Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/431,586

CARTRIDGE BASED AUTO-INJECTOR

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 17, 2021
Examiner
FREHE, WILLIAM R
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
New Injection Systems Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
229 granted / 382 resolved
-10.1% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+41.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
432
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
51.2%
+11.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 382 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 Lines 12-13 recite the limitation “wherein the needle guard is being biased outwards.” Claim 1 Lines 15-17 recite the limitation “the needle guard is pushed against the injection side, is pushed back relative to the casing against the spring, and thereby directly pushes back the needle shuttle.” Claim 1 Lines 17-18 recite the limitation “the needle guard is pushed back.” In these limitations, it is unclear what direction “outwards” and “back” are in relation to. Examiner recommends including in Claim 1 amendments describing a distal end and a proximal end of the auto-injector. Thereafter, the above recited limitations should be amended to remove “outwards” and “back” language and replaced with distally and proximally language. This would likely remove any confusion regarding how structures are moving in the present case. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1-4, 5-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (USPGPub 2013/0211330) in view of Bengtsson et al. (USPGPub 2017/0007775) and Dunne (USPGPub 2017/0173263). Re Claim 1, Pederson teaches an auto-injector (100) (as seen in Pederson Figs. 2a and 2b) comprising: an outer casing (300) holding a cartridge (600) consisting of a barrel with a drug contents being contained by a movable plunger (630) at a first end and a seal (620) at a second end (Pederson ¶ 0073); biased means (330) that pushes against the movable plunger (630) of the cartridge (600) for pressurizing the drug contents (Pederson ¶ 0097); a needle shuttle (380) being held within the outer casing (300) comprising two needles that are attached and connected to each other (as seen in Pederson Fig. 3a), a first needle (510) of the two needles being an injection needle and a second needle (520) of the two needles being a septum needle (Pederson ¶ 0074, 0124); means to retain the cartridge (600) in a correct position when inserted (Pederson ¶ 0077 - describing a cartridge holder); a needle guard (350) and a spring (340) held to the outer casing (300) (Pederson ¶ 0080), wherein the needle guard (350) is being biased outwards by the spring (340) and, when the auto injector (100) has finished injecting, the needle guard (350) is pushed back by the spring (340) such that the first needle (510) of the two needles is covered by the needle guard (350) (as seen in Pederson Figs. 6a and 6b). Pederson fails to teach the needle guard configured such that during injection, when the auto-injector is pressed against an injection side, the needle guard is pushed against the injection side, is pushed back relative to the casing against the spring, and thereby directly pushes back the needle shuttle to pierce the seal. Bengtsson teaches an auto-injector (1) comprising an outer casing (5, 16) holding a cartridge (10) (Bengtsson ¶ 0049-0058), a needle shuttle (30) being held within the outer casing (5, 16) (Bengtsson ¶ 0060) and comprising two needles (27, 28) that are attached and connected to each other (Bengtsson ¶ 0061), a needle guard (20) and a spring (17) held to the outer casing (5, 16) (Bengtsson Figs. 5-6), wherein the needle guard (20) is being biased outwards by the spring (17) (Bengtsson ¶ 0059), the needle guard (20) configured such that during injection, when the auto-injector (1) is pressed against an injection side, the needle guard (20) is pushed against the injection side, is pushed back relative to the casing (5, 16) against the spring (17), and thereby directly pushes back the needle shuttle (30) to pierce a seal of the cartridge (as seen in Bengtsson Figs. 5 and 6; ¶ 0060, 0065-0068), the configuration for reducing the number of moving parts in the auto-injector and for reducing operations to use the auto-injector (Bengtsson ¶ 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the auto-injector of Pederson such that during injection, when the auto-injector is pressed against an injection side, the needle guard is pushed against the injection side, is pushed back relative to the casing against the spring, and thereby directly pushes back the needle shuttle to pierce the seal as disclosed by Bengtsson for reducing the number of moving parts in the auto-injector and for reducing operations to use the auto-injector (Bengtsson ¶ 0014). Pederson also fails to teach the cartridge comprising a metal crimp. Dunne teaches an auto injector comprising: an outer casing (23, 27) holding a cartridge (10) consisting of a barrel (11) with a drug contents (15) being contained by a movable plunger (12) at a first end and a seal (14) and metal crimp (13) at a second end, the metal crimp for retaining the seal in place (as seen in Dunne Fig. 1; ¶ 0057-0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the cartridge comprising a metal crimp at the second end as disclosed by Dunne, the metal crimp for retaining the seal in place (as seen in Dunne Fig. 1; ¶ 0057-0060). Re Claim 2, Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Pedersen teaches a locking mechanism (351) configured to prevent the needle guard (350) from being pushed back a second time for preventing unauthorized reuse of the auto-injector (Pedersen ¶ 0100). Re Claims 3 and 4: Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne teach all of the limitations of Claim 2. Pederson teaches the outer casing (300) comprising a transparent portion (302) configured to monitor at least one of an injection progress and a status of the injection progress (Pederson ¶ 0070). Pederson fails to teach an indicator rod that is attached to the movable plunger; and wherein the indicator rod has a closed end containing the biased means in a form of a spring. Dunne further teaches an indicator rod (102) that is attached to the movable plunger (12) (as seen in Dunne Fig. 4); and wherein the indicator rod (102) has a closed end (1211) containing the biased means (121) in a form of a spring, the indicator rod for holding the spring in a compressed state and when the retaining arm is released, releasing the spring (Dunne ¶ 0071, 0077; Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included with the auto-injector of Pederson in view of Bengtsson and Dunne, an indicator rod that is attached to the movable plunger; and wherein the indicator rod has a closed end containing the biased means in a form of a spring, the configuration as disclosed by Dunne for holding the spring in a compressed state and when the retaining arm is released, releasing the spring (Dunne ¶ 0071, 0077; Fig. 4). Re Claim 5, Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Pederson further teaches a modular auto-injector, wherein the modular auto-injector comprises three sub-assemblies comprising: a cartridge sub-assembly (300); a power source and an indicator assembly (200); and a needle and a needle guard assembly (500) (Pederson ¶ 0070). Re Claim 6, Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne teach all of the limitations of Claim 5. Pederson teaches wherein the cartridge sub-assembly (300) comprises the barrel (barrel of cartridge 600) and a drug volume of the drug contents being bounded by the movable plunger (630) and a crimped septum (Pederson ¶ 0073). Re Claims 7 and 8: Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne teach all of the limitations of Claim 6. Pederson teaches wherein the power source and the indicator sub-assembly (200) comprises the biased means (330) (Pederson Fig. 3a). However, Pederson fails to disclose the power source and the indicator sub-assembly comprises an indicator rod that is held within a rear casing; and wherein the indicator rod may be connected to the movable plunger such that the indicator rod is movable with the moveable plunger. Dunne teaches wherein the power source and the indicator sub-assembly (Dunne Fig. 7) comprises the biased means (121) and an indicator rod (102) that is held within a rear casing (23) (Dunne Figs. 2 and 5); and wherein the indicator rod (102) may be connected to the movable plunger (12) such that the indicator rod (102) is movable with the moveable plunger (12) (as seen in Dunne Figs. 5-6), the indicator rod for holding the spring in a compressed state and when the retaining arm is released, releasing the spring (Dunne ¶ 0071, 0077; Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the power source and the indicator sub-assembly of Pederson in view of Bengtsson and Dunne to comprise an indicator rod that is held within a rear casing; and wherein the indicator rod may be connected to the movable plunger such that the indicator rod is movable with the moveable plunger, the configuration as disclosed by Dunne, the indicator rod for holding the spring in a compressed state and when the retaining arm is released, releasing the spring (Dunne ¶ 0071, 0077; Fig. 4). Re Claims 9 and 10: Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne teach all of the limitations of Claim 7. Pederson fails to teach wherein the biased means of the power source and the indicator sub-assembly is at least one first spring further comprising a spring locking member; and wherein the power source and the indicator sub-assembly further comprises at least one second spring that is weaker than the at least one first spring and configured to pressurize the drug contents prior to an injection while the at least one first spring is locked by the spring locking member. Dunne teaches wherein the biased means (121) of the power source and the indicator sub-assembly is at least one first spring (as seen in Dunne Fig. 7) further comprising a spring locking member (22) (Dunne Fig. 2; ¶ 0058, 0064-0066); and wherein the power source and the indicator sub-assembly further comprises at least one second spring (101) that is weaker than the at least one first spring (121) and configured to pressurize the drug contents (15) prior to an injection while the at least one first spring (121) is locked by the spring locking member (22) (Dunne ¶ 0071), the spring locking member providing an oxygen and humidity barrier (Dunne ¶ 0064) and the first spring and second spring configuration for maintaining the liquid contents of the auto-injector in a pressurized state (Dunne ¶ 0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the biased means of the power source and the indicator sub-assembly of Pederson in view of Bengtsson and Dunne be at least one first spring further comprising a spring locking member; and wherein the power source and the indicator sub- assembly further comprises at least one second spring that is weaker than the at least one first spring and configured to pressurize the drug contents prior to an injection while the at least one first spring is locked by the spring locking member, the embodiment as disclosed by Dunne wherein the spring locking member provides an oxygen and humidity barrier (Dunne ¶ 0064) and the first spring and second spring configuration for maintaining the liquid contents of the auto-injector in a pressurized state (Dunne ¶ 0071). Re Claim 11, Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne teach all of the limitations of Claim 5. Pederson further teaches wherein the needle and the needle guard assembly (500) comprises the outer casing (300) holding the needle shuttle (380) with an injection needle and a septum needle (Pederson ¶ 0074, 0124), the needle guard (350) and the spring (340), a locking mechanism (351) that prevents the needle guard (350) from being pushed back a second time, and a shoulder (inward extending arms as seen in Pederson Fig. 3b) to retain the cartridge (600) in the correct position when inserted. Re Claim 13, Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne teach all of the limitations of Claim 5. Pederson further teaches a process for the assembly of a modular auto-injector, the process comprising: inserting the cartridge (600) into the needle and the needle guard assembly (500), and connecting the power source and the indicator assembly (200) via connection means to the needle and the needle guard sub-assembly (500) with the inserted cartridge (600) inserted therein such that the drug contents in the cartridge (600) are pressurized (Pederson ¶ 0084). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (USPGPub 2013/0211330) in view of Bengtsson et al. (USPGPub 2017/0007775) and Dunne (USPGPub 2017/0173263) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Kouyoumjian et al. (USPGPub 2013/0245561). Re Claim 12, Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne teach all of the limitations of Claim 11. Dunne further teaches wherein the needle and the needle guard assembly (Dunne Fig. 2) comprises a needle cap (28) (Dunne ¶ 0063). However, Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne fail to teach wherein the needle and the needle guard assembly comprises a seal and wherein the needle and the needle guard assembly and the power source and the indicator assembly are reversibly connected by a bayonet fit or a screw or are hinged together. Kouyoumjian teaches an auto-injector (1) (Kouyoumjian Fig. 4) comprising a needle guard assembly (140) and a power source and indicator assembly (5) wherein the needle and the needle guard assembly (140) comprises a seal (160a) for hermetic sealing (Kouyoumjian Fig. 9; ¶ 0093) and wherein the needle and the needle guard assembly (140) and the power source and indicator assembly (5) are reversibly connected by a bayonet fit for connecting a new needle and the needle guard assembly or power source and indicator assembly if needed (Kouyoumjian ¶ 0083). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the needle and the needle guard assembly of Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne to comprise a seal as disclosed by Kouyoumjian for hermetic sealing (Kouyoumjian Fig. 9; ¶ 0093). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the needle and the needle guard assembly and the power source and the indicator assembly of Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne to be reversibly connected by a bayonet fit as disclosed by Kouyoumjian for connecting a new needle and needle guard assembly or power source and indicator assembly if needed (Kouyoumjian ¶ 0083). Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (USPGPub 2013/0211330) in view of Bengtsson et al. (USPGPub 2017/0007775) and Dunne (USPGPub 2017/0173263) as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Wolf (USPN 5,842,326). Re Claims 14 and 15: Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne teach all of the limitations of Claim 13. However, Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne fail to teach inserting a pre-assembled device in a blister or a pouch, and submitting the blister or the pouch to terminal sterilization; and wherein the terminal sterilization is carried out by ethylene oxide or nitrogen dioxide. Wolf teaches an injection device (3) (Wolf Fig. 1) that is pre-assembled and placed in a blister (4), followed by submission to terminal sterilization by ethylene oxide for flushing the packaged injection device with sterilizing ethylene oxide gas from the outside (Wolf Col. 1 Lines 22-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the auto-injector of Pedersen in view of Bengtsson and Dunne be inserted in a blister or the pouch, and submitting the blister or the pouch to terminal sterilization; and wherein the terminal sterilization is carried out by ethylene oxide, as disclosed by Wolf for flushing the packaged injection device with sterilizing ethylene oxide gas from the outside (Wolf Col. 1 Lines 22-30). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-15 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. Applicant’s arguments in the interview held 12/16/2025, contemporaneously recorded in in an interview summary dated 12/29/2025, were compelling. Upon review of applicant’s claim amendments and figures, examiner concedes prior art Pederson in view of Dunne fail to teach the needle guard configured such that during injection, when the auto-injector is pressed against an injection side, the needle guard is pushed against the injection side, is pushed back relative to the casing against the spring, and thereby directly pushes back the needle shuttle to pierce the seal. Examiner now relies upon prior art Bengtsson to make obvious the aforementioned limitation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R FREHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8225. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM-7:30PM. 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. /WILLIAM R FREHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 17, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 03, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 25, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 11, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 16, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594378
PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE FOR DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12551667
CATHETER, INFLATABLE BALLOON FOR A CATHETER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551618
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MITIGATING RISK IN AUTOMATED MEDICAMENT DOSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551627
AUTO-INJECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12539123
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR BLOOD DISPLACEMENT-BASED LOCALIZED TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.4%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 382 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month