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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/7/2026 has been entered.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 7, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 2-4, and 13 are canceled.
Claims 1, 5-12, and 14-15 are pending and are examined on the merits in this prosecution.
Claim Objections / Minor Informalities
The status identifier “Canceled” in claims 2-4 and 13 is improper in both instances since the identifier lacks a parenthesis. As set forth in MPEP 714(c), “In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112
Written Description / New Matter Rejection
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 5-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
This is a NEW MATTER rejection. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a number of limitations that are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
First, claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more viscosity modifiers of a nature that allows the solution to generate primarily the localized effect in the nasopharyngeal mucosa.” The instant disclosure fails to provide any suggestions, examples, or teachings of a viscosity modifier that allows the solution to achieve a localized effect in the nasopharyngeal mucosa. Furthermore, even the presence in the claimed method of a “viscosity modifier” is not conveyed in the instant disclosure.
Secondly, claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the spray is administered with a spray device that provides droplet sizes, distribution, velocity, plume geometry, spray pattern, and angle appropriate to provide primarily the localized effect in the nasopharyngeal mucosa.” The instant disclosure fails to provide any examples, teachings, or support for a device that provides droplet sizes, distribution, velocity, plume geometry, spray pattern, and angle appropriate to provide primarily a localized effect in the nasopharyngeal mucosa.
Third, claim 1 recites the term “wherein the spray device provides no more than an immaterial amount of particles of less than 10 mm in size.” The instant disclosure fails to provide support for this limitation and does not, in fact, disclose any particle size of the sprayed particles.
Indefiniteness Rejection
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.
Claims 1, 5-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 1 recites the term an “immaterial amount.” This limitation is not defined in the disclosure or by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Examiner’s Reply to Attorney Arguments dated 8/7/2026
1. Rejection of claims 1, 5-12, and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as over Tsunoda and Eto.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5-12, and 14-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7402. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8:30-5:30; F 9-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana Kaup, can be reached on (571)272-0580. 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.
/MICHAEL P COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights