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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mask for introducing a vapor” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
-Fig. 4 contains reference to element 100 which is not disclosed within the specification.
-Fig. 5 contains reference to element 100 and 502 which are not disclosed within the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
-Line 10 recites “wherein the carrier is impregnated.” Examiner recommends amending to “and wherein the carrier is impregnated.”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Reference to the provisional application on Pg. 1 should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “the substances” in line 6. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one substance—
-Claim 1 recites “the barrier and configured as a clamp for a septum of a user” in line 7. Examiner recommends amending to –the barrier, wherein the clamp is configured to clamp a septum of a user—
-Claim 1 recites “the one or more substances” in line 12. Examiner recommends amending to – the at least one substance—
-Claim 1 recites “the substance” in line 13. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one substance—
-Claim 1 recites “the skin” in line 11. Examiner recommends amending to – the surface of skin—
-Claim 1 recites “the skin” in line 12. Examiner recommends amending to –the surface of skin—
-Claim 1 recites “wherein the step” in line 14. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the step—
-Claim 1 recites “further includes the step” in lines 14-15. Examiner recommends amending to –further includes a step—
-Claim 2 recites “on inward facing wall” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to – on an inward facing wall—
-Claim 2 recites “wherein the substantially” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the substantially—
-Claim 3 recites “the nanocapsules” in lines 3 and 5. Examiner recommends amending to –the plurality of nanocapsules—
-Claim 3 recites “the non-volatile substance” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one non-volatile substance—
-Claim 4 recites “one at least substance” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –at least one substance—
-Claim 4 recites “the barrier and configured as a clamp for a septum of a user” in lines 6-7. Examiner recommends amending to –the barrier, wherein the clamp is configured to clamp a septum of a user—
-Claim 4 recites “material is heat sealed” in line 8. Examiner recommends amending to –material heat sealed—
-Claim 4 recites “the substance” in line 9. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one substance—
-Claim 4 recites “wherein the carrier” in line 10. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the carrier—
-Claim 5 recites “on inward facing wall” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to – on an inward facing wall—
-Claim 6 recites “the non-volatile substance” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one non-volatile substance—
-Claim 7 recites “the substance” in line 9. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one substance—
-Claim 8 recites “one at least substance” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –at least one substance—
-Claim 8 recites “the at least substance” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one substance—
-Claim 8 recites “the substance” in line 7. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one substance—
-Claim 8 recites “permeable barrier;” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –permeable barrier; and—
-Claim 11 recites “the substance” twice. Examiner recommends amending both instances to –the at least one substance—
-Claim 12 recites “the barrier” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –the permeable barrier—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
- Claim 1 recites “at least one substance” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same or different “at least one substance” originally referenced in claim 1, line 1. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 1 recites “an inhalation flow path of a respiratory organ” in lines 10-11. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “an inhalation flow path of a respiratory organ” originally referenced in claim 1, lines 1-2.
-Claim 1 recites “at least one substance” in line 14. It is unclear whether this is the same or different “at least one substance” originally referenced in claim 1, line 1. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 2 recites “a carrier” in line 1. It is unclear whether this is the same or different “carrier” originally referenced in claim 1, line 3.
-Claim 3 recites “the step of impregnating the carrier with at least one substance” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 3 recites “at least one substance” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different to the “at least one substance” originally referenced in claim 1, line 4. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 4 recites “at least one substance” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same or different to the “one at least substance” originally referenced in claim 4, line 1.
-Claim 4 recites “during production” in line 10. It is unclear when the limitation would occur in the step-by-step process. Further clarification should be provided to define when production would occur and how this related to the carrier being impregnated with nanoparticles.
-Claim 6 recites “the application of heat or pressure” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 8 recites “the vehicle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 8 recites “at least one substance” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the “one at least substance” originally referenced in claim 8, line 1.
-Claim 8 recites “the carrier” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 8 recites “the substance is activatable” in line 7. It is unclear what is meant or required by this recitation. Further clarification should be provided to define what is required by the limitation “activatable.”
