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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to U.S. Non-Provisional App. No. 17/346,112 filed June 11, 2021; to U.S. Non-Provisional App. No. 14/733,143 filed June 8, 2015 now Patent No. 11,116,914; to U.S. Provisional App. No. 62/447,986 filed February 19, 2015
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of S2 in the reply filed on November 19, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that because all claims 1-20 are generic a restriction is not required, Pg. 6-7. This is found persuasive because the generic claims fail to recite or encompass such a multiplicity of species that an unduly extensive and burdensome search would be necessary to search the entire scope of the claim. See MPEP 808.01(a).
The requirement has been WITHDRAWN.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “(ii) (ii) an inactive configuration,”, ln 12 should read --(ii) an inactive configuration,--;
Claim 2 recites “wherein the velocity of the particles of the substance”, ln 1-2 should read --comprising a velocity of particles of the substance--;
Claims 5, 10, 14,and 15 recites “the dTdeliver” should read -- the dT deliver--;
Claim 6 recites “and the diameter of particles”, ln 2 should read --and a diameter of the particles--;
Claim 7 recites “and the diameter of the particles”, ln 2 should read --and a diameter of the particles--;
Claim 12 recites “the nozzle comprises the orifice”, ln 1 should read -- the nozzle comprises an orifice--;
Claim 18 recites “that subtends an angle θ of less than 25°;”, ln 2 should read -- that subtends an angle θ of less than 25°.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 and 11, and claims 2-10 and 12-13 by dependency, are 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.
Claim 1 recites “the substance is delivered via the orifice into the body cavity”, ln 20 the limitation “orifice” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of this Office action “the substance is delivered via the orifice into the body cavity” has been interpreted as --the substance is delivered via an orifice of the nozzle into the body cavity--.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the substance is selected from the group consisting of a gas, a liquid, a powder, an aerosol, a slurry, a gel, a suspension, and any combination thereof.”, ln 1-3 it is unclear how the substance can be a liquid, as stated in claim 1, ln 1-2, and be a gas, a powder, an aerosol, a slurry, a gel, and a suspension.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahaf (WO 2013/128447 A1) in view of Addington et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0267864; hereinafter: “Addington”), Wilkerson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0299607; hereinafter: “Wilkerson”), and Winkler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0122257; hereinafter: “Winkler”).
Regarding claim 1, Shahaf discloses a device for delivering a predetermined volume Vml of a liquid substance within at least one body cavity of a subject (Fig. 3A-18; Abstract), the device comprising a capsule (21, 25; Fig. 6C, 6D) for containing the predetermined volume Vml of the substance (Pg. 73 ln. 24 to Pg. 74 ln. 9), wherein the predetermined volume Vml is in a range of 5-50 mL (Pg. 6 ln. 3-5); a nozzle (20; Fig. 6C, 6D) configured for placement in proximity to the body cavity (Pg. 73, ln 28 to Pg. 74, ln 9), the nozzle being in fluid communication with the capsule (Fig. 6C, 6D; Pg. 73, ln 28 to Pg. 74, ln 9); a valve (10; Fig. 3B, 4C, 5C, 5D) mechanically connectable to the capsule (Fig. 3B, 4C, 5C, 5D; Pg. 72, ln 9 to Pg. 73, ln 27), and having at least two configurations: (i) an active configuration in which the valve enables delivery of the predetermined volume Vml of the substance from the capsule to the body cavity (Fig. 4C; Pg. 72, ln 20 to Pg. 73, ln 10), and (ii) an inactive configuration, in which the valve prevents delivery of the predetermined volume Vml of the substance from the capsule to the body cavity (Fig. 5C, 5D; Pg. 73, ln 11-27), wherein the valve is reconfigurable from the inactive configuration to the active configuration in a predetermined period of time, dT, in response to activation of the valve (Pg. 72, ln 9 to Pg. 73, ln 27; Fig. 4C, 5C; Examiner notes: Shahaf discloses the valve is spring loaded and in response to inhalation by the user, will actuate/reconfigure within a predetermined period of time dT.), wherein the device is configured to deliver the predetermined volume Vml of the substance and any gas through an orifice (A Fig. A annotated below) in the nozzle into the body cavity (Pg. 71, ln 27 to Pg. 74, ln 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A, Adapted from Figure 6C of Shahaf.
Shahaf does not explicitly disclose the device wherein the predetermined volume Vml is in a range of 0.01-7 ml; wherein the predetermined period of time dT is less than or equal to 200 ms, and wherein, once the valve is reconfigured from the inactive configuration to the active configuration the substance is delivered via the orifice into the body cavity, and wherein the device is configured to deliver the predetermined volume Vml of the substance and any gas through the orifice into the body cavity, so that a release time of substantially the entirety of the predetermined volume Vml of the substance, dT deliver, is maintained less than 500 milliseconds independent of the predetermined volume Vml of the substance.
Addington teaches a drug delivery device which provides a volume of substance to be delivered being in the range of 0.01-7 ml (¶ 0101) for the purpose of provide a desired amount of substance to the user depending on the user’s needs (i.e. dosing amount; ¶ 0101).
Shahaf is silent as to the predetermined period of time dT for reconfiguration being less than or equal to 200 ms; however, Shahaf discloses the ability to vary parameters including spring strength of the valve for optimization (Pg. 32, ln. 11-13, Pg. 77 ln 3-7) and discloses having the open/reconfiguration time being low (Pg. 75 ln. 22-27) and furthermore, Winkler teaches a similar drug delivery device which includes a valve with an actuation/reconfiguration time being less than or equal to 200 ms (¶ 0027) for the purpose of resulting in an efficient emptying of the capsule (¶ 0027).
Wilkerson teaches a similar drug delivery device (¶¶ 0002, 0007) which teaches a delivery time of less than 500 ms (¶ 0268) for the purpose of providing an optimized/desired drug delivery time (¶ 0268).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Shahaf to include the predetermined volume Vml is in a range of 0.01-7 ml, as taught by Addington; to include the predetermined period of time dT is less than or equal to 200 ms, and wherein, once the valve is reconfigured from the inactive configuration to the active configuration the substance is delivered via the orifice into the body cavity, as taught by Winkler; and to include the device being configured to deliver the predetermined volume Vml of the substance and any gas through the orifice into the body cavity, so that a release time of substantially the entirety of the predetermined volume Vml of the substance, dT deliver, is maintained less than 500 milliseconds independent of the predetermined volume Vml of the substance as taught by Wilkerson for the purpose of provide a desired amount of substance to the user depending on the user’s needs (i.e. dosing amount; See Addington: ¶ 0101); resulting in an efficient emptying of the capsule (See Winkler: ¶ 0027); and providing an optimized/desired drug delivery time (See Wilkerson: ¶ 0268), respectively.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device, shown above.
The modified device of Shahaf does not specifically disclose the device wherein the velocity of the particles of the substance, after the exit from the device, is maintained in the range of about 5 to 50 millimeter per second.
Wilkerson teaches a similar drug delivery device (¶¶ 0002, 0007) which teaches a velocity of the particles of the substance, after the exit from the device, is maintained in the range of about 5 to 50 millimeter per second (¶¶ 0016, 0021) for the purpose of depositing a percentage of the mass of the droplets onto the target (¶ 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Shahaf to include the velocity of the particles of the substance, after the exit from the device, is maintained in the range of about 5 to 50 millimeter per second as taught by Wilkerson for the purpose of depositing a percentage of the mass of the droplets onto the target (See Wilkerson: ¶ 0016).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device, shown above.
The modified device of Shahaf does not specifically disclose the device wherein the viscosity η of the substance is in a range of 1 x10-3 poise to 1 poise.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the viscosity η of the substance is in a range of 1 x10-3 poise to 1 poise in the modified device of Shahaf because Applicant has not disclosed that setting the viscosity η of the substance is in a range of 1 x10-3 poise to 1 poise provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Specifically, Applicant’s specification states “the viscosity has no more than a negligible effect “ (Instant Spec: ¶ 0501). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the viscosity of the substance of the modified device of Shahaf, and Applicant’s viscosity η of the substance is in a range of 1 x10-3 poise to 1 poise, to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of delivering the predetermined volume Vml of the liquid substance to the body cavity of the subject.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the modified device of Shahaf to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired delivery of the predetermined volume Vml of the liquid substance to the body cavity of the subject and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of the modified device of Shahaf.
Regarding Claim 5, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device wherein the dT deliver is maintained at less than 500 milliseconds independent of how a user operates the device (See Wilkerson: ¶ 0268).
Regarding Claims 6-7, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device wherein the substance has particles and the diameter of particles, after exit from the device, is less than 1000 µm (See Shahaf: Pg. 91, ln 1-26; Fig. 24A-27).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device wherein the valve has an internal diameter (at A, Fig. A annotated above) and wherein the dT delivery time is maintained less than 500 ms (See Wilkerson: ¶ 0268).
The modified device of Shahaf does not explicitly disclose the device wherein the valve is characterized by an internal diameter, of above 0.22 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the internal diameter of the valve would result in a difference in function of the modified device of Shahaf. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the valve of the modified device of Shahaf would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed internal diameter. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed internal diameter solves any stated problem (Instant Specification ¶ 0606) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal diameter of the modified device of Shahaf to be above 0.22 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 11, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device wherein the substance is a liquid (See Shahaf: Pg. 7, ln 29-31).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahaf, Addington, Wilkerson, and Winkler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haartsen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0291779; hereinafter: “Haartsen”).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device, shown above.
The modified device of Shahaf does not specifically disclose the device wherein the substance has a predetermined mass Msub [mg] in the range of 1-1000 mg.
Haartsen teaches a drug delivery device which provides an amount of substance to be delivered being in the range of 1-1000 mg (see Haartsen para. 0003) for the purpose of providing a desired amount of substance to the user depending on the user’s needs (i.e. dosing amount).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Shahaf to include the substance having a predetermined mass Msub [mg] in the range of 1-1000 mg as taught by Haartsen for the purpose of providing a desired amount of substance to the user depending on the user’s needs (i.e. dosing amount).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahaf, Addington, Wilkerson, and Winkler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fink et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0108025; hereinafter: “Fink”).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device, shown above.
The modified device of Shahaf does not specifically disclose the device wherein, during delivery of the substance, the predetermined volume Vml of the substance forms a plume, and wherein the plume has a full width that subtends an angle θ of less than 25°.
Fink teaches a device (14; Fig. 6), during delivery of a substance, the substance forms a plume, and wherein the plume has a full width that subtends an angle θ of less than 25° (¶ 0124) for the purpose of minimizing impaction and/or sedimentation losses (¶ 0124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Shahaf to include the , during delivery of the substance, the predetermined volume Vml of the substance forms a plume, and wherein the plume has a full width that subtends an angle θ of less than 25° as taught by Fink for the purpose of minimizing impaction and/or sedimentation losses (See Fink: ¶ 0124).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device, shown above.
The modified device of Shahaf does not specifically disclose the device wherein the full width of the plume, as measured at 6 cm from the nozzle, is 21 mm or less.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the full width of the plume, as measured at 6 cm from the nozzle, is 21 mm or less in the modified device of Shahaf because Applicant has not disclosed that setting the full width of the plume, as measured at 6 cm from the nozzle, is 21 mm or less provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the plume angle of the modified device of Shahaf, and Applicant’s plume, to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of delivering the plume to the body cavity of the subject.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the modified device of Shahaf to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9 because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired delivery the plume to the body cavity of the subject and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art the modified device of Shahaf.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahaf, Addington, Wilkerson, and Winkler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Price et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0213514; hereinafter: “Price”).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device, shown above.
The modified device of Shahaf does not specifically disclose the device wherein the nozzle comprises an orifice with a diameter D [mm] in a range of 0.2-6 mm.
Price teaches a similar delivery device including an outlet orifice having a diameter D in the claimed range (¶ 0143, 0.5 to 2.5 mm) for the purpose of providing a diameter to best accommodate the physical/chemical characteristics of the particular medicament to be aerosolized (¶ 0143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Shahaf to include the nozzle comprises the orifice with the diameter D [mm] in a range of 0.2-6 mm as taught by Price for the purpose of providing a diameter to best accommodate the physical/chemical characteristics of the particular medicament to be aerosolized (See Price: ¶ 0143).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahaf, Addington, Wilkerson, and Winkler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 오영국 (KR 100787907 B1; hereinafter: "OH").
Regarding Claim 13, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device, shown above.
The modified device of Shahaf does not specifically disclose the device wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle tip portion and a tip extension that surrounds the nozzle tip portion and has a larger diameter than the nozzle tip portion, wherein the nozzle tip portion defines the orifice through which the substance exits longitudinally from the nozzle, and wherein the tip extension defines at least one hole through which the substance exits laterally from the nozzle.
OH teaches nozzle (40; Fig. 1-7) comprises a nozzle tip portion (A, Fig. B annotated below) and a tip extension (B, Fig. B annotated below) that surrounds the nozzle tip portion (Fig. 1-7; Pg. 3, ln 8-12) and has a larger diameter than the nozzle tip portion (Fig. 5, 6, 8-11, 13; Pg. 3, ln 8-44), wherein the nozzle tip portion defines an orifice (47; Fig. 1-3, 5, 7) through which the substance exits longitudinally from the nozzle (Pg. 3, ln 8-12), and wherein the tip extension defines at least one hole (48; Fig. 1-7) through which the substance exits laterally from the nozzle (Pg. 3, ln 8-44) for the purpose of spraying a liquid evenly and efficiently (Pg. 3, ln 43-44; Pg. 4, ln 6-9).
PNG
media_image2.png
391
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B Adapted from Figure 2 of OH.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Shahaf to include the nozzle comprising the nozzle tip portion and the tip extension that surrounds the nozzle tip portion and has the larger diameter than the nozzle tip portion, wherein the nozzle tip portion defines the orifice through which the substance exits longitudinally from the nozzle, and wherein the tip extension defines at least one hole through which the substance exits laterally from the nozzle as taught by OH for the purpose of spraying a liquid evenly and efficiently (Pg. 3, ln 43-44; Pg. 4, ln 6-9).
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahaf in view of Haartsen, Price, Winkler, and Wilkerson.
Regarding claim 14, Shahaf discloses device for delivering a predetermined mass Mmg of a substance within a body cavity of a subject (Fig. 3A-18; Abstract), the device comprising: a capsule (21, 25; Fig. 6C, 6D) for containing a predetermined mass Msub of the substance (pg. 73 ln. 24 to pg. 74 ln. 9); a nozzle (20; Fig. 6C, 6D) configured for placement in proximity to the body cavity (Pg. 73, ln 28 to Pg. 74, ln 9) and in fluid communication with the capsule (Fig. 6C, 6D; Pg. 73, ln 28 to Pg. 74, ln 9), the nozzle comprises an orifice (A Fig. A annotated above), wherein the orifice has a diameter D [mm] [B, Fig. A annotated above; Examiner note Shahaf showing delivery end 20 with at least one orifice which inherently has a diameter. Further, Shahaf discloses the outlet as a bore which also has a diameter and the operation of the device which shows the fluid communication of the delivery end with the capsule and placement in proximity to the body cavity (Pg. 73 ln. 24 to Pg. 74 ln. 9).]; a valve (10; Fig. 3B, 4C, 5C, 5D) mechanically connectable to the capsule (Fig. 3B, 4C, 5C, 5D; Pg. 72, ln 9 to Pg. 73, ln 27), and having at least two configurations: (i) an active configuration in which the valve enables delivery of the predetermined mass Msub of the substance from the capsule to the body cavity via the nozzle (Fig. 4C; Pg. 72, ln 20 to Pg. 73, ln 10); and, (ii) an inactive configuration, in which the valve prevents delivery of the predetermined mass Msub of the one substance from the capsule to the body cavity(Fig. 5C, 5D; Pg. 73, ln 11-27), wherein the valve is reconfigurable from the inactive configuration to the active configuration in a predetermined period of time, dT, in response to activation of the valve (Pg. 72, ln 9 to Pg. 73, ln 27; Fig. 4C, 5C; Examiner notes: Shahaf discloses the valve is spring loaded and in response to inhalation by the user, will actuate/reconfigure within a predetermined period of time dT.); and wherein the predetermined mass Msub of the substance, once the valve is reconfigured from the inactive configuration to the active configuration, is delivered via the nozzle into the body cavity (Pg. 73 ln. 24 to Pg. 74 ln. 9).
Shahaf does not specifically disclose device wherein the predetermined mass Msub is in a range of 1-1000 mg; wherein the diameter D [mm] of the orifice is in a range of 0.2-6 mm; wherein the predetermined period of time dT is less than or equal to 200 ms; and wherein the device delivers the predetermined mass Msub of the substance through the orifice into the body cavity, so that a release time of substantially the entirety of the substance, dT deliver, is less than 500 milliseconds, wherein the particles of the substance have a velocity, after exit from the device, that is in a range of about 5 to 50 millimeter per second.
Haartsen teaches a drug delivery device which provides an amount of substance to be delivered being in the range of 1-1000 mg (see Haartsen para. 0003) for the purpose of providing a desired amount of substance to the user depending on the user’s needs (i.e. dosing amount).
Price teaches a similar delivery device including an outlet orifice having a diameter D in the claimed range (¶ 0143, 0.5 to 2.5 mm) for the purpose of providing a diameter to best accommodate the physical/chemical characteristics of the particular medicament to be aerosolized (¶ 0143).
Shahaf is silent as to the predetermined period of time dT for reconfiguration being less than or equal to 200 ms; however, Shahaf discloses the ability to vary parameters including spring strength of the valve for optimization (Pg. 32, ln. 11-13, Pg. 77 ln 3-7) and discloses having the open/reconfiguration time being low (Pg. 75 ln. 22-27) and furthermore, Winkler teaches a similar drug delivery device which includes a valve with an actuation/reconfiguration time being less than or equal to 200 ms (¶ 0027) for the purpose of resulting in an efficient emptying of the capsule (¶ 0027).
Wilkerson teaches a similar drug delivery device (¶¶ 0002, 0007) which teaches a delivery time of less than 500 ms (¶ 0268) for the purpose of providing an optimized/desired drug delivery time (¶ 0268).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Shahaf to include the predetermined mass Msub is in the range of 1-1000 mg, as taught by Haartsen; include the diameter D [mm] of the orifice is in the range of 0.2-6 mm, as taught by Price; include the predetermined period of time dT is less than or equal to 200 ms; include the device delivers the predetermined mass Msub of the substance through the orifice into the body cavity, so that a release time of substantially the entirety of the substance, dT deliver, is less than 500 milliseconds, as taught by Winkler; and include the particles of the substance have a velocity, after exit from the device, that is in a range of about 5 to 50 millimeter per second as taught by Wilkerson for the purpose of providing a desired amount of substance to the user depending on the user’s needs (i.e. dosing amount); providing a diameter to best accommodate the physical/chemical characteristics of the particular medicament to be aerosolized (See Price: ¶ 0143); resulting in an efficient emptying of the capsule (See Winkler: ¶ 0027); and providing an optimized/desired drug delivery time (See Wilkerson: ¶ 0268), respectively.
Regarding Claim 15, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device wherein the dT deliver is maintained less than 500 milliseconds independent of how a user operates the device (See Wilkerson: ¶ 0268).
Regarding Claims 16-17, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device wherein the substance has particles and the diameter of particles, after exit from the device, is less than 1000 µm (See Shahaf: Pg. 91, ln 1-26; Fig. 24A-27).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device wherein the capsule comprises a port (A, Fig. C annotated below) fluidly connectable to the exterior of the device.
PNG
media_image3.png
512
303
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C, Adapted from figure 6D of Shahaf.
Regarding Claim 20, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device wherein the substance is selected from the group consisting of a gas, a liquid, a powder, an aerosol, a slurry, a gel, a suspension, and any combination thereof (See Shahaf: Pg. 7, ln 29-31)
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahaf, Haartsen, Price, Wilkerson, and Winkler as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Fink.
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Shahaf discloses the device, shown above.
The modified device of Shahaf does not specifically disclose the device wherein the substance in a plume that subtends an angle θ of less than 25°.
Fink teaches a device (14; Fig. 6), during delivery of a substance, the substance forms a plume, and wherein the plume has a full width that subtends an angle θ of less than 25° (¶ 0124) for the purpose of minimizing impaction and/or sedimentation losses (¶ 0124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Shahaf to include the substance in a plume that subtends an angle θ of less than 25°as taught by Fink for the purpose of minimizing impaction and/or sedimentation losses (See Fink: ¶ 0124).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Worsoff (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0056709) discloses a nozzle with longitudinal (34; Fig. 1, 2) and radial dispensing (66; Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIOT S RUDDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7634. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F usually 9-7 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, Kendra Carter can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELLIOT S RUDDIE/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785