Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/236,155

NASAL PASSAGE INSERT AND PACKAGING ASSEMBLY THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 12, 2025
Examiner
IGEL JR, MARK ALAN
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
125 granted / 185 resolved
-2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
217
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 185 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Invention II drawn to claims 12-15, in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim Objections Claims 13-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 13-22 should include a comma after the dependent claim number. Claim 20 should read “a retrieval feature extending from an end thereof” on lines 1-2. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 12, 14-15, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0264241 A1 to Plance et al. In regard to claim 12: A method for intranasal delivery of a medicinal substance (Para. 68. Fig. 2, Fig. 4 element 106, Fig. 15 element 128) comprising: (a) obtaining a sealed container that includes an insert member in a container interior thereof (Fig. 18, para. 97), wherein the first insert member comprises an absorbent material and includes a medicinal substance contained therein (Para. 93, “active ingredient” considered to be medicinal substance. Figs. 20-29); (b) opening the package to expose the insert member (Fig. 17, Paras. 94, 176), wherein the insert member is at least partially saturated with the medicinal substance (Fig. 17, Para. 93-94); (c) inserting the insert member into a nostril of a user such that the insert member contacts an inner surface of the nasal cavity (Fig. 2, para. 178); (d) allowing the insert member to remain in the nostril for a predetermined period of time sufficient to permit at least a portion of the medicinal substance to be transferred to the inner surface of the nasal cavity (Paras. 159, 161, 166-167, 175-180); and (e) removing the insert member from the nostril after the predetermined period of time (para. 175-180). In regard to claim 14: The method of claim 12 wherein the first insert member includes a main body portion that defines a first axis and has a generally cylindrical shape (Fig. 15 elements 158, 156, 154, 160, 164, 148), wherein at least a first tunnel (Fig. 16 element 150) is defined through the main body portion between a top surface (Fig. 15 end opposite element 164) and a bottom surface of the main body portion (Fig. 15 end with element 164). In regard to claim 15: The method of claim 14 wherein the first tunnel extends axially through the main body portion (Fig. 16 element 150). In regard to claim 18: The method of claim 14 wherein the first tunnel includes an inner surface (Para. 92. Fig. 16 element 150), and wherein the medicinal substance is included on the inner surface of the first tunnel (Para. 92. Fig. 16 element 150). In regard to claim 20: The method of claim 12 further comprising a retrieval features extending from an end thereof (Fig. 15 elements 162 and 164), and wherein the step (e) includes grasping the retrieval feature prior to removing the insert member from the nostril after the predetermined period of time (Fig. 4 element 106. Elements 162 and 164 considered to be retrieval features as they extend outside the users nose to facilitate griping during the removal process. Paras. 106 and 180). In regard to claim 21: The method of claim 12 wherein the medicinal substance is a cold medication, flu medication, decongestant, antihistamine, corticosteroid, numbing agent, soothing agent, vasodilator or peptide (Figs. 20-29 and 56-158 demonstrate various medicinal substances reading upon these limitations. Fig. 20 demonstrates different soothing agents, cold/flu medication (cinnamon), antihistamine (rosemary), and vasodilator (chamomile), Fig. 57 soothing agent (cannabis). Examiner notes non-exhaustive list due to the volume of active agents taught by Plance and more may be listed para. 62). 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264241 A1 to Plance et al. in view of US 2019/0290865 A1 to Fahey et al. In regard to claim 13: The method of claim 12 taught by Plance as described in parent claim rejection. Plance teaches that there is a predetermined period of time (Para. 166-167). However, Plance does not explicitly disclose the predetermined period of time is more than thirty seconds. Fahey teaches, wherein the predetermined period of time is more than thirty seconds (Para. 56 “several minutes”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the predetermined period of time taught by Plance to be more than thirty seconds as taught by Fahey. This would have been motivated by Plance para. 166 teaching “gentler longer inhalation infusion time” not disclosing what a longer inhalation infusion time is would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to find a time longer than and compared to misting inhalers. Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264241 A1 to Plance et al. in view of US 2,737,953 to R. Wiltein In regard to claim 16: The method of claim 14 taught by Plance as described in parent claim rejection. Plance teaches in para. 84 delivering multiple active ingredients but does not explicitly disclose the second tunnel as claimed. Wiltein teaches, wherein a second tunnel is defined through the main body portion between the top surface and the bottom surface of the main body portion (Fig. 3 elements 13 (First tunnel) and 14 (Second tunnel)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filling, to modify the main body taught by Plance to include the second tunnel as taught by Wiltein. This would have been motivated by Plance’s teaching of delivery multiple active ingredients at the same time (Para. 84). Wiltein demonstrates one such arrangement of multiple tunnels and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as capable of delivering multiple active ingredients. In regard to claim 17: The method of claim 16 taught by Plance as described in parent claim rejection. Plance doesn’t teach the second tunnel is offset as claimed. Wiltein teaches, wherein the second tunnel is offset from the first axis (Fig. 3 elements 13 (First tunnel) and 14 (Second tunnel) offset from the first axis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filling, to modify main body taught by Plance to include the second tunnel offset from the first axis as taught by Wiltein. This would have been motivated by duplication of parts. It is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the tunnel to have a second tunnel as this is known configuration as taught by Wiltein. Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264241 A1 to Plance et al. in view of US 2004/0198822 A1 to Fraser et al. In regard to claim 19: The method of claim 12 taught by Plance as described in parent claim rejection. Plance doesn’t teach the hydrophilic matrix as claimed. Fraser teaches, wherein the insert member comprises a hydrophilic matrix configured to absorb and retain the medicinal substance (Para. 300 specifically the matrix formulated of hydrophilic polymer). Fraser is considered analogous art as working on the same problem extended drug release. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the insert member material to be a hydrophilic matrix. This would have been motivated by improving the absorption and retention of water based active agents and/or drugs. In regard to claim 22: The method of claim 12 taught by Plance as described in parent claim rejection. Plance teaches, wherein the insert member includes a main body portion that defines a first axis, has a generally cylindrical shape (Fig. 15 elements 158, 156, 154, 160, 164, 148) and wherein at least a first tunnel (Fig. 16 element 150) is defined through the main body portion between a top surface (Fig. 15 end opposite element 164) and a bottom surface of the main body portion (Fig. 15 end with element 164)., wherein the first tunnel includes an inner surface (Para. 92. Fig. 16 element 150), and wherein the medicinal substance is included on the inner surface of the first tunnel (Para. 92. Fig. 16 element 150). Plance doesn’t teach the hydrophilic matrix as claimed. Fraser teaches, comprises a hydrophilic matrix configured to absorb and retain the medicinal substance (Para. 300 specifically the matrix formulated of hydrophilic polymer). Fraser is considered analogous art as working on the same problem extended drug release. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the insert member material to be a hydrophilic matrix. This would have been motivated by improving the absorption and retention of water based active agents and/or drugs. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A Igel whose telephone number is (571)272-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 11 am to 5 pm 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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. /M.A.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /BHISMA MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 12, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589222
DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR ANCHORING ACTUATION WIRES TO A STEERABLE INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12544546
FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH HYDROPHOBIC SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12496442
MICRONEEDLE ELECTROPORATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12485234
MEDICAL DEVICE INSUFFLATION CONNECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12453838
Catheter Device System and Method of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+27.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 185 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month