DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 06/30/2026 following the Non-Final Rejection of 12/30/2025. Claims 1-5, 9-10 and 12-13 were amended. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the drawing objections, claim objections and rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 112(a) and/or 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these objections and/or rejections of 12/30/2025 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments made to the claims.
Examiner Note: the claims as originally drafted were generally directed toward an invention having at least two first groove walls (and their associated components) with much of the limitations recited in the claim describing the invention as such. Given this, the claim requires quite a bit of redrafting to instead properly reflect where the claimed invention is only required to have a single first groove wall as well as care to ensure that the amendments do not lead to new issues.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
“sides, facing the second groove wall, of the support arms are provided with elastic arms” in claim 1 lines 19-20, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“one side of each limiting convex portion is provided with a first limiting surface opposite to a corresponding first groove wall” in claim 7, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). While there is support in the drawings for this statement generally (see fig. 4), the claimed invention has only introduced a single first groove wall. The drawings fail to show where ‘one side of each limiting convex portion is provided with a first limiting surface opposite to the singular first groove wall’.
“a through groove penetrating through the top wall, limiting rods corresponding to the through groove” and “the limiting rods penetrate through the through groove” in claims 10 and 13, must be shown or the features(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings only show the limiting rods corresponding to the through grooves and the limiting rods penetrating through the through grooves.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 25, “than a width of the sliding groove” should likely read “than a width of the two sliding grooves”; since “two sliding grooves” were previously introduced in the claim.
Claim 2 line 29, “disengages from the sliding groove” should likely read “disengages from the two sliding grooves”; since “two sliding grooves were previously introduced in the claim.
Claim 2 last line, “wherein two sliding grooves are evenly distributed” should likely read “wherein the two sliding grooves are evenly distributed”; since “two sliding grooves” were previously introduced in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 3-13 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 Claim 1 lines 19-20, “sides, facing the second groove wall, of the support arms are provided with elastic arms” fails the written description requirement and is considered new matter as it was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the effective filing date. The instant specification only describes of “the sides, facing the second groove walls, of the support arms are provided with elastic arms”. Not of the sides of the support arm facing the singular second groove wall being provided with elastic arms.
Claims 3-13 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “one side of each limiting convex portion is provided with a first limiting surface opposite to a corresponding first groove wall” fails to written description requirement. Since this claimed invention has only introduced a singular “first groove wall”; Applicant does not appear to have possession of the claimed invention where ‘one side of each limiting convex portion is provided with a first limiting surface opposite to the first groove wall”. This is because the instant disclosure possesses support for the case where the invention would have a plurality of first groove walls to correspond with the plurality of limiting convex portions.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations “a through groove penetrating through the top wall, limiting rods corresponding to the through groove” and “the limiting rods penetrate through the through groove” lead to the claim failing the written description requirement and appears to be new matter. There appears to be no support for the claimed invention where a plurality of limiting rods correspond to a singular through groove of the top wall of the shield, where a plurality of limiting rods penetrate though a single through groove of the shield.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations “a through groove penetrating through the top wall, limiting rods corresponding to the through groove” and “the limiting rods penetrate through the through groove” lead to the claim failing the written description requirement and appears to be new matter. There appears to be no support for the claimed invention where a plurality of limiting rods correspond to a singular through groove of the top wall of the shield, where a plurality of limiting rods penetrate though a single through groove of the shield.
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 and 3-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1 lines 19-20, “sides, facing the second groove wall, of the support arms are provided with elastic arms” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how
Claim 1 last line recites the limitation “the support surfaces”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only a single support surface has been previously introduced in the claim.
Claims 3-13 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the support surfaces” two separate times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only a single support surface has been previously introduced.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first groove walls” two separate times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. only a single first groove wall has been previously introduced.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the support surfaces” two separate times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only a single support surface has been previously introduced.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “one side of each limiting convex portion is provided with a first limiting surface opposite to a corresponding first groove wall” renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “a corresponding first groove wall seems to imply that there is a corresponding one of a plurality of first groove walls”, however, only a single first groove wall has been previously introduced. Further, given the fact that only a single “first groove wall” has been previously introduced. It is unclear what structure would be established by ‘one side of each limiting convex portion is provided with a first limiting surface opposite to the first groove wall’ where all of the first limiting surfaces would be provided opposite to the singular first groove wall which has been previously established.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations “to a corresponding first groove wall” and “the corresponding first groove wall” renders the claim indefinite. Since only a singular first groove wall has been previously introduced, the phrase “a corresponding first groove wall” causes clarity issues as it seems to suggest that there is a corresponding first groove wall out of a multiple of first groove walls. This leads to a lack of clarity given that there has only been “a first groove wall” previously introduced and it is unclear if this cited limitation is referencing the only introduced “first groove wall”, a new “first groove wall” or is referencing to one of a plurality of first groove walls.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “the corresponding support surface” renders the claim indefinite since only a singular support surface has been previously introduced. The phrase “the corresponding support surface” seems to suggest that there is a corresponding support surface out of a multiple of support surface. This leads to a lack of clarity given that there has only been “a support surface” previously introduced.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “a through groove penetrating through the top wall, limiting rods corresponding to the through groove” and “the limiting rods penetrate through the through groove” render the claim indefinite. when interpreting the instant disclosure in light of the specification, it is unclear how a plurality of limiting rods can correspond to and penetrate through a single through groove at the top wall of the shield. It is unclear how the structure would take shape in light of what the instant specification discloses.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations “a through groove penetrating through the top wall, limiting rods corresponding to the through groove” and “the limiting rods penetrate through the through groove” render the claim indefinite. when interpreting the instant disclosure in light of the specification, it is unclear how a plurality of limiting rods can correspond to and penetrate through a single through groove at the top wall of the shield. It is unclear how the structure would take shape in light of what the instant specification discloses.
Examiner Note: please carefully review how claim amendments to address issues above would alter the claim limitation and claim as a whole. E.g. “wherein the upper end of the needle hub is provided with limiting convex portions with upper ends protruding out of the support surfaces” from claim 7 amended to read “wherein the upper end of the needle hub is provided with limiting convex portions with upper ends protruding out of the support surface” would result in new issues as there isn’t support for a plurality of limiting convex portions with upper ends protruding out of a singular support surface in the instant invention at the effective filing date and there are potential indefinite issues raised by the structure that would be claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and rejection(s) of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Examiner Note: see rationale provided in the prior Office Action of 09/10/2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights