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 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) 9-11 and 21-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2011/0288574 to Curry et al. (Curry) in view of U.S. Patent 6,030,402 to Thompson et al. (Thompson).
Regarding claim 9, Sonderegger teaches a method for an insertion device (10) comprising:
Unlocking an insertion device that comprises a plunger (28) having a rib (32) coupled to a lock collar (12) with a clearance slot (34), unlocked by rotating outer barrel (paragraph 46),
Upon unlocking, firing the insertion device at an insertion site (infusion site, see e.g. paragraph 42),
Upon firing, causing a piercing member to insert a catheter into the user, and
Retracting a needle carrier (38, see e.g. paragraph 70, “configured to retract the introducer needle”) such that the piercing member is encapsulated in the device (10, see e.g. Fig. 2 illustrating retracted position.
Sondregger is silent to an inserted sensor.
Regarding claims 9 and 26, Curry teaches a method for an insertion device, comprising a plunger (4012) with ribs (4018) and a collar (4004), the method comprising firing the plunger at an insertion site (paragraph 194) in response to the user pressing on the plunger, causing a piercing member (2404) to insert a sensor (122) into a body of the user (paragraph 195) and causing the sensor (122) to adhere to the user, and retracting a needle carrier in response to the user releasing the plunger (paragraph 196). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a sensor as taught by Curry to the insertion device of Sonderegger in order to implant a sensor.
Regarding claim 11, Curry teaches adhering the sensor to the user and releasing it in response to the user pulling away the insertion device (4000, see paragraphs 194-196). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to release the sensor as taught by Curry in response to the user pulling away the insertion device of Sonderegger in order to leave the sensor implanted.
Regarding claims 21 and 27, Sonderegger teaches a single rib (32) spaced along a periphery of the plunger (28).
Regarding claims 22 and 28, Sonderegger teaches that the slot (34) is placed around an inner periphery of the lock collar (12).
Regarding claim 23, Sonderegger teaches that the striking spring (24) holds the needle carrier (38) against the plunger (28) in all positions.
Regarding claim 24, Sonderegger teaches that the device may be used once and disposed of (paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 25, as shown in Fig. 1, Sonderegger teaches that the needle carrier may have a rectangular cross-section (at least when viewed radially relative to the reciprocation axis, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, Sonderegger teaches a circular cross section (see e.g. Fig. 9) of the needle carrier.
Regarding claim 30, Sonderegger teaches a striker (16, 50) configured to keep the insertion device in a cocked position, a striker spring (24) and compressing the striker spring in response to the plunger being pressed toward the collar (by 36).
Regarding claim 31, Sonderegger teaches that the striker spring (24) is positioned between the plunger (28) and the striker (at 50).
Regarding claim 32, Sonderegger teaches a striker (16, 50), a snap arm (136) thereof which is compressed in response to the plunger (28) being pressed towards the lock collar.
Regarding claim 34, Sonderegger teaches that the snap arm (136) is flexed outward to retract the needle carrier (paragraph 51).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitations of a method of an insertion device in which a plunger is rotated to align a rib with a clearance slot wherein the rib deflects a striker snap arm as in claims 10 and 33 are not shown in or fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 18 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sonderegger in view of Curry as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 30 April 2026
Prosecution Insights