-Claim 8 recites “act as a permeable barrier” in line 4. It is unclear whether this step/limitation is positively reciting that the barrier is permeable or not with the recitation “act as…”. Based on this, it appears that the recitations of “the barrier” in claims 12 and 13 should be --the second layer--.
-Claim 9 recites “during production” in line 2. It is unclear when the limitation would occur in the step-by-step process. Further clarification should be provided to define when production would occur and how this related to the carrier being impregnated with nanoparticles.
-Claim 10 recites “the non-volatile substance” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites “the application of heat or pressure” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 11 recites “the user” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 12 recites “configured as a clamp” in line 2. It is unclear which recited element is “configured as a clamp”. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 13 recites “within the barrier” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the barrier is considered the second layer since claim 13 positively recites it as such. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 14 recites “the non-volatile substance” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 14 recites “the application of heat or pressure” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi (U.S. 20020153007) in view of Cronk (U.S. 6244265).
Regarding Claim 1, Davi teaches a method of introducing a vapor of at least one substance into an inhalation flow path of a respiratory organ, [Fig. 3]—depicts the device transferring vaporized aromatic materials to the wearer.
The method comprising the steps of: providing a carrier proximate to a surface of skin; [0023; “the clip being comfortably and easily applied to and retained on the cartilagineous septum of a wearer's nose,”] providing the carrier with at least one substance [0039]—discusses the use of aromatic materials and describes examples of these materials;
providing a barrier coupled to a surface of the carrier [Fig. 5, element 46 (barrier), 26 (clamp)]—depicts the supplementary element fixed on the surface of the clip, the barrier providing a clamp for a septum of a user [Abstract; “A horseshoe-shaped clip…applied to the cartilaginous septum…”], wherein the clamp is disposed within or atop the barrier [Fig. 5, element 46 (barrier), 26 (clamp)]—depicts the supplementary element atop the barrier. Wherein the clamp comprises a polyethylene coated material heat sealed within the barrier [0038]—in this embodiment, the barrier is interpreted to be the supplementary element, Fig. 5, element 46 and the heat sealing process is specifically referenced as a “melted and extruded” technique;
and engaging the carrier to the surface of skin proximate an inhalation flow path of a respiratory organ with the barrier interposed between the carrier and the skin to prevent the one or more substances from contacting the skin; [0023] wherein the substance is non-volatile; [0023; “a horseshoe shaped clip formed of a non-volatile elastomeric resin.”]
Davi is silent on the barrier being substantially impermeable to the substances carried by the carrier; and wherein the step of providing the carrier with at least one substance further includes the step of impregnating the carrier with a plurality of nanocapsules.
Cronk teaches the barrier being substantially impermeable to the substances carried by the carrier; [Col 9, lines 16-19]—describes the barrier layer being occlusive which is interpreted to mean impermeable
wherein the step of providing the carrier with at least one substance further includes the step of impregnating the carrier with a plurality of nanocapsules [Col 16, lines 13-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a barrier layer and nanocapsules as taught by Cronk to deliver aromatic and therapeutic substances to the user as suggested by Davi, as Davi discusses the orientation of this device and the use of various layers to create desired aroma sensations [0023 and 0046] and with Cronk because Cronk teaches the use of a layered design to minimize mixing of adhesive and fragrance materials and potential residue left on skin [Col 5, lines 6-12].
Regarding Claim 2, Davi is silent on wherein the step of providing a carrier further comprises the step of providing a substantially absorbent member, wherein the substantially absorbent member is held therein by at least one protrusion located on inward facing wall of the carrier.
Cronk teaches wherein the step of providing a carrier further comprises the step of providing a substantially absorbent member, [Col 6, lines 51-55], wherein the substantially absorbent member is held therein by at least one protrusion located on inward facing wall of the carrier [Fig. 3, element 10 (release paper strip/protrusion)] where the inward facing wall is considered the nose skin-facing side referenced in [Col 7, lines 14-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an absorbent layer and an element to hold this layer in place as taught by Cronk to deliver aromatic and therapeutic substances to the user as suggested by Davi, as Davi discusses the orientation of this device and the use of various layers to create desired aroma sensations [0023 and 0046] and with Cronk because Cronk teaches the use of a layered design to minimize mixing of adhesive and fragrance materials and potential residue left on skin [Col 5, lines 6-12].
Regarding Claim 4, Davi teaches a vehicle for introducing a vapor of one at least substance into an inhalation flow path of a respiratory organ [Fig. 3]—depicts the device transferring vaporized aromatic materials to the wearer,
the vehicle comprising: a carrier conformable to a surface of skin; [0023; “the clip being comfortably and easily applied to and retained on the cartilagineous septum of a wearer's nose,”] at least one substance carried by the carrier; [0039]—discusses the use of aromatic materials and describes examples of these materials; a barrier coupled to a surface of the carrier [Fig. 5, element 46 (barrier), 26 (clamp)]—depicts the supplementary element fixed on the surface of the clip, and a clamp disposed within or atop the barrier [Fig. 6, element 46 (barrier), 26 (clamp)]—depicts the supplementary element atop the barrier. And configured as a clamp for a septum of a user, [Abstract; “A horseshoe-shaped clip…applied to the cartilaginous septum…”] wherein the clamp comprises a polyethylene coated material is heat sealed within the barrier; [0038]—in this embodiment, the barrier is interpreted to be the supplementary element, Fig. 5, element 46 and the heat sealing process is specifically referenced as a “melted and extruded” technique; wherein the substance is non-volatile; [0023; “a horseshoe shaped clip formed of a non-volatile elastomeric resin.”]
Davi is silent on the barrier being substantially impermeable to the at least one substance carried by the carrier; wherein the carrier is impregnated with nanocapsules during production.
Cronk teaches the barrier being substantially impermeable to the at least one substance carried by the carrier; [Col 9, lines 16-19]—describes the barrier layer being occlusive which is interpreted to mean impermeable. Wherein the carrier is impregnated with nanocapsules during production [Col 16, lines 13-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a barrier layer and nanocapsules as taught by Cronk to deliver aromatic and therapeutic substances to the user as suggested by Davi, as Davi discusses the orientation of this device and the use of various layers to create desired aroma sensations [0023 and 0046] and with Cronk because Cronk teaches the use of a layered design to minimize mixing of adhesive and fragrance materials and potential residue left on skin [Col 5, lines 6-12].
Regarding Claim 5, Davi is silent on wherein the carrier comprises a substantially absorbent member, wherein the substantially absorbent member is held therein by at least one protrusion located on inward facing wall of the carrier.
Cronk teaches wherein the carrier comprises a substantially absorbent member, [Col 6, lines 51-55] wherein the substantially absorbent member is held therein by at least one protrusion located on inward facing wall of the carrier. [Fig. 3, element 10 (release paper strip/protrusion)] where the inward facing wall is considered the nose skin-facing side referenced in [Col 7, lines 14-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an absorbent layer and an element to hold this layer in place as taught by Cronk to deliver aromatic and therapeutic substances to the user as suggested by Davi, as Davi discusses the orientation of this device and the use of various layers to create desired aroma sensations [0023 and 0046] and with Cronk because Cronk teaches the use of a layered design to minimize mixing of adhesive and fragrance materials and potential residue left on skin [Col 5, lines 6-12].
Regarding Claim 7, Davi further teaches wherein the polyethylene coated material is further coated with the substance [0039]—includes description of the fragrance material coated onto the device after its formation.
Claim(s) 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi (U.S. 20020153007) in view of Cronk (U.S. 6244265) and in further view of Cantwell (20060099247).
Regarding Claim 3, Davi and Cronk are silent on wherein the step of impregnating the carrier with at least one substance further comprises the steps of: providing the nanocapsules with a mixture of a volatile and the non-volatile substance; and rupturing the nanocapsules using heat or pressure.
Cantwell teaches wherein the step of impregnating the carrier with at least one substance further comprises the steps of: providing the nanocapsules with a mixture of a volatile and the non-volatile substance; [0060]—reference to the mixture of microcapsules and [0069]—which describes the substances that include both volatile and non-volatile substances (vitamins, fragrances, medications, hydrogen peroxide, etc.) and rupturing the nanocapsules using heat or pressure [0059]—describes the application of pressure and heat to “break-up” the spherical droplets and microcapsules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix multiple compounds to provide therapeutic effects as taught by Cantwell to deliver aromatic and therapeutic substances to the user as suggested by Davi and Cronk, as Davi discusses the use of body heat to vaporize an aromatic mixture for inhalation [0008] and Cronk which discloses a volatile mixture losing smell or freshness over time [Col 3, lines 40-45] with Cantwell because Cantwell teaches the use of this delivery mechanism to break the mixtures into uniform droplets and manipulate the process to produce microcapsules of various size distributions [0058].
Regarding Claim 6, Davi and Cronk are silent on wherein the nanocapsules contain a mixture of a volatile and the non-volatile substance and are rupturable with the application of heat or pressure.
Cantwell teaches wherein the nanocapsules contain a mixture of a volatile and the non-volatile substance and are rupturable with the application of heat or pressure. [0060]—reference to the mixture of microcapsules and [0069]—which describes the substances that include both volatile and non-volatile substances (vitamins, fragrances, medications, hydrogen peroxide, etc.) and rupturing the nanocapsules using heat or pressure [0059]—describes the application of pressure and heat to “break-up” the spherical droplets and microcapsules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix multiple compounds to provide therapeutic effects as taught by Cantwell to deliver aromatic and therapeutic substances to the user as suggested by Davi and Cronk, as Davi discusses the use of body heat to vaporize an aromatic mixture for inhalation [0008] and Cronk which discloses a volatile mixture losing smell or freshness over time [Col 3, lines 40-45] with Cantwell because Cantwell teaches the use of this delivery mechanism to break the mixtures into uniform droplets and manipulate the process to produce microcapsules of various size distributions [0058].
Claim(s) 8, 9, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss (U.S. 20180221618) in view of Cronk (U.S. 6244265).
Regarding Claim 8, Strauss teaches a mask for introducing a vapor of one at least substance into an inhalation flow path of a respiratory organ, [0047; “The nasal delivery device is a wearable, personal respiratory delivery system…”]
the vehicle comprising: a first layer comprising a permeable layer; [0048]—describes the use of a porous, permeable material. [Fig. 11, element 410]
a second layer configured to carry at least one substance and act as a permeable barrier; [Fig. 11, element 440]. Strauss is silent on a third layer comprising a substantially impermeable barrier to the at least substance carried by the carrier; wherein the substance is activatable.
Cronk teaches a third layer comprising a substantially impermeable barrier to the at least substance carried by the carrier; [Col 9, lines 16-19]—describes the barrier layer being occlusive which is interpreted to mean impermeable.
wherein the substance is activatable. [Col 16, lines 23-25; “This invention also employs a fragrancing composition having fragrancing components that are not activated until they are to the skin of a human, e.g., "body activation."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a barrier layer which include activatable materials as taught by Cronk to deliver aromatic and therapeutic substances to the user when activated by a certain user parameter as suggested by Strauss, as Strauss discusses the activation of aroma therapy agents by warmth of exhaled air [0021] with Cronk because Cronk teaches the use of this activation mechanism to release as soon as the device is applied to the body [Col 16, lines 43-46].
Regarding Claim 9, Strauss further teaches wherein the carrier comprises a substantially absorbent member, [0042]—reference to superabsorbent fibers. And is impregnated with nanocapsules during production [0064]—describes microencapsulating menthol, eucalyptus, etc. in the fabric pad.
Regarding Claim 12, Strauss further teaches and configured as a clamp for a septum of a user [0079] and [Fig. 17, element 100]. Strauss is silent on further comprising a polyethylene coated material disposed within or atop the barrier.
Cronk teaches further comprising a polyethylene coated material disposed within or atop the barrier [Col 7, lines 5-6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyethylene materials as taught by Cronk to provide a septum clamping mechanism by Strauss, as Strauss discusses absorption of moisture from exhaled air to be re-released back into the nasal passages during inhalation [0015] with Cronk because Cronk teaches the use of this material to be capable of gently opening the nasal passage ways when applied to the nose [Col 7, lines 9-11].
Regarding Claim 13, Strauss is silent on wherein the polyethylene coated material is heat sealed within the barrier.
Cronk teaches wherein the polyethylene coated material is heat sealed within the barrier [Col 8, lines 3-5]—specifically references “melt bonding”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use heat sealed polyethylene materials as taught by Cronk to provide a septum clamping mechanism by Strauss, as Strauss discusses use of air-bonded products to produce the mask [0099] with Cronk because Cronk teaches the use of this method to form a resilient layer to eliminate the expensive step of having to carefully place materials [Col 8, lines 14-17].
Claim(s) 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss (U.S. 20180221618) in view of Cronk (U.S. 6244265) and in further view of Cantwell (20060099247).
Regarding Claim 10, Strauss and Cronk are silent on wherein the nanocapsules are a mixture of a volatile and the non- volatile substance and are activatable with the application of heat or pressure.
Cantwell teaches wherein the nanocapsules are a mixture of a volatile and the non- volatile substance and are activatable with the application of heat or pressure [0060]—reference to the mixture of microcapsules and [0069]—which describes the substances that include both volatile and non-volatile substances (vitamins, fragrances, medications, hydrogen peroxide, etc.) and rupturing the nanocapsules using heat or pressure [0059]—describes the application of pressure and heat to “break-up” the spherical droplets and microcapsules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix multiple compounds to provide therapeutic effects as taught by Cantwell to deliver aromatic and therapeutic substances to the user as suggested by Strauss and Cronk, as Strauss discusses the use of the warmth of exhaled air to vaporize an aromatic mixture for inhalation [0064] and Cronk which discloses a volatile mixture losing smell or freshness over time [Col 3, lines 40-45] with Cantwell because Cantwell teaches the use of this delivery mechanism to break the mixtures into uniform droplets and manipulate the process to produce microcapsules of various size distributions [0058].
Regarding Claim 14, Strauss and Cronk are silent on wherein the nanocapsules are a mixture of a volatile and the non- volatile substance and are rupturable with the application of heat or pressure.
Cantwell teaches wherein the nanocapsules are a mixture of a volatile and the non- volatile substance and are rupturable with the application of heat or pressure. [0060]—reference to the mixture of microcapsules and [0069]—which describes the substances that include both volatile and non-volatile substances (vitamins, fragrances, medications, hydrogen peroxide, etc.) and rupturing the nanocapsules using heat or pressure [0059]—describes the application of pressure and heat to “break-up” the spherical droplets and microcapsules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix multiple compounds to provide therapeutic effects as taught by Cantwell to deliver aromatic and therapeutic substances to the user as suggested by Strauss and Cronk, as Strauss discusses the use of the warmth of exhaled air to vaporize an aromatic mixture for inhalation [0064] and Cronk which discloses a volatile mixture losing smell or freshness over time [Col 3, lines 40-45] with Cantwell because Cantwell teaches the use of this delivery mechanism to break the mixtures into uniform droplets and manipulate the process to produce microcapsules of various size distributions [0058].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss (U.S. 20180221618) in view of Cronk (U.S. 6244265) and in further view of Bruder (20200337893).
Regarding Claim 11, Strauss and Cronk are silent on wherein the substance is powder or liquid, and the substance is fillable by the user.
Bruder teaches wherein the substance is powder or liquid, and the substance is fillable by the user [0135]—includes reference to a water-filled silica gel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a means to fill the device with a powder or liquid as taught by Bruder to deliver aromatic and therapeutic substances to the user as suggested by Strauss and Cronk, as Strauss discusses the use of heat to volatilize liquid compounds and Cronk which discusses using either powder or liquid forms to deliver the perfuming element [Col 16, lines 2-5] with Bruder because Bruder teaches the use of these agents to remain free flowing in various environments to elicit better conformance to the shape of the device structure and anatomy [0135].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Altadonna et al. (U.S. 20040079814)-includes a nose clip that engages the septum and releases fragrances
-Trigg et al. (U.S. 20050013784)-includes a mask structure that is engaged with the septum and other facial areas
-Shengulette, J. “Clerisy Corp. smelling sweet”, Democrat and Chronicle, Money, 2013-discloses the inventor describing the invention and microencapsulation properties of the aromatherapy nasal strip
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791