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
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (Publication No. US 2014/0369997 A1), hereby referred to as “Grant ‘997”, in view of Fujiwara et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0014844 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grant ‘997 teaches a device for delivering foamed eye medication to an eye (Paragraph 0013-0014; Abstract; Claim 1), and liquid eye medication (Abstract; Paragraph 0013-0014; Claim 1).
Grant ‘997 does not teach a device, comprising: a housing defining an interior space for receiving liquid medication and air; an nozzle having a passage in fluid communication with the interior space; and a foaming chamber positioned within the interior space and in fluid communication with the nozzle, wherein the air and liquid medication are mixed in the foaming chamber and exit the nozzle as foamed medication in response to pressurizing the interior space.
However, Fujiwara teaches a device (Abstract) comprising: a housing defining an interior space for receiving liquid medication and air (dispenser 1 has dispensing tube 51 with chamber of nozzle cover 61 as the interior space for receiving liquid and air; Paragraph 0002 – trigger-type liquid dispenser can be used to dispense medicine; Figure 1 and 2; Paragraph 0049); an nozzle having a passage in fluid communication with the interior space (foam generation hole 62 has a passage 62a in fluid communication with dispensing tube 51 with chamber of nozzle cover 61 as the interior space; Figure 2 and 4A; Paragraph 0049, 0051, and 0055-0056); and a foaming chamber positioned within the interior space and in fluid communication with the nozzle (dispensing tube 51 of interior space is the foaming chamber; Figure 2 and 5; Paragraph 0051), wherein the air and liquid medication are mixed in the foaming chamber and exit the nozzle as foamed medication in response to pressurizing the interior space (air and liquid is mixed in dispensing chamber 51 exits hole 62 as foam when pressure is applied to dispensing tube 51 and chamber of nozzle cover 61 – pressure is applied to the dispensing tube 51 when trigger 34 is pressed, pump 21 pushes liquid into pathway P2, and liquid is pushed into the dispensing tube 51, into the nozzle cover 61 and out of hole 62; Figure 1-2, 4A, and 5; Paragraph 0031-0035, 0051-0052, 0055-0056).
Grant ‘997 and Fujiwara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam dispensers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grant ‘997 to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara and incorporate the foam dispenser of Fujiwara to have the liquid eye medication, foam eye medication composition, method of making the foam eye medication composition of Grant ‘997. This allows for the user to easily dispense the foam by pressing a trigger (Fujiwara; Paragraph 0008) and allows for a simpler design for manufacturing (Fujiwara; Paragraph 0010). Additionally, Fujiwara teaches the trigger dispenser is able to deliver medicine (Paragraph 0002). The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara further teaches a device for delivering foamed eye medication to an eye (see combination above).
Regarding claim 2, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 1. The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara further teaches further comprising an air intake tube extending from the foaming chamber and into the air (Fujiwara; air intake 52 extends from cutout 52a of dispensing tube 51/foaming chamber and into the air; Paragraph 0051-0052; Figure 4A and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 2. The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara further teaches wherein the air is urged through the air intake tube and into the foaming chamber while the medication is urged into the foaming chamber in response to pressurizing the interior space (Fujiwara; when trigger 34 is pressed, air comes in from intake 52 while liquid is pushed into the pathway P2 towards the dispensing tube 51, thus adding pressure to tube 51 and towards nozzle cover 61 chamber; Paragraph 0031-0035, 0051-0052, and 0055-0056; Figure 1-2 and 4A).
Regarding claim 4, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 3. The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara further teaches wherein the interior space is pressurized in response to squeezing the housing (Fujiwara; when trigger 34 of dispenser 1 is squeezed, dispensing tube 51 and nozzle cover 61 chamber is pressurized; Paragraph 0031-0035 and 0051-0052; Figure 1-2 and 4A).
Regarding claim 5, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 3. The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara further teaches further comprising a pump for pressurizing the interior space (Fujiwara; pump 21; Paragraph 0031-0035; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 1. The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara further teaches further comprising a drug intake tube extending from a first end positioned within the foaming chamber to a second end positioned within the medication (Fujiwara; pathway P2 is a tube that extends from a first end that is connected to the dispensing tube 51 to the second end that is positioned in the reservoir of pump 21, containing the liquid; Paragraph 0031-0035 and 0049-0050; Figure 1-2 and 4A). The term “the medication” is interpreted to not be a structural component, thus, the tube inserted into a component that contains a volume of the medication is interpreted to teach “positioned within the medication”.
Regarding claim 11, Grant ‘997 teaches a device for delivering foamed eye medication to an eye (Paragraph 0013-0014; Abstract; Claim 1), and a pre-mixed mixture of liquid eye medication (Abstract; Paragraph 0013-0014; Claim 1) and a surfactant for promoting foaming of the medication (Paragraph 0007; Claim 1 and 3). Grant ‘997 does not teach a device, comprising: a housing defining an interior space for receiving a liquid; and an nozzle having a passage in fluid communication with the interior space for delivering foamed medication.
However, Fujiwara teaches a device (Abstract), comprising: a housing defining an interior space for receiving a liquid (dispenser 1 has dispensing tube 51/interior space for receiving liquid and negative pressure pulls air through intake 52, thus pressurized air; Paragraph 0002 – trigger-type liquid dispenser can be used to dispense medicine; Figure 1 and 2; Paragraph 0049 and 0052); and an nozzle having a passage in fluid communication with the interior space for delivering foamed medication (foam generation hole 62 as a passage 62a in fluid communication with dispensing tube 51 with chamber of nozzle cover 61 as the interior space; Figure 2 and 4A; Paragraph 0049, 0051, and 0055-0056).
Grant ‘997 and Fujiwara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam dispensers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grant ‘997 to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara and incorporate the foam dispenser of Fujiwara to have the pre-mixed mixture liquid eye medication and surfactant, method of making the foam eye medication composition of Grant ‘997. This allows for the user to easily dispense the foam by pressing a trigger (Fujiwara; Paragraph 0008) and allows for a simpler design for manufacturing (Fujiwara; Paragraph 0010). Additionally, Fujiwara teaches the trigger dispenser is able to deliver medicine (Paragraph 0002).
The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara further teaches a device for delivering foamed eye medication to an eye (see combination above).
Regarding claim 12, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 11. The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara does not expressly teach wherein the surfactant comprises a nonionic surfactant.
However, alternative embodiments of Grant ‘997 teaches wherein the foaming agent can comprise surfactants, including non-ionic surfactants (Paragraph 0007 and 0011; Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known element (foaming agent of Grant ‘997; Paragraph 0007) for another (non-ionic surfactant of Grant ‘997; Paragraph 0007 and 0011) since the substitution of the foam agent would have yielded predictable results, namely, a foam eye medication composition. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)B).
Regarding claim 13, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 11. The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara does not expressly teach wherein the surfactant comprises Polysorbate 80.
However, alternative embodiments of Grant ‘997 teaches wherein the foaming agent can comprise active ingredients/surfactant, including Polysorbate 80 (Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known element (active ingredient/surfactant of Grant ‘997; Claim 5) for another (Polysorbate 80 of Grant ‘997; Claim 5) since the substitution of the foam agent would have yielded predictable results, namely, a foam eye medication composition. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)B).
Regarding claim 16, Grant ‘997 teaches a device for delivering foamed eye medication to an eye (Paragraph 0013-0014; Abstract; Claim 1), and liquid eye medication (Abstract; Paragraph 0013-0014; Claim 1). Grant ‘997 does not teach a device, comprising: a housing defining an interior space for receiving liquid medication; an adapter connected to the housing and including a first chamber for receiving air and a second chamber for receiving the medication; an nozzle having a passage in fluid communication with the interior space; a foaming chamber positioned within the adapter and in fluid communication with the nozzle; and a pump for drawing the air into the first chamber while drawing the medication into the second chamber and subsequently delivering both the air and the medication to the foaming chamber such that the air and the medication mix and exit the nozzle as foamed medication.
However, Fujiwara teaches a device (Abstract), comprising: a housing defining an interior space for receiving liquid medication (dispenser 1 has second dispensing tubular portion 51b with chamber of nozzle cover 61 as the interior space for receiving liquid; Paragraph 0002 – trigger-type liquid dispenser can be used to dispense medicine; Figure 1 and 2; Paragraph 0049); an adapter connected to the housing and including a first chamber for receiving air and a second chamber for receiving the medication (first dispensing tubular portion 51a is an adapter that is connected that has a first chamber/inlet holes 52 to receive air and a second chamber/dispensing hole 44 to receive the medication; Figure 1-2, 4A, and 5; Paragraph 0049 and 0051); an nozzle having a passage in fluid communication with the interior space (foam generation hole 62 has a passage 62a in fluid communication with dispensing tube 51b with chamber of nozzle cover 61 as the interior space; Figure 2 and 4A; Paragraph 0049, 0051, and 0055-0056); a foaming chamber positioned within the adapter and in fluid communication with the nozzle (dispensing tube 51a where the cutout 52b is located is the foaming chamber; Figure 2, 4A, and 5; Paragraph 0051); and a pump for drawing the air into the first chamber while drawing the medication into the second chamber and subsequently delivering both the air and the medication to the foaming chamber such that the air and the medication mix and exit the nozzle as foamed medication (Fujiwara; when trigger 34 of dispenser 1 is squeezed, pump 21 applies pressure to draw air into the inlet holes 52 while dispense medication to the dispensing hole 44, then air and medication is mixed to create foam that exits the foam generation hole 62; Paragraph 0031-0035 and 0049-0052; Figure 1-2 and 4A).
Grant ‘997 and Fujiwara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam dispensers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grant ‘997 to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara and incorporate the foam dispenser of Fujiwara to have the liquid eye medication, foam eye medication composition, method of making the foam eye medication composition of Grant ‘997. This allows for the user to easily dispense the foam by pressing a trigger (Fujiwara; Paragraph 0008) and allows for a simpler design for manufacturing (Fujiwara; Paragraph 0010). Additionally, Fujiwara teaches the trigger dispenser is able to deliver medicine (Paragraph 0002). The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara further teaches a device for delivering foamed eye medication to an eye (see combination above).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (Publication No. US 2014/0369997 A1) in view of Fujiwara et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0014844 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grant (Publication No. US 2016/0082450 A1), hereby referred to as “Grant ‘450”.
Regarding claim 7, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 1. Grant ‘997 further teaches at least one of a mesh lattice (mesh at hole 62; Paragraph 0054-0056; Figure 2 and 6). The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara does not teach wherein the foaming chamber comprises at least one of a mesh lattice and a sponge material.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mesh lattice of Grant ‘997 to be located in the foaming chamber/dispensing tube 51 of Grant ‘997. The mesh lattice will perform the same function of producing foam eye medication whether located at the outer end of the interior chamber or the inner end of the interior chamber, where the foaming chamber is located. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.).
Furthermore, Grant ‘450 teaches wherein the foaming chamber comprises a sponge material (sponge material 2a om the dispensing section 1b; Figure 4-5; Paragraph 0024-0026).
Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara and Grant ‘450 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam dispensers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Grant ‘450 and incorporate the sponge material of Grant ‘450 with the mesh lattice in the foaming chamber of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara. This allows for the liquid eye medication and the air mix in the sponge material with a correct foam-producing ratio when pressure is applied (Grant ‘450; Paragraph 0014).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (Publication No. US 2014/0369997 A1) in view of Fujiwara et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0014844 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gardner (Patent No. US 3,985,271 A).
Regarding claim 8, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 1. The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara does not teach further comprising a one-way valve for allowing the interior space to refill with air.
However, Gardner teaches further comprising a one-way valve for allowing the interior space to refill with air (ball check 50 and valve chamber 44 is located in the interior space to allow for air to replenish and prevent fluid traveling through; Figure 3; Column 4, lines 3-15 and lines 27-36).
Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara and Gardner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam dispensers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Gardner have the ball valve of Gardner located in the interior chamber of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara. This prevents unwanted fluid to travel through the passage of the device and allows for the sealed mixture of air and fluid before dispensing while allowing for air to replenish the interior space when pressure is released (Gardner; Column 4, lines 27-36).
Regarding claim 9, Grant ‘997 teaches a device for delivering foamed eye medication to an eye (Paragraph 0013-0014; Abstract; Claim 1), and liquid eye medication (Abstract; Paragraph 0013-0014; Claim 1). Grant ‘997 does not teach a device, comprising: a housing defining an interior space for receiving liquid medication and pressurized gas; an nozzle having a passage in fluid communication with the interior space; a foaming chamber positioned within the interior space and in fluid communication with the nozzle; and a valve positioned between the foaming chamber and the nozzle, wherein the pressurized gas and the medication mixes within the foaming chamber in response to actuation of the valve and exits the nozzle as foamed medication.
However, Fujiwara teaches a device (Abstract), comprising: a housing defining an interior space for receiving liquid medication and pressurized gas (dispenser 1 has dispensing tube 51/interior space for receiving liquid and negative pressure pulls air through intake 52, thus pressurized air; Paragraph 0002 – trigger-type liquid dispenser can be used to dispense medicine; Figure 1 and 2; Paragraph 0049 and 0052); an nozzle having a passage in fluid communication with the interior space (foam generation hole 62 as a passage 62a in fluid communication with dispensing tube 51 with chamber of nozzle cover 61 as the interior space; Figure 2 and 4A; Paragraph 0049, 0051, and 0055-0056); a foaming chamber positioned within the interior space and in fluid communication with the nozzle (dispensing tube 51 of interior space is the foaming chamber; Figure 2 and 5; Paragraph 0051).
Grant ‘997 and Fujiwara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam dispensers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grant ‘997 to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara and incorporate the foam dispenser of Fujiwara to have the liquid eye medication, foam eye medication composition, method of making the foam eye medication composition of Grant ‘997. This allows for the user to easily dispense the foam by pressing a trigger (Fujiwara; Paragraph 0008) and allows for a simpler design for manufacturing (Fujiwara; Paragraph 0010). Additionally, Fujiwara teaches the trigger dispenser is able to deliver medicine (Paragraph 0002).
The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara further teaches a device for delivering foamed eye medication to an eye (see combination above). The combination of Grant ‘996 in view of Fujiwara does not teach a valve positioned between the foaming chamber and the nozzle, wherein the pressurized gas and the medication mixes within the foaming chamber in response to actuation of the valve and exits the nozzle as foamed medication.
However, Gardner teaches a valve positioned between the foaming chamber and the nozzle (ball check 50 and valve 44 is between foaming chamber/porous element 28 and dispensing 54; Column 3, lines 46-60), wherein the pressurized gas and the medication mixes within the foaming chamber in response to actuation of the valve and exits the nozzle as foamed medication (ball check 50 and valve chamber 44 is located in the interior space to allow for liquid and air to mix in the porous element 28; Figure 3; Column 3, lines 46-60 and Column 4, lines 3-15 and lines 27-36).
Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara and Gardner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam dispensers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Gardner have the ball valve of Gardner located between the foaming chamber and the nozzle of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara. This prevents unwanted fluid to travel through the passage of the device and allows for the sealed mixture of air and fluid before dispensing while allowing for air to replenish the interior space when pressure is released (Gardner; Column 4, lines 27-36).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (Publication No. US 2014/0369997 A1) in view of Fujiwara et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0014844 A1 and Gardner (Patent No. US 3,985,271 A), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Nicmanis (Publication No. US 2015/0360853 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara and Gardner teaches the device of claim 9. The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara and Gardner does not teach wherein the pressurized gas comprises carbon dioxide.
However, Nicmanis teaches wherein the pressurized gas comprises carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide (Paragraph 0207).
Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara and Gardner and Nicmanis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam dispensers. Therefore, it would have been
obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
have substituted one known element (air of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara and Gardner) for another (carbon dioxide of Nicmanis) since the substitution of the pressurized gas would have yielded predictable results, namely, a pressurized gas to mix with liquid eye medication to produce foam eye medication. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)B.).
Claim(s) 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (Publication No. US 2014/0369997 A1) in view of Fujiwara et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0014844 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lambert et al. (Publication No. US 2008/0181867 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 11, The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara does not teach wherein the surfactant comprises Cremophor EL.
However, alternative embodiments of Lambert teaches wherein the surfactant comprises Cremophor EL (Paragraph 0049).
Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara and Lambert are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam eye medication. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known element (foaming agent/surfactant of Grant ‘997; Paragraph 0007) for another (Cremophor EL of Lambert; Paragraph 0049) since the substitution of the surfactant would have yielded predictable results, namely, a foam eye medication composition. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)B).
Regarding claim 15, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 11, The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara does not teach wherein the surfactant comprises sorbitan monooleate.
However, alternative embodiments of Lambert teaches wherein the surfactant comprises sorbitan monooleate (Span 80) (Paragraph 0068).
Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara and Lambert are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam eye medication. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known element (foaming agent/surfactant of Grant ‘997; Paragraph 0007) for another (sorbitan monooleate of Lambert; Paragraph 0068) since the substitution of the surfactant would have yielded predictable results, namely, a foam eye medication composition. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)B).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (Publication No. US 2014/0369997 A1) in view of Fujiwara et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0014844 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Rossignol (Publication No. US 2017/0246648 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara teaches the device of claim 16. The combination of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara does not teach wherein the pump has a variable displacement chamber such that the ratio of the air to the medication in the mixture is adjustable.
However, Rossignol teaches wherein the pump has a variable displacement chamber such that the ratio of the air to the medication in the mixture is adjustable (pump 1 is a variable volume chamber 8; Abstract; Figure 2A-2E).
Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara and Rossignol are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid dispensers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Rossignol and incorporate the variable volume pump with the flexible membrane of Rossignol as the pump of Grant ‘997 in view of Fujiwara. This allows for the user to directly control the volume of medication is desired to be dispensed (Rossignol; Paragraph 0064, 0075, and 0077).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nelson (Patent No. US 5,373,991 A) discloses a foam dispenser with a mesh lattice;
Foster (Publication No. US 2003/0201342 A1) discloses a foam dispenser with a pump.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM 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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781