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 .
This action is in response to the filing on 12/13/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been added, amended or cancelled. Thus, claim 1 is pending in the application.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/216789, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The provisional application 62/216789 does not disclose the instant features of the internal dose loading channel and the conical spring of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 is not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minotti (US 2009/0216183) in view of Netzel (US 2016/0220798) and Hoekman (US 2014/0014104).
In regards to claim 1, Minotti teaches a device for the intranasal delivery of a compound (paragraph 6 line 1-2) comprising: a y-junction including a base, a first branch of the y-junction radiating from the base, a second branch of the y-junction radiating from the base, a third branch of the y-junction radiating from the base (see Annotated Fig 1), and an internal dose loading channel of the y-junction (see Annotated Fig 1); a metered dose pump in fluid communication with the first branch of the y-junction (pumps may be metered pumps, paragraph 23 line 102 and 12-14); a spring associated with the second branch of the y-junction (springs, paragraph 23 line 6-7, Fig 2); a dose chamber in fluid communication with the third branch of the y-junction (passage 48, paragraph 22 line 21); a nozzle associated with the dose chamber (nozzle 20, Fig 1); an actuator grip surrounding the y-junction; and a housing, the y-junction residing within the housing (see Annotated Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1
Minotti does not disclose wherein the spring is a conical spring or a diffuser between the internal dose loading channel and the dose chamber.
However, Netzel teaches a nasal delivery device (paragraph 6) having a conical spring (spring 28 may be either coil or conical, paragraph 128 line 6 and 19-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Minotti to have a conical spring as taught by Netzel as this is a known type of small scale spring to be used in such devices to provide biasing for a pump and, as the instant application has not established criticality for the shape of the spring, one may be easily substituted for the other (MPEP 2144.06II).
Further, Hoekman teaches a diffuser (diffuser 28) in the delivery path (Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Minotti to have a diffuser between the internal dose loading channel and the dose chamber as taught by Hoekman as this would effectively disperse a delivered substance (Hoekman: paragraph 114).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785