DETAILED ACTION Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Claims 1. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability. Priority 2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. 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 ( 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 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. 3. Claim(s) 1 , 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galdeti et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0259204 A1). 4. With regard to claims 1 and 14 , Galdeti discloses a dispensing system for eye drop medication (abstract; Figs. 1-3; [0004-0012]) comprising: a squeezable eyedropper bottle ( bottle holding fluid eye medication drops, 100 ) containing/ housing medication ([0020]) ; and a dispenser (Figs. 1-3) comprising: a first arm (first handle, 106) defining a first pivot end (end closest to spring pivot, 108) , a first dispensing end (end closest to sliding adjustable protruding piece, 114) , a first exterior surface (surface facing away from bottle, 100) and a first interior surface ( surface facing bottle, 100 ; [0021]) ; a retention feature (adjustable sleeve, 102) positioned on the first arm (first 106; Figs. 1-3) , the retention feature (102) configured to removably engage the squeezable eyedropper bottle (100) mounted within the retention feature (102; [0020-0021]; [0025]) ; and a second arm (second handle, 106) defining a second pivot end (end closest to spring pivot, 108) , a second dispensing end (end closest to sliding adjustable protruding piece, 114) , a second exterior surface (surface facing away from bottle, 100) and a second interior surface (surface facing bottle, 100; [0021]) , the second pivot end coupled to the first pivot end of the first arm (via 108) so that the first interior surface is movable relative to the second interior surface of the second arm (Fig. 2; [0008-0009]; [0021]) , the second arm (second 106) configured to squeeze the squeezable eyedropper bottle (100) as the second interior surface is moved towards the first interior surface such that the medication is dispensed from the squeezable eyedropper bottle (100; abstract; [0008-0010]; [0023]; claims 3-5) . 5. With regard to claims 19 and 20 , Galdeti discloses a method of dispensing medication from a squeezable eyedropper bottle (100; abstract; Figs. 1- 5 ; [0004-0012]), the method comprising: placing the squeezable eyedropper bottle (100) within a retention feature (102) of a dispenser (Figs. 1, 3; [0020-0021]; [0025] ) , the dispenser (Figs. 1, 3) comprising a first arm (first 106) defining the retention feature (102) and a second arm (second 106) pivotably connected to the first arm (via 108; [0008-0009]; [0021]) ; squeezing the first arm (first 106) and the second arm (second 106) together such that the squeezable eyedropper bottle (100) is compressed and the medication is dispensed ( abstract; [0008-0010]; [0023]; claims 3-5) ; and placing a forehead engagement arm (distal ends of 106 having attachment plates, 130 and soft pads, 110 and 112) against a forehead (eyelid/eyebrow broadly interpreted as part of a forehead) prior to squeezing the first arm and the second arm ( Fig. 2; abstract; [0005-0008]; [0021-0022] ) . 6. With regard to claim 3 , Galdeti discloses that the retention (102) feature is mounted on the first interior surface (of first 106; Figs. 1-3; [0020-0021]; [0025-0026]) . 7. With regard to claim s 4 and 16 , Galdeti discloses that the retention feature (102) comprises a projection (screwing mechanism, 120 and built-in lid, 122 ) from the first interior surface (of first 106; Figs. 3, 4) , the projection (120) having a tapered slot (threaded portion of 120 and 122) formed therein ([0025-0026]; claim 7) . 8. With regard to claim s 8 , 9 , 11 , 17 and 18 , Galdeti discloses at least one forehead engagement arm (distal ends of 106 having attachment plates, 130 and soft pads, 110 and 112 ; eyelid/eyebrow broadly interpreted as part of a forehead) extending from the first exterior surface ( of first 106); wherein the at least one forehead engagement arm (130 of 106) comprises a curved forehead engagement surface (110, 112); and wherein the at least one forehead engagement arm (130 of first and second 106) comprises a plurality of forehead engagement arms ( Fig s . 2 , 5 ; abstract; [0005-0008]; [0021-0022]). 9. With regard to claim 12 , Galdeti discloses a pressure protrusion (protruding piece, 114) extending from the second interior surface (of second 106) , the pressure protrusion (114) configured to engage the squeezable eyedropper bottle (100) when the second interior surface (of second 106) is moved towards the first interior surface (of first 106; [0022-0023]; Figs. 1, 2) . 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. 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 10 . Claim(s) 2 , 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galdeti in view of May et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0061635 A1) . 11. With regard to claim s 2 and 15 , Galdeti fails to explicitly disclose that the retention feature is molded on the first interior surface . However, within the same field of endeavor, May discloses a dispenser actuator assembly (100; abstract; [0010]; Figs. 3-8) comprising two pivot arms (first and second actuator arms, 132a, 132b; [0117]); a retention feature (base member, 102) for retaining a squeezable container containing medication (12), wherein the retention feature (102) is molded on interior surface of the two pivot arms (132a, 132b ; [0107]; [0117]; [0130] ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reten tion feature attached to the first surface disclosed by Galdeti to be molded on the first surface , similar to that disclosed by May, in order to utilize alternative well-known manufacturing methods which would result in forming a unitary one-piece device, as suggested by May in paragraph [0130] , with a reasonable expectation of success . 12. With regard to claim 13 , while Galdeti discloses that the pressure protrusion (114) protrud es from the second interior surface (of second 106; [0022-0023]; Figs. 1, 2) , Ga ldeti fails to explicitly disclose that the pressure protrusion comprises an arched arm. However, May discloses pressure protrusions (first and second protrusions, 150a and 150b; Figs. 4-7) comprising arched arms (see curve of first and second segments, 152a, 152b, 154a, 154b) protruding from the interior surface s of respective pivot arms (132a, 132b ; Figs. 4-7 ; [0118]; [0130] ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure protrusions disclosed by Galdeti to comprise an arched arm , similar to that disclosed by May, in order to provide a concentrated force against the squeezable eyedropper bottle, as suggested by May in paragraph [0018]. 1 3 . Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galdeti in view of Cress (US PGPUB 2009/0082739 A1) . 14. With regard to claim s 5-7 , while Galdeti discloses a threaded/screw element (120) mounted on the retention feature (102; [0025-0026]; Figs. 1-5), Galdeti is silent in regard to a latch element mounted on the retention feature ; wherein the latch element is rotatably mounted to the retention feature ; and wherein the latch element comprises a clip . However, within the same field of endeavor, Cress discloses an adjustable eye drop metering device (10; abstract; Figs. 1, 2 ), comprising: a retention feature (receptacle, 18) for holding a squeezable eyedropper bottle containing medication (squeeze bottle, 14); wherein the retention feature (18) includes a rotatably mounted latch/clip element (“ detents, straps, tapes, bayonet fittings, threaded fittings, latches, or the like, could be used to hold the bottle in place within the receptacle ”; [0006]; [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the threaded/screw element mounted on the retention feature disclosed by Galdeti with a rotatably mounted latch/clip element, similar to that disclosed by Cress, in order to utilize alternative well-known means for holding or latching the bottle in place within the receptacle during use, as suggested by Cress in paragraph [0006], with a reasonable expectation of success. 15 . Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galdeti in view of Williams (US 5,154, 711) . 16 . With regard to claims 10 , while Galdet discloses that the at least one forehead engagement arm (110, 112) extends an angle between 0 degrees and 45 degrees (Figs. 1, 2) , Galdeti is silent in regard to the at least one forehead engagement arm extending from the first exterior surface. However, within the same field of endeavor, Williams discloses an ophthalmic device (abstract; Figs. 3-8), comprising: a retention cup (31) for holding a squeezable eyedropper bottle containing medication (dispenser, 38); and a forehead engagement arm (extension, 37) extending from the surface of the retention cup (31) at an angle between 45 degrees and 90 degrees (Figs. 7, 8; col. 4, line 39 – col. 5, line 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first arm disclosed by Galdeti to include a forehead engagement arm extending from its exterior surface, similar to that disclosed by Williams, in order to provide a tactile determination of a final location of the device in-use, when the forehead engagement arm comes into contact with the lower forehead, as suggested by Williams in column 5, lines 8-9. Furthermore, Gladeti and Williams fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one forehead engagement arm extends at an angle between 20 degrees and 45 degrees . Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of extension of the at least one forehead engagement arm disclosed by Galdeti in view of Williams to extend between 20 degrees and 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to optimize the angular range of extension for the forehead engagement arm , in order to provide a user with a dispenser that allows for proper placement and orientation against a user’s forehead during use. Conclusion 17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bosshold (US 4,085,750) discloses an eyedropper bottle attachment. Ehrlich (US 4,386,608) discloses an eye irrigating apparatus. Sherman (US PGPUB 2005/0101921 A1) discloses an eyedropper positioning device. 18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREW J MENSH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1594 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /ANDREW J MENSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781