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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0232030 to Pic et al. (Pic hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2004/0129270 to Fishman (Fishman).
Regarding claim 1, Pic teaches a hemostatic sprayer (170, see Fig. 17) including a powder casing (190) having an accommodation space (200) therein storing hemostatic powder (54), an inlet port (192), an outlet port (196), a pressurized fluid supply source (which may be a receptacle in the form of a canister, see paragraph 22) separably connected to the inlet port, the supply port of the receptacle is opened due to a pressing by the powder casing (e.g. during assembly or replacement, see paragraph 63), the compressed gas is supplied with a preset pressure into the accommodation space and discharged through the outlet port with the hemostatic powder therein. Pic does not teach that the canister is opened as a result of pressing by the powder casing against the receptacle. Fishman teaches another medical gas system generally, and particularly teaches that a pressurized canister (210) may be opened by pressing an opening device (361, see Fig. 10C) into it. Fishman teaches that this provides a release mechanism for the gas (paragraph 234). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a canister and port as taught by Fishman to the canister of Pic in order to provide a release mechanism for gas which is otherwise stored in the receptacle.
Regarding claim 5, Pic teaches a protective cap (202) that is indirectly and separably coupled to the inlet port (at 196) which blocks fluid from flowing into the inlet port, e.g. from the outlet (196). With respect to the order of assembly, this amounts to a product by process limitation which does not appear to confer any patentable distinction in structure and therefore does not distinguish over the Pic sprayer.
Regarding claim 6, Pic teaches a connection member (180) which is coupled to the outlet port and is configured to be connected with a cannula of the proper size.
Regarding claim 7, Pic teaches that a valve may be provided at the outlet port (see paragraph 27). Pic teaches that these valves may “manage the flow”, which is tantamount to locking and unlocking the valve and controlling the amount discharged.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pic in view of Fishman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2005/0220721 to Kablik et al. (Kablik).
Regarding claim 2, Pic teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 2 depends, but does not teach the use of carbon dioxide gas. Kablik teaches another medical sprayer apparatus generally, and particularly teaches the use of a carbon dioxide canister as a propellant for medical powders (paragraph 41). Those of ordinary skill are aware of various advantages of the gas, such as wide commercial availability. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use carbon dioxide as taught by Kablik in order to use a commonly available material as a propellant.
Regarding claim 8, Pic teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 8 depends, and further teaches a cover casing (171) accommodating and covering the powder casing and an attached side of the receptacle of Kablik. Pic also teaches that various connections may be threaded (see e.g. paragraph 64). Those of skill in the art are well aware of the use of threaded engagements in forming sealed fluid connections within medical equipment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to couple the canister of Kablik with the casing (171) of Pic via a threaded engagement, which would constitute first and second coupling members as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Pic teaches a first guide hole (172) formed to provide a space in which an outside rotational force for pressing the powder casing is exerted without any interference while one portion of the powder casing (e.g. upper tip in Fig. 17) is exposed, and a second guide hole (also 64, see paragraph 64 stating that multiple such threads may be provided) formed such that the outlet port is exposed.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Fishman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0375202 to Goodman et al. (Goodman).
Regarding claim 3, Pic teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 3 depends, but does not teach the use of chitosan. Goodman teaches another hemostatic device, and particularly teaches the use of chitosan as a hemostat for controlling bleeding (see paragraph 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use chitosan as a hemostat in the sprayer of Pic in order to stop bleeding in a patient.
Regarding claim 4, Pic teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 3 depends, but does not teach the use of a membrane filter. Goodman teaches the use of a filter (50) in the form of a membrane for preventing powder from entering the pressure source (paragraph 54). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use a membrane filter as taught by Goodman in the sprayer of Pic in order to prevent powder from entering the pressure source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 1 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 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 Fishman as discussed 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 13 January 2026