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 light of the amendments to the claims filed 10/02/2025 in which claim 10 was amended and claims 22-24 were added, claims 1-24 are pending in the instant application and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application claims no priority.
Claims 1-24 receive the filing date of the instant application, filed on 12/09/2022.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of the substitute drawings (Fig. 2) filed 10/02/2025.
Objections to the Specification
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the specification filed 10/02/2025.
Rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or wherein the claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Applicant asserts on pg. 12-14 that the prior art to Hopkins fails to disclose a “membrane”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Applicant asserts that the cited membrane in Hopkins is simply the bottom surface of the applicator of Hopkins and cannot be considered a membrane. Looking to Fig. 9D of Hopkins as cited in the rejection in the previous Office Action filed 06/05/2025, it is clear that the bottom surface of the applicator of Hopkins is comprised of a surface with holes in it. Hopkins (Fig. 9C) further shows micropores (450) passing through a membrane (401) that comprises the bottom surface of the applicator. Similarly, other embodiments of Hopkins show the bottom surface of the applicator comprised of a membrane (Fig. 8E-8G, bottom surface comprising membrane 301 with micropores 350; para. 0105-0107 in reference to Fig. 8E-8G; Fig. 10C, bottom surface comprising membrane with micropores 550; Fig. 11, bottom surface comprising membrane 1101 with micropores 1150).
Regarding the applicant’s definition of membrane, Hopkin’s bottom surface layer (401) is clearly a sheet that acts as a boundary between the interior of the applicator (400) and the exterior at the areas devoid of micropores. Regarding the applicant’s argument that there is no evidence that the membrane of Hopkins can be made of tissue or one or more layers of cells, the applicant’s definition of membrane does not require this and states that membranes may exist naturally inside an organism or be synthetic/manmade (Specification at para. 0045). Applicant further asserts that since Hopkins fails to disclose a membrane, it cannot disclose that the membrane is selectively permeable to the one or more topical compounds. The applicant notes Hopkin’s bottom surface layer (401) as a membrane has openings (450) in order to permit controlled application of an agent and that this means that anything that is placed in the applicator can flow through the openings (450). Looking to para. 0137-0138 of Hopkins as cited in the rejection in the previous Office Action filed 06/05/2025, Hopkins discloses that the openings (450) are micropores which can comprise any size that is sufficient to permit controlled application of a solution and which can vary dependent upon the tissue type, surface area size, wound type, wound size, tissue location, viscosity of the solution carrying the therapeutic agent, therapeutic agent to be expressed, the size of the syringe employed, or a combination thereof. As the size of the micropores can be variable based on the viscosity of the solution or the therapeutic agent to be expressed, it’s clear that the micropores at certain sizes may not allow for permeation of other solutions or therapeutic agents, and therefore, the membrane (401) may be considered to be selectively permeable to the one or more topical compounds.
Regarding claim 10, the applicant asserts on pg. 14 that Hopkins fails to disclose wherein the cap is cylindrical in shape along its entire length.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner acknowledges the applicant’s argument and respectfully notes that Hopkins was not used to read on this limitation in the previous Office Action filed 06/05/2025. The amendments to the claim have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant asserts on pg. 15-16 that the prior art to Hopkins and Li fail to disclose a “membrane” and that the claimed invention provides a technical advantage over Hopkins and Li in that they both fail to disclose a selectively-permeable membrane-based delivery surface.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner acknowledges the applicant’s argument and respectfully disagrees. In regards to Hopkins disclosing a membrane, this has previously been responded to above. Regarding Li, the applicant asserts that Li describes an applicator that has a rounded or arcuate shaped end which is a solid surface comprising holes and that Li fails to describe the applicator or any portion thereof as any kind of thin sheet or boundary, barrier, lining, and/or partition. Looking to Fig. 2 of Li as cited in the rejection in the previous Office Action filed 06/05/2025, Li clearly shows a layer (1.1) that acts as a boundary between the interior of the applicator and the exterior at the areas devoid of holes (6). In regards to Hopkins disclosing a selectively-permeable membrane, see arguments above. In regards to Li disclosing a selectively-permeable membrane, Li was not utilized in the previous Office Action filed 06/05/2025 to teach a selectively-permeable membrane.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 20-21, the applicant asserts that the prior art fails to disclose the limitations of the claims at issue.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner acknowledges the applicant’s arguments and respectfully notes that the applicant argues that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regarding claims 4-5, the claims require that (Claim 4) the connector mechanism comprises a luer-style connector or (Claim 5) wherein the connector mechanism is selected from the group consisting of: a slip-on connection, a push-on connection, an eccentric tip, a tapered tip, a catheter tip, and combinations thereof. The applicant seems to assert that the claims require the system to have compatibility across a variety of syringes or a universal/multi connector approach. The claims are not so limited to this and allow for the connector mechanism to be (Claim 4) a luer-style connector or (Claim 5) any of the claimed connector mechanisms. Hopkins, as previously cited in the Office Action filed 06/05/2025, comprises a female or male luer, or a slip-on attachment (para. 0129).
Regarding claims 20-21, the claims require that (Claim 20) the exerting force on the applicator further comprises: exerting the force on the barrel of the syringe, thereby moving the one or more topical compounds through the syringe tip and through the connector end and (Claim 21) the exerting force on the applicator further comprises: holding the applicator between a thumb and at least one finger of one hand. The applicant seems to assert that the claims require the user/patient to apply pressure directly to the barrel of the syringe. The claims are not so limited to this and allow for (Claim 20) the exerting force on the applicator to comprise indirect exertion of force on the barrel of the syringe and (Claim 21) exerting force on the applicator to comprise holding the applicator between a thumb and one finger without exerting force directly to the barrel of the syringe. Hopkins, as previously cited for claim 20 in the Office Action filed 06/05/2025, discloses that compression of the syringe plunger forces the content of the syringe through the barrel of the syringe by exerting sliding force on the barrel of the syringe (para. 0116; para. 0145-0148). Yao, as previously cited for claim 21 in the Office Action filed 06/05/2025, teaches an applicator that allows for exertion of force on the applicator to be applied while holding the applicator between a thumb and at least one finger of one hand (para. 0004-0006; para. 0017; para. 0018). The prior art cited disclose/suggest the limitations at issue.
Regarding new claims 22-24, the applicant asserts that the prior art fails to disclose the newly added limitations.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner acknowledges the applicant’s argument and notes that the prior art were not used in the previous Office Action filed 06/05/2025 to read on the newly added claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 7-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US/2022/0362532 A1 to Hopkins.
Regarding claim 7, Hopkins discloses a device for delivering one or more topical compounds to a surface of human tissue (para. 0018; para. 0083), the device comprising:
a syringe (para. 0149-0150; Fig. 11 showing syringe 1200 connected to applicator 1100) comprising:
a barrel (para. 0116), and
a syringe tip fluidly connected to the barrel (Fig. 12A and 13A showing syringe 1200 comprising syringe tip [extended smaller diameter section of syringe]),
wherein the syringe tip comprises one or more openings (para. 0116, content of the syringe passes through the barrel of the syringe into the neck of the applicator indicating that the syringe tip comprises at least one opening);
a cap (Fig. 9A, cap 400) comprising:
an open connector end (Fig. 9A, open connector end 460),
an open delivery end fluidly connected to the open connector end (Fig. 9C showing open delivery end opposite and fluidly connected to open connector end 460), and
a cap body disposed between, and connecting, the open connector end and the open delivery end (Fig. 9C showing 410/420 disposed between and connecting open ends of cap 400),
wherein the open connector end is releasably connected to the syringe tip such that the one or more openings are fluidly connected to the cap (para. 0116; para. 0129; Fig. 12A and 13A showing syringe 1200 comprising syringe tip [extended smaller diameter section of syringe] connected to open connector end of caps 600/700);
a membrane comprising a delivery surface (Fig. 9D, membrane 401 comprising delivery surface),
wherein the membrane is connected to the open delivery end such that the delivery surface closes the open delivery end (Fig. 9C showing membrane 401 connected to open delivery end such that membrane 401 closed the open delivery end), and
wherein the membrane is selectively permeable to the one or more topical compounds (Fig. 9D showing membrane 401 comprising micropores 450; para. 0137-0138, 450 micropore sizes can vary dependent upon viscosity of the therapeutic solution).
Regarding claim 8, Hopkins discloses the device of claim 7. Hopkins further discloses wherein the releasable connection between the connector end and the syringe tip is provided by a luer-style connector (para. 0129).
Regarding claim 9, Hopkins discloses the device of claim 7. Hopkins further discloses wherein the releasable connection between the connector end and the syringe tip is provided by a connection mechanism selected from the group consisting of: a slip-on connection, a push-on connection, an eccentric tip, a tapered tip, a catheter tip, and combinations thereof (para. 0129).
Regarding claim 13, Hopkins discloses the device of claim 7. Hopkins further discloses wherein the syringe is selected from the group consisting of: a disposable syringe, a safety syringe, an insulin syringe, a hypodermic syringe, a multi-shot needle syringe, a venom extraction syringe, an oral syringe, a dental syringe, a dose-sparing syringe, a glass syringe, a plastic syringe, and combinations thereof (para. 0148-0150).
Regarding claim 14, Hopkins discloses the device of claim 7. Hopkins further discloses wherein the one or more topical compounds is selected from the group consisting of: topical steroids, growth factors, anti-scarring medications, vitamins, anti-aging compounds, anti-inflammatory compounds, triamcinolone, fluorouracil, tranexamic acid, azelaic acid, bleaching agents, topical numbing agents, topical antibiotics, histological dyes, histological stains, topical skin darkening agents, botulinum toxin, hyaluronic acid, skincare compounds, cosmetic compounds, nutraceutical compounds, and combinations thereof (para. 0140).
Regarding claim 15, Hopkins discloses the device of claim 7. Hopkins further discloses a method for delivering one or more topical compounds to a surface of human tissue, the method comprising:
moving the one or more topical compounds from the barrel of the syringe of claim 7 through the one or more openings in the syringe tip and into the cap (para. 0116);
moving at least one portion of the one or more topical compounds from the cap through the membrane (para. 0116);
applying the at least one portion of the one or more topical compounds to a surface of human tissue (para. 0018; para. 0116; para. 0145-0148).
Regarding claim 16, Hopkins discloses a method for delivering one or more topical compounds to a surface of human tissue (para. 0018; para. 0116; para. 0145-0148), the method comprising:
obtaining an applicator containing one or more topical compounds to be delivered (Fig. 11 showing exemplary applicator comprising syringe 1200 and syringe applicator 1100), wherein the applicator comprises a cap and a membrane (Fig. 9A, syringe applicator comprising cap 400 and membrane 401), wherein the cap comprises one end connected to the membrane (Fig. 9C showing one end in connection with membrane 401), and wherein the cap comprises an inner area (Fig. 9C showing inner area of cap 400);
exerting force on the applicator to move the one or more topical compounds through the inner area and through the one end, such that at least one portion of the one or more topical compounds are extruded through the membrane (para. 0116, exerting force on the applicator comprises depressing syringe plunger which exerts sliding force on the barrel of the syringe to create positive fluid pressure such that the contents of the syringe are passed through the syringe; para. 0145-0148); and
positioning the applicator adjacent to a surface of human tissue such that the at least one portion of the one or more topical compounds contacts the surface, thereby delivering the one or more topical compounds (para. 0145).
Regarding claim 17, Hopkins discloses the method of claim 16. Hopkins further discloses wherein the applicator comprises a syringe (para. 0149-0150; Fig. 11 showing syringe 1200 connected to applicator 1100), and wherein the syringe comprises a barrel and a syringe tip (para. 0116; Fig. 12A and 13A showing syringe 1200 comprising syringe tip [extended smaller diameter section of syringe]).
Regarding claim 18, Hopkins discloses the method of claim 17. Hopkins further discloses wherein the cap comprises a connector end configured to connect to the syringe tip (para. 0116; para. 0129; Fig. 12A and 13A showing syringe 1200 comprising syringe tip [extended smaller diameter section of syringe] connected to open connector end of caps 600/700).
Regarding claim 19, Hopkins discloses the method of claim 17. Hopkins further discloses
engaging the membrane with the one end of the cap, and/or
engaging a connector end of the cap with the syringe tip (para. 0116; para. 0129; Fig. 12A and 13A showing syringe 1200 comprising syringe tip [extended smaller diameter section of syringe] connected to open connector end of caps 600/700).
Regarding claim 20, Hopkins discloses the method of claim 17. Hopkins further discloses wherein the exerting force on the applicator further comprises:
exerting the force on the barrel of the syringe, thereby moving the one or more topical compounds through the syringe tip and through the connector end (para. 0116, exerting force on the applicator comprises depressing syringe plunger which exerts sliding force on the barrel of the syringe to create positive fluid pressure such that the contents of the syringe are passed through the syringe; para. 0145-0148).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US/2022/0362532 A to Hopkins in view of CN/108815693 A to Li.
Regarding claim 1, Hopkins discloses a device for delivering one or more topical compounds to a surface of mammalian tissue (para. 0018; para. 0083), the device comprising:
a hollow portion (Fig. 9A, hollow portion 400) comprising:
a first end (Fig. 9A, first end 460),
a second end disposed opposite the first end (Fig. 9C showing second end opposite and fluidly connected to first end 460), and
a body disposed between, and connecting, the first end and the second end (Fig. 9C showing 410/420 disposed between ends of cap 400),
a membrane (Fig. 9D, membrane 401), and
wherein the first end comprises a connector mechanism configured to releasably connect to a syringe tip such that the first end is fluidly connected to the syringe tip (para. 0116; para. 0129; Fig. 9A, connector mechanism 430 of hollow portion 400; Fig. 12A and 13A showing syringe 1200 comprising syringe tip [extended smaller diameter section of syringe] connected to first end of caps 600/700).
Hopkins differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Hopkins fails to disclose the membrane comprising: an open end, a closed end opposite the open end, and a neck disposed between, and connecting, the open end and the closed end.
Li teaches a membrane covering an end of an external medicine dispensing device that is in the form of an arc in order to provide a comfortable application surface for a patient (para. 0058; Fig. 2 showing outlet end 1.1 in the form of an arc comprising an open end facing the inside of the cylindrical bottle, a closed end opposite the open end, and a section disposed between and connecting the ends).
Li is considered to be analogous to the instantly claimed invention in that Li discloses a topical medication application device. It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the membrane of Hopkins to be formed in an arc as taught by Li (and thus comprising an open end, closed end, and a neck disposed between), because Li teaches that a rounded application end feels more comfortable for a patient during the process of applying medication (para. 0058).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses: wherein the membrane is selectively permeable to the one or more topical compounds (Fig. 9D showing membrane 401 comprising micropores 450; para. 0137-0138, 450 micropore sizes can vary dependent upon viscosity of the therapeutic solution).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses: wherein the membrane comprises one or more polymers (para. 0142); however, the combination differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the combination of the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein the polymers are synthetic.
It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the membrane comprise synthetic polymers since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions (i.e. natural vs. synthetic polymers). Hopkins discloses that the applicator may be made from any of medical-grade polymers (para. 0142). Thus, making the membrane from a synthetic polymer would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that the product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instant the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses: wherein the connector mechanism comprises a luer-style connector (para. 0129).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses: wherein the connector mechanism is selected from the group consisting of: a slip-on connection, a push-on connection, an eccentric tip, a tapered tip, a catheter tip, and combinations thereof (para. 0129).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses: a method for delivering one or more topical compounds to a surface of human tissue, the method comprising:
filling the hollow portion of the device of claim 1 with the one or more topical compounds (para. 0116);
extruding at least one portion of the one or more topical compounds through the membrane (para. 0116); and
contacting the at least one portion of the one or more topical compounds to the surface of human tissue (para. 0018; para. 0116; para. 0145-0148).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein the open end, the closed end, and the neck are constructed in one piece.
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the handle integral with the rest of the top portion, since the court has held that “the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 40 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Furthermore, applicant has provided no criticality in the specification for (Fig. 2A; Fig. 4A) or evidence of unexpected results that arose as a result of the one-piece construction of the open end, the closed end, and the neck.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins as applied above.
Regarding claim 10, Hopkins discloses the device of claim 7. Hopkins further discloses: wherein the cap is cylindrical in shape (Fig. 9A showing cap 400 cylindrical in shape at neck portion 420 and in other parts near discharge end of body 410/420) and other embodiments of the cap that are not domed (Fig. 8A; Fig. 13A); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Hopkins fails to disclose wherein the cap is cylindrical in shape along its entire length.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the apparatus such that the cap is cylindrical in shape along its entire length, since a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1976). In the device as modified, the cap would have connected sections of different diameter that are cylindrical.
Regarding claim 11, Hopkins discloses the device of claim 7. Hopkins further discloses wherein the membrane comprises one or more polymers (para. 0142); however, Hopkins differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Hopkins fails to explicitly disclose wherein the polymers are synthetic.
It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the membrane comprise synthetic polymers since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions (i.e. natural vs. synthetic polymers). Hopkins discloses that the applicator may be made from any of medical-grade polymers (para. 0142). Thus, making the membrane from a synthetic polymer would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that the product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instant the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 12, Hopkins discloses the device of claim 7; however, Hopkins differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Hopkins fails to disclose wherein the membrane is removable from the open delivery end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the membrane to be separable from the open delivery end, since the court has held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the [inside of the prior art’s device], it would be obvious to make the [structure] removable for that purpose” In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In the instant case, it could be considered desirable to make the membrane removable from the open delivery end to increase ease of cleaning the reusable device.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins as applied above, and further in view of CN/204193216 U to Yao.
Regarding claim 21, Hopkins discloses the method of claim 16; however, Hopkins differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Hopkins fails to disclose wherein the exerting force on the applicator further comprises: holding the applicator between a thumb and at least one finger of one hand.
Yao discloses an applicator wherein the exerting force on the applicator comprises: holding the applicator between a thumb and at least one finger of one hand to improve the stability and accuracy of the syringe during injection (para. 0004-0006, pushing of injection head 5 allows for injection by exerting force on the applicator; para. 0017; para. 0018, syringe comprising gripping portion matched with the base of the hand and injection head 5 molded to the shape of a thumb).
Yao is considered to be analogous to the instantly claimed invention in that Yao discloses an applicator for medicaments. It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the syringe of the applicator of Hopkins to comprise the structure of Yao that allows for the exerting force to comprise holding the applicator between a thumb and at least one finger of one hand, because Yao teaches that the arrangement of their syringe completely changes the traditional operation mode of a syringe to improve the stability and accuracy of the syringe during injection (para. 0017).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins and Li as applied above, and further in view of WO/2016/014453 A1 to Martin.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the open end is narrower than the closed end.
Martin teaches a medication delivery device comprising an applicator end wherein the open end is narrower than the closed end to provide more surface area such that more openings may be provided (Fig. 3C-1and 3C-2; para. 0039).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the membrane of Hopkins and Li such that the open end is narrower than the closed end as taught by Martin, because Martin teaches that utilizing a bulbous shape for the applicator end rather than a hemispherical shape provides more surface area such that more openings may be provided (para. 0039).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins and Li as applied above, and further in view of US/2019/0151637 A1 to Groop.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of the prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the closed end has a non-rigid or pliable surface.
Groop teaches a medication delivery device comprising an applicator comprising a closed end which has a non-rigid or pliable surface, allowing effective dispersion of a viscous liquid while remaining comfortable to the skin (Fig. 1-2, soft applicator tip 12; para. 0025-0026)
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the closed end of Hopkins and Li to further comprise the soft applicator tip surface of Groop, because Groop teaches that a soft applicator surface of their invention allows effective dispersion of a viscous liquid while remaining comfortable to the skin (para. 0007; para. 0025-0026).
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 Linnae Raymond whose telephone number is (571)272-6894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached on (571)272-7159. 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.
/Linnae E. Raymond/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 15 January 2026