Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/136,522

Methods Of Administering High Concentrations Of Nitric Oxide

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Apr 19, 2023
Examiner
LOUIS, LATOYA M
Art Unit
3785
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Ip Unlimited Company
OA Round
4 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
339 granted / 656 resolved
-18.3% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
690
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 656 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Terminal Disclaimer The terminal disclaimer does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321 because: See Terminal Disclaimer Review Decision mailed 10/17/2025. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 11 of US Patent 10,556,086 in view of Stenzler (7,516,742). Regarding claim 1, the instant claims is a broader version of the patented claim. (i.e. The instant claim does not include the limitation of a treatment time of 72 hours. In the instant claims, all elements are included in the patented claims except for the NO from a cylinder. However, Stenzler teaches NO from a cylinder (24) (col. 9 lines 40-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to deliver the NO concentration from a cylinder as taught by Stenzler to provide the advantage of an efficient means of storing and delivering gas. Thus any infringement over the patented claims would also infringe the instant claims. Hence the instant claims do not differ in scope over the patented claims Application 18/136,522 US Patent 10,556,086 1. A method of administering nitric oxide (NO), the method comprising administering a gas comprising NO from a cylinder having a NO concentration greater than 2,000 ppm NO, wherein the gas comprising NO is administered at a dosing rate less than or equal to 166 ug NO per second. 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered in undiluted form such that a delivery concentration is the same as the NO concentration in the cylinder. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the cylinder has a NO concentration of greater than 2,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm NO. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the cylinder has a NO concentration of greater than 2,000 ppm to 5,000 ppm NO. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the cylinder has a NO concentration of greater than 2,200 ppm NO. 5. The method of claim 1 wherein the NO is administered at a delivery concentration of greater than 2,000 ppm NO. 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from greater than 2,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm NO. 7. The method of claim 5, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from greater than 2,000 ppm to 5,000 ppm NO. 8. The method of claim 5, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from 2,200 ppm to 5,000 ppm NO. 9. The method of claim 5, wherein the delivery concentration is greater than 2,200 ppm NO. 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the dosing rate is less than or equal to 100 ug NO per second. 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the dosing rate is less than or equal to 83 ug NO per second. 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered at a dose in the range from 0.001 to 4.5 mg NO/kg/hr. 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered at a dose in the range from 0.001 to 0.5 mg NO/kg/hr. 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered in the inspiratory gas of a patient. 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered to a patient every breath. 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered intermittently. 20. The method of claim 1, wherein the gas comprising NO is delivered via a nasal cannula and the delivery concentration exiting the nasal cannula is the same as the NO concentration in the cylinder. 1. A method of treating pulmonary hypertension, the method comprising: administering a plurality of pulses of therapeutic gas comprising nitric oxide (NO) to a patient in need thereof for a treatment time of at least 72 hours, wherein at least one pulse: i. comprises a NO delivery concentration of greater than or equal to 4,600 ppm NO, ii. is administered at a dosing rate of less than or equal to 83 μg NO per second, iii. is administered at a therapeutic gas flow rate of less than or equal to 0.8 L/min, iv. has a pulse volume of less than or equal to 1 mL, and v. comprises less than 420 nmol of NO; and diluting the pulses of therapeutic gas in the patient's trachea and/or lungs to an alveolar concentration less than the delivery concentration. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the delivery concentration is in a range from 4,600 ppm NO to 30,000 ppm NO. 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the administration of the therapeutic gas provides less nasal irritation than administration of the therapeutic gas with a dosing rate above 83 μg NO per second and/or with more than 420 nmol NO per breath. 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pulses are administered to the patient at a dose in a range from 0.001 to 0.5 mg NO/kg/hr. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the therapeutic gas is administered to the patient every breath. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the therapeutic gas is administered to the patient intermittently. 11. A method of delivering nitric oxide to a patient, the method comprising: providing a therapeutic gas source comprising therapeutic gas having a nitric oxide (NO) concentration greater than or equal to 4,600 ppm NO; introducing the therapeutic gas into a patient delivery tube having a control valve; opening the control valve to provide a pulse of therapeutic gas; delivering the pulse of therapeutic gas to the patient via a nasal cannula or breathing mask; and diluting the pulse of therapeutic gas in the patient's trachea and/or lungs, wherein the pulse of therapeutic gas: i. comprises a NO delivery concentration of greater than or equal to 4,600 ppm NO, ii. is delivered at a dosing rate of less than or equal to 83 μg NO per second, iii. is delivered at a therapeutic gas flow rate of less than or equal to 0.8 L/min, iv. has a pulse volume of less than or equal to 1 mL, and v. comprises less than 420 nmol of NO. [i.e. the NO is only diluted in the patient such as the concentration leaving the cannula is the same as the cylinder]. Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of US Patent 11,660,416 in view of Stenzler (7,516,742). Regarding claim 1, the instant claims is a broader version of the patented claim. (i.e. The instant claim does not include the limitation of a treatment of hypertension). In the instant claims, all elements are included in the patented claims except for the NO from a cylinder. However, Stenzler teaches NO from a cylinder (24) (col. 9 lines 40-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to deliver the NO concentration from a cylinder as taught by Stenzler to provide the advantage of an efficient means of storing and delivering gas. Thus any infringement over the patented claims would also infringe the instant claims. Hence the instant claims do not differ in scope over the patented claims Application 18/136,522 US Patent 11,660,416 1. A method of administering nitric oxide (NO), the method comprising administering a gas comprising NO from a cylinder having a NO concentration greater than 2,000 ppm NO, wherein the gas comprising NO is administered at a dosing rate less than or equal to 166 ug NO per second. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the cylinder has a NO concentration of greater than 2,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm NO. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the cylinder has a NO concentration of greater than 2,000 ppm to 5,000 ppm NO. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the cylinder has a NO concentration of greater than 2,200 ppm NO. 5. The method of claim 1 wherein the NO is administered at a delivery concentration of greater than 2,000 ppm NO. 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from greater than 2,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm NO. 7. The method of claim 5, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from greater than 2,000 ppm to 5,000 ppm NO. 8. The method of claim 5, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from 2,200 ppm to 5,000 ppm NO. 9. The method of claim 5, wherein the delivery concentration is greater than 2,200 ppm NO. 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered in undiluted form such that a delivery concentration is the same as the NO concentration in the cylinder. 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered at a dose in the range from 0.001 to 4.5 mg NO/kg/hr. 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered at a dose in the range from 0.001 to 0.5 mg NO/kg/hr. 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered in the inspiratory gas of a patient. 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered to a patient every breath. 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the NO is administered intermittently. 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the dosing rate is less than or equal to 100 ug NO per second. 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the dosing rate is less than or equal to 83 ug NO per second. 1. A method of treating pulmonary hypertension, the method comprising administering a dose of nitric oxide (NO) to a patient in need thereof, the dose comprising a delivery concentration of greater than 2,000 ppm NO and being administered at a dosing rate less than or equal to 166 μg NO per second. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from greater than 2,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from 2,200 ppm to 5,000 ppm. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from greater than 2,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from 2,200 ppm to 5,000 ppm. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from greater than 2,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from 2,200 ppm to 5,000 ppm. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from greater than 2,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the delivery concentration is in the range from 2,200 ppm to 5,000 ppm. 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the nitric oxide is administered in undiluted form such that the delivery concentration is the same as a storage concentration. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the dose is in the range from 0.001 to 4.5 mg NO/kg/hr. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the dose is in the range from 0.001 to 4.5 mg NO/kg/hr. 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the dose is administered every breath. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the dose is administered intermittently. 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the dosing rate is less than or equal to 100 μg NO per second. 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the dosing rate is less than or equal to 83 μg NO per second. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowed over the prior art. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No specific arguments have been presented. 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 LATOYA M LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm - 6:30 pm ET. 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, Kendra Carter can be reached on 571-272-9034. 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. /LaToya M Louis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 19, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 24, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Aug 28, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 25, 2024
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 25, 2024
Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Oct 10, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589048
ANATOMICAL SHOULDER RANGE OF MOTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582205
WALKING ASSISTANCE METHOD AND APPARATUSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569394
Reciprocating linear movement massaging apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564693
Laryngeal Mask Airway Intubation Guide and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12544179
Augmented Reality Device for Providing Feedback to an Acute Care Provider
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+41.5%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 656 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