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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. Claims 2 and 17 are cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1, 3-16, 18-21 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/03/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new grounds of rejection is made over Stowe in view of Brue. Ajaelo is no longer relied upon. Brue teaches a proximity sensor configured to sense the presence of a user’s nose. Regarding claim 21, Stowe discloses the proximity sensor comprising a single light source disposed on the second side.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe (Pub. No.: US 2020/0360180 A1) and in view of Brue (Pub. No.: US 2015/0359667 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stowe discloses (fig. 1-3, 17-18) an ophthalmic applicator device (fluid delivery device 10) for treating an eye of a user (¶ 0003), comprising:
A housing (applicator 15);
A reservoir (cartridge 20), supported by the housing (¶ 0050), for containing a liquid for treating the eye (¶ 0052);
A nozzle (37) supported by and disposed on a first side of the housing (¶ 0051, ¶ 0053, fig. 3) and operatively connected to the reservoir (¶ 0053, fig. 3) and being configured to direct a non-gravitationally directed dose of the liquid (¶ 0049); and
A proximity sensor (350, 355) disposed on a second side of the housing (fig. 17, ¶ 0071) and configured to emit light from the second side of the housing (¶ 0072).
Stowe fails to disclose that the proximity sensor is configured to emit light to identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user, wherein the proximity sensor is configured to sense the presence of the user’s nose positioned laterally of the housing when the applicator is positioned to treat the eye.
Brue teaches (fig. 1-2) an ophthalmic applicator for treating an eye of a user (¶ 0002) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
A proximity sensor (218) configured to emit light to identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user (the sensor can include lights and can detect which eye the dispenser is applied to, ¶ 0027), wherein the proximity sensor is configured to sense the presence of the user’s nose positioned laterally of the housing when the applicator is positioned to treat the eye (the sensors can include a camera that detects facial or cranial features, a processor can determine orientation or directionality of the ear and nose to calculate over which eye the applicator is positioned ¶ 0027), in order to ensure that the appropriate medication is only administered to the appropriate eye (¶ 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proximity sensor of Stowe such that it is configured to emit light to identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user, wherein the proximity sensor is configured to sense the presence of the user’s nose positioned laterally of the housing when the applicator is positioned to treat the eye, as taught by Brue, in order to ensure that the appropriate medication is only administered to the appropriate eye (Brue ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above in claim 1, Stowe in view of Brue disclose the proximity sensor configured to detect facial or cranial features and then determine orientation or directionality of the ear and nose to calculate over which eye the eyedropper is positioned. Thus, Stowe in view of Brue disclose wherein the proximity sensor is configured to associate the applicator being used to treat left eye in response to detecting the user’s nose, and to associate the applicator being used to treat the right eye in response to not detecting the user’s nose.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above in claim 1, Stowe in view of Brue disclose the proximity sensor configured to detect facial or cranial features and then determine orientation or directionality of the ear and nose to calculate over which eye the eyedropper is positioned. Thus, Stowe in view of Brue disclose wherein the proximity sensor is configured to associate the applicator being used to treat right eye in response to detecting the user’s nose, and to associate the applicator being used to treat the left eye in response to not detecting the user’s nose.
Regarding claim 5, Stowe discloses wherein the proximity sensor is configured to sense the presence of facial structure (¶ 0070) laterally of the housing in a direction generally perpendicular to a nozzle axis of the nozzle (¶ 0071, fig. 17).
Regarding claim 6, Stowe discloses where the proximity sensor comprises a miniature surface mounted infrared optical proximity sensor with a built in LED and photodetector (¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 7, Stowe discloses wherein two different proximity sensors (350, 355) pointing in opposite lateral directions (fig. 17, ¶ 0071), wherein the applicator can determine whether the applicator is held sufficiently close to the user’s face to warrant dosage of the liquid to the eye (¶ 0070-¶ 0071). As discussed above in claim 1, Stowe in view of Brue disclose the proximity sensor configured to detect facial or cranial features and then determine orientation or directionality of the ear and nose to calculate over which eye the eyedropper is positioned. Thus, Stowe in view of Brue disclose sensing the presence or absence of a user’s nose on either side, whereby the applicator can thereby determine which eye is being treated.
Regarding claim 9, Stowe discloses a controller (290).
Stowe in view of Brue fail to disclose that the controller is configured to control the proximity sensor and the application of treatment in response to which eye, left or right, is detected.
Brue further teaches a controller configured to control the proximity sensor and the application of treatment in response to which eye, left or right, is detected (¶ 0027) in order to ensure that the appropriate medication is only administered to the appropriate eye (¶ 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller Stowe in view of Brue such that it is configured to control the proximity sensor and the application of treatment in response to which eye, left or right, is detected, as taught by Brue, in order to ensure that the appropriate medication is only administered to the appropriate eye (Brue ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 10, Stowe in view of Brue fail to disclose wherein the controller is configured to compile a treatment log for the treatments applied to the user’s eye to determine if one or both eyes were properly treated.
Brue teaches wherein the controller is configured to compile a treatment log for the treatments applied to the user’s eye to determine if one or both eyes were properly treated (¶ 0024, ¶ 0026, ¶ 0030), in order to reduce the chances of improper usage (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Stowe in view of Brue such that it is configured to compile a treatment log for the treatments applied to the user’s eye to determine if one or both eyes were properly treated, as taught by Brue, in order to reduce the chances of improper usage (Brue, abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Stowe discloses (fig. 6) a displacement valve (valve 70) and an actuator (wall 55) configured to actuate the displacement valve (¶ 0055), wherein the displacement valve is configured to, when actuated, force the liquid through the nozzle (¶ 0055), and wherein the controller is configured to control actuation of the actuator in response to a user input (¶ 0080, ¶ 0090-¶ 0091).
Regarding claim 12, Stowe discloses wherein the reservoir comprises a removable reservoir cartridge (¶ 0050).
Regarding claim 13, Stowe in view of Brue fail to explicitly disclose wherein the proximity sensor is an optical sensor configured to, based on at least one optical signal reflected off the suer, identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user.
However, Stowe discloses wherein the proximity sensor is an optical sensor configured to receive at least one optical signal reflected off the user (¶ 0071).
Further, Brue teaches wherein the proximity sensor is configured to identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user (¶ 0027), as discussed above in claim 1.
Accordingly, Stowe in view of Brue disclose wherein the proximity sensor is an optical sensor configured to, based on at least one optical signal reflected off the user, identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user.
Regarding claim 14, Stowe in view of Brue fail to explicitly disclose wherein the proximity sensor comprises an LED and a photodetector configured to, based on at least one optical signal reflected off the user, identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user.
Stowe discloses wherein the proximity sensor comprises an LED and a photodetector configured to receive at least one at least one optical signal reflected off the user (¶ 0071).
Further, Brue teaches wherein the proximity sensor is configured to identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user (¶ ¶ 0027), as discussed above in claim 1.
Accordingly, Stowe in view of Brue disclose wherein the proximity sensor is an LED and a photodetector configured to, based on at least one optical signal reflected off the user, identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user.
Regarding claim 15, Stowe in view of Brue fail to explicitly disclose wherein the proximity sensor is configured to, based on whether or not the proximity sensor receives at least one optical signal reflected off a nose of the user, identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user.
However, Stowe discloses that the proximity sensor is configured to sense the presence of the user’s nose (¶ 0077). Stowe further discloses two proximity sensors (350, 355). Thus, in use, when the applicator is used to treat the left eye, the right proximity sensor (355) will be adjacent the user’s nose and will receive at least one optical signal reflected off the nose of the user and when the applicator is used to treat the right eye, the right proximity sensor (355) will not be adjacent the user’s nose and will not receive at least one optical signal reflected off the nose of the user.
Further, Brue teaches wherein the proximity sensor is configured to identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user (¶ ¶ 0027), as discussed above in claim 1.
Accordingly, Stowe in view of Brue disclose wherein the proximity sensor is configured to, based on whether or not the proximity sensor receives at least one optical signal reflected off a nose of the user, identify the eye, left or right, to which the applicator is applying the liquid to the eye of the user.
Regarding claim 21, Stowe discloses wherein the proximity sensor comprises a single light source disposed on the second side (the detector 295 can include one or more reflective optical proximity infrared sensors, ¶ 0070).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 16, 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 8 is allowed for reasons outlined in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/10/2025.
Claim 16 recites a proximity sensor comprising: one or more LEDs configured to emit light towards a nose of the user; and a photodetector configured to receive reflected light from the emitted light reflected from the nose of the user to determine, based on the reflected light, at which eye of the right eye and the left eye that the applicator is aimed to apply the liquid. The closest prior art of record is Stowe (Pub. No.: US 2020/0360180 A1) which discloses a proximity sensor comprising one or more LEDS and a photodetector. Stowe discloses the proximity sensor detecting the face/eye being within firing range (¶ 0070) and proper eye targeting and to detect eye blinks (¶ 0071). Stowe fails to disclose emitting light towards a nose and the photodetector receiving reflected light from the emitted light reflected from the nose. Further, Stowe fails to disclose determining which eye the applicator is aimed at. Brue (Pub. No.: US 2015/0359667 A1) discloses a proximity sensor configured to emit light and configured to detect which eye the applicator is applied to (¶ 0027). Brue fails to disclose emitting light towards a nose and the photodetector receiving reflected light from the emitted light reflected from the nose. Ajaelo (Pub. No.: US 2018/0193190 A1) discloses a sensor configured to detect which eye the applicator is applied to (¶ 0022). Ajaelo fails to disclose emitting light towards a nose and the photodetector receiving reflected light from the emitted light reflected from the nose.
Accordingly, claim 16 and its dependents, claims 18-20, are allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Von Bunau (Pub. No.: US 2021/0145278 A1) discloses an applicator configured to identify the left and right eye.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEAGAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1586. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 8:00 - 4:00 PT.
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 at (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.
/MEAGAN NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights