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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 5 recites “the guide groove” but should read “the first guide groove” to be consistent.
Claim 5, line 3 recites “the medical finger grip” but should read “the first guide groove” to be consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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 recites the limitation "the end edge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 2 recites “for using by being inserted”, however this language is confusing and it is unclear of the intent of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axial movement" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 5 recites “a finger grip”, however it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the finger grip previously recited in claim 1, line 2 or a completely different finger grip.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tip" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the circumferential direction" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the center" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hole" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the end point" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the extension line" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the tip side" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the side" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the end edge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, line 2 recites “for using by being inserted”, however this language is confusing and it is unclear of the intent of the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the axial movement" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, line 5 recites “a finger grip”, however it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the finger grip previously recited in claim 4, line 2 or a completely different finger grip.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tip" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the center" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the hole" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the part" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the center" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the tip" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vedrine et al. (US 20160325047 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vedrine discloses a medical syringe plunger (110, Figs. 1-2 and 50) comprising a plunger rod (110, Figs. 1-2 and 50) and a plunger head (102, Fig. 1, Image 1) which is formed at the end edge of the plunger rod (Figs. 1 and 50), for using by being inserted into a hole of a finger grip (1780, Fig. 17) which is to be attached to a flange section (2277, Fig. 22) of a syringe barrel (2270, Fig. 22),
wherein the plunger rod includes a first guide groove (50101, Fig. 50) and a second guide groove (5024, Fig. 50) for guiding the axial movement by a protrusion (1742b) of a finger grip (1780, Fig. 22) which moves in the guide grooves (Paragraphs [0705] and [0819]); the first guide groove is formed in a range of a first predetermined length in the axial direction from the tip (Fig. 50);
the second guide groove is formed in a range of a second predetermined length in the axial direction at a position on the plunger rod which is rotated by a predetermined angle in the circumferential direction with respect to the first guide groove (Fig. 50); and the protrusion is formed to extend toward the center of the hole of the finger grip (Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 2, Vedrine discloses the medical syringe plunger according to Claim 1, wherein
a protrusion transition section (5007) is formed between the first guide groove and the second guide groove (Fig. 50, Paragraph [0819]), the protrusion transition section enables the protrusion to transit from the first guide groove to the second guide groove (Fig. 50, Paragraph [0819]).
Regarding claim 3, Vedrine discloses the medical syringe plunger according to Claim 1, further comprising
an axial direction movement restriction section (Image 1) for allowing the protrusion to move toward the plunger head until the end point of the first guide groove and restricting the protrusion's movement in the axial direction on the extension line of the first guide groove after the protrusion passes over the end point (Fig. 50), wherein
the second guide groove has a start point formed at a position which is not closer to the tip side (Side of Fig. 50 closest to 5016) than the axial direction movement restriction section and an end point which is formed at the side of the end edge (Fig. 50).
Image 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
484
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vedrine et al. (US 20160325047 A1) in view of Gustafsson et al. (US 20130197446 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Vedrine discloses a medical syringe plunger (110, Figs. 1-2 and 50) comprising a plunger rod (110, Figs. 1-2 and 50) and a plunger head (102, Fig. 1, Image 1) which is formed at the end edge of the plunger rod (Figs. 1 and 50), for using by being inserted into a hole of a finger grip (1780, Fig. 17) which is to be attached to a flange section (2277, Fig. 22) of a syringe barrel (2270, Fig. 22), wherein
the plunger rod includes a first guide groove (50101, Fig. 50) for guiding the axial movement by a protrusion (1742b) of a finger grip (1780, Fig. 22) which moves in the guide groove (Paragraphs [0705] and [0819]); the first guide groove is formed in a range of a first predetermined length (Fig. 50) in the axial direction from the tip (End of Fig. 50 closest 5016);
the protrusion is formed to extend toward the center of the hole of the finger grip (Fig. 17); and the first guide groove includes a portion (5017) formed in a shape (Fig. 50) having an inclined plane (Fig. 50).
Vedrine is silent regarding
the portion formed in a wedge shape, the inclined plane starts from the bottom of the first guide groove and goes toward the surface of the plunger rod in the part between a point before the end point and the end point, and the end point is formed as an upright wall.
In analogous art, Gustafsson teaches a guide groove (123) having a portion (125/126) formed in a wedge shape (125/126) having an include plane (125/126, Fig. 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portion of Vedrine to incorporate the teachings of Gustafsson to incorporate being formed in a wedge shape in order to prevent the plunger rod from being moved back in the opposite direction (Paragraph [0047]). The modification of Vedrine in view Gustafsson would teach the inclined plane starts from the bottom of the first guide groove and goes toward the surface of the plunger rod in the part between a point before the end point and the end point, and the end point is formed as an upright wall (Modifying the intermediate trigger 5017 of Vedrine to be in a wedge shape, as taught by Gustafsson would teach the inclined plane starting from the bottom of the first guide groove and going towards the surface of the plunger rod in the part between a point before the end point and the end point, and the end point is formed as an upright wall).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vedrine et al. (US 20160325047 A1) in view of Vacca (US 5380295 A).
Regarding claim 5, Vedrine discloses a medical finger grip (1780) having a shape for attaching to a flange section (2277) of a syringe barrel (2270) to cover at least a part of the flange section (Fig. 23), wherein
the finger grip has a flat plate section (Fig. 17) for covering an opening of the flange section (Fig. 23), the flange section has a hole through which a plunger rod (2210) passes (Fig. 23), and the flat plate section has a protrusion (1742b) which extends toward the center of the hole (Figs. 22-23); and
the protrusion has a length (Fig. 17) which reaches a predetermined depth in the guide grooves (2230/2222) which are formed in the plunger rod (Figs. 22-23), and the protrusion is formed so that the arm 1741b is deflected when the protrusion rides over a structure (2214) and returns to the original shape after the protrusion passed over the structure (Paragraphs [0705]-[0707]).
Vedrine is silent regarding
the protrusion is formed so that the tip is bent when the protrusion rides over the structure and returns to the original shape after the protrusion passed over the structure.
In analogous art, Vacca teaches a protrusion (60) having a length (Fig. 1), and the protrusion is formed so that the tip is bent when the protrusion rides over a structure (56) and returns to the original shape after the protrusion passed over the structure (Col 3, lines 40-64 and Col 4, lines 30-46).
The substitution of one known element (protrusion bending as taught in Vacca) for another (arm deflecting as taught in Vedrine) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the protrusion bending as taught in Vacca would have yielded predictable results, namely, a structure of Vedrine that would move (deflect/bend) when engaging a trigger. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG-VAN N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-8039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15-5:45 ET.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. 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.
/HONG-VAN N TRINH/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783