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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 2020090147, filed on 05/14/2020.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 01/26/2026 have been entered.
Claim 1 has thereby been amended.
Claims 1-11 are being examined in this office action.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auld (20120165734) in view of Sauerwein (US 3669093).
Regarding claim 1, Auld discloses a unidirectional-driven drug infusion device, includes: a reservoir (Fig. 2: 108), a piston (Fig. 2: 110) and a screw (Fig. 2: 112), wherein the piston, connected with the screw, is arranged in the reservoir (Fig. 2: 110 and 114 end of screw 112 arranged within 108); a driving module (Figs. 1 and 3A: box 111) which includes at least one driving wheel (Fig. 3A: wheel 118) and at least one driving arm (Fig. 3A: 139 and 141) that cooperate with each other (Fig. 3A-B: arms are both fixed to frame 136, thereby cooperating with each other and moving together), a circumferential surface of the driving wheel is provided with wheel teeth (Fig. 3A: teeth 119) which can be pushed to rotate the driving wheel driving the screw forward (Figs. 7 and 8; para. [0049], the pushing of the teeth rotates the wheel and screw); a power module (Fig. 3A: 130) coupled to the at least one driving arm (Fig. 3A: 130 coupled to 139 and 141); a control module (Fig. 20: 212; para. [0061], sentences 1-2), connected to the power module (Fig. 20: 212 connected to 208 via 218), controls the power module to apply different driving powers to the driving arm (para. [0061], sentences 1-2; para. [0057], sentence 4), making the driving arm perform linear reciprocating motion, thus, driving the driving wheel to rotate (Figs. 7 and 8; para. [0049]; para, [0052], sentence 4). However, Auld does not teach a friction member contacting the driving wheel.
Sauerwein teaches an analogous device with an analogous driving wheel (Figs. 2 and 3: 10) with a friction member (Figs. 2 and 3: 10a) which is directly in contact with the surface of the driving wheel (Figs. 2 and 3: 10a directly on surface of 10; col. 2, lines 16-24) and increases the maximum static friction force received by the driving wheel (col. 3, line 74 – col. 4, line 1). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Auld device by incorporating the friction member taught by Sauerwein, in order to increase the friction force on the wheel and resist slipping.
Regarding claim 2, Auld in view of Sauerwein teaches the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device of claim 1, wherein the different driving powers applied by the power module to the driving arm includes different linear directions (Auld: para. [0048], last sentence, the two linear directions depicted by the arrows in Figs. 7 and 8) or different magnitudes.
Regarding claim 3, Auld in view of Sauerwein teaches the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device of claim 2, as described above, wherein the driving arm includes a variety of different motion amplitudes or a variety of different motion rates (Auld: para. [0055], last two sentences; para. [0057], last sentence, varying the oscillation motion rates).
Regarding claim 4, Auld in view of Sauerwein teaches the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device of claim 3, as described above, wherein the power module includes a first power unit (Auld: para. [0043], sentences 1 and 3: first power unit being 132 or 134 delivering pneumatic pressure to move the member) and a second power unit (Auld: para. [0043], sentences 3-5: second power unit being the bias member that returns the member back to the original position, creating oscillation) respectively connected to the driving arm (Auld: para. [0044], sentence 1, the power units of 130 coupled to the frame; Fig. 3A: the frame directly fixed to both driving arms), and by the action of the power module, the driving arm is controlled to push the wheel teeth in its only one motion direction (Auld: Figs. 7 and 8; para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 7, Auld in view of Sauerwein teaches the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device of claim 1, as described above, wherein the driving wheel is a ratchet wheel (Auld: Fig. 7:118), the wheel teeth are ratchet teeth (Auld: Fig. 7: 119a-b), the driving arm is a pawl which pushes the ratchet teeth to make the ratchet wheel rotate intermittently (Auld: Fig. 7: pawls 139 and 140; para. [0048], last two sentences).
Regarding claim 9, Auld in view of Sauerwein teaches the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device of claim 1, as described above, wherein the friction member has elasticity (Sauerwein: 10a, inherently possesses a degree of elasticity; col. 2, lines 20-22), and the contact position of the friction member with the surface of the driving wheel includes the tooth surface or the non-tooth surface of the driving wheel (Sauerwein: Figs. 2 and 3: 10a is located around the perimeter of wheel 10, where the tooth surface extends from the non-tooth surface).
Regarding claim 10, Auld in view of Sauerwein teaches the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device of claim 9, as described above, wherein the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device further includes a base (Auld: base 120). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the friction member of Sauerwein at the base 120 of Auld such that it contacts the wheel in the same manner as taught by the cord contacting the wheel of Sauerwein, the driving wheel is movably assembled on the base (Auld: Fig. 6: wheel assembled on 120) where the friction member is located and frictionally fits with the friction member (Sauerwein: frictional fit between the friction member 10a and the cord, analogous to the contact between the wheel and the base upon the conbination).
Regarding claim 11, Auld in view of Sauerwein teaches the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device of claim 10, as described above. According to the combination described in claim 10, it directly follows that the friction member of Sauerwein is arranged on the base of Auld, and the friction member is frictionally fitted with the side surface of the driving wheel (Sauerwein: Figs 2 and 3: the side surface of the driving wheel possesses 10; Auld: the side surface of the driving wheel contacts base 120).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auld (20120165734) in view of Sauerwein (US 3669093) in further view of Yang (US 20190117881).
Regarding claim 5, Auld in view of Sauerwein teaches the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device of claim 4, as described above, wherein the second power unit includes an electrically driven linear actuator, an electrically heated linear actuator or an elastic member (Auld: para. [0043], sentences 3-5: second power unit being the elastic bias member that returns the member back to the original position, creating oscillation), and the control module controls the frequency (para. [0056], last two sentences, the frequency of the power is controlled to control the frequency of the oscillations) or the magnitude of the power exerted by the first power unit and the second power unit, in order to control the motion amplitude or motion rate of the driving arm (Auld: para. [061], sentence 1, the control module 212 controls the frequency of power exerted to 208/130, applied via the first power unit and returned by the second power unit). Although Auld teaches that the power module (130) may be electric rather than pneumatic (para. [0043], last sentence), Auld fails to disclose the first power unit as being electrically driven in its interaction with the elastic second power unit member.
Yang teaches an analogous drug infusion device wherein the first power unit includes an electrically driven linear actuator (Yang: Fig. 1: 1; para. [0054], sentence 1) while the second power unit includes an elastic member (Yang: Fig. 2: spring 6; para. [0055] and para. [056], sentence 1). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also modified the first power unit of the Auld device to be electrically/piezoelectrically driven rather than pneumatic, in order to remove the need for additional air compression and air delivery elements to the power unit.
Regarding claim 6, Auld in view of Sauerwein in further view of Yang teaches the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device of claim 5, as described above, wherein the first power unit is an advancing member (Yang: Fig. 1: 1; para. [0054], sentence 1; Auld: para. [0043], sentences 1 and 3, Fig. 7: 139 is advanced) while the second power unit is a reset member (Yang: Fig. 2: spring 6; para. [0055] and para. [056], sentence 1; Auld: para. [0043], sentences 1 and 3, Fig. 7: 139 is reset), during the operation, the advancing member applies power to the driving arm to push the wheel teeth forward, while the reset member applies power to the driving arm to make the driving arm reset (Auld: Figs. 7-8).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auld (20120165734) in view of Sauerwein (US 3669093) in further view of Gross (US 20030236498).
Regarding claim 8, Auld in view of Sauerwein teaches the unidirectional-driven drug infusion device of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach the driving arms as having two driving ends that are not flush.
Gross teaches an analogous driving wheel with a pawl arm and a ratchet wheel, wherein the driving arm (18) includes two driving ends (Fig. 2: ends 31 and 32), arranged up and down (Fig. 2: 31 arranged up, 32 arranged down), whose front ends are not flush (Fig. 2: 31 and 32 separate and not flush), and the two driving ends can alternately push the wheel teeth (Figs. 2 and 3; para. [0100]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arms taught by Auld in the Auld-Yang device, by incorporating each arm to have the separate driving ends (31 and 32) as taught by Gross, in order to allow for shorter stroke movements and therefore greater precision with rotation of the driving wheel and delivery of the drug (Gross: para. [0104]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 in view of De Haas have been considered but are moot because in light of the amendments to independent claim 1. The new ground of rejection no longer relies on the De Haas reference to teach the friction member limitation of independent claim 1 and its depending claims, as the Applicant argues it fails to do. The new ground of rejection of independent claim 1 now relies upon Sauerwein to teach the friction member being in direct contact with the surface of the drive wheel analogous to the Auld drive wheel, which would make the combination obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For these reasons, independent claim 1 (and its depending claims) stands rejected by Auld in view of Sauerwein to teach all of the limitations as amended.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATERINA ANNA WITTLIFF whose telephone number is (703)756-4772. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9-7ET.
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, MICHAEL TSAI can be reached at 571-270-5246. 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.
/K.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/NATHAN R PRICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights