Patent: 10,039,910

Summary for Patent: 10,039,910

Title:	Plumber-like mass transport device for dermal and transdermal delivery of a liquid or solid composition
Abstract:	A plunger-like mass transporting device and method for controllable transportation of a selected dosage of a solid or liquid composition having a body with a rigid enclosure, and a head, where the head is configured to attach to the body, the head having a stem and a housing. Further, the stem having a first end, the first end having an attachment means to attach to the rigid enclosure containing the body; and a second end, the second end having an attachment means to attach to the housing, and an applicator; wherein a flexible means is disposed on the stem, for providing an up position and a down position during an axial movement of the stem back and forth through the housing, wherein the housing contains the solid or liquid composition.
Inventor(s):	Xu; Bai (Cupertino, CA)
Assignee:	NANOMED SKINCARE, INC. (Cupertino, CA)
Application Number:	14/668,648
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

United States Patent 10,039,910: Claim Validity Signals and US Landscape Risk Map

United States Patent 10,039,910 centers on a manually or mechanically actuated, sealed “mass transporting device” that drives a measured cosmetic or pharmaceutical formulation through an applicator by generating a vacuum in an upstroke phase, with optional skin-penetration aids (nanopores and occlusive layering). The claims are drafted broadly around the mechanical architecture (rigid enclosure, head with stem and housing, flexible means for up/down axial motion, vacuum-mediated pulling through a flexible seal) and then narrowed via a small set of add-ons (nanochips as applicator features, specific materials, dosage range, and example actives).

The competitive risk is concentrated in two areas: (1) the vacuum-pull and seal arrangement that is functionally close to known “metered dose, pump-less or vacuum-assisted” topical/transdermal dispensers; and (2) the “nanochips with solid structures” applied to an applicator to facilitate mass transportation, which overlaps with prior art on micro/nanostructured skin contact elements for enhanced delivery and with generic nanopore/occlusion-enhanced transdermal methods.

---

What does US 10,039,910 actually claim, in technical terms?

Claim 1: Core mechanical delivery architecture (device)

Claim 1 requires, in combination:

1. Rigid enclosure body + removable head

   • “a body having a rigid enclosure, and a head, configured to attach to the body,” with the head having:
   • a stem with first end and second end, and
   • a housing.

2. Axial motion with a flexible means

   • “flexible means disposed on the stem, for providing an up position and a down position during axial movement of the stem back and forth through the housing.”
   • Dependent claim 2 narrows “flexible means” to a spring.

3. Vacuum-driven actuation in the up position

   • “housing contains the solid or liquid composition.”
   • “housing provides a seal in conjunction with a flexible seal at the second end of the stem.”
   • “thereby creating a vacuum when the stem is in the up position such that the vacuum forces the composition in the housing to be pulled through the flexible seal.”
   • The “composition and the housing thereby configured to contact a patient’s skin.”

4. Nanochips on the applicator

   • “nanochips with solid structures are attached to an applicator at the second end of the stem to facilitate the mass transportation.”

5. Broad payload scope

   • Composition can be “solid or liquid” and later examples include EGF, collagen, insulin, lidocaine, botox (claim 10).

Claim 1 is effectively a vacuum-assisted, axial-stroke dispenser with a micro/nanostructured “nanochip” interface intended to enhance transport through/into skin.

Dependent claims: what they narrow

• Claim 2: flexible means is a spring.
• Claim 3: housing extends beyond the second end of the stem.
• Claim 4: stem protrudes beyond the housing when the spring is compressed.
• Claim 5: flexible seal is a sealed ring.
• Claim 6: head is removable.
• Claim 7: head holds 0.01–30 mL cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition.
• Claim 8: nanochips are made of silicon.
• Claim 9: device provides up-down axial movement (already implied by claim 1 but reinforces actuation).
• Claim 10: composition selected from EGF, collagen, insulin, lidocaine, botox.
• Claim 11: attachment means for head-to-body.
• Claims 12–15: method uses the device for site selection, placement, activation, and delivery; then adds nanopores (claim 13), occlusive layer (claim 14), and pumping to occlusive layer for infusion (claim 15).

---

Which claim elements are likely vulnerable to prior art?

1) Vacuum generation through a sealed upstroke pulling composition through a flexible seal

Claim 1’s vacuum-driven mechanism is the most “mechanical” and therefore the most prior-art-sensitive.

A key vulnerability is that vacuum-assisted or piston-stroke topical dispensers, metered delivery cartridges, and resealable membrane/valve interfaces were widely used across drug delivery and device sectors. Claim 1 does not require:

• a specific vacuum level,
• a specific valve geometry beyond “flexible seal,”
• a specific piston diameter or stroke length,
• a specific seal material or manufacturing process,
• a specific fluid path channeling architecture.

That broad functional framing increases obviousness risk: a skilled artisan may view the claim as a predictable combination of known dispenser elements (seal + stroke + vacuum/pressure differential + applicator).

2) “Nanochips with solid structures attached to an applicator” as a mass transport enhancer

This is the second potential vulnerability: the functional outcome (“facilitate mass transportation”) can be achieved by many known microstructured or nanopatterned applicators.

Claim 1 does not require:

• a defined nanochip size distribution,
• a defined pattern density or pore/feature geometry,
• a defined surface chemistry (beyond the later silicon limitation in claim 8),
• a defined attachment method,
• an integration relationship between nanochips and the vacuum-driven flow (for example, whether nanochips act as needles, capillaries, absorbent reservoirs, or contact stimulators).

As drafted, the “nanochips” limitation can be treated as a generic interface feature that would have been within routine design choice, depending on what exists in the prior art describing nanostructured arrays on skin-contact devices.

3) Method claims: nanopores and occlusive layers

Claims 12–15 add standard transdermal enhancement concepts:

• “creating nanopores” (claim 13),
• “placing an occlusive layer” (claim 14),
• “pumping the liquid composition using a pump to the occlusive layer for infusion” (claim 15).

These elements are commonly disclosed across the transdermal literature and device patents. The claims tie them only loosely to the particular dispenser, so novelty may rest mostly on how the nanochip applicator and vacuum mechanism are used in conjunction with these known skin enhancement steps.

4) Specific actives in claim 10

Claim 10 lists examples (EGF, collagen, insulin, lidocaine, botox). If those actives are known for topical or transdermal delivery and paired with skin penetration enhancement strategies, the listing does not add much patentable structure by itself unless the claim requires a formulation or device-to-active specificity beyond the examples.

---

Where the claims are strongest (relative to typical invalidity attacks)

Despite vulnerability in the vacuum-seal-nanochip combination, claim 1 also includes a combination that is not purely generic:

• The claim ties together axial up/down movement, vacuum generation specifically when the stem is in the up position, and pushing/pulling of the formulation through a flexible seal while the device contacts skin.
• The claim also requires nanochips attached to the applicator at the second end of the stem.

If the relevant prior art separately discloses vacuum dispensers and separate nanostructured applicators, but not the combined architecture (vacuum pulling through a flexible seal into a skin-contacting nanochip interface), novelty and non-obviousness may be defensible on combination rather than on each feature alone.

---

Claim chart logic for infringement and invalidity positioning

The claim set is structured to support two distinct arguments:

A. Infringement mapping likely targets the “upstroke vacuum pull” and “nanochip applicator”

To read on claim 1, an accused device must satisfy:

• sealed reservoir/housing,
• axial stem motion,
• flexible means producing up/down position,
• vacuum creation during up position,
• flexible seal at the second end enabling pulling through the seal,
• skin-contact configuration,
• nanochip applicator on the stem end.

If a competitor uses a pressure-driven or mechanical pump delivery instead of vacuum via upstroke, or uses microneedles rather than “nanochips with solid structures” (depending on claim construction), the mapping may fail.

B. Invalidity attacks likely separate the system into two prior-art clusters

1. Cluster 1: vacuum or pressure differential stroke dispensers with flexible membranes/seals
2. Cluster 2: nanostructured applicators for enhanced skin transport, including silicon-based nanostructures (for claim 8)

If prior art exists that already combines both clusters, claim 1 becomes fragile on obviousness. If not, a defense may argue that combining vacuum-sealed dispensing with nanochip transport enhancement is non-routine.

---

What is the likely patent landscape shape around this concept in the US?

1) The landscape splits into three overlapping technology bands

1. Topical/transdermal vacuum or pressure dispensers
   Focus: seals, reservoirs, piston/stroke actuation, metering, skin contact, and flow control.

2. Micro/nanostructured skin contact devices for enhanced delivery
   Focus: microprojections, nanopores/nanostructures, silicon micromachining, and transport enhancement.

3. Transdermal enhancement methods
   Focus: nanopores (physical, chemical, or device-driven), occlusion, and infusion/pumping through occlusive layers.

US 10,039,910 lives in the intersection, with claim 1 anchored in the device mechanics and claims 12–15 anchored in method steps.

2) Where space for exclusivity likely concentrates

• Exclusivity is most defensible if the prior art does not disclose a vacuum-generated upstroke pulling approach feeding a nanochip-containing applicator that contacts skin.
• Claim 8 (silicon nanochips) can create a narrower pocket of differentiation if the prior art uses other materials (metal, polymer, diamond-like carbon) or if silicon nanostructures are not used in the same dispenser context.

3) Where exclusivity is least defensible

• Nanochips as a generic concept used “to facilitate mass transportation” reads broad enough to be found obvious over generic nanostructured applicators plus generic metered dispensing.

---

How should investors and R&D teams pressure-test the validity thesis?

1) Test the novelty of the functional combination

The fastest route to invalidity is to find a single reference or a two-reference combination that teaches:

• vacuum (or pressure differential) generated by an upstroke,
• a flexible seal at the delivery end,
• a skin-contact applicator,
• and nanostructured features used to enhance transport.

If that combination is already disclosed, claim 1 likely fails obviousness.

2) Focus on the “nanochips” definition in claim construction

The claims do not quantify the nanochips. A validity strategy often reframes “nanochips with solid structures” as either:

• a generic label that reads on microstructures, or
• something that lacks specific structure and therefore cannot confer meaningful novelty.

An infringement strategy, conversely, depends on the ability to show that competitors use comparable nanochip structures, not merely microneedles or porous coatings.

3) Use dependent claim narrowing as a secondary defense and secondary attack

• Claim 8 (silicon nanochips) can salvage novelty if prior art nanostructures are not silicon.
• Claim 5 (sealed ring flexible seal) and claims 3–4 (housing/stem protrusion relationships) can differentiate on structure if the prior art differs in mechanical geometry.
• Claims 13–15 (nanopores + occlusion + pumping) are likely easiest for the opposition to attack as already known transdermal enhancement sequences.

---

Key Takeaways

• US 10,039,910 claims a vacuum-assisted axial-stroke dispenser where vacuum occurs on the up position, drawing formulation through a flexible seal while contacting skin, with nanochips on the applicator to enhance mass transport.
• The highest invalidity risk sits in the vacuum-seal-stroke architecture and the broad functional “nanochips facilitate mass transportation” limitation, both of which are commonly found in separate prior-art domains.
• The strongest differentiation leans on a non-obvious combination: vacuum pulling via sealed upstroke feeding a nanochip applicator for skin delivery, plus possible narrowing from silicon nanochips (claim 8).
• The method claims largely rest on standard transdermal enhancement steps (nanopores, occlusion, infusion/pumping), which are easier to find in prior art and therefore less likely to rescue novelty.

---

FAQs

1. What is the critical distinguishing mechanism in claim 1?
   Vacuum is created when the stem is in the up position, pulling the formulation through a flexible seal while the housing and composition contact the patient’s skin.

2. Do the claims define the nanochips structurally (size, density, geometry)?
   No. Claim 1 requires “nanochips with solid structures” but does not specify dimensions or geometry; claim 8 narrows only the material to silicon.

3. Which dependent claim most narrows “nanochips” coverage?
   Claim 8 specifies that the nanochips are made of silicon.

4. Are the method claims 12–15 likely to stand as novel?
   They add nanopores, occlusive layer, and pumping. These are broadly used transdermal enhancement concepts, so the novelty of the method is likely to depend on how closely the method is tied to the specific nanochip vacuum dispenser.

5. What feature would most reduce infringement risk for a competitor?
   Using delivery mechanics that do not create the claimed upstroke vacuum pulling through a flexible seal, or using a skin-contact interface that is not “nanochips with solid structures” in a claim-construction sense.

---

References

[1] United States Patent 10,039,910 (claimed subject matter and claims provided in prompt).

Details for Patent 10,039,910

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Abbvie Inc.	BOTOX COSMETIC	onabotulinumtoxina	For Injection	103000	December 09, 1991	10,039,910	2035-03-25
Abbvie Inc.	BOTOX	onabotulinumtoxina	For Injection	103000	December 09, 1991	10,039,910	2035-03-25