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
The Amendment filed 25 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 8 September 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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 1-4 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffee et al. (US 6,595,208) in view of Pongratz et al. (US 2013/0006170).
Regarding claim 1, Coffee discloses a method for applying a medical treatment solution to a treatment site of a patient (col. 1, ln. 3-6) comprising:
attaching a syringe assembly (47/47b/49/70) with a barrel portion (3d) of a housing (3) of a medical device (1b, see fig. 6a) so that the syringe assembly is in communication with a pathway (33) of the medical device that leads to at least one nozzle (33a) of a distal end of the barrel portion of the medical device (fig. 6a), the syringe assembly comprising a barrel (47) comprising the medical treatment solution (col. 9, ln. 46-47) and a plunger (47b) movably positioned axially inside the barrel (col. 10, ln. 51-53; fig. 6a);
prior to expelling, charging, by an electrostatic module (21) and an electrode assembly (41/50) each inside the housing (fig. 6a), the medical treatment solution within at least one of the barrel and the pathway upstream of the at least one nozzle (fig. 4, 6a – voltage is applied to tip 41a, which will charge the solution, which is still within the pathway upstream of the nozzle and has not yet been expelled) by emitting ions or charge in a direction parallel to an emission pathway from the at least one nozzle (col. 7, ln. 6-23; figs. 3a, 3b – both the charge and emission pathway are in the vertical direction);
and, expelling, by the syringe assembly and only through the at least one nozzle, the medical treatment solution charged by the electrostatic module and the electrode assembly from the syringe assembly along the emission pathway to the treatment site (col. 10, ln. 56-62).
Coffee does not disclose that the syringe assembly is removably attached to the barrel portion.
Pongratz teaches a fluid dispensing device (10) comprising a syringe assembly (12) removably attached (par. 34) with a barrel portion (26) of a housing (44) so that the syringe assembly is in communication with a pathway that leads to a nozzle (36) at the distal end of the barrel portion of the dispenser (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Coffee to removably attach the syringe assembly to the barrel portion of the housing, as taught by Pongratz, since this would facilitate reloading the medical device with more medical treatment solution (Pongratz, par. 34).
Regarding claim 2, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and further comprising: manually actuating, by an actuation member (“SW1”) of the medical device, the plunger such that the plunger moves axially within the barrel to force the medical treatment solution out of a distal end of the barrel such that the medical treatment solution communicates with and is expelled by the at least one nozzle (col. 10, ln. 63-67; fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 3, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and further comprising: electronically actuating, by an actuation member (“SW1”) of the medical device, the plunger such that the plunger moves axially within the barrel to force the medical treatment solution out of a distal end of the barrel such that the medical treatment solution communicates with and is expelled by the at least one nozzle (col. 10, ln. 63-67 – “electrically connected”; fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 4, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and Pongratz further teaches wherein the barrel portion is angled relative to a handle portion (54) in a pistol shape (par. 21; fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Coffee in view of Pongratz to have a handle portion arranged at an angle to the barrel portion, as also taught by Pongratz, since this was known to be an ergonomic configuration.
Regarding claim 12, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and Pongratz further teaches wherein prior to the step of expelling, the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises topical pain medication (par. 3). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Coffee in view of Pongratz such that the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises topical pain medication, as also taught by Pongratz, since this was a known medical treatment solution for expelling from a medical device.
Regarding claim 13, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and Pongratz further teaches wherein prior to the step of expelling, the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises antibiotics (par. 3). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Coffee in view of Pongratz such that the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises antibiotics, as also taught by Pongratz, since this was a known medical treatment solution for expelling from a medical device.
Neither Coffee nor Pongratz explicitly discloses wherein the charged medical treatment solution is expelled to the treatment site comprising one or more infected pressure sores to facilitate rapid absorption of medication through pores of skin of the treatment site. Nevertheless, Pongratz does disclose the treatment site comprising a surgical site; therefore, it would have been obvious to apply the treatment solution to infected pressure sores since antibiotics would help fight the infection and pain relievers would help with the pain.
Regarding claim 14, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the syringe assembly is removably attached directly to a portion of the barrel portion of the housing (see fig. 6a of Coffee, fig. 1 of Pongratz).
Regarding claim 15, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and further wherein when attached, the syringe assembly is proximal of the at least one nozzle (fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 16, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and Pongratz further teaches wherein the treatment site is for wound care of the patient (par. 3). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Coffee in view of Pongratz such that the treatment site is for would care, as also taught by Pongratz, since this was known to be a type of specific treatment site for such a medical device.
Regarding claim 17, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the treatment site is for respiratory care of the patient (col. 4, ln. 40-45).
Regarding claim 18, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the medical device is cordless (fig. 6a) and is pocket-size and handheld (col. 4, ln. 38-40), but not explicitly that the medical device weighs 2 pounds or less. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the medical device weigh approximately 2 pounds or less since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to make the medical device weigh approximately 2 pounds or less so that it is configured to be easily carried and held.
Coffee does not disclose that the syringe assembly is removably attached to the barrel portion.
Pongratz teaches a fluid dispensing device (10) comprising a syringe assembly (12) removably attached (par. 34) with a barrel portion (26) of a housing (44) so that the syringe assembly is in communication with a pathway that leads to a nozzle (36) at the distal end of the barrel portion of the dispenser (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Coffee to removably attach the syringe assembly to the barrel portion of the housing, as taught by Pongratz, since this would facilitate reloading the medical device with more medical treatment solution (Pongratz, par. 34).
Regarding claim 19, Coffee discloses a method for delivering a medical treatment solution to a wound site of a patient with a cordless medical device (col. 1, ln. 3-6; fig. 6a) comprising:
attaching a syringe assembly (47/47b/49/70) directly to a portion of a barrel portion (3d) of a housing (3) of a medical device (1b, see fig. 6a) so that the syringe assembly is in communication with a pathway (33) of the medical device that distally leads to at least one nozzle (33a) of the barrel portion (fig. 6a), such that, when attached, the syringe assembly is proximal of the at least one nozzle (fig. 6a), the syringe assembly comprising a barrel (47) comprising the medical treatment solution (col. 9, ln. 46-47) and a plunger (47b) movably positioned axially inside the barrel (col. 10, ln. 51-53; fig. 6a);
spraying, by the syringe assembly forcing the medical treatment solution from the barrel through the at least one nozzle, onto the wound site (col. 10, ln. 56-62); and
electrically charging, by an electrostatic module (21) and an electrode assembly (41/50) each inside the housing (fig. 6a), the medical treatment solution of the syringe assembly by emitting ions and charge in a direction parallel to an emission pathway from the at least one nozzle (col. 7, ln. 6-23; figs. 3a, 3b – both the charge and emission pathway are in the vertical direction).
Coffee does not disclose that the syringe assembly is removably attached to the barrel portion.
Pongratz teaches a fluid dispensing device (10) comprising a syringe assembly (12) removably attached (par. 34) with a barrel portion (26) of a housing (44) so that the syringe assembly is in communication with a pathway that leads to a nozzle (36) at the distal end of the barrel portion of the dispenser (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Coffee to removably attach the syringe assembly to the barrel portion of the housing, as taught by Pongratz, since this would facilitate reloading the medical device with more medical treatment solution (Pongratz, par. 34).
Regarding claim 20, Coffee discloses the method described regarding claim 19, and further wherein the medical device is cordless (fig. 6a) and is pocket-size and handheld (col. 4, ln. 38-40). Coffee does not disclose wherein the barrel portion is angled relative to a handle portion in a pistol shape, wherein the syringe assembly is removably attached directly to a portion of the barrel portion of the housing, wherein the medical device weighs approximately 2 pounds or less, and prior to the step of spraying, the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises at least one of antiseptics, topical pain medication, enzymes, biological matter, and antibiotics.
Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claims wherein the barrel portion is angled relative to a handle portion in a pistol shape, as described regarding claim 4, wherein the syringe assembly is removably attached directly to a portion of the barrel portion of the housing, as described regarding claims 1 and 14, wherein the medical device weighs approximately 2 pounds or less, as described regarding claim 18, and prior to the step of spraying, the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises at least one of antiseptics, topical pain medication, enzymes, biological matter, and antibiotics, as described regarding claims 7 and 13.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffee, in view of Pongratz, and further in view of Pacetti (US 2008/0124451).
Regarding claim 5, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein a reservoir is attached to the housing and having a cavity adapted to contain a liquid fluid.
Pacetti teaches a sprayer device for coating a stent (par. 2) comprising a reservoir (125b) attached to a housing (140, see fig. 1) and having a cavity adapted to contain a liquid fluid (par 20).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrostatic sprayer device of Coffee in view of Pongratz to further include a reservoir attached to the housing and having a cavity adapted to contain a liquid fluid, as taught by Pacetti, since this was known to provide a source of solvent to clean the nozzle (Pacetti, par. 20).
Regarding claim 6, Coffee in view of Pongratz and Pacetti discloses the method described regarding claim 5, and Pacetti further teaches propelling, by a pump (120b), fluid from the reservoir to the at least one nozzle (fig. 1).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffee, in view of Pongratz, and further in view of Bhogal et al. (US 2019/0321837).
Regarding claim 8, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, but not explicitly wherein prior to the step of expelling, the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises between about 1 mL to about 200 mL of stem cells.
Bhogal teaches a medical sprayer device (10) comprising a syringe assembly (16) that contains medical treatment solution (18) comprising between about 1 mL to about 200 mL (par. 38) of stem cells (par. 105) for wound care (par. 30), which were known to be suitable for use in resurfacing and regeneration of damaged tissue (par. 30).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Coffee in view of Pongratz such that prior to the step of expelling, the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises between about 1 mL to about 200 mL of stem cells, as taught by Bhogal, since this would allow the device to be used for resurfacing and regenerating damaged tissue.
Regarding claim 9, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, but not explicitly wherein the barrel portion comprises a fluid volume of between about 10mL and 50 mL.
Bhogal teaches the medical device described regarding claim 8, and further wherein the barrel portion comprises a fluid volume of between about 10mL and 50 mL (par. 38).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Coffee in view of Pongratz such that the barrel portion comprises a fluid volume of between about 10mL and 50 mL, as taught by Bhogal, since this would allow the device to be used for resurfacing and regenerating damaged tissue.
Regarding claim 10, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, but not explicitly wherein the medical treatment solution comprises chemical enzymes, and wherein the charged medical treatment solution is expelled to the treatment site comprising dead tissue.
Bhogal teaches the medical device described regarding claim 8, and further wherein the medical treatment solution comprises chemical enzymes (par. 107, 108), and wherein the charged medical treatment solution is expelled to the treatment site comprising dead tissue (par. 30).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Coffee in view of Pongratz such that the medical treatment solution comprises chemical enzymes, and wherein the charged medical treatment solution is expelled to the treatment site comprising dead tissue, as taught by Bhogal, since this would allow the device to be used for resurfacing and regenerating damaged tissue.
Regarding claim 11, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, but not explicitly wherein prior to the step of expelling, the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises biological matter.
Bhogal teaches the medical device described regarding claim 8, and further wherein prior to the step of expelling, the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises biological matter (par. 30, 31).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Coffee in view of Pongratz such that the medical treatment solution comprises biological matter, as taught by Bhogal, since this would allow the device to be used for resurfacing and regenerating damaged tissue.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffee in view of Pongratz and further in view of Wright (WO 2016/037074).
Regarding claim 7, Coffee in view of Pongratz discloses the method described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein prior to the step of expelling, the medical treatment solution of the barrel of the syringe assembly comprises antiseptics.
Wright teaches an electrostatic sprayer device with a spray nozzle (Abstract) comprising a liquid fluid of a syringe assembly of the device comprises antiseptics (par. 33)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the device of Coffee in view of Pongratz such that liquid fluid of the syringe assembly of the device comprises antiseptics, as taught by Wright, since this would allow the device to disinfect a surface (Wright, par. 33), which is of critical importance in a medical setting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the droplets are formed “while the solution remains inside the syringe barrel or internal pathway”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that Coffee does not disclose charging the liquid solution within the barrel or internal fluid pathway. In response, Applicant is referred to the rejection of claim 1 above, which explains how Coffee discloses this limitation. Coffee discloses an electrode (41a) that is arranged within the fluid pathway just upstream from the nozzle outlet (see figs. 4, 6a, and 7) and to which an electrical voltage is applied (col. 6, ln. 9-12; col. 10, ln. 43-46), which will charge the liquid solution within the internal fluid pathway prior to expulsion.
Finally, in response to applicant's arguments against Pongratz, Pacetti, and Bhogal individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Coffee is interpreted to disclose the newly added limitation that the solution is charged within the pathway upstream of the at least nozzle and prior to expulsion; therefore, none of these references are being relied upon to disclose this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights