrer and Capra teach the guide of claim 1, wherein the shoulder surface is elliptical (as seen in Figs 3 and 4, the shoulder surface 60 is elliptical, see its rounded edges).
Regarding claim 8, Ferrer and Capra teach the guide of claim 1, wherein an inner diameter of the lumen varies (as seen in Fig 7, the inside of the collar 56, i.e. the lumen, narrows in the downstream direction; that is, the inner diameter of the lumen varies).
Regarding claim 13, Ferrer and Capra teach the guide of claim 1, further comprising an alignment indicator that orients a user to angle the shoulder surface away from the user's septum (alignment indicator defined by the angle at which the shoulder 60 is placed in relation to the spray tip; with this angle, the user is indicated to orient the spray at an angle β, which can include away from their septum depending on the angle chosen, as seen in Fig 8C compared to 8B; this is described in col 3, lines 39-52; as such, the variance in angles allows for the capability of orienting the shoulder surface away from the user’s septum).
Regarding claim 23, Ferrer teaches a nasal spray guide (element 50, which goes on top of a nasal dispensing mechanism 120, as seen in Fig 7), comprising:
a collar (defined by bottom end 56, shown below) defining a lumen (defined by inner cavity of end 56, shown below; - the common definition of a lumen is: the cavity or channel within a tube) configured to receive a nasal spray tip (shown below) from a nasal spray device (device 10 is disclosed as a nasal spray device) therethrough (as seen below); and
a shoulder (defined by flap guidance 60) extending radially outward from the collar (60 extends radially outwards from 56), wherein the shoulder comprises a shoulder surface obliquely angled relative to the lumen (as seen in Fig 6, the surface of lumen 60 is obliquely angled with respect to the collar 56 and its inner cavity, i.e. lumen).
Examiner notes that the claim does not require the collar and the spray tip to be separate features that attach to one another. Nonetheless, if it is found that Ferrer does not teach the collar configured to receive a spray tip therethrough, i.e. the collar and the spray tip being separate structures that connect to one another, Capra teaches a spray dispenser that comprises a collar (33’ seen in Figs 4-6) that receives a spray tip (45’, as seen in Figs 4-6) in its lumen (defined by inner cavity of collar 33, labeled as skirt 34, as seen in Fig 6), wherein the collar and spray tip are separate and are configured to attach to each other.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferrer to incorporate the teachings of Capra to provide collar and spray tip as separate features that connect to each other in order to allow for easy removal of the spray tip in case it needs replacement or maintenance. Furthermore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the collar and the spray tip of Ferrer into two separate members, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves inly routine skill in the art, as it was determined in In re Dulberg, where it was held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the inside of a part, then it would be obvious to make that part separable (see MPEP 2144.04 V C). In the present case, it would be desirable to make the spray tip separable from the collar in order to service it or maintain it; therefore, it would be obvious to make the collar and the spray tip into two separate mating members.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrer (U.S. 11,759,586) in view of Capra et al (U.S. 4,174,055); further in view of Bishop et al (U.S. 4,944,429).
Regarding claim 9, Ferrer and Capra teach the guide of claim 8. However, Ferrer does not teach the guide wherein an inner surface of the collar comprises one or more radially inward projections.
Bishop teaches a sprayer mechanism for nasal application (col 1, line 16), comprising a guide comprising a collar (44), wherein an inner surface of the collar comprises one or more radially inward projections (56, as seen in Fig 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferrer to incorporate the teachings of Bishop to provide radially inward projections on the inner surface of the collar in order to maintain coaxial alignment between the spray tip and the guide (see col 4, lines 30-34).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrer (U.S. 11,759,586) in view of Capra et al (U.S. 4,174,055); further in view of Riskin (U.S. 6,092,692).
Regarding claim 14, Ferrer and Capra teach the guide of claim 13. However, Ferrer does not teach the guide wherein the alignment indicator comprises an arrow on the shoulder
Riskin teaches a nasal sprayer system with a spray guide (32) comprising a shoulder (50), wherein the shoulder has an alignment indicator in the form of an arrow (as seen in Fig 1 of Riskin, the indicator is an arrow 58/60 on the shoulder 50).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferrer to incorporate the teachings of Riskin to provide an alignment indicator in the form of an arrow on the guide in order to have means to inform the user about the sprayer’s usage (as disclosed in abstract and col 3, lines 23-32).
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrer (U.S. 11,759,586) in view of Capra et al (U.S. 4,174,055); further in view Beller et al (U.S. 2020/0230334).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Ferrer and Capra teach the guide of claim 1. However, Ferrer does not teach the guide wherein the guide is constructed from a thermoplastic polymer; wherein the thermoplastic polymer comprises an antimicrobial agent.
Beller teaches an inhaler made out of antimicrobial plastic (Par 0031).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferrer to incorporate the teachings of Beller to make the spray guide out of antimicrobial thermoplastics in order to meet higher hygiene requirements (as disclosed in Par 0031), which would be beneficial to the device of Ferrer since it is intended to be used as a nasal sprayer, i.e. for insertion into a user’s body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-9, 13-16 and 23 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments filed on 03/16/2026 have resulted in the new grounds of rejection found above. Nonetheless, regarding arguments based in Ferrer, Examiner notes that an alternative interpretation of this references has been applied herewith, as seen in the annotated figure above. Examiner asserts that with this interpretation along with the introduction of Capra, the claims are properly rejected.
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 JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights