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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 4/20/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-4 and 6-11 have been amended, claim 5 has been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-4 and 6-11 are presently pending in this application.
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 1-4 and 6-11 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 newly amended limitation “when the control structure is assembled to the infusion structure” renders the claim indefinite, because it is not clear whether this limitation is to be linked to the preceding limitations in the claim, or the subsequent limitations in the clam. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as modifying the limitation that follows this phrase.
Remaining claims rejected as they depend from claim 1.
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) 1-4, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty (US 20020169439) in view of Cook et al. (US 10279106).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, claim 1 as best understood, Flaherty discloses a patch-type drug infusion device (fig. 3), comprising: a control structure 700 provided with multiple first fastening portions (703/703a) exposed on a surface (bottom surface) of the control structure (see fig. 3) and first electrical contacts (730) exposed on the surface (bottom surface) of the control structure (see fig. 3); and an infusion structure 800, including a case (outer wall of 800, see fig. 3), provided with multiple second electrical contacts 830 exposed on a surface of the case (top surface) and second fastening portions (804/804a) that cooperate with the first fastening portions (see fig. 3), when the control structure is assembled to the infusion structure, the first fastening portions and the second fastening portions are fixed to each other, and the first electrical contacts are connected to the second electrical contacts, respectively (par. 0067; see fig. 3), except for disclosing an outward extending portion provided on a lower case of the case, and a block, used for directly blocking the control structure, wherein the block is provided on an outside of the outward extending portion; an outer end of the outward extending portion is provided with a pressing portion; the case includes an upper case. However, Cook et al. teaches a modular patch-type drug infusion device (fig. 8A-F) comprising an outward extending portion (outward extending portion of 806) provided on a lower case 806, and a block 815, used for blocking the control structure 818 (when assembled as shown in fig. 3C, 818 is directly blocked along with 816), wherein the block is provided on an outside of the outward extending portion and an outer end of the outward extending portion is provided with a pressing portion (see fig. 8A-F; col. 6, ln. 53 – col. 7, ln. 7); the case comprises an upper portion 816 (fig. 8A-F). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Flaherty device to utilize the structure of Cook et al. for the purpose of providing sufficient structure to allow for simple disconnection of the assembly when needed (col. 6, ln. 53 – col. 7, ln. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Flaherty discloses the first and second fastening portions include hooks and holes/slots (see fig. 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Flaherty discloses elastic conductive member contacts in the form of a spring (par. 0067, 0071, 0085).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty in view of Cook et al., and further in view of Diperna et al. (US 20210170095).
Regarding claims 6-8, Flaherty, as modified by Cook et al., fails to teach an unlocking hole disposed on the lower case and set in an inner side of the blook, at least one crease groove on a side of the unlocking hole, and the at least one crease groove being two crease grooves provided at two ends of the block, respectively. However, Diperna et al. teaches a modular patch-type drug infusion device (fig. 4) with an unlocking hole (hole defined by 196, see fig. 4) set in an inner side of a block 196, with crease grooves on either side of the hole/block (grooves visible in fig. 4 on each leg of 196 where the legs meet body 190). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the block arrangement of Flaherty in view of Cook et al. to utilize the structures of Diperna et al. since such a modification is the result of a simple substitution of one known element (blocking structure arrangement of Diperna et al.) for another (blocking structure arrangement of Cook et al.) to achieve predictable results (simple disconnection of the assembly when needed; Diperna et al. par. 0088, Cook et al. col. 6, ln. 53 – col. 7, ln. 7).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty in view of Cook et al., and further in view of Streit et al. (US 20210338924).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Flaherty discloses one of the first electrical contacts is a rigid metal pin while one of the second electrical contacts is a conductive spring (par. 0085) and discloses generally providing a sealed compartment for electronics to protect against contamination (par. 0070), but fails to disclosea groove is disposed around an area where the second electrical contacts are disposed, and a sealing element is provided within the groove. However, Streit et al. teaches a modular patch-type drug infusion device (fig. 3a-b) providing a groove (socket 222/edge of socket 222) within which a sealing element is provided (lip 223) disposed around an area where electrical contacts are disposed (par. 0037; fig. 3a-b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the sealing arrangement of Streit et al. to protect the electrical contacts of Flaherty for the purpose of providing sufficient structure to prevent contamination of the electricals by preventing liquid from penetrating through to the contacts (Flaherty par. 0070; Streit et al. par. 0037).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pg. 9 of the Remarks directed to the “lower case” limitation amended to claim 1, Examiner has updated the rejection of claim 1 to reflect this amendment. Regarding the argument on pg. 9-10 or the Remarks that Cook cannot be interpreted to disclose that the blocking element is not used for “directly” blocking the control structure, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s interpreted scope of this limitation. As noted in the updated rejection for claim 1 above, in fig. 8C, 818 is being directly blocked from movement as assembled.
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 NATHAN R PRICE whose telephone number is (571)270-5421. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm Eastern time.
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.
/NATHAN R PRICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights