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 1-13 are pending. Claims 1-13 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3: The phrase “wherein the second time range is earlier than the dripping time point” is indefinite. If it means that the entire time range begins and ends before the dripping time point, then that is impossible since claim 2 states that the droplet is supposed to hit its target within this time. It appears that claim 3 should recite “wherein the second time range begins earlier than the dripping time.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 states that the communication link can be wired or wireless. This is tautological. Because this statement covers every possible communication link, it does not further limit the subject matter of claim 12 and is improper dependent form.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DECOCK (US 2021/0267797) in view of HUNTER et al. (US 2014/0187969).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 6: DECOCK discloses: An auxiliary operating device for a droplet dispenser (FIG. 2), comprising a droplet sensor (para. 14; 40 in FIG. 2; para. 46), having a detected area disposed between a droplet dispenser (para. 46) and a target area (dispensing orifice 14 and the surface of the eye as discussed in para. 40), wherein the droplet sensor detects a droplet output from the droplet dispenser and outputs a corresponding droplet detection signal (para. 46); an imaging device (para. 14; 38 in FIG. 1; para. 44), capturing an image of the target area (surface of eye in para. 14); and a processor (36), and determining whether the target area is shielded (if the eye is open in para. 14).
Although DECOCK discloses a droplet sensor and determining if the eye is open, DECOCK does not specify a timer during the dispensing operation.
HUNTER however does disclose a timer (para. 149) to capture images after a dispensing operation (para. 149), which can be determined by a droplet detector (as discussed in para. 104). HUNTER also teaches that the selectable times can be before ejection of the fluid or after, thus meeting the limitations of claims 3, 4 and 6.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a timer after dispensing of a droplet as taught by HUNTER on the device of DECOCK “for self-diagnostic purposes to ensure proper operation” (para 104 of HUNTER).
Regarding claim 2: DECOCK discloses: a movement detector (42 in FIG. 2; para. 47), electrically connected with the processor, detecting a movement status of the auxiliary operating device (inclination in para. 47), and outputting a corresponding movement signal, wherein the processor evaluates whether the droplet has dropped into the target area according to the movement signal within a second time range (Para. 49 discusses using the output of the inclination sensor to estimate the amount of liquid dispensed.).
Regarding claim 5: DECOCK discloses: the movement detector includes an accelerometer (para. 47), a gyroscope (para. 47), a multiaxial sensor, a geomagnetic sensor, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 7: DECOCK discloses: the droplet sensor (40 in FIG. 2) includes a light source (transmitter in para. 46), providing a detecting light to illuminate the detected area; and a light detector (receiver in para. 46), detecting light intensity variation, and generating the corresponding droplet detection signal (para. 46).
Regarding claim 8: DECOCK discloses: the target area is an eye (para. 14); the processor determines whether the eye is shielded according to a pupil or iris of the eye in the image (para. 14).
Regarding claim 9: DECOCK 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 DECOCK to assure alignment as taught by HUNTER to ensure that the droplets reach their target.
Regarding claim 10: DECOCK discloses: a fixing element (bearing surface 24 and surrounding structure in FIGS. 1 and 2), connected with the droplet dispenser to enable the auxiliary operating device to be fixed to the droplet dispenser at a relative position (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11: DECOCK discloses: a storage element (part of the processing system 36 used to store information such as the predetermined color characteristics discussed in para. 44).
DECOCK does not specify storing the dripping time points of the droplets and a count of the droplets.
HUNTER however does teach storing dripping time points (para. 128-129; 186-188) and a count of droplets (para. 181-182).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to track the data as taught by HUNTER to provide a record of day-to-day compliance with a dosing prescription (para. 6 of HUNTER).
Regarding claims 12 and 13: DECOCK does not disclose a communications element.
HUNTER however does teach a communication element, 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. 193).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the networking capability of HUNTER with the device of DECOCK so that “remote access, subject monitoring, e-health, data storage, data mining, or internet functionality” can be utilized (para. 193 of HUNTER). HUNTER also teaches wireless communication (“remote access” in para. 193), thus meeting the limitations of claim 13. Furthermore, since all communication elements are wired or wireless, this is inherently true (see 112(d) rejection above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. AJAELO (US 20180193190) teaches an auxiliary device for a device for applying droplets to the eye that takes images and has an accelerometer. VOSS et al. (US 2013/0085460) teaches using a camera to ensure proper dispensing of droplets to the eye. CASANOVA et al. (WO 2009/148345) teaches a device for applying droplets to the eye with a camera, light, accelerometer, timers, and data processing.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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 2896