DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 4/1/22.
Claims 31-62 are rejected.
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.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 42 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding non-original claims 42 and 54, the claim recites ‘wherein a row of the at least two rows of blades comprise at least four blades around a horizontal axis of the syringe, and wherein at least two blades of the at least four blades comprise a shorter length than at least one other blade of the at least four blades.’ There is no support for this limitation in the original disclosure. For instance, figs. 15a-c show blades in different rows having different lengths, not blades in the same row of blades having differently sized blades.
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.
Claim 60 is 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 60 is 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 60 recites the limitation "the shaft". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 31, 34, 36, 39-41 43, 46, 48, 51-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garibyan et al. (US 20190053939, “Garibyan”).
Regarding claim 31, Garibyan teaches a syringe for creating an injectable cold slurry (Abstract, ‘The present disclosure provides systems and method for medical ice slurry production.’; fig. 20 and par. 82, ‘The illustrated disposable cartridge 1700 is in the form of a sterile pre-filled syringe.’), the syringe comprising: a plunger (Fig. 20, plunger 1712); a barrel (Fig. 20, barrel of syringe cartridge 1700); and a first shaft (Fig. 20, agitator shaft 1704), wherein the first shaft is configured to connect to a second shaft of a docking station (Fig. 20, actuator shaft 132; par. 59, ‘Actuator 130 is configured to selectively rotate the actuator shaft 132 and, when coupled to the agitator shaft 110, induce a turbulent agitation or mixing of the sterile slurry composition 106 within the disposable cartridge 102.’), wherein the syringe is configured to contain an at least partially crystallized solution (Par. 63, ‘Alternatively or additionally, the disposable cartridge 102 may be precooled remotely from the housing 104 and then further cooled within the housing 104 to form the ice crystals.’), and wherein the syringe is configured to transform the at least partially crystallized solution into the injectable cold slurry when the first shaft of the syringe is connected to the second shaft of the docking station (Par. 63, ‘Second, rotation of the fin 112 acts to break up the ice crystals that form in the sterile, slurry composition as the sterile slurry mixture 106 is cooled (i.e., the sterile slurry composition 106 transitions from a liquid composition to an ice slurry comprised of solid ice crystals and liquid).’; par. 84, ‘The access port 1710 is structured and arranged to allow the medical ice slurry composition 106 to be injected from the disposable cartridge 1700 and injected into a patient.’).
Regarding claim 43, Garibyan teaches a syringe for creating an injectable cold slurry (Abstract, ‘The present disclosure provides systems and method for medical ice slurry production.’; fig. 20 and par. 82, ‘The illustrated disposable cartridge 1700 is in the form of a sterile pre-filled syringe.’), the syringe comprising: a plunger (Fig. 20, plunger 1712) comprising a blade shaft (Fig. 20, agitator shaft 1704), the blade shaft comprising at least one blade (Figs. 22, 25 and 29, blades 1900 attached to agitator shaft 1704); a barrel (Fig. 20, barrel of syringe cartridge 1700); wherein the blade shaft is configured to connect to a drive shaft of a docking station (Fig. 20, actuator shaft 132; par. 59, ‘Actuator 130 is configured to selectively rotate the actuator shaft 132 and, when coupled to the agitator shaft 110, induce a turbulent agitation or mixing of the sterile slurry composition 106 within the disposable cartridge 102.’), wherein the syringe is configured to contain an at least partially crystallized solution (Par. 63, ‘Alternatively or additionally, the disposable cartridge 102 may be precooled remotely from the housing 104 and then further cooled within the housing 104 to form the ice crystals.’), and wherein the syringe is configured to transform an at least partially crystallized solution into the injectable cold slurry when the blade shaft is connected to the drive shaft (Par. 63, ‘Second, rotation of the fin 112 acts to break up the ice crystals that form in the sterile, slurry composition as the sterile slurry mixture 106 is cooled (i.e., the sterile slurry composition 106 transitions from a liquid composition to an ice slurry comprised of solid ice crystals and liquid).’; par. 84, ‘The access port 1710 is structured and arranged to allow the medical ice slurry composition 106 to be injected from the disposable cartridge 1700 and injected into a patient.’).
Regarding claims 34 and 46, Garibyan further teaches wherein the barrel comprises a pre-blend zone near a plunger end of the syringe (Fig. 22, the ‘pre-blend’ zone can be considered the zone above agitator 1702 towards the plunger end of syringe 1700) and a blend zone near a tip end of the syringe (Fig. 22, the ‘blend zone’ can be considered the zone containing agitator 1702 towards the tip end of syringe 1700).
Regarding claim 39, Garibyan further teaches wherein the first shaft is a blade shaft, and wherein the blade shaft comprises at least one blade (Fig. 22, blades 1900 connected to agitator shaft 1704).
Regarding claim 36 and 48, Garibyan further teaches wherein the sterility seal is configured to maintain a sterility of an internal environment of the syringe (Par. 83, ‘The agitator shaft 1704 is rotationally sealed to a tapered tip 1708 of the disposable cartridge 1700 to allow rotation of the agitator shaft 1704 with respect to the disposable cartridge 1700 while maintaining a seal between the sterile slurry composition 106 and the surrounding environment.’).
Regarding claims 40 and 53, Garibyan further teaches wherein the at least one blade is a distal blade located near a distal end of the blade shaft, wherein the distal end of the blade shaft is located toward a tip end of the syringe and away from a plunger end of the syringe (Fig. 25, the ‘distal end’ of agitator shaft 1704 can be considered the end of the shaft near tapered tip 1708 and the ‘distal blade’ can be considered a blade in the row closes to this distal tip).
Regarding claims 41 and 52, Garibyan further teaches wherein the blade shaft comprises at least two rows of blades along a longitudinal axis of the syringe (Fig. 25, comprises at least two rows of blades 2200 along the longitudinal axis of the syringe 1700).
Regarding claim 51, Garibyan further teaches wherein the blade shaft comprises a plurality of blades (Figs. 22, 25, showing embodiments where the agitator shaft 1704 comprises multiple blades 1900/2200).
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.
Claim(s) 37-38, 42, 49-50 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garibyan.
Regarding claims 37 and 49, Garibyan teaches a sterility seal (Par. 83) but fails to teach a plurality of sterility seals.
The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to POSITA to modify Garibyan by providing a plurality of sterility seals to increase the effectiveness of the seal, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 38 and 50, Garibyan teaches a sterility seal (Par. 83), but fails to teach wherein the sterility seal is comprised of aluminum, low-density polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyvinylidine chloride, nylon, metalized film, ethylenevinyl alcohol, ethyleneacrylic acid, or a combination thereof.
The examiner maintains, however, that it would have been obvious to POSITA to select one of the claimed materials for the sterility seal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 42 and 54, Garibyan teaches wherein a row of the at least two rows of blades comprise at least four blades around a horizontal axis of the syringe (Fig. 25 showing at least two rows of blades 2200, each row having four blades), but fails to teach wherein at least two blades of the at least four blades comprise a shorter length than at least one other blade of the at least four blades.
The examiner maintains, however, that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different blades of whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Claim(s) 32-33 and 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garibyan in view of Dumont (US 3831818).
Regarding claims 32-33 and 44-45, Garibyan teaches the first/blade shaft having a connector is connected to a second/drive shaft having a connector (Par. 63, ‘While the cooling device 134 is cooling the temperature of the sterile slurry composition 106 within the disposable cartridge 102, the controller 140 is configured to instruct the actuator 130 to rotate the actuator shaft 132 and thereby the agitator shaft 110. ’), but fails to teach wherein the first/blade shaft comprises a first bayonet connector; and wherein the first bayonet connector is configured to connect to a second bayonet connector on the second/drive shaft.
Dumont teaches an analogous mixer (Fig. 1), which comprises an actuator (Fig. 1, gear-box 10) with a drive shaft (Fig. 1, output shaft 9) which is connected to stirring shaft (Fig. 1, stirrer 7) though a bayonet connection (Col. 2, lines 36-38, ‘A stirrer 7 provided with mixing paddles 8 is rigidly secured to the output shaft 9 of the gear-box 10 by means of a bayonet type fastening 11.’).
Therefore, since both Garibyan and Dumont teach different connectors for connecting a driven shaft to a drive shaft of an actuator, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed substitute one known connector type for the other in order to achieve the predictable result of a connector for connecting a driven shaft to a drive shaft of an actuator. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 35 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garibyan in view of Abusbeih (US 20180333332).
Regarding claims 35 and 47, Garibyan fails to teach wherein the first/blade shaft is configured to: be moveable between the pre-blend zone and the blend zone; and spin when the first/blade shaft is in the blend zone.
Abusbeih teaches an analogous syringe (Fig. 1) configured for grinding a solid pharmaceutical into a powdered form prior to administration (Abstract, ‘Described herein is a medication crushing, grinding, and administering device generally adapted to transform a solid pharmaceutical into a powered form for dissolving into a fluid within a syringe body.’), comprising: a plunger (Fig. 1, plunger portion 200); a barrel (Fig. 1, syringe body 100); and a first shaft (Fig. 5, shaft 301), wherein the barrel comprises a pre-blend zone near a plunger end of the syringe (Fig. 5 and par. 44, ‘The gasket 210 including a recess 211 and a central aperture 212. The recess 211 generally indented into the gasket towards the second end 202 and having a size and shape corresponding to the size and shape of the blade 311 to provide a space for the blade 311 or pair of blades 311 in the recessed position 12.’) and a blend zone near a tip end of the syringe (Fig. 5 and par. 46, the blend zone can be considered to be the zone inhabited by blade 311 when it is in its extend position 11); wherein the first shaft is configured to: be moveable between the pre-blend zone and the blend zone (Par. 46, ‘the user will then power on the device 10 with the switch 501, moving the shaft 301 to the extended position 11,’); and spin when the first shaft is in the blend zone (Par. 46, ‘wherein the blade 311 is powered and rotated into an engagement with the pill to crush and disperse the pill into solution within the syringe interior cavity 101’).
Therefore, in view of Abusbeih, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to configure the agitator/blade to be extendable/retractable from a recess in the distal end of the plunger in order to allow the agitator/blade to be retracted back into the recess after blending so as to prevent the agitator/blade from impeding the full range of motion of the plunger during use, as taught by Abusbeih.
Claim(s) 55-56 and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garibyan in view of Trombley et al. (US 6575930, “Trombley”).
Regarding claim 55, Garibyan teaches a syringe for creating an injectable cold slurry (Abstract, ‘The present disclosure provides systems and method for medical ice slurry production.’; fig. 20 and par. 82, ‘The illustrated disposable cartridge 1700 is in the form of a sterile pre-filled syringe.’), the syringe comprising: a plunger (Fig. 20, plunger 1712); a barrel (Fig. 20, barrel of syringe cartridge 1700); and a first shaft (Fig. 20, agitator shaft 1704); wherein the syringe is configured to communicate with a docking station (Fig. 20 and par. 59, ‘With continued reference to FIG. 1, the base 126 of the housing 104 includes an actuator 130 that is coupled to an actuator shaft 132. The actuator shaft 132 extends into the internal cavity 122 of the housing 104 and is configured to operably couple to the agitator shaft 110.’), wherein the syringe is configured to contain an at least partially crystallized solution (Par. 63, ‘Alternatively or additionally, the disposable cartridge 102 may be precooled remotely from the housing 104 and then further cooled within the housing 104 to form the ice crystals.’), and wherein the syringe is configured to transform the at least partially crystallized solution into the injectable cold slurry when the syringe ss placed in communication with the docking station (Par. 63, ‘Second, rotation of the fin 112 acts to break up the ice crystals that form in the sterile, slurry composition as the sterile slurry mixture 106 is cooled (i.e., the sterile slurry composition 106 transitions from a liquid composition to an ice slurry comprised of solid ice crystals and liquid).’; par. 84, ‘The access port 1710 is structured and arranged to allow the medical ice slurry composition 106 to be injected from the disposable cartridge 1700 and injected into a patient.’).
Garibyan fails to teach that the barrel comprises at least one magnetic component.
Trombley teaches an analogous syringe which comprises magnetic agitator configured to rotate within the syringe barrel (Col. 8, lines 27-39, ‘Alternatively, a magnetic stirrer can be placed inside the storage volume and coupled to a moving magnet or magnetic field outside the storage volume. A standard magnetic stirrer, typically a small bar magnet coated with an inert plastic, can be used. The magnetic stirrer can also be made relatively thin with holes or vanes, so that it is pressed flat to the front of a syringe as the fluid is expelled. A magnetic stirrer for use in the present invention can be made to rotate or it can be translated.’).
Therefore, since both Garibyan and Trombley teach different means for driving an agitator mechanism located within a barrel of a syringe to agitate the medium within the syringe, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to substitute one means of driving the agitator mechanism for the other in order to arrive at the predictable result of means of driving an agitator mechanism within a barrel of a syringe. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 56, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches wherein when the syringe communicates with the docking station, the magnetic component is configured to be moveable within the barrel by a magnetic or an electromagnetic force (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Trombley to actuate the agitator via a magnetic force; see Trombley, col. 8, lines 27-39, ‘Alternatively, a magnetic stirrer can be placed inside the storage volume and coupled to a moving magnet or magnetic field outside the storage volume.’).
Regarding claim 61, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches wherein when the syringe is placed in communication with the docking station, the at least one magnetic component is configured to spin (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Trombley to actuate the agitator via a magnetic force; see Trombley, col. 8, lines 27-39,’ A magnetic stirrer for use in the present invention can be made to rotate or it can be translated’) to transform the at least partially crystallized solution into the injectable cold slurry (See Garibyan, ‘Par. 63, ‘Second, rotation of the fin 112 acts to break up the ice crystals that form in the sterile, slurry composition as the sterile slurry mixture 106 is cooled (i.e., the sterile slurry composition 106 transitions from a liquid composition to an ice slurry comprised of solid ice crystals and liquid).’).
Claim(s) 55-57 and 59-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garibyan in view of Qin (CN 206896575).
Regarding claim 55, as discussed above, Garibyan teaches all the limitations of claim 55, except that the barrel comprises at least one magnetic component.
Qin teaches an analogous syringe (Abstract, ‘The utility model discloses a kind of magnetic stirrer for syringe pump […]’); a plunger (Fig. 5, plunger shown in fig. 5); a barrel (Fig. 5, barrel shown in fig. 5) comprising at least one magnetic component (Pg. 2, par. 1, ‘The stirrer has at least one pair of blades symmetrically distributed, and a magnet is attached to each of the blades.’; fig. 5, stirring blades 6).
Therefore, since both Garibyan and Qin teach different means for driving an agitator mechanism located within a barrel of a syringe to agitate the medium within the syringe, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to substitute one means of driving the agitator mechanism for the other in order to arrive at the predictable result of means of driving an agitator mechanism within a barrel of a syringe. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 56, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches wherein when the syringe communicates with the docking station (Fig. 20), the magnetic component is configured to be moveable within the barrel by a magnetic or an electromagnetic force (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Qin to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Qin; see Qin, fig. 5 and pg. 3, par. 2, ‘When the motor power supply starts to drive the impeller to rotate, because the impeller and the blades on the stirring blade are all equipped with magnets, the rotation of the magnet driven by the impeller rotation, the magnet on the stirring blade is affected by the magnetic field, and starts to rotate […].’).
Regarding claim 57, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches a plurality of magnetic components (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Qin to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Qin; see Qin, pg. 2, par. 1, ‘The stirrer has at least one pair of blades symmetrically distributed, and a magnet is attached to each of the blades.’).
Regarding claim 59, Garibyan further teaches wherein the at least one magnetic component is located on a shaft (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Qin to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Qin; see Qin, fig. 5, magnetic blades 6 affixed to shaft 5).
Regarding claim 60, Garibyan, as modified, wherein the shaft comprises at least one blade (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Qin to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Qin; see Qin, pg. 2, par. 1, ‘The stirrer has at least one pair of blades symmetrically distributed, and a magnet is attached to each of the blades.’; fig. 5, magnetic blades 6 affixed to shaft 5).
Regarding claim 61, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches wherein when the syringe is placed in communication with the docking station (Fig. 20), the at least one magnetic component is configured to spin (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Qin to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Qin; see Qin, fig. 5 and pg. 3, par. 2, ‘When the motor power supply starts to drive the impeller to rotate, because the impeller and the blades on the stirring blade are all equipped with magnets, the rotation of the magnet driven by the impeller rotation, the magnet on the stirring blade is affected by the magnetic field, and starts to rotate […].’) to transform the at least partially crystallized solution into the injectable cold slurry (See Garibyan, ‘Par. 63, ‘Second, rotation of the fin 112 acts to break up the ice crystals that form in the sterile, slurry composition as the sterile slurry mixture 106 is cooled (i.e., the sterile slurry composition 106 transitions from a liquid composition to an ice slurry comprised of solid ice crystals and liquid).’).
Regarding claim 62, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches wherein the docking station (Fig. 20, housing 104) comprises a rotating magnet (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Qin to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Qin; see Qin, pg. 3, par. 2, ‘When the motor power supply starts to drive the impeller to rotate, because the impeller and the blades on the stirring blade are all equipped with magnets, the rotation of the magnet driven by the impeller rotation, the magnet on the stirring blade is affected by the magnetic field, and starts to rotate, thereby realizing the injection cavity The ultrasound contrast agent inside is stirred.’; see fig. 5, impeller 8 mounted on driving motor 7).
Claim(s) 55-58 and 60-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garibyan in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20070244429, “Nguyen”).
Regarding claim 55, as discussed above, Garibyan teaches all the limitations of claim 55, except that the barrel comprises at least one magnetic component.
Nguyen teaches an analogous syringe (Fig. 5, syringe 511); a plunger (Fig. 5 depicting a syringe plunger); a barrel (Fig. 5, barrel of syringe 511) comprising at least one magnetic component (Fig. 5 and par. 45, ‘A drive unit 530 is located outside a syringe 511, but the magnets 532 and 533 and the drive unit 530 are located adjacent the magnet 522 in the foaming element. The magnet 532 attracts one pole of the magnet 522 and the magnet 533 attracts the other pole of the magnet 522. The drive unit 530 can spin around the syringe 511 such that rotation occurs about the longitudinal axis 514 of the syringe 511. Thus, the paddle 540 spins within the chamber of the syringe 511, causing fluid to flow through the holes in the paddle, and creating foam.’).
Therefore, since both Garibyan and Nguyen teach different means for driving an agitator mechanism located within a barrel of a syringe to agitate the medium within the syringe, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to substitute one means of driving the agitator mechanism for the other in order to arrive at the predictable result of means of driving an agitator mechanism within a barrel of a syringe. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 56, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches wherein when the syringe communicates with the docking station (Fig. 20), the magnetic component is configured to be moveable within the barrel by a magnetic or an electromagnetic force (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Nguyen to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Nguyen; see Nguyen, par. 45, ‘The drive unit 530 can spin around the syringe 511 such that rotation occurs about the longitudinal axis 514 of the syringe 511. Thus, the paddle 540 spins within the chamber of the syringe 511 […]’).
Regarding claim 57, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches a plurality of magnetic components (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Nguyen to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Nguyen; see Nguyen, fig. 3a, magnets 322).
Regarding claim 58, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches wherein the at least one magnetic component has a circular shape (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Nguyen to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Nguyen; see Nguyen, fig. 4a, foaming element 410).
Regarding claim 60, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches wherein the shaft comprises at least one blade (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Nguyen to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Nguyen; see Nguyen, fig. 4c paddle 440).
Regarding claim 61, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches wherein when the syringe is placed in communication with the docking station (Fig. 20), the at least one magnetic component is configured to spin (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Nguyen to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Nguyen; see Nguyen, par. 45) to transform the at least partially crystallized solution into the injectable cold slurry (See Garibyan, ‘Par. 63, ‘Second, rotation of the fin 112 acts to break up the ice crystals that form in the sterile, slurry composition as the sterile slurry mixture 106 is cooled (i.e., the sterile slurry composition 106 transitions from a liquid composition to an ice slurry comprised of solid ice crystals and liquid).’).
Regarding claim 62, Garibyan, as modified, further teaches wherein the docking station comprises a rotating magnet (Garibyan has previously been modified in view of Nguyen to comprise the magnetic agitator disclosed by Nguyen; see Nguyen, fig. 5, drive unit 530 having magnets 532/53; par. 45, ‘The drive unit 530 can spin around the syringe 511 such that rotation occurs about the longitudinal axis 514 of the syringe 511.’).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM JOSEPH AVIGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
ADAM JOSEPH. AVIGAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3739
/ADAM J AVIGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794