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 .
Summary
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection after the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 26 May 2026. New grounds of rejection are presented herein, therefore the rejection is accordingly made non-final.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by AZAR et al. (US 20200363313).
Regarding claim 1: AZAR discloses: An auxiliary operating device (100 in FIG. 2) for a droplet dispenser (10), comprising a droplet sensor (110, 120), having a detected area (interrogation point 165) disposed between a droplet dispenser and a target area (5; FIG. 2), wherein the droplet sensor detects a droplet output from the droplet dispenser (para. 40) and outputs a corresponding droplet detection signal (signal shown in FIG. 12); an imaging device (camera in para. 68), capturing an image of the target area (para. 68); and a processor (140 in FIG. 9A), electrically connected with the droplet sensor and the imaging device (para. 55), obtaining a dripping time point at which the droplet passes through the detected area according to the droplet detection signal (para. 55, 67; FIG. 12), and determining whether the target area is shielded within a first time range according to the image (para. 68), whereby to evaluate whether the droplet has successfully dropped into the target area (“determine if the droplet entered the eye” in para. 68), wherein the first time range includes the dripping time point (FIG. 12 shows the detected time range extending before and after the dripping time point).
Regarding claim 2: AZAR discloses: a movement detector (accelerometer in para. 60; 167 in FIG. 10), electrically connected with the processor (FIG. 10), detecting a movement status of the auxiliary operating device (para. 60), and outputting a corresponding movement signal (para. 60), wherein the processor evaluates whether the droplet has dropped into the target area according to the movement signal within a second time range (para. 60-61; 68).
Regarding claim 3: AZAR discloses: the second time range begins earlier than the dripping time point (Para. 61 states that the accelerometer signal can be used to start the detection signal when the dropper is picked up, which will before the dripping time point.).
Regarding claim 4: AZAR discloses: the second time range includes the dripping time point (Para. 61 states that the accelerometer signal can be used to start the detection signal when the dropper is picked up, which will before the dripping time point.).
Regarding claim 5: AZAR discloses: the movement detector includes an accelerometer (para. 60-61), a gyroscope, a multiaxial sensor, a geomagnetic sensor, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 7: AZAR discloses: the droplet sensor includes a light source (120 in FIG. 2), providing a detecting light to illuminate the detected area (para. 40); and a light detector (110), detecting light intensity variation (para. 43), and generating the corresponding droplet detection signal (para. 43; FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 8: AZAR discloses: the target area is an eye (5 in FIG. 2); the processor determines whether the eye is shielded according to a pupil or iris of the eye in the image (“determine if the droplet entered the eye” in para. 68; Imaging the eye with a camera to determine if the droplet entered the eye will inherently include determining whether the pupil or iris is in the image.).
Regarding claim 10: AZAR discloses: a fixing element (housing 130 in FIG. 2), connected with the droplet dispenser (10; FIG. 2) to enable the auxiliary operating device to be fixed to the droplet dispenser at a relative position (para. 47).
Regarding claim 11: AZAR discloses: a storage element (memory in para. 55), electrically connected with the processor (140 in FIG. 9A; para. 55), and used to store the dripping time points of the droplets and a count of the droplets (number and time of dispensed drops in para. 65).
Regarding claim 12: AZAR discloses: a communication element (inherent in the data transmission discussed in para. 65), electrically connected with the processor, enabling the auxiliary operating device to establish a communication link with an external electronic device and transmit the dripping time points and a count of the droplets to the external electronic device (para. 65).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AZAR in view of HUNTER et al. (US 20140187969).
Regarding claim 9: AZAR discloses that an image from a camera is used to determine if the droplet entered the eye (para. 68). However, AZAR does not specify that the processor works out a relative position of the auxiliary operating device and the eye according to a position of the pupil or iris in the image to evaluate whether the droplet successfully drops into the target area.
HUNTER however does teach using the captured image to determine that the droplet ejector is correctly aligned with the eye or predefined area of the eye (para. 100).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the imaging device of AZAR to assure alignment as taught by HUNTER to ensure that the droplets reach their target.
Response to Amendment/Argument
The amendment to claim 3 to overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is acknowledged and said rejection is accordingly withdrawn.
The cancellation of claim 13 is acknowledged and the 112(d) rejection thereof is accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (pages 4-5 of the Response) that the combination of DECOCK (US 20210267797) and HUNTER does not teach all of the limitations of claim 1 because HUNTER does not teach “using a droplet passage event to define a time reference.” The Applicant has further argued that “Hunter lacks the claimed mechanism of correlating time information derived from a droplet detection event with image-based evaluation of the target area state. These arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. New grounds of rejection have been presented herein and because they were not necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment, this action is accordingly made non-final.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights