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 .
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(s) 1-7 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0263295 to Mehta et al. (Mehta hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2011/0301572 to Vlodaver et al. (Vlodaver).
Regarding claim 1, Mehta teaches a nasal device (10), comprising: a tip member (14) and a vacuum source (12) or a fluid container coupled to the tip member, the vacuum source configured to create a vacuum force (paragraph 17) through the first and second apertures so as to remove mucus from the nostril of the person, or the fluid container configured to store a liquid solution that is to be expelled through the first and second apertures and into the nostril of the person. Mehta does not teach a tip member with a tapered distal end portion disposed within a hemispherical protruding portion of a cover member. Vlodaver teaches another medical fluid device generally, and particularly teaches that a plug member (14, see Fig. 3) comprises a tip member (14) with a distal tip (34) and a cover member (22) having a hemispherical protruding portion including a second wall that surrounds the tapered distal tip of the plug. Vlodaver further teaches that this device may be used nasally (paragraph 130), and advantageously allows for the use of both rigid and pliable materials to provide both solid base and a good seal (paragraph 74) with the body cavity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a tip member and cover member as taught by Vlodaver to the nasal device of Mehta in order to obtain both a solid base for the structure and a good seal in use.
Regarding claim 3, Vlodaver teaches a cylindrical stem portion (between 22 and 44).
Regarding claim 4, Mehta teaches an annular protrusion (upper flange, e.g. bottom half thereof) disposed on the stem portion, and the cover member further comprises a central passageway with an annular groove (not separately labeled, see Fig. 3B) disposed in the central passageway, the annular protrusion on the stem portion of the tip member matingly engaging with the annular groove in the central passageway of the cover member so as to securely attach the cover member to the tip member. As Vlodaver also teaches the use of such mechanical connections (paragraph 73), it would have been obvious to use such a connection to connect the cover of Vlodaver to the stem.
Regarding claim 5, Mehta teaches that the tip member further comprises an attachment collar portion (15) at the second end thereof, the stem portion being connected between the tapered distal end portion of the tip member and the attachment collar portion of the tip member, and the attachment collar portion attaching the tip member to the vacuum source or the fluid container. As Vlodaver also teaches the use of such mechanical connections (paragraph 73), it would have been obvious to use such a connection to connect the tip of Vlodaver to the bulb of Mehta.
Regarding claim 6, Mehta teaches an aspirator bulb member (12).
Regarding claim 7, Mehta teaches a bounding wall (at 17 in Fig. 3B) with annular grooves for the annular protrusions on the attachment collar portion (15).
Regarding claim 14, Vlodaver teaches that a hemispherical tip portion is provided (at 34) which will act as a primary stop portion to limit the depth of insertion and that the cover member will isolate the tip member from the user’s nostril.
Regarding claim 15, Vlodaver teaches a conical body (several conical sections are illustrated in Fig. 3) of the cover member which will operate as a stabilizer and secondary stop portion due to contact with the expanding portion and the nose of the user.
Regarding claims 16-17, Vlodaver teaches that the cover body portion is in the shape of an animal head, such as the muzzle of a bear.
Regarding claims 18-19, Mehta teaches the use of silicon rubber for the cover member (paragraph 33) and polypropylene for the tip member (paragraph 29) such that the cover member will be more flexible than tip member of the bulb. As these materials are similar in structure and behavior to those of Vlodaver, it would have been obvious to use them in forming the tip member and cover member in order to take advantage of their known suitability for the application.
Regarding claim 20, Mehta teaches disassembly as shown in Fig. 3B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12 November 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vlodaver as set forth above.
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 PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 4 March 2026