Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/988,041

FUNCTIONAL POWDER DELIVERY DEVICE AND SYSTEM THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 16, 2022
Examiner
STIMPERT, PHILIP EARL
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
National Cheng Kung University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
537 granted / 857 resolved
-7.3% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+49.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
85 currently pending
Career history
942
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.1%
+10.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 857 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 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 1-20 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a nasal cannula-like structure”. This is indefinite in two respects. First, it is unclear what structure is required or excluded from a “nasal cannula”. Second, it is unclear what degree of similarity is necessary to establish that a configuration is “like” the nasal cannula. Accordingly, the claims are indefinite. The examiner will interpret “a nasal cannula-like structure” to include any branched passage capable of conveying air. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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. Claim(s) 1-5 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pre-Grant Publication 2011/0178495 to Ji (Ji hereinafter). Regarding claim 1, Ji teaches a functional powder delivery device (see Fig. 9) comprising: a first air supply catheter (9’) with one end connected to an air source (12’); a second air supply catheter (10’) with one end connected to the air source so as to form a nasal cannula-like structure (see above with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112) with the first air supply catheter; an airflow regulator (7’) provided on the first air supply catheter for regulating a first airflow in the first air supply catheter to pass through or to drain from the first air supply catheter; a powder channel (4’), which is a hollow body for a functional powder to pass through, comprising, sequentially, a channeling section (5’), a buffering section (14’) and a connecting section (B’), wherein: one end of the channeling section away from the buffering section is serial connected with a powder storage bottle (6’) storing the functional powder, and cross sectional area of the buffering section converges from the channeling section to the connecting section (see Fig. 9 from 5’ to 3’ or B’); and an output catheter (1’) serial connected to one end of the connecting section away from the buffering section so as to guide the functional powder to a site in need, wherein: the other end of the first air supply catheter aerodynamically communicates with the channeling section via a first opening (between 7’ and 5’) formed on a right hand sidewall of the channeling section; and the other end of the second air supply catheter aerodynamically communicates with the connecting section via a second opening (junction of 14’ and A’) formed on one sidewall of the connecting section, when the airflow regulator keeps the first airflow passing through the first air supply catheter, the first airflow flows into the powder channel to carry the functional powder from the powder channel into the output catheter, wherein a second airflow in the second air supply catheter flows into the output catheter to assist the powder flow and to keep a positive pressure in the output catheter. Regarding claims 2 and 13, at the junction between the converging buffering section and the channeling section, Ji illustrates an included angle which is obtuse, i.e. greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees. Regarding claims 3 and 14, Ji teaches an angle between the second air supply catheter and the connecting section of 90 degrees (see Fig. 9). Regarding claims 4 and 15, Ji teaches an airflow adjuster (8’) which alters the cross-sectional area of the second supply catheter (paragraph 102). Regarding claims 5 and 16, Ji teaches that both flows may be switched off by their respective flow switches, and would thus be equal. Regarding claim 11, Ji teaches the use of hemostatics (13’). Regarding claim 12, Ji teaches that the device as a whole is an endoscopic device (as generally illustrated in Fig. 9). 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) 6-7, 9, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji. Regarding claims 6-7 and 17-18, Ji does not teach a check valve in the embodiment of Fig. 9. However, Ji is cognizant of check valves and their function of preventing reverse flow (paragraph 91). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide check valves as taught by Ji in the claimed locations to prevent backward flow Regarding claims 9 and 20, Ji does not teach an adaptor with the embodiment of Fig. 9. However, Ji does teach an adaptor (e.g. 23 and 211 in Fig. 1) for attaching a powder storage vessel (20), including matching inner and outer diameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide such an adaptor with the embodiment of Fig. 9 in order to securely attach the powder source (6’) thereof. Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of U.S. Patent 5,186,625 to Bailey. Regarding claims 8 and 19, Ji does not teach a pedal valve as claimed. Bailey teaches a pedal switch (S5) and attendant valve (V4) which are operated to control pneumatic delivery of a powder (col. 7, ln. 23-27) by opening a drain line. In particular, Bailey teaches a base seat and top pedal (S5, see Fig. 1), and elastomer (211). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a valve. Thus provided, an air draining catheter would be at least indirectly installed on the base. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of U.S. Patent 3,243,100 to Adams (Adams). Regarding claim 10, Ji does not teach a shell and passthroughs. Adams teaches another medical powder device generally and particularly teaches shells (12, 30) and passthroughs (66, 68). Adams teaches that these features allow for protection and transport of the powder device (see Fig. 1 and discussion thereof). The recited positioning of these elements does not materially affect their function and is therefore considered obvious as the mere rearrangement of known elements (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C). Conclusion 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 9 January 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577961
LOW-FLOW FLUID DELIVERY SYSTEM AND LOW-FLOW DEVICE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573932
LINEAR MOTOR AND LINEAR COMPRESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560168
VARIABLE DISPLACEMENT PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560173
MOTOR AND APPARATUS USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12529366
MEMBRANE PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+49.3%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 857 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month