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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 9/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application.
Applicants amendments to the abstract have overcome the abstract objections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6/16/2025.
Applicants amendments to the specification have overcome the specification objections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6/16/2025.
Applicants amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6/16/2025.
Applicants amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6/16/2025.
Examiner notes not all amendments were properly indicated. Claim 4 previously depended on claim 2 or 3 as indicated in the claims filed 3/18/2022. Claim 4 has been amended to depend on claim 2, but this amendment has not properly been indicated. Claim 5 previously depended on claims 1 to 5 as indicated in the claims filed 3/18/2022. Claim 5 has been amended to depend on claim 1, but this amendment has not properly been indicated. Claim 6 previously depended on claims 1 to 5 as indicated in the claims filed 3/18/2022. Claim 6 has been amended to depend on claim 1, but this amendment has not properly been indicated. Claim 8 previously stated “the crack resistant member described in any one of claims 1 to 7” as indicated in the claims filed 3/18/2022. Claim 5 has been amended to state “the crack resistant member described in claim 1”, but this amendment has not properly been indicated. See 37 CFR 1.121, section (c)(2). Examiner notes although these amendments are not properly indicated, they are entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/20/2025 and 10/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auerbach (U.S. PG publication 20180207324) further in view of Feng (U.S. PG publication 20190345313) further in view of Patel (U.S. PG publication 20130189342).
In regard to claim 1,
Auerbach discloses a crack resistant member (figure 1A and 1B, item 1; paragraph [0022] Examiner notes the member is construed as a crack resistant member due to its structure and material properties. The force which the member can withstand without cracking in order to be considered “crack resistant” is not currently claimed. The duration and number of uses the member can be used without cracking in order to be considered “crack resistant” is also not claimed. Furthermore, other specific use conditions are not claimed i.e. pressure, substance, etc. It is Examiner’s position that that member 1 is a crack resistant member due to its structure/properties and the fact that it can be used without cracking depending on the use conditions; see also paragraph [0022]) comprising:
a member body (see body formed by item 1) having a hollow space (see hollow space of item 1 in figure 1A which item 10 is received within) which extends along a longitudinal direction of the member body and opens to a surface of the member body (see figure 1A);
a driving part (figure 1A, item 10; Examiner notes item 10 is construed as a driving part as it can be driven to engage with item 14 or driven forward once attached to item 1 toward an injection site; paragraph [0038]):
the hollow space having a first region which is configured for disposing the driving part (see figure 1A wherein the first region of the hollow space is construed as the region which item 10 is within), the driving part being configured to output a pressing force in an extension direction of the hollow space Examiner notes “configured to output a pressing force in an extension direction of the hollow space” is a functional limitation. The driving part is fully capable of the recited function due to its structure at least when being attached to item 1 as supported by paragraph [0038]. Further once attached to item 1, if a force was applied to item 10 in the extension direction of the hollow space, item 10 would also apply a pressing force in an extension direction of the hollow space onto item 1);
the first region having
a coupling portion (figure 1A, item 14) that is configured for mechanically coupling to the driving part (paragraph [0038]) and is formed on an inner wall surface of the member body (see figure 1A), and
the driving part being mechanically coupled to the member body at the first region (see figure 1A),
wherein at least the coupling portion is formed from a material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater (paragraph [0038]).
Auerbach is silent as to wherein at least the coupling portion is formed from a resin material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater as measured in accordance with ISO 178.
Feng teaches a syringe or a connector formed from a resin material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater (paragraph [0038]; paragraph [0012] and [0017]: wherein the resin can be used for syringes or connectors and paragraph [0118] wherein a mixture of polycarbonate and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene can be included in the resin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the material of the member body and the coupling portion (which is formed of the same material as the member body and integral with the member body) of the syringe of Auerbach with a resin material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater, as taught by Feng, because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of providing crack resistance (see paragraph [0007] of Feng and paragraph [0022] of Auerbach). Furthermore, Auerbach discloses modifications can be made (see paragraph [0051] of Auerbach).
Auerbach in view of Feng fails to disclose that the flexural modulus is measured in accordance with ISO 178.
Patel teaches that ASTM D790 or ISO 178 can be equivalently used to test bending/flexure (paragraph [0039] of Patel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ISO 178 rather than ASTM D790 to measure the flexural modulus because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of reliably measuring bending/flexure (paragraph [0039] of Patel). Further applicant has not disclosed that using ISO 178 instead of ASTM D790 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Examiner notes measuring the flexural modulus using ISO 178 instead of ASTM D790 would still result in the claimed flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater as supported by analysis above and disclosure of Feng.
In regard to claim 5,
Auerbach in view of Feng in view of Patel teaches the crack resistant member according to claim 1, wherein the coupling portion is a screw portion (see figure 1A, item 14 of Auerbach; paragraph [0038] of Auerbach wherein item 10 can be screwed onto item 14) formed on the inner wall surface of the member body along the extension direction of the hollow space.
In regard to claim 6,
Auerbach in view of Feng in view of Patel teaches the crack resistant member according to claim 1, wherein the resin material contains one or more of: a mixture of a polycarbonate resin and an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer (ABS resin), a polyolefin-based resin, a crystalline polyamide resin, and a crystalline polyester resin (see analysis of claim 1 above and paragraph [0118] of Feng).
In regard to claim 7,
Auerbach in view of Feng in view of Patel teaches the crack resistant member according to claim 6, wherein:
the resin material contains the mixture of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin (see analysis of claim 1 and 6 above and paragraph [0118] of Feng).
Auerbach in view of Feng in view of Patel is silent as to in the mixture of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin, a proportion of the ABS resin relative to a total amount of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin is 10 mass% or greater and 30 mass% or less.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Auerbach in view of Feng in view of Patel to include in the mixture of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin, a proportion of the ABS resin relative to a total amount of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin is 10 mass% or greater and 30 mass% or less since applicant has not disclosed that having in the mixture of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin, a proportion of the ABS resin relative to a total amount of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin is 10 mass% or greater and 30 mass% or less solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of in the mixture of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin, a proportion of the ABS resin relative to a total amount of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin is 10 mass% or greater and 30 mass% or less, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Examiner notes Feng supports the amount of polycarbonate or ABS can be varied (see paragraph [0118] of Feng) and the instant disclosure states that the mixing ratio of both resins in the mixture of ABS and polycarbonate is not limited (see paragraph [0021] of the instant disclosure).
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (WO 2016/163348) further in view of Alexandre (U.S. PG publication 20040039367) further in view of Feng (U.S. PG publication 20190345313) further in view of Patel (U.S. PG publication 20130189342). Examiner notes EP 3281660, which was attached with the previous Office Action, is being referenced as the English translation of Yamamoto (WO 2016/163348).
In regard to claim 1,
Yamamoto discloses a crack resistant member (figure 2d, item 6; Examiner notes item 6, which is a syringe main body, is construed as crack resistant due to its structure. The force which the member can withstand without cracking in order to be considered “crack resistant” is not currently claimed. The duration and number of uses the member can be used without cracking in order to be considered “crack resistant” is also not claimed. Furthermore, other specific use conditions are not claimed i.e. pressure, substance, etc. It is Examiner’s position that that member 6 is a crack resistant member due to its structure/properties and the fact that it can be used without cracking depending on the use conditions) comprising:
a member body (figure 2d, item 60) having a hollow space (see figure 2D where item 60 has a hollow space which components are disposed within as shown in figure 1) which extends along a longitudinal direction of the member body and opens to a surface of the member body (see figure 2D);
a driving part (figure 1, item 7 and 9):
the hollow space having a first region (figure 2D, item 65) which is configured for disposing the driving part (see figure 1), the driving part being configured to output a pressing force in an extension direction of the hollow space (Examiner notes “configured to output a pressing force in an extension direction of the hollow space” is a functional limitation. The driving part is fully capable of the recited function due to its structure as supported by paragraph [0038] of EP 3281660);
Although Yamamoto discloses the driving part is attached to the first region (see paragraph [0038] of EP 3281660), it is unclear the specifics of the attachment and therefore Yamamoto is silent as to the first region having a coupling portion that is configured for mechanically coupling to the driving part and is formed on an inner wall surface of the member body, and the driving part being mechanically coupled to the member body at the first region, wherein at least the coupling portion is formed from a resin material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater as measured in accordance with ISO 178.
Alexandre teaches a member body (figure 1, item 3), the first region (see first region of item 3 which receives item 4) having a coupling portion (threads of item 3, which are formed of the same material as item 3, and mate with the threads of body 14 of gas generator 4 as shown in figure 1; paragraph [0044]) that is configured for mechanically coupling to the driving part (figure 1, item 4; see figure 1; paragraph [0044]) and is formed on an inner wall surface of the member body (see figure 1), and the driving part being mechanically coupled to the member body at the first region (see figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto to include threads (coupling portion) formed on an inner wall surface formed from the same material as the member body and to also include threads on the driving part, in place of the specific attachment of the driving part and first region of Yamamoto, as taught by Alexandre, because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of a secure attachment (see paragraph [0044] of Alexandre and paragraph [0038] of EP 3281660).
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre is silent as to wherein at least the coupling portion is formed from a resin material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater as measured in accordance with ISO 178.
Feng teaches a syringe or a connector formed from a resin material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater (paragraph [0038]; paragraph [0012] and [0017]: wherein the resin can be used for syringes or connectors and paragraph [0118] wherein a mixture of polycarbonate and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene can be included in the resin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the member body and the coupling portion (which is formed of the same material as the member body and integral with the member body) of Yamamoto in view of Alexandre to be a resin material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater, as taught by Feng, for the purpose of utilizing a material that has superior toughness and stress crack resistance (paragraph [0007] of Feng).
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng fails to disclose that the flexural modulus is measured in accordance with ISO 178.
Patel teaches that ASTM D790 or ISO 178 can be equivalently used to test bending/flexure (paragraph [0039] of Patel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ISO 178 rather than ASTM D790 to measure the flexural modulus because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of reliably measuring bending/flexure (paragraph [0039] of Patel). Further applicant has not disclosed that using ISO 178 instead of ASTM D790 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Examiner notes measuring the flexural modulus using ISO 178 instead of ASTM D790 would still result in the claimed flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater as supported by analysis above and disclosure of Feng.
In regard to claim 2,
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel teaches the crack resistant member according to claim 1, wherein the driving part includes a drive source (figure 2e, item 71 and 9 of Yamamoto) that contains a predetermined energy for generating the pressing force (paragraph [0027] and [0038] of Yamamoto EP 3281660), and is configured to generate the pressing force by releasing the predetermined energy outside the crack resistant member (paragraph [0027] and [0038] of Yamamoto EP 3281660; Examiner notes “configured to generate the pressing force by releasing the predetermined energy outside the crack resistant member” is a functional limitation. The drive source is fully capable of recited function due to its structure).
In regard to claim 3,
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel teaches the crack resistant member according to claim 2, wherein the drive source is an ignition charge (paragraph [0038] and [0027] of Yamamoto EP 3281660), and the driving part is configured to generate the pressing force by releasing combustion energy which is caused by combustion of the ignition charge (paragraph [0035], paragraph [0038] and [0027] of Yamamoto EP 3281660; Examiner notes “configured to generate the pressing force by releasing combustion energy which is caused by combustion of the ignition charge” is a functional limitation. The driving part is fully capable of the recited function due to its structure).
In regard to claim 5,
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel teaches the crack resistant member according to any one of claims 1, wherein the coupling portion is a screw portion formed on the inner wall surface of the member body along an extension direction of the hollow space (see analysis of claim 1 above and figure 1 of Alexandre).
In regard to claim 6,
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel teaches the crack resistant member according to any one of claims 1, wherein the resin material contains one or more of a mixture of a polycarbonate resin and an acrylonitrile-butadiene- styrene copolymer (ABS resin), a polyolefin-based resin, a crystalline polyamide resin, and a crystalline polyester resin (see analysis of claim 1 above and paragraph [0118] of Feng).
In regard to claim 7,
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel teaches the crack resistant member according to claim 6, wherein the resin material contains the mixture of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin (see analysis of claim 6 above and paragraph [0118]).
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel is silent as to in the mixture of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin, a proportion of the ABS resin relative to a total amount of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin is 10 mass% or greater and 30 mass% or less.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel to include in the mixture of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin, a proportion of the ABS resin relative to a total amount of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin is 10 mass% or greater and 30 mass% or less since applicant has not disclosed that having in the mixture of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin, a proportion of the ABS resin relative to a total amount of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin is 10 mass% or greater and 30 mass% or less solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of in the mixture of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin, a proportion of the ABS resin relative to a total amount of the polycarbonate resin and the ABS resin is 10 mass% or greater and 30 mass% or less, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Examiner notes Feng supports the amount of polycarbonate or ABS can be varied (see paragraph [0118] of Feng) and the instant disclosure states that the mixing ratio of both resins in the mixture of ABS and polycarbonate is not limited (see paragraph [0021] of the instant disclosure).
In regard to claim 8,
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel teaches a needleless injector (figure 1, item 1 of Yamamoto) configured to eject an intended injection substance to a target region without using an injection needle (paragraph [0001] of Yamamoto EP 3281660), the needleless injector comprising:
an actuator (figure 1, item 7 of Yamamoto);
an attachment (figure 1, item 6 of Yamamoto), wherein the attachment is the crack resistant member described in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 and analysis of claim 1 above) and is configured to couple the actuator, which is the driving part (see analysis of claim 1 above), into the attachment with the coupling portion (see figure 1 of Yamamoto);
a housing part (figure 1, item 3 of Yamamoto) that has an accommodating space (figure 2a, item 32 of Yamamoto) configured to accommodate the intended injection substance (see figure 1 of Yamamoto; paragraph [0028] of Yamamoto EP 3281660) and configured to define a flow path from the accommodating space in such a manner that the intended injection substance is capable of being ejected through to the target region (see figure 1 of Yamamoto; paragraph [0028] and [0030]-[0031] of Yamamoto EP 3281660);
a metal piston (figure 1, item 5 of Yamamoto; paragraph [0036] of Yamamoto EP 3281660) configured to propel inside the needleless injector in a predetermined direction when the pressing force is applied by actuation of the driving part (paragraph [0037] of Yamamoto EP 3281660); and
a plunger (figure 1, item 4 of Yamamoto) configured to propel inside the housing part by the pressing force to pressurize the intended injection substance (paragraph [0030] of Yamamoto EP 3281660).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (WO 2016/163348) in view of Alexandre (U.S. PG publication 20040039367) in view of Feng (U.S. PG publication 20190345313) in view of Patel (U.S. PG publication 20130189342) further in view of Haar (U.S. Patent no 6258063). Examiner notes EP 3281660, which was attached with the previous Office Action, is being referenced as the English translation of Yamamoto (WO 2016/163348).
In regard to claim 4,
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel teaches the crack resistant member according to claim 2.
Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel is silent as to wherein the driving part is configured to complete the release of the predetermined energy within 10 msec from start of actuation of the driving part.
Haar teaches wherein the driving part is configured to complete the release of the predetermined energy within 10 msec from start of actuation of the driving part (10msec; column 8, line 42-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto in view of Alexandre in view of Feng in view of Patel to include wherein the driving part is configured to complete the release of the predetermined energy within 10 msec from start of actuation of the driving part, as taught by R Haar, for the purpose of employing a favorable combustion time (column 8, line 42-50 of Haar).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that a proper rationale has not been used to reject the disputed claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees since as detailed above a proper rationale was provided for each modification. Applicant argues that a crack resistant member that suppresses crack generation and crack growth even when an impact load is applied can be provided. Examiner notes claim 1 does not claim a crack resistant member that suppresses crack generation and crack growth even when an impact load is applied. Claim 1 claims a crack resistant member, but does not specify anything specific regarding suppressing crack generation and crack growth even when an impact load is applied. The force which the member can withstand without cracking in order to be considered “crack resistant” is not currently claimed. The duration and number of uses the member can be used without cracking in order to be considered “crack resistant” is also not claimed. Furthermore, other specific use conditions are not claimed i.e. pressure, substance type, etc. Applicant states that “when the driving part generates the pressing force, impact load is directly and instantaneously translated to the main body, and the impact load directly transmitted to the main body may result in crack generation and crack growth”. As noted above, this is not currently claimed. Applicant argues on page 18 of 20 that although Feng discloses a disposable syringe as an application of the molded article, Feng does not disclose a needleless syringe with a driving part. It is noted that claim 1 does not claim a needleless syringe. Examiner agrees that Feng is not cited as teaching a driving part. Yamamoto in view of Alexandre however discloses the claimed driving part. It is noted that the driving part other than being coupled to the member body, and configured to output a pressing force, is not further defined. The driving part is very broad as claimed in claim 1. The driving part of claim 1 is not required to move relative to any other structure or to dispense a substance. Additionally, the syringe of Feng is not specified as only being a syringe with a needle. Furthermore, Feng supports that a connector can also be made with the material disclosed in Feng. The material of the coupling portion of the member body, not the material of the driving part, is claimed as having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater. As noted in the rejection above, Feng specifically discloses a syringe or a connector formed from a resin material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater. Yamamoto in view of Alexandre teaches a syringe body (member body) with an integral connector (coupling portion) formed on an inner wall surface of the syringe body from the same material as the syringe body. As detailed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the material of the member body/syringe body (and coupling portion which is integral with the member body and formed from the same material as the member body), in view of Feng, for the purpose of utilizing a material that has superior toughness and stress crack resistance (paragraph [0007] of Feng). Applicant argues that “Feng fails to teach or suggest that in the case where the member body and the driving part are mechanically coupled (fixed), and the coupling portion of the member body with the driving part is formed of a resin material, the problem of the crack generation and crack growth in the member body when an impact load during operation of the driving part is transmitted to the member body. Thus, it is needless to say that Feng does not disclose or suggest the technical advantages of suppression of the crack generation and crack growth in the coupling portion when the driving part is operated by forming the coupling portion of the member body from a resin material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or more”. It is noted that “the problem of the crack generation and crack growth in the member body when an impact load during operation of the driving part is transmitted to the member body” is not currently claimed. The resin material is also not claimed as suppressing crack resistance. Although the resin material is not claimed as suppressing crack resistance, Feng does specifically disclose in paragraph [0007] that the material taught by Feng has a superior crack resistant and superior toughness. In response to Applicant’s arguments in regard to Patel, Examiner did not cite Patel as teaching the claimed resin material. Applicant argues on page 18 of 20 that a proper reason to prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements is missing. Applicant specifically argues that the problem of the crack generation and the crack growth resulting from the mechanical coupling of the driving part to the member body is not recognized in each of the cited references. See response to similar arguments above. As noted above, the specific problem argued by Applicant is not claimed. The resin material is not claimed as suppressing crack resistance. Claim 1 is incredibly broad as to the structure of the crack resistant member and the driving part. The crack resistant member of claim 1 is also not limited to the medical field.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maljkovic (U.S. PG publication 20100305261) discloses a crack resistant member (figure 2, item 12B) wherein at least the coupling portion is formed from a resin material having a flexural modulus of 2600 MPa or greater (paragraph [0022]) and is at least pertinent to claim 1 and 5. As noted above, claim 1 is not limited to the medical field. Claim 1 also only requires the driving part to be coupled to the member body, and to be configured to output a pressing force in an extension direction. The driving part of claim 1 is not required to move relative to any other structure or to dispense a substance.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH LALONDE whose telephone number is (313)446-6594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/ALEXANDRA LALONDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/CHELSEA E STINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights