Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses whether the claims of US patent 10814058 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date: 2016-12-23), in light of the prior art. The key distinguishing feature of US10814058, as highlighted in its own background, is the physical separation of the suction inlet and spray outlet to prevent functional interference and eliminate the need for replacing functional assemblies. [cite: US10814058B2]

Independent Claim 1

Claim 1 describes a nasal aspiration and wash device comprising: a shell member; a pump with inhalation and exhaust ports; a suction part with a suction inlet communicated with the inhalation port and an exhaust outlet communicated with the exhaust port; and a spray part with a liquid storage cavity, an electrical atomizer, and a spray outlet. Crucially, "the suction inlet of the suction part and the spray outlet of the spray part are spaced apart from each other a distance, and the exhaust outlet is provided under the suction inlet on the outer surface of the shell member." [cite: US10814058B2]

Combination 1: EP2005981A2 in view of the problem identified in US10814058's background

1. Primary Reference: EP2005981A2 (Avita Corporation) [cite: US10814058B2]

   • This patent, titled "Combined nasal spray and aspirator device," is highly relevant as it teaches the core concept of a single device performing both nasal aspiration and wash functions. [cite: US10814058B2] As it shares the same assignee (Avita Corporation) as US10814058, it represents closely related technology from the same developer. EP2005981A2 would teach a shell member, a pump, a suction part (aspirator), and a spray part (nasal spray) with a liquid storage cavity, thereby encompassing many elements of Claim 1.

2. Motivation to Modify: The background of US10814058 explicitly identifies a problem with prior art combined nasal devices, stating that a "spray port and a nasal aspiration port integrated in a single port structure... causes a problem that the liquid sprayed from the spray port may be sucked by the nasal aspiration port and the nasal aspiration function and nasal wash function interfere with each other." [cite: US10814058B2] This problem, although specifically referencing "Taiwan Patent No. 1345462," describes the very issue that US10814058 aims to solve and is a known deficiency in combined devices. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) designing or improving a combined nasal device, such as that taught by EP2005981A2, would be motivated to address this known problem of functional interference between the spray and aspiration actions.

3. Reasonable Expectation of Success/Obvious Solution: The solution of physically separating the suction inlet and spray outlet is a predictable and logical design choice to prevent interference between two closely operating functions within a single device. This is a common engineering principle applied to a known problem to achieve a desired and predictable result (non-interference). Modifying the device of EP2005981A2 to space apart the suction inlet and spray outlet would be a straightforward design decision.

4. Addressing Remaining Features:

   • "Electrical atomizer": The use of an electrical atomizer is a well-known technique for generating fine liquid sprays in medical devices, as evidenced by prior art such as JPS5836563A (ultrasonic inhalator), CN202289114U (portable atomizer), and US20160206835A1 (nebulizing device). [cite: US10814058B2] A PHOSITA would find it obvious to incorporate a suitable electrical atomizer into the spray part of a nasal wash device.
   • "Exhaust outlet is provided under the suction inlet on the outer surface of the shell member": The specific ergonomic placement of the exhaust outlet, such as "under the suction inlet," would be a routine design choice based on factors like internal component layout, airflow considerations, and user comfort, once the primary decision to separate the main functional ports has been made.

Conclusion for Claim 1:
Given the existence of combined nasal aspiration and spray devices in the prior art (e.g., EP2005981A2) and the explicitly recognized problem of functional interference due to integrated or closely positioned ports, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to space the suction inlet and spray outlet apart. This modification, combined with the obvious inclusion of an electrical atomizer and routine ergonomic placement of the exhaust outlet, renders Claim 1 obvious.

Dependent Claims 2-11

The dependent claims further elaborate on structural and functional details:

• Claims 2-5 (Suction Part Details): These claims specify components like a suction part shell, collection cavity, first and second inhalation tubes, a washer, and an O-shaped ring. US6328718B1 ("Snivel sucker") teaches devices for aspirating nasal mucus, which would inherently include such functional parts for fluid collection and transport. [cite: US10814058B2] The use of washers and O-rings for improving seal strength is a fundamental and routine engineering practice in any device handling fluids or gases under suction, making their inclusion obvious to a PHOSITA. The U-shaped path described for gas flow in the collection cavity is a natural outcome of arranging inlet and outlet tubes side by side within the cavity.
• Claim 6 (Liquid type): This claim states that the liquid in the storage cavity can be "medicinal liquid or water." [cite: US10814058B2] This describes the intended content or use, rather than a novel structural limitation, and would be obvious for any nasal wash device.
• Claim 7 (Spray part O-ring): The inclusion of an O-shaped ring between the electrical atomizer and the liquid storage cavity for seal strength is a standard and obvious engineering practice to prevent leaks in liquid-containing assemblies.
• Claim 8 (Opposite outer surfaces): This specifies that the suction inlet and spray outlet are "formed in an opposite outer surface of the shell member." [cite: US10814058B2] If the motivation to space the ports apart (as established for Claim 1) is present, placing them on opposite surfaces is a straightforward and highly effective design choice to maximize separation and prevent interference, thus being an obvious variation to a PHOSITA.
• Claim 9 (Battery): Including a battery to power the pump is a standard and obvious design choice for any portable electrical device.
• Claims 10-11 (Buttons): Providing a start button and an atomization button for activating the respective functions, electrically coupled to a printed circuit board, is a standard and obvious user interface design for electronic devices with multiple distinct functions. The specific placement of these buttons (e.g., "under the spray outlet") would be a matter of routine ergonomic design.

Overall Obviousness Summary

The core innovation of US10814058 lies in ensuring the nasal aspiration and wash functions do not interfere with each other by physically spacing apart their respective outlets. However, the background section of US10814058 itself identifies the problem of such interference in prior art combined devices. Given the existence of combined devices (e.g., EP2005981A2 from the same assignee) and the articulated problem, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement the obvious solution of separating the functional outlets. The remaining features in both independent and dependent claims are either common components in medical devices, routine engineering solutions for sealing and power, or predictable design choices to optimize the device's functionality and ergonomics once the primary separation of ports is decided. Therefore, the claims of US10814058 are likely rendered obvious by a combination of EP2005981A2 with general knowledge in the art, and other cited references teaching specific components like atomizers or aspiration features.