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 preliminary amendment filed on 4/27/23. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-11 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-11 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 1-11 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 language “a control structure provided with multiple first fastening portions and first electrical contacts exposed on a surface of the control structure” is indefinite because it is not clear if both the fastening portions and electrical contacts are exposed on a surface of the control structure, or just the electrical contacts.
Further regarding claim 1, the language “the first fastening portions and the second fastening portions are fastened, making the control structure and the infusion structure assembled together, the first electrical contacts connect with the corresponding second electrical contacts” is grammatically incorrect to the point that it is not possible to fully and definitely understand what is claimed. It is also unclear if this language is identifying functions/possible configuration of the device or positively reciting a structural arrangement.
Regarding claim 11, the final phrase of the claim beginning with “a groove,” is grammatically incorrect with respect to the prior limitations of the claim to the point of being indefinite. It is not immediately clear how this phrase correlates to the prior phrases of the claim.
Remaining claims are rejected due to dependency on other claims rejected under this statute.
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) 1-5, 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 and 3-5, Flaherty discloses a patch-type drug infusion device (fig. 3), comprising: a control structure 700 provided with multiple first fastening portions (703/703a) and first electrical contacts (730) exposed on a 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), the first fastening portions and the second fastening portions are fastened, making the control structure and the infusion structure assembled together, the first electrical contacts connect with the corresponding second electrical contacts (par. 0067; see fig. 3) except for disclosing an outward extending portion provided on the case, and a block, used for 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 and a lower case; and the outward extending portion is disposed on the lower case. However, Cook et al. teaches a modular patch-type drug infusion device (fig. 8A-F) comprising an outward extending portion 806 provided on a case (provided on 816 when there-attached), and a block 815, used for blocking the control structure 818, 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 and lower portion 806, the outward extending portion disposed on the lower case (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, 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 disclose a groove within which a sealing element is provided is disposed around an area where the second electrical contacts are disposed. 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).
Conclusion
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