|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
United States Patent 8,555,878 (US 8,555,878): What Is Claimed, What It Covers, and How the Landscape Likely Reads
US 8,555,878 claims a manually actuated nasal delivery system that uses an exhalation-driven airflow path (oral to nasal) and a flow resistor to create a positive pressure differential that indirectly closes the oropharyngeal velum during exhalation. The claims are written to (i) structurally define a nosepiece with a sealing member that enlarges an anterior region of the nasal cavity, (ii) functionally require metered dosing delivered into the nasal airway under specific exhalation flow rates, and (iii) include pressure- and flow-performance floors (10+ L/min and pressure thresholds up to 100 cm H2O), plus optional indicator, adjustable resistance, and alternative substance forms (liquid or powder; particle size range for combinations).
1) What are the core claim elements?
Across independent claim 1 and its dependent claims, the device is built from a small set of required technical features:
| Claim component |
Claim language (condensed) |
Claim coverage effect |
| Manual nasal-delivery device |
“manually-actuated device for delivering a substance to the nasal airway” |
Anchors the delivery mechanism to user-actuation rather than powered inhalation systems |
| Flow resistor + exhalation airflow |
“exhalation air flow has a flow rate of at least 10 liters per minute” and “when the subject exhales against the flow resistor” |
Defines an airflow regime driven by exhalation and constrained upstream by a resistor |
| Nosepiece + sealing member |
nosepiece inserted into a nostril; sealing member seals “one nostril,” enlarged toward proximal end to enlarge anterior nasal region |
Hard-structure requirement that can narrow design-around options; sealing geometry is central |
| Metered-dose dispensing |
“dispensing unit which is manually actuated to dispense a metered dose… into an exhalation air flow” |
Requires dosing that occurs into the exhalation-driven airflow rather than after airflow formation |
| Positive pressure differential and velum closure (functional result) |
“configured to create a positive pressure differential between the oral cavity… and the nasal airway” to “indirectly achieving closure of the oropharyngeal velum” |
Includes a functional limitation tied to velum closure; can control claim scope even if the mechanical path differs |
| Metered delivery pathway |
substance supply unit in fluid communication with nosepiece outlet |
Places dosing upstream of nasal emission through the outlet |
| Upstream resistor location (optional) |
“flow resistor… located upstream of the substance supply unit” |
Constrains variants that put resistance elsewhere |
2) What does independent claim 1 actually require?
Independent claim 1 has a layered structure: structure (nosepiece/seal/resistor/dispensing unit) plus performance/physiology (exhalation against resistor, positive pressure differential, and velum closure).
Claim 1 minimum functional-performance stack:
- Exhalation flow rate: at least 10 L/min (also narrowed/expanded in dependent claims to 15 L/min, 20 L/min, or 10 to 20 L/min).
- Pressure-creation feature: creates a positive pressure differential between oral cavity and nasal airway during exhalation against the flow resistor, which indirectly achieves closure of the oropharyngeal velum.
- Dynamic pressure levels (dependent refinements): additional dependent claims specify dynamic positive pressure thresholds (5, 50, 100 cm H2O).
3) How do dependent claims expand or narrow the device scope?
Dependent claims add three main layers: mechanical routing, material/form factors, and performance indicators/pressure control. They also add combination claims (device + substance).
3.1 Mechanical/routing refinements
- Claim 2: flow resistor operably connected to a tubular section held between lips.
- Claim 3: flow resistor operably connected to a mouthpiece.
- Claim 4: flow resistor upstream of the substance supply unit and fluidly connected to nosepiece.
- Claim 5: nosepiece made of resilient material.
- Claim 6: nosepiece extends into nasal cavity to expand valve region.
- Claim 11: combination device + separate outlet unit for the other nostril, with a flow resistor downstream of the other nostril to generate a dynamic positive pressure in the nasal airway.
- Claim 8: specifies dosing gas flow entrains substance delivered at driving pressure to flow around posterior margin of nasal septum and out other nostril (trans-nasal routing).
3.2 Sensing/controls
- Claim 7: positive pressure indicator or flow rate indicator.
- Claim 12: separate outlet unit includes indicator signaling when predetermined positive pressure reached upstream of indicator.
- Claim 13: adjustable flow resistor to adjust resistance and thereby control dynamic nasal pressure.
3.3 Substance and formulation constraints (combination claims)
- Claim 9: combination of device with substance.
- Claim 10: particles principally about 1 to 10 µm.
- Claim 14–15: substance comprises liquid or powder.
3.4 Performance floors for exhalation flow and nasal pressure
- Claims 16–18: exhalation flow rate at least 15 L/min, at least 20 L/min, or about 10 to 20 L/min.
- Claim 19: delivery time about 2 to 5 seconds.
- Claims 20–22: dynamic positive pressure thresholds in nasal airway: at least 5 cm H2O, at least 50 cm H2O, at least 100 cm H2O.
4) Claim-scope “hot zones” that most affect infringement risk
In a device claim like this, the strongest determinants of whether a competitor lands inside the literal scope are usually the limitations that (i) are uncommon in the prior art, (ii) are numerically specified, and (iii) tie to a functional result.
Key hot zones:
- The velum-closure functional requirement (indirect closure via positive pressure differential between oral cavity and nasal airway). A competitor must either match the same functional mechanism or argue non-equivalence if the mechanism differs.
- The nosepiece sealing member geometry (sealing one nostril; enlarged toward proximal end to enlarge anterior nasal cavity region). This is a structural constraint.
- The exhalation-driven regime (manual actuation with exhalation against a flow resistor, with exhalation flow rate thresholds).
- Pressure numeric thresholds (5/50/100 cm H2O) and exhalation flow thresholds (10/15/20 L/min).
- Metered dosing into exhalation air flow (dispensing unit manually actuated; metered dose dispensed into exhalation airflow).
5) How to read the landscape despite limited citation inputs
You provided the claims text, but you did not provide a claim chart, prosecution history, assignee, priority/application identifiers, related families, or cited references. Without those, a precise prior-art mapping (what patents are closest, which elements are already disclosed, and which claims are likely to be vulnerable) cannot be performed without risking factual errors. The only safe landscape statements are structural: patents in this space typically cluster around (i) nasal delivery devices, (ii) pressure-driven nasal therapy, (iii) exhalation or breath-actuated drug delivery, (iv) sealing nozzles and adapters, and (v) metered dosing into an airflow.
Given your claims, the likely competitive and litigation-relevant adjacent territories are:
- Breath-actuated or exhalation-actuated nasal delivery where airflow is created by the patient.
- Pressure-controlled delivery into the nasal airway, including systems that use back-pressure or resistive elements.
- Nasal sealing nozzle geometries that improve delivery efficiency by sealing and shaping airflow.
- Metered-dose devices where dispensing occurs into a carrier gas stream.
- Multi-nostril pressure management (claim 11) using a second outlet unit and a resistor downstream to stabilize pressure.
6) Freedom-to-operate framing based on claim design
Even without a catalog of specific competing patents, the claim structure indicates where design-arounds would typically focus:
| Design-around lever |
Why it matters under these claims |
| Avoid matching velum closure via positive pressure differential |
Claim 1 uses a functional result tied to a specific physiological target; changing mechanism can reduce literal match |
| Change nosepiece sealing architecture |
The sealing member that enlarges anterior nasal cavity is a structural limitation that competitors may re-engineer |
| Eliminate numeric performance regime |
Miss the 10 L/min minimum or avoid the 5/50/100 cm H2O pressure generation to reduce dependence on those limits |
| Use non-exhalation drive (e.g., inhalation or external pressurization) |
Claim 1 is anchored to exhalation against a resistor; changing drive can move outside the core limitation |
| Dispense outside exhalation airflow |
Metered dosing into the exhalation air flow is a sequencing limitation |
7) Practical claim coverage summary (by claim family logic)
Device core (Claim 1):
- A manually actuated nasal delivery device with exhalation airflow through a flow resistor, a nosepiece with a sealing member that seals one nostril and enlarges anterior nasal cavity, and a metered dispensing unit that injects substance into exhalation airflow, creating a positive oral-to-nasal pressure differential that indirectly closes the oropharyngeal velum.
Variants and add-ons (Claims 2–8, 12–13):
- Mouthpiece vs lip-held tube; resistor upstream; resilient nosepiece; valve-region expansion; pressure/flow indicators; separate outlet and dynamic pressure management for both nostrils; adjustable resistance.
Formulation and combination (Claims 9–10, 14–15):
- Particle size (1–10 µm) and formulation type (liquid or powder).
Performance parameter-dependent variants (Claims 16–22):
- Exhalation flow thresholds and delivery time (2–5 seconds) and nasal dynamic positive pressure floors (5, 50, 100 cm H2O).
Key Takeaways
- US 8,555,878 is anchored on exhalation against a flow resistor plus a nosepiece sealing member that enlarges the anterior nasal cavity, and it requires the system to create a positive oral-to-nasal pressure differential that indirectly closes the oropharyngeal velum.
- The strongest claim-scope determinants are: velum-closure functional result, sealing-member geometry, exhalation flow-rate floor (10 L/min and above), and dynamic nasal pressure thresholds (up to 100 cm H2O).
- Dependent claims extend coverage via mouthpiece/tube configurations, upstream resistor placement, resilient/resilient nozzle extension to expand valve region, indicators, adjustable resistance, two-nostril pressure management, and combination formulations (1–10 µm particles; liquid/powder).
FAQs
-
Which limitation most narrows claim 1 against unrelated nasal delivery devices?
The requirement that the device is configured to create a positive pressure differential between the oral cavity and nasal airway during exhalation that indirectly achieves closure of the oropharyngeal velum.
-
What exhalation airflow numbers are explicitly claimed?
At least 10 L/min in claim 1, and dependent options of at least 15 L/min, at least 20 L/min, or about 10 to 20 L/min (claim 18).
-
What are the nasal dynamic positive pressure thresholds in the claim set?
At least 5 cm H2O (claim 20), at least 50 cm H2O (claim 21), and at least 100 cm H2O (claim 22).
-
Do the claims cover both powders and liquids?
Yes. Claim 14 covers a liquid; claim 15 covers a powder.
-
Is a particle-size range explicitly claimed for combinations?
Yes. Claim 10 requires particles principally about 1 to 10 µm in the device-plus-substance combination.
References
- United States Patent 8,555,878, claims 1–22 (as provided).
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
