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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1-22. Claims 1-22 are currently pending.
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, 5-9, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (US 2018/0042766 A1) in view of Hanley (US 2004/0111070 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nagao discloses an ophthalmic fluid delivery device (Figs. 2a-2b, feat. 2; ¶0050-0055 and 0088-0093), comprising: a nozzle wall (Figs. 2a-2b, feat. 10B; Figs. 5a-6b; ¶0115-0142; Annotated fig. 1, feat. A) having opposing interior (Annotated fig. 1, feat. B) and exterior (Annotated fig. 1, feat. C; Fig. 2b, feat. 12Ba) nozzle surfaces, the interior nozzle surface being spaced from the exterior nozzle surface in a first direction (Annotated fig. 1, feats. B and C), the exterior nozzle surface configured to be directed toward the eye of the user during use of the fluid delivery device (¶0093: liquid is dripped from the exterior side 11Ba of opening 11B, which is on the same side of the nozzle wall as exterior surface 12Ba, and therefore, to deliver drops to the eye, the exterior nozzle surface 12Ba is directed toward the eye) at least one opening (Annotated fig. 1, feat. D; Fig. 2b, feat. 11B) through which fluid is configured to be selectively delivered to the eye of the user during use of the ophthalmic fluid delivery device (¶0093: 11B constitutes a nozzle opening through which a liquid stored in container 2 can pass and is dripped), the at least one opening being defined by an inner opening surface and extending through the nozzle wall from the interior nozzle surface to the exterior nozzle surface (Annotated fig. 1, feat. E).
Nagao doesn’t explicitly disclose that the exterior nozzle surface is configured to be at least hydrophobic or that at least a portion of the inner opening surface is configured to be hydrophilic. However, Nagao discloses that the exterior nozzle surface (Annotated fig. 1, feat. C; Fig. 2b, feat. 12Ba) has a low surface energy, resulting in high water repellency and a contact angle of greater than or equal to 90° (¶0099-0103 and 0109). A surface that provides a droplet contact angle greater than 90° is considered a hydrophobic surface, as supported by the evidence in Latthe 2014 (§2: Wetting Properties of a Solid Surface, paragraph 1). Similarly, Nagao discloses that at least the exterior-most portion (Fig. 2b, feat. 11Ba) of the inner opening surface (Annotated fig. 1, feat. E) has a high surface energy, resulting in low water repellency and a contact angle less than 90° (¶0099-0103 and 0109). A surface that provides a droplet contact angle less than 90° is considered a hydrophilic surface, as supported by the evidence in Latthe 2014 (§2: Wetting Properties of a Solid Surface, paragraph 1). Therefore, Nagao inherently discloses that the exterior nozzle surface is configured to be at least hydrophobic and at least a portion of the inner opening surface is configured to be
PNG
media_image1.png
289
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated Figure 1: Adapted from figure 2b of Nagao. A is the nozzle wall. B is the interior surface. C is the exterior surface. D is the opening. E is the inner opening surface extending from the interior surface to the exterior surface.)]hydrophilic. Please see MPEP §2112.
Nagao does not disclose a head surface spaced from the exterior nozzle surface in a second direction and spaced from the at least one opening, the second direction opposing the first direction.
Hanley teaches an ophthalmic fluid delivery device (Figs. 2A-4, feat. 110; ¶0031-0039) comprising a nozzle (114; ¶0031) with an opening defined by an inner opening surface (122) extending from inside the device to an exterior presentation surface (120). An indicia (144) comprising a raised annulus extends from the exterior presentation surface (120; ¶0039) in a direction opposite from the interior of the device and is spaced from and surrounds the opening (122). Because the indicia comprises a raised annulus, it defines a head surface spaced from the exterior nozzle surface. Hanley teaches that the indicia advantageously indicates to a user the proper size of a droplet on the exterior presentation surface (¶0039). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Nagao so that it comprises a head surface spaced from the exterior nozzle surface in a second direction and spaced from the at least one opening, the second direction opposing the first direction in order to indicate to the user the proper size of a droplet on the exterior nozzle surface as taught by Hanley.
Regarding claim 2, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 1, and Nagao further discloses that the exterior nozzle surface (Fig. 2b, feat. 12Ba; Annotated fig. 1, feat. C) is configured to be at least hydrophobic via at least one of a micropattern or nano-sized features on the exterior nozzle surface (Fig. 7; ¶0157-0159, 0178-0180, and 0186: hydrophobicity may be achieved by roughing the surface in a micropattern and chemical modification with fluorine).
Regarding claim 3, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 2, and Nagao further discloses that the micropattern on the exterior nozzle surface is defined by a plurality of micro-sized protrusions (Fig. 7; ¶0178-0180).
Regarding claim 5, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 1. Nagao further discloses that fluorine containing resins such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) may be used (¶0144). While Nagao discloses some disadvantages to the use of fluorine containing resins, this is merely a disclosure of a nonpreferred embodiment, which still constitutes relevant prior art. Please see MPEP §2123. Therefore, Nagao in view of Hanley further discloses that the exterior nozzle surface is configured to be at least hydrophobic via forming the exterior nozzle surface form a material that is at least hydrophobic.
Regarding claim 6, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 1, and Nagao further discloses that the exterior nozzle surface is configured to be at least hydrophobic via a hydrophobic or superhydrophobic coating on the exterior nozzle surface (Fig. 7; ¶0151-0159: the base polymer resin is chemically treated with a fluorine plasma to form an exterior coating of fluorinated polymer resin).
Regarding claim 7, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 6, and Nagao further discloses that the coating is covalently bonded to the exterior nozzle surface (Fig. 7; ¶0158-0159).
Regarding claim 8, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 6, and Nagao further discloses that the coating may be composed of at least one of non-polar polymers, fluorinated polymers, and silicone materials (¶0158-0159: the coating comprises fluorinated polymers).
Regarding claim 9, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 1, and Nagao further discloses that the untreated plastic resin forming the nozzle, including the interior nozzle surface, exhibits a contact angle less than 90° (¶0103), and is therefore hydrophilic. Therefore, Nagao in view of Hanley further discloses that the interior nozzle surface is configured to be hydrophilic.
Regarding claim 12, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 1, and Nagao further discloses that that the untreated plastic resin forming the nozzle exhibits a contact angle less than 90°, and is therefore hydrophilic, and that the inner opening surface (Fig. 2b, feat. 11Ba; Annotated fig. 1, feat. E) remains untreated to maintain its low liquid repellency (¶0101-0103). Therefore, Nagao in view of Hanley further discloses that the hydrophilic portion of the inner opening surface is configured to be hydrophilic via forming the hydrophilic portion of the inner opening surface from a hydrophilic material.
Regarding claim 14, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 1. Hanley further teaches that the inner opening surface (Figs. 2A-4, feat. 122; ¶0031) is a capillary tube that allows for non-gravitational presentation of a droplet of ophthalmic fluid (Fig. 2B, feat. 126; Abstract; ¶0001, 0005-0007, and 0033). The ophthalmic fluids delivered by the device may be any type of liquid, including aqueous liquids (¶0017). Therefore, Nagao in view of Hanley further discloses that the ophthalmic fluid delivery device is a non-gravitational ophthalmic delivery device for delivering fluids having aqueous-based formulations.
Regarding claim 16, Nagao discloses an ophthalmic fluid delivery device (Figs. 2a-2b, feat. 2; ¶0050-0055 and 0088-0093), comprising: a nozzle wall (Figs. 2a-2b, feat. 10B; Figs. 5a-6b; ¶0115-0142; Annotated fig. 1, feat. A) having opposing interior (Annotated fig. 1, feat. B) and exterior (Annotated fig. 1, feat. C; Fig. 2b, feat. 12Ba) nozzle surfaces, the interior nozzle surface being spaced from the exterior nozzle surface in a first direction (Annotated fig. 1, feats. B and C), the exterior nozzle surface configured to be directed toward the eye of the user during use of the fluid delivery device (¶0093: liquid is dripped from the exterior side 11Ba of opening 11B, which is on the same side of the nozzle wall as exterior surface 12Ba, and therefore, to deliver drops to the eye, the exterior nozzle surface 12Ba is directed toward the eye) at least one opening (Annotated fig. 1, feat. D; Fig. 2b, feat. 11B) through which fluid is configured to be selectively delivered to the eye of the user during use of the ophthalmic fluid delivery device (¶0093: 11B constitutes a nozzle opening through which a liquid stored in container 2 can pass and is dripped), the at least one opening being defined by an inner opening surface and extending through the nozzle wall from the interior nozzle surface to the exterior nozzle surface (Annotated fig. 1, feat. E); wherein the exterior nozzle surface is at least hydrophobic (Please see the discussion in paragraph 7 above) via at least one of a micropattern on the exterior nozzle surface (Fig. 7; ¶0157-0159, 0178-0180, and 0186: hydrophobicity may be achieved by roughing the surface in a micropattern and chemical modification with fluorine); a hydrophobic or superhydrophobic coating on the exterior nozzle surface (Fig. 7; ¶0151-0159: the base polymer resin is treated with a fluorine plasma to form an exterior coating of fluorinated polymer resin); a material forming the exterior nozzle surface being naturally hydrophobic or superhydrophobic; a chemical modification of the exterior nozzle surface (Fig. 7; ¶0151-0159: the base polymer resin is chemically treated with a fluorine plasma to form an exterior coating of fluorinated polymer resin); and nanometer-sized features on the exterior nozzle surface; and wherein at least one of the interior nozzle surface and the inner opening surface is opening surface is configured to be hydrophilic (Please see the discussion in paragraph 7 above) via at least one of a hydrophilic coating on at least one of the interior nozzle surface and the inner opening surface; a material forming at least one of the interior nozzle surface and the inner opening surface being naturally hydrophilic (¶0101-0103: the untreated plastic resin forming the nozzle exhibits a contact angle less than 90°, and is therefore hydrophilic); and a chemical modification of the exterior nozzle surface.
Nagao does not disclose a head surface spaced from the exterior nozzle surface in a second direction and spaced from the at least one opening, the second direction opposing the first direction.
Hanley teaches an ophthalmic fluid delivery device (Figs. 2A-4, feat. 110; ¶0031-0039) comprising a nozzle (114; ¶0031) with an opening defined by an inner opening surface (122) extending from inside the device to an exterior presentation surface (120). An indicia (144) comprising a raised annulus extends from the exterior presentation surface (120; ¶0039) in a direction opposite from the interior of the device and is spaced from and surrounds the opening (122). Because the indicia comprises a raised annulus, it defines a head surface spaced from the exterior nozzle surface. Hanley teaches that the indicia advantageously indicates to a user the proper size of a droplet on the exterior presentation surface (¶0039). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Nagao so that it comprises a head surface spaced from the exterior nozzle surface in a second direction and spaced from the at least one opening, the second direction opposing the first direction in order to indicate to the user the proper size of a droplet on the exterior nozzle surface as taught by Hanley.
Regarding claim 18, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 16, and Nagao further discloses that the exterior nozzle surface is configured to be at least hydrophobic via a hydrophobic or superhydrophobic coating on the exterior nozzle surface (Fig. 7; ¶0151-0159: the base polymer resin is chemically treated with a fluorine plasma to form an exterior coating of fluorinated polymer resin), the hydrophobic or superhydrophobic coating being covalently bonded to the exterior nozzle surface (Fig. 7; ¶0158-0159).
Regarding claim 20, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 16. As discussed above, Nagao discloses that the untreated plastic resin forming the nozzle, including the interior nozzle surface, exhibits a contact angle less than 90° (¶0103), and is therefore hydrophilic. Nagao further discloses that the inner opening surface (Fig. 2b, feat. 11Ba; Annotated fig. 1, feat. E) remains untreated to maintain its low liquid repellency (¶0101-0103). Therefore, Nagao in view of Hanley further discloses that each of the interior nozzle surface and the inner opening surface are configured to be hydrophilic.
Regarding claim 21, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 16. Hanley further teaches that the inner opening surface (Figs. 2A-4, feat. 122; ¶0031) is a capillary tube that allows for non-gravitational presentation of a droplet of ophthalmic fluid (Fig. 2B, feat. 126; Abstract; ¶0001, 0005-0007, and 0033). The ophthalmic fluids delivered by the device may be any type of liquid, including aqueous liquids (¶0017). Therefore, Nagao in view of Hanley further discloses that the ophthalmic fluid delivery device is a non-gravitational ophthalmic delivery device for delivering fluids having aqueous-based formulations.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (US 2018/0042766 A1) in view of Hanley (US 2004/0111070 A) in further view of Latthe et al. (“Superhydrophobic Surfaces Developed by Mimicking Hierarchical Surface Morphology of Lotus Leaf”, 2014).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the devices of claims 1 and 16. Nagao further discloses that the exterior nozzle surface may be configured to exhibit ultra high liquid repellency, with a contact angle close to 180° (¶0161-0165 and 0178-0180). Surfaces with a droplet contact angle close to 180° are considered to be superhydrophobic, as supported by the evidence in Latthe 2014 (§2: Wetting Properties of a Solid Surface, paragraph 1). Therefore, Nagao further inherently discloses that the exterior surface is superhydrophobic. Please see MPEP §2112. Nagao in view of Hanley is silent with respect to the sliding angle for a liquid droplet on the exterior contact surface.
Latthe teaches that surface structure of a lotus leaf comprises a hierarchical micro/nanostructure in combination with a low surface energy wax that grants it superhydrophobic properties with a contact angle of greater than 160° and a sliding angle lower than 5° which advantageously allows the surface to self-clean by causing water to quickly roll or slide of the leaf while carrying dirt and debris with it (Page 4257, lines 1-36). Latthe further teaches that this self-cleaning behavior can be mimicked by combining rough surface structures with low surface energy materials (Page 4257, lines 32-36). Latthe teaches that lotus leaf-like microstructures may be achieved using filter paper templated polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) to achieve superhydrophobic behavior with a water contact angle of 162 ± 2° and a sliding angle of 3° (Page 4269, lines 8-16). While Nagao teaches some disadvantages of employing fluorine containing resins such as PTFE as the plastic of the nozzle (¶0144), including a contact angle of 115° and difficulty molding the PTFE, these disadvantages are at least partly addressed by the filter paper templating method for preparing superhydrophobic PTFE taught by Latthe, which achieves a high contact angle as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzles disclosed by Nagao in view of Hanley so that the nozzle is made of filter paper templated PTFE and has a sliding angle less than 45° for a liquid droplet on the exterior contact surface in order to allow the exterior nozzle surface to self-clean by causing water to quickly roll or slide of the leaf while carrying dirt and debris with it as taught by Latthe.
Claims 10-11, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (US 2018/0042766 A1) in view of Hanley (US 2004/0111070 A1) in further view of Wochele (US 2013/0075431 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 1, but does not disclose that the hydrophilic portion of the inner opening surface is configured to be hydrophilic via a hydrophilic coating.
Wochele teaches a drop dispensing nozzle (Figs. 1-2c, feat. 14; ¶0030-0031) comprising a base frustum (20) and a tip frustum (30), which further comprises hydrophilic drop adhesion surfaces (32, 34, and 36). The base (20) and tip (30) frustums are both made of a weakly hydrophilic material such as high density polyethylene (HDPE) with a contact angle of 80°, and the drop adhesion surfaces (32, 34, and 36) are treated with a hydrophilic coating in order to advantageously enhance their contact angle to less than 5° and selectively enhance the adhesion to the drop adhesion surfaces (¶0031-0032). Modifying the inner opening surface of the nozzle disclosed by Nagao to include a hydrophilic coating as taught by Wochele would increase its hydrophilicity and enhance the adhesion of the ophthalmic fluid to the inner opening surface. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Nagao in view of Hanley so that the hydrophilic portion of the inner opening surface is configured to be hydrophilic via a hydrophilic coating in order to enhance the adhesion of the ophthalmic fluid to the inner opening surface as taught by Wochele.
Regarding claim 11, Nagao in view of Hanley and in further view of Wochele discloses the device of claim 10. Wochele further teaches that one way of providing a hydrophilic coating is by plasma treatment with oxygen or argon, resulting in chemical modifications to the surface (¶0020). Because the hydrophilic coating is achieved by chemically modifying the surface, the hydrophilic coating layer would be covalent bonded to the rest of the material. Therefore, Nagao in view of Hanley and in further view of Wochele further discloses that the hydrophilic coating is covalently bonded to the inner opening surface.
Regarding claim 13, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 1, but does not disclose that the hydrophilic portion of the inner opening surface is configured to be hydrophilic via a chemical modification.
Wochele teaches a drop dispensing nozzle (Figs. 1-2c, feat. 14; ¶0030-0031) comprising a base frustum (20) and a tip frustum (30), which further comprises hydrophilic drop adhesion surfaces (32, 34, and 36). The base (20) and tip (30) frustums are both made of a weakly hydrophilic material such as high density polyethylene (HDPE) with a contact angle of 80°, and the drop adhesion surfaces (32, 34, and 36) are treated with a hydrophilic coating in order to advantageously enhance their contact angle to less than 5° and selectively enhance the adhesion to the drop adhesion surfaces (¶0031-0032). Wochele further teaches that one way of providing a hydrophilic coating is by plasma treatment with oxygen or argon, resulting in chemical modifications to the surface (¶0020). Modifying the inner opening surface of the device disclosed by Nagao in view of Hanley to include a hydrophilic coating provided by plasma treatment as taught by Wochele would increase its hydrophilicity and enhance the adhesion of the ophthalmic fluid to the inner opening surface. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Nagao in view of Hanley so that the hydrophilic portion of the inner opening surface is configured to be hydrophilic via a chemical modification in order to enhance the adhesion of the ophthalmic fluid to the inner opening surface as taught by Wochele.
Regarding claim 19, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the device of claim 16, but does not disclose that at least one of the interior nozzle surface and the inner opening surface is configured to be hydrophilic via the hydrophilic coating on at least one of the interior nozzle surface and the inner opening surface, the hydrophilic coating being covalently bonded to at least one of the interior nozzle surface and the inner opening surface.
As discussed above, Wochele teaches a drop dispensing nozzle (Figs. 1-2c, feat. 14; ¶0030-0031) comprising a base frustum (20) and a tip frustum (30), which further comprises hydrophilic drop adhesion surfaces (32, 34, and 36). The base (20) and tip (30) frustums are both made of a weakly hydrophilic material such as high density polyethylene (HDPE) with a contact angle of 80°, and the drop adhesion surfaces (32, 34, and 36) are treated with a hydrophilic coating in order to advantageously enhance their contact angle to less than 5° and selectively enhance the adhesion to the drop adhesion surfaces (¶0031-0032). Wochele further teaches that one way of providing a hydrophilic coating is by plasma treatment with oxygen or argon, resulting in chemical modifications to the surface (¶0020). Because the hydrophilic coating is achieved by chemically modifying the surface, the hydrophilic coating layer would be covalent bonded to the rest of the material. Modifying the inner opening surface of the device disclosed by Nagao in view of Hanley to include a hydrophilic coating as taught by Wochele would increase its hydrophilicity and enhance the adhesion of the ophthalmic fluid to the inner opening surface. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Nagao in view of Hanley so that at least one of the interior nozzle surface and the inner opening surface is configured to be hydrophilic via the hydrophilic coating on at least one of the interior nozzle surface and the inner opening surface, the hydrophilic coating being covalently bonded to at least one of the interior nozzle surface and the inner opening surface in order to enhance the adhesion of the ophthalmic fluid to the inner opening surface as taught by Wochele.
Claims 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (US 2018/0042766 A1) in view of Hanley (US 2004/0111070 A1) and in further view of Dascanio et al. (US 7,435,241 B1).
Regarding claims 15 and 22, Nagao in view of Hanley discloses the devices of claims 1 and 16, but does not disclose that the inner opening surface includes a hydrophobic portion and a hydrophilic portion, the hydrophobic portion being between the hydrophilic portion and the exterior nozzle surface.
Dascanio teaches an ophthalmic delivery device (Figs. 4-4d, feats. 40 and 40’; Col. 3, line 33 – Col. 4, line 61) comprising a nozzle (Figs. 4-6b, feat. 44; Col. 4, lines 1-27) comprising a nozzle wall (Annotated fig. 2, feat. A’), interior surface (Annotated fig. 2, feat. B’), exterior surface (Annotated fig. 2, feat. C’), opening (Annotated fig. 2, feat. D’), and inner opening surface (Annotated fig. 2, feat. E’). The nozzle has a hydrophilic portion (Figs. 6a-b and Annotated fig. 2, feat. 44a) and a hydrophobic portion (44b) such that a portion of the exterior nozzle surface (C’) is hydrophobic (44b; Col. 4, lines 1-27), in a similar manner to the nozzle of Nagao. The hydrophobic portion (Annotated fig. 2, feat. 44b) includes both the hydrophobic exterior nozzle surface (C’) and a portion that protrudes into the inner opening surface (E’) such that the interaction between the hydrophilic portion (44a) and the hydrophobic portion (44b) inside the inner opening surface helps to trap fluid in the nozzle and prevent it from leaking (Col. 4, lines 1-15). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the devices disclosed by Nagao in view of Hanley to include a hydrophobic portion extending into the inner opening surface as taught by Dascanio so that the inner opening surface includes a hydrophobic portion and a hydrophilic portion, the hydrophobic portion being between the hydrophilic portion and the exterior nozzle surface in order to help trap fluid in the nozzle and prevent it from leaking as taught by Dascanio.
PNG
media_image3.png
342
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated Figure 2: Adapted from figs. 6a and 6b of Dascanio. A’ is the nozzle wall, B’ is the interior surface, C; is the exterior surface, D’ is the opening, and E’ is the inner opening surface extending from the interior surface to the exterior surface.)]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 04/15/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, 16, 18, and 20 as anticipated by Nagao, of claims 4 and 17 as obvious over Nagao in view of Latthe, of claims 10-11, 13, and 19 in further view of Wochele, and of claims 14-15 and 21-22 in further view of Dascanio have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made as indicated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gokhale et al. (US 2010/0016814 A1) discloses a metered drop bottle with a nozzle which may be naturally hydrophobic or coated with a hydrophobic substance.
Spada et al. (US 2005/0274744 A1) discloses a drop dispensing nozzle which is hydrophobic due to being formed from a hydrophobic plastic or coated with a hydrophobic material.
Stowe et al. (US 2020/0360180 A1) discloses a non-gravitational fluid delivery device.
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 ARJUNA P CHATRATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-8063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 5712727159. 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.
/ARJUNA P CHATRATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights