Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/032,396

DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE ASSEMBLY AND ACCESSORY FOR DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 18, 2023
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ, CRIS LOIREN
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Amgen, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
15%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
26%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 15% of cases
15%
Career Allow Rate
27 granted / 175 resolved
-54.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
216
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 175 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of species a) figures 1-3c, claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18-19, 23, 25, 28, and 30-31 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 3, 9, 10, 15, 20, 26-27, and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025. In regards to applicant’s remarks that claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 18-19, 25, 28, and 31 are generic, the examiner agrees with Applicant. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 18-19, 23, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kourtis et al (US 20210146052 A1). Regarding claim 1, Kourtis discloses a drug delivery device assembly 20 comprising: an injector housing having a body with a proximal end, a distal end, a longitudinal axis extending between the proximal end and the distal end, and at least one window 110; a needle assembly 22 at least partially disposed within the body, the needle assembly comprising a syringe barrel 30 containing a medicament, a plunger stopper 32 disposed in the syringe barrel, and a needle or a cannula 34; a drive assembly 24 at least partially disposed within the body and operably coupled with the needle assembly to urge the medicament through the needle or cannula during an injection sequence; and a dose feedback accessory 104, including: an accessory body 125 configured to be selectively coupled with the injector housing; and a feedback indicator ([0055, 0058, 0078]; figs 8, 12-17; abstract) configured to convey to a user information relating to an injection status event. Regarding claim 2, Kourtis discloses the dose feedback accessory 104 further includes a sensor 28,104 configured to detect the injection status event (figs 8-16; [0005]). Regarding claim 6, Kourtis discloses the accessory body 125 is configured to slide on to the injector housing and/or slide off of the injector housing (figs 8-9); [0086]. Regarding claim 8, Kourtis discloses the accessory body 125 includes an opening 128 configured to receive and selectively couple with at least a portion of the injector housing. Regarding claim 11, Kourtis discloses the feedback indicator includes (a) at least one light source that signifies a movement or a position of the plunger stopper [0003,0052, 0054, 0076-0078]. Regarding claim 18, Kourtis discloses an accessory 104 for a drug delivery device 20, comprising: an accessory body 125 configured to be selectively coupled with an injector; and a feedback indicator ([0055, 0058, 0078]; figs 8, 12-17; abstract) configured to convey to a user information relating to an injection status event. Regarding claim 19, Kourtis discloses the feedback indicator comprises a sensor 28,104 configured to detect an injection status event of the drug delivery device (figs 8-16; [0005]). Regarding claim 23, Kourtis discloses the accessory body 125 is configured to slide on to the drug delivery device and/or off of the drug delivery device (figs 8-9; [0086]). Regarding claim 25, Kourtis discloses the accessory body 125 includes an opening 128 configured to receive and selectively couple with at least a portion of the drug delivery device 20. Regarding claim 28, Kourtis discloses the feedback indicator includes (a) at least one light source that signifies a movement or a position of a plunger stopper of the drug delivery device [0003,0052, 0054, 0076-0078]. 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. Claims 13, 14, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kourtis et al. (US 20210146052 A1) in view of Cabiri et al (US 20190022323 A1/see US 11311674 B2 drawings). Regarding claims 13, 14, 30 and 31, Kourtis discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Kourtis discloses in [0057, 0055, 0058, 0078] the feedback indicator can include a plurality of lights and detectors aligned with a window [0052,0059 and provide an injection completion countdown [0052, 0053, 0066, 0073, 0074]], but does not specifically state how the plurality of light sources that each signify a movement or a position of the plunger stopper of the drug delivery device and the plurality of light sources are generally aligned with the window 118. Cabiri teaches a drug delivery device including a status indicator light 104 [0024, 0121- 0124, 0166] viewing of a plunger position [0161, 0166] along a window 162 and provide an injection completion countdown [0125, 0205]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kourtis’s plurality light sources in the feedback indicator with the teachings of Cabiri’s plurality of light sources where each signify a movement or a position of the plunger stopper since such modification would allow the user to have more information of the drug delivery device status. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cris L Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)272-4964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am- 2pm.. 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. /Cris L. Rodriguez/ Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 18, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599723
VIAL GEOMETRIES FOR OPTIMAL MIXING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589209
A SYSTEM WITH A MONITORING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576207
COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED DIABETES MANAGEMENT METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569621
SUB-ASSEMBLY FOR MEDICAMENT DELIVERY DEVICE, AND MEDICAMENT DELIVERY DEVICE COMPRISING THE SUB-ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558527
Instrument For Fluid Application and Clamping Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
15%
Grant Probability
26%
With Interview (+10.5%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 175 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month