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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermeire et al. (US Pat No 8,262,002 B2) in view of Prociw et al. (US Pub No 2015/0048183 A1). All citations to Vermeire unless specified otherwise.
Re claim 1, Vermeire et al. show a spray head (Fig. 3) for a device for dispensing a fluid product, comprising a body (5) provided with a spray orifice (17), a central channel (14) being connected to said spray orifice (17) via a spray profile (16) comprising a vortex chamber (19) arranged directly upstream of said spray orifice (17), characterized in that said spray profile (16) comprises at least two curved channels (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) extending from said central channel (14) to said vortex chamber (19), each curved channel connected non-radially (21) to said vortex chamber (19), to form a spray exiting said spray orifice (17), each curved channel having a convex shape (Fig. 6), diverging laterally outwards from said central channel (14), and then from an inflection point (Asp), returning laterally inwards towards said vortex chamber (19); and wherein each curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) is rouned in shape.
Vermeire et al. does not tach said spray head is made as a single piece or that each curved channel is without any sharp corners.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spray head made as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Further, no criticality is apparent for this claimed limitation.
Further, Prociw et al. disclose rounding off sharp corners in the curved channels leading to a vortex chamber (paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the curved channels of Vermeire et al. be without any sharp corners as taught by Prociw et al. so that no eddy or vena contracta will be present within the fluid flow or any associated pressure loss (paragraph 0026).
Re claim 2, Vermeire et al. show said spray head (Fig. 3) is configured for dispensing the fluid product inside a nasal cavity (fully capable of performing the functional language), said central channel (14) extending axially and said spray orifice (17) being orientated axially).
Re claim 3, Vermeire et al. show said at least two curved channels (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) open out into said vortex chamber (19) while being regularly distributed (Fig. 5) over the periphery of said vortex chamber.
Re claim 5, Vermeire et al. show the cross-section of each curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) is reduced progressively (Fig. 6, at least part of the channel is progressively reduced between the channel and the chamber) between said central channel (14) and said vortex chamber (19).
Re claim 6, Vermeire et al. show said at least two curved channels (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) are substantially identical in shape, dimension and curvature between said central channel (14) and said vortex chamber (19).
Re claim 8, Vermeire et al. show said at least two curved channels are two curved channels (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25).
Re claim 9, Vermeire et al. show said at least two curved channels are three curved channels (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25).
Re claim 10, Vermeire et al. show the device (Fig. 1) for dispensing a fluid product, comprising an actuation portion (4); a reservoir (1A/1B) containing a fluid product; a spray head (Fig. 3) provided with a spray orifice (17); and a dispenser means (disclosed on page 6 of applicant’s specification as a “pump or a metering valve” – Vermeire – pumps 2A and 2B) for dispensing at least a portion of said fluid product through said spray orifice (17) during actuation, wherein said spray head (Fig. 3) is manufactured according to claim 1 (see above).
Re claim 11, Vermeire et al. show said reservoir (1A/1B) contains a single dose of fluid product dispensed in a single actuation of the device.
Re claim 12, Vermeire et al. show said reservoir (1A/1B) contains at least two doses of fluid product dispensed during a plurality of successive actuations of the device.
Re claim 15, Vermeire et al. show a spray head (Fig. 3) for a device for dispensing a fluid product, comprising:
a body (5) provided with a spray orifice (17);
a central channel (14) connected to said spray orifice (17) via a spray profile (16) comprising a vortex chamber (19) arranged directly upstream of said spray orifice (17);
said spray profile (16) comprises at least two curved channels (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) extending from said central channel (14) to said vortex chamber (19), each curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) connected non-radially to said vortex chamber (19), to form a spray exiting said spray orifice (17);
each curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) defining a convex shape (Fig. 6), diverging upwards towards said vortex chamber (19) and simultaneously radially outwards relative to an axis of said central channel (14) and then, from an inflection point (Asp), continuing upwards towards said vortex chamber (19) and simultaneously returning radially inwards relative to the axis of said central channel (14) until a distal end of the curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) reaches said vortex chamber (19), such that each curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) defines a smooth curvilinear flow path along an entire length of the curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) between said central channel (14) and said vortex chamber (19).
Vermeire et al. does not tach said spray head is made as a single piece integral construction or that each curved channel is without any sharp corners.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spray head made as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Further, no criticality is apparent for this claimed limitation.
Further, Prociw et al. disclose rounding off sharp corners in the curved channels leading to a vortex chamber (paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the curved channels of Vermeire et al. be without any sharp corners as taught by Prociw et al. so that no eddy or vena contracta will be present within the fluid flow or any associated pressure loss (paragraph 0026).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermeire et al. (US Pat No 8,262,002 B2) in view of Prociw et al. (US Pub No 2015/0048183 A1) and further in view of Greenberg (US Pat No 4,796,815).
Re claim 7, Vermeire et al. as modified by Prociw et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach said at least two curved channels are different in shape, dimension and/or curvature between said central channel and said vortex chamber.
However, Greenberg show a spray head including central channel (8) and a vortex chamber (18) with two curved channels (22/24) that are different in shape, dimension, and/or curvature between said central channel and said vortex chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the curved channels of Vermeire et al. as modified by Prociw et al. with the different shape, dimension, and/or curvature between the slots taught by Greenberg to provide the option to select different spray patterns (Greenberg – col. 2, lines 46-48).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (US Pat No 5,819,730) in view of Vermeire et al. (US Pat No 8,262,002 B2) and further in in view of Prociw et al. (US Pub No 2015/0048183 A1).
Re claim 1, Stone et al. show a spray head (Fig. 5) for a device for dispensing a fluid product, comprising a body (21) provided with a spray orifice (22), a central channel (1) being connected to said spray orifice via a spray profile.
Stone et al. does not teach said spray profile comprises at least two curved channels extending from said central channel to said vortex chamber, each curved channel connected non-radially to said vortex chamber, to form a spray exiting said spray orifice, each curved channel having a convex shape, diverging laterally outwards from said central channel, and then from an inflection point, returning laterally inwards towards said vortex chamber; and wherein each curved channel is rounded in shape without any sharp corners.
However, Vermeire et al. show a spray profile (Figs. 3-6, 16) comprising a vortex chamber (19) arranged directly upstream of said spray orifice (17), characterized in that said spray profile (16) comprises at least two curved channels (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) extending from said central channel (14) to said vortex chamber (19), each curved channel connected non-radially (21) to said vortex chamber (19), to form a spray exiting said spray orifice (17), each curved channel having a convex shape (Fig. 6), diverging laterally outwards from said central channel (14), and then from an inflection point (Asp), returning laterally inwards towards said vortex chamber (19).
The substitution of one known element (spray profile in Stone) for another (spray profile as shown in Vermeire) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the spray profile shown in Vermeire et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a nozzle in Stone et al. to administer the liquid as a spray as is the preferred means (Stone – col. 1, lines 60-62).
Further, Prociw et al. disclose rounding off sharp corners in the curved channels leading to a vortex chamber (paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the curved channels of Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. be without any sharp corners as taught by Prociw et al. so that no eddy or vena contracta will be present within the fluid flow or any associated pressure loss (paragraph 0026).
Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. does not tach said spray head is made as a single piece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spray head made as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Further, no criticality is apparent for this claimed limitation.
Re claim 2, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. disclose said spray head is configured for dispensing the fluid product inside a nasal cavity (Stone – col. 1, lines 3-6), said central channel (Stone - 1) extending axially and said spray orifice (Vermeire – 17) being orientated axially.
Re claim 3, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. show said at least two curved channels (Vermeire - 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) open out into said vortex chamber (Vermeire - 19) while being regularly distributed (Vermeire - Fig. 5) over the periphery of said vortex chamber.
Re claim 5, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. show the cross-section of each curved channel (Vermeire - 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) is reduced progressively (Vermeire - Fig. 6, at least part of the channel is progressively reduced between the channel and the chamber) between said central channel (Stone - 1) and said vortex chamber (Vermeire - 19).
Re claim 6, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. show said at least two curved channels (Vermeire - 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) are substantially identical in shape, dimension and curvature between said central channel (Stone - 1) and said vortex chamber (Vermeire - 19).
Re claim 8, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. show said at least two curved channels are two curved channels (Vermeire - 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25).
Re claim 9, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. show said at least two curved channels are three curved channels (Vermeire - 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25).
Re claim 10, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. show the device for dispensing a fluid product (Stone – Figs. 5 & 6), comprising an actuation portion (Stone - 29, 29’); a reservoir (Stone - 1) containing a fluid product; a spray head (Vermeire – 16) provided with a spray orifice (Vermeire – 17); and a dispenser means (disclosed on page 6 of applicant’s specification as a “pump or a metering valve” – Stone – col. 8, lines 20-24) for dispensing at least a portion of said fluid product through said spray orifice (Vermeire - 17) during actuation, wherein said spray head (Vermeire - 16) is manufactured according to claim 1 (see above).
Re claim 11, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. disclose said reservoir (Stone – 1) contains a single dose of fluid product dispensed in a single actuation of the device (Stone – col. 8, lines 20-24).
Re claim 13, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. show said actuation portion comprises two lateral presser elements (Stone – 29, 29’) mounted to pivot on said spray head (Stone – Fig. 5), each lateral presser element (Stone – 29, 29’) comprising a respective cam portion (Stone – 32, 32’), each comprising a respective cam surface (Stone - 33, 33’) co-operating with said reservoir (Stone - 1) to move it axially upwards while the device is being actuated.
Re claim 15, Stone et al. show a spray head (Fig. 5) for a device for dispensing a fluid product, comprising a body (21) provided with a spray orifice (22), a central channel (1) being connected to said spray orifice via a spray profile.
Stone et al. does not teach a vortex chamber arranged directly upstream of said spray orifice;
said spray head is single piece integral construction;
said spray profile comprises at least two curved channels extending from said central channel to said vortex chamber, each curved channel connected non-radially to said vortex chamber, to form a spray exiting said spray orifice;
each curved channel defining a convex shape, diverging upwards towards said vortex chamber and simultaneously radially outwards relative to an axis of said central channel and then, from an inflection point, continuing upwards towards said vortex chamber and simultaneously returning radially inwards relative to the axis of said central channel until a distal end of the curved channel reaches said vortex chamber, such that each curved channel defines a smooth curvilinear flow path without sharp corners along an entire length of the curved channel between said central channel and said vortex chamber.
However, Vermeire et al. show a spray profile (16) comprising a vortex chamber (19) arranged directly upstream of said spray orifice (17);
said spray profile (16) comprises at least two curved channels (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) extending from said central channel (14) to said vortex chamber (19), each curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) connected non-radially to said vortex chamber (19), to form a spray exiting said spray orifice (17);
each curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) defining a convex shape (Fig. 6), diverging upwards towards said vortex chamber (19) and simultaneously radially outwards relative to an axis of said central channel (14) and then, from an inflection point (Asp), continuing upwards towards said vortex chamber (19) and simultaneously returning radially inwards relative to the axis of said central channel (14) until a distal end of the curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) reaches said vortex chamber (19), such that each curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) defines a smooth curvilinear flow path along an entire length of the curved channel (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d and 25) between said central channel (14) and said vortex chamber (19).
The substitution of one known element (spray profile in Stone) for another (spray profile as shown in Vermeire) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the spray profile shown in Vermeire et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a nozzle in Stone et al. to administer the liquid as a spray as is the preferred means (Stone – col. 1, lines 60-62).
Further, Prociw et al. disclose rounding off sharp corners in the curved channels leading to a vortex chamber (paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the curved channels of Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. be without any sharp corners as taught by Prociw et al. so that no eddy or vena contracta will be present within the fluid flow or any associated pressure loss (paragraph 0026).
Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. does not tach said spray head is made as a single piece integral construction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spray head made as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Further, no criticality is apparent for this claimed limitation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (US Pat No 5,819,730) in view of Vermeire et al. (US Pat No 8,262,002 B2) and Prociw et al. (US Pub No 2015/0048183 A1) and further in view of Greenberg (US Pat No 4,796,815).
Re claim 7, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. and Prociw et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach said at least two curved channels are different in shape, dimension and/or curvature between said central channel and said vortex chamber.
However, Greenberg show a spray head including central channel (8) and a vortex chamber (18) with two curved channels (22/24) that are different in shape, dimension, and/or curvature between said central channel and said vortex chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the curved channels of Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. with the different shape, dimension, and/or curvature between the slots taught by Greenberg to provide the option to select different spray patterns (Greenberg – col. 2, lines 46-48).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (US Pat No 5,819,730) in view of Vermeire et al. (US Pat No 8,262,002 B2) and Prociw et al. (US Pub No 2015/0048183 A1) and further in view of Lozevski (CN 107106798 A).
Re claim 14, Stone et al. as modified by Vermeire et al. and Prociw et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach additive printing. Stone teaches a molding method (col. 4, lines 54-64).
However, Lozevski teaches multiple methods of manufacture including injection molding, compression molding, rotary molding, additive printing (paragraph 0058), and the like.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize additive printing, since the equivalence of molding and additive printing for their use in the pharmaceutical dispensing art and the selection of any known equivalents to molding would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights