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 .
Claims 1-11 are amended.
Claims 1-11 are being examined in this office action.
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 1-11 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, the limitation “one end of the elastic conductor is electrically connected to an electrical connection end on the three-dimensional circuit” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear which of the previously mentioned multiple three-dimensional circuits the elastic conductor is electrically connected to.
All remaining claims are rejected as they depend on rejected independent claim 1.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Flaherty (US Pub. No. 20020169439).
Regarding claim 1, Flaherty discloses a compact patch-type drug infusion device (10, Fig. 3), comprising:
a control structure (700, 800) provided with multiple first fastening portions (703, 703a) and first electrical contacts (730) exposed on a surface (bottom surface of 700) of the control structure (Fig. 3); and
an infusion structure (700, 800) including a case (702, 802), a power supply (821, Para [0070]), multiple three-dimensional circuits (50, “circuitry”, Para [0042]), and an elastic conductor (“spring loaded”, 720, 820, Para [0071]), wherein one end of the elastic conductor is electrically connected to an electrical connection end on the three-dimensional circuit while an other end the elastic conductor is electrically connected to the power supply (Para [0071], [0085]), and the infusion structure is provided with multiple second electrical contacts (830) exposed on a surface of the case and second fastening portions (804, 804a) that cooperate with the first fastening portions, the first fastening portions and the second fastening portions are fastened (See dotted lines in Fig. 3), the first electrical contacts connect with the corresponding second electrical contacts (Para [0067], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Flaherty discloses the compact patch-type drug infusion device as recited above, wherein the first fastening portions and the second fastening portions include one or more of hooks (703, 703a) or holes (804, 804a), that cooperate with each other (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Flaherty discloses the compact patch-type drug infusion device as recited above, wherein one of the first electrical contacts (730) or one of the second electrical contacts (830) is a an elastic conductive member (“spring loaded”, Para [0067]).
Regarding claim 4, Flaherty discloses the compact patch-type drug infusion device as recited above, wherein the elastic conductive member includes a conductive spring (“spring loaded”, Para [0067])
Regarding claim 7, Flaherty discloses the compact patch-type drug infusion device as recited above, wherein the case includes an upper case and a lower case (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Flaherty discloses the compact patch-type drug infusion device as recited above, wherein the power supply includes a double-row battery pack (“battery technology common to miniature handheld devices”, Para [0070]).
Regarding claim 9, Flaherty discloses the compact patch-type drug infusion device as recited above, wherein the power supply includes button batteries (“battery technology common to miniature handheld devices”, Para [0070]).
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(s) 5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty (US Pub. No. 20020169439) in view of Streit et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0338924).
Regarding claim 5, Flaherty discloses the compact patch-type drug infusion device as recited above, wherein one of the second electrical contacts (830) is a conductive spring (“spring loaded”, Para [0067]), a groove (“compartment”), within which a sealing element (“sealed”) is provided, is disposed around an area where the second electrical contacts are disposed (Para [0070]).
Flaherty does not expressly disclose that one of the first electrical contacts is a rigid metal pin.
Streit teaches an electrical contact is a rigid metal pin (121’ – Figs. 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify one of the first electrical contacts disclosed by Flaherty so that it is a rigid metal pin as taught by Streit, in order to further secure the first and second electrical contacts.
Regarding claim 10, Flaherty in view of Streit teaches the compact patch-type drug infusion device as recited above, wherein the lower case further includes an outward extending portion (base plate 241 of Streit includes an outwardly extending portion that comes to lie parallel with the base plate of housing 140 of module 100/100’), and a block (Examiner interprets the protrusion on base plate 241 of Streit as a block)is provided on an outside of the outward extending portion (Streit, [0041], Figs. 3a-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the drug infusion device disclosed by Flaherty so that the lower case further includes an outward extending portion, and a block is provided on an outside of the outward extending portion as taught by Streit, in order to further secure control structure and the infusion structure.
Regarding claim 11, Flaherty in view of Streit teaches the compact patch-type drug infusion device as recited above, wherein an outer end of the outward extending portion is provided with a pressing portion (Streit, 223 – Fig. 3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the drug infusion device disclosed by Flaherty so that an outer end of the outward extending portion is provided with a pressing portion as taught by Streit, in order to further seal the connection of the electrical contact arrangements (Streit, Para [0021]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty (US Pub. No. 20020169439) in view of Halac et al. (US Patent No. 2021/0330885).
Regarding claim 6, Flaherty discloses the compact patch-type drug infusion device as recited above, wherein the elastic conductor is a spring (“spring loaded”, 720, 820, Para [0071]).
Flaherty does not expressly disclose that the elastic conductor is specifically a conductive leaf spring.
Halac teaches that an elastic conductor (410, 412) is a conductive leaf spring (Para [0244], Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify elastic conductor disclosed by Flaherty so that it is a conductive leaf spring as taught by Flaherty, in order to enhance the reliability of the electrical connection (Halac, Para [0084]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHELSEA E STINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1744. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm, Alt. Fridays Off.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights