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 of Species I in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 30-33 & 35-47 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.
As to Claim 30, the limitation “actuation of the first actuation part is needed before actuating the second actuation part in order to move the plunger rod from the initial position to the administration position and/or to unblock the second actuation part and/or wherein the first actuation part is to be actuated again and/or after actuating the second actuation part in order to move the plunger rod from the administration position to the final position”, is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing, mostly due to the repeated use of the “and/or” terms. It is not clear which structure before the “and/or” terms to attach to the phrases after each of the “and/or” terms, or if structure prior to the “and/or” terms should even be applied to any of the phrases after any of the “and/or” terms. For example, the phrase “to unblock the second actuation part” immediately after the first “and/or” term does not appear to grammatically fit with any of the grammatic structure prior to the first “and/or” term even though the phrase is an incomplete sentence/phrase. Examiner suggests clearly differentiating each of the provided options with designators, such as 1), or a), or i), or to use appropriately placed semicolons.
The phrase “to unblock the second actuation part” is indefinite. Claim 23 describes the second actuation part blocking either the plunger rod or the first actuation part, but does not describe the second actuation part ever being blocked. Additionally, the specification never describes the second actuation part being blocked. As such, it is not clear if the phrase is meant to define a new function, or if the phrase should have been “to unblock the first actuation part”.
As to Claim 31, the limitation “the second actuation part is blocked in the initial position and/or before reaching the administration position and/or wherein the second actuation part can be only actuated upon actuation of the first actuation part”, is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing, mostly due to the repeated use of the “and/or” terms. It is not clear which structure before the “and/or” terms to attach to the phrases after each of the “and/or” terms, or if structure prior to the “and/or” terms should even be applied to any of the phrases after any of the “and/or” terms. The grammar prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from determining where a limitation begins or ends. For example, the phrase “before reaching the administration position” immediately after the first “and/or” term does not appear to grammatically fit with any of the grammatic structure prior to the first “and/or” term even though the phrase is an incomplete sentence/phrase. Examiner suggests clearly differentiating each of the provided options with designators, such as 1), or a), or i), or to use appropriately placed semicolons.
The phrase “the second actuation part is blocked in the initial position” is indefinite. Claim 23 describes the second actuation part blocking either the plunger rod or the first actuation part, but does not describe the second actuation part ever being blocked. Additionally, the specification never describes the second actuation part being blocked. As such, it is not clear if the phrase is meant to define a new function, or if the phrase should have been “the first actuation part is blocked in the initial position”.
As to Claim 32, the limitation “the second actuation part is to be actuated in order to unblock the plunger rod and/or the first actuation part and/or such that the first actuation part can be actuated and/or such that the plunger rod can be moved from the initial position to the administration position”, is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing, mostly due to the repeated use of the “and/or” terms. It is not clear which structure before the “and/or” terms to attach to the phrases after each of the “and/or” terms, or if structure prior to the “and/or” terms should even be applied to any of the phrases after any of the “and/or” terms. The grammar prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from determining where a limitation begins or ends. For example, the phrase “such that the first actuation part can be actuated” immediately after the second “and/or” term does not appear to grammatically fit with any of the grammatic structure prior to the first “and/or” term even though the phrase is an incomplete sentence/phrase. Examiner suggests clearly differentiating each of the provided options with designators, such as 1), or a), or i), or to use appropriately placed semicolons.
As to Claim 33, the limitation “the second actuation part is to be actuated in order to unblock the plunger rod and/or the first actuation part and/or such that the first actuation part can be actuated and/or such that the plunger rod can be moved from the administration position to the final position”, is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing, mostly due to the repeated use of the “and/or” terms. It is not clear which structure before the “and/or” terms to attach to the phrases after each of the “and/or” terms, or if structure prior to the “and/or” terms should even be applied to any of the phrases after any of the “and/or” terms. The grammar prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from determining where a limitation begins or ends. For example, the phrase “such that the first actuation part can be actuated” immediately after the second “and/or” term does not appear to grammatically fit with any of the grammatic structure prior to the first “and/or” term even though the phrase is an incomplete sentence/phrase. Examiner suggests clearly differentiating each of the provided options with designators, such as 1), or a), or i), or to use appropriately placed semicolons.
As to Claim 35, the limitation “the securing member is configured to block the second actuation part in the initial position and/or before reaching the administration position and to automatically unblock actuation of the second actuation part upon actuating the first actuation part and/or when the administration position is reached”, is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing, mostly due to the repeated use of the “and/or” terms. It is not clear which structure before the “and/or” terms to attach to the phrases after each of the “and/or” terms, or if structure prior to the “and/or” terms should even be applied to any of the phrases after any of the “and/or” terms. The grammar prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from determining where a limitation begins or ends. Examiner suggests clearly differentiating each of the provided options with designators, such as 1), or a), or i), or to use appropriately placed semicolons.
The phrase “to automatically unblock actuation of the second actuation part upon actuating the first actuation part” is indefinite. Claim 23 describes the second actuation part blocking either the plunger rod or the first actuation part, but does not describe the second actuation part ever being blocked. Additionally, the specification never describes the second actuation part being blocked. As such, it is not clear if the phrase is meant to define a new function, or if the phrase should have been “to automatically unblock actuation of the first actuation part upon actuating the second actuation part”. If the phrase is written as intended, it is not clear how the securing member is capable of automatically unblocking actuation of the second actuation part upon actuation of the first actuation part.
As to Claim 36, the limitation “the securing member is configured to block the second actuation part in the initial position and/or before reaching the administration position and to automatically unblock actuation of the second actuation part upon actuating the first actuation part and/or when the administration position is reached”, in Lines 14-17, is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing, mostly due to the repeated use of the “and/or” terms. It is not clear which structure before the “and/or” terms to attach to the phrases after each of the “and/or” terms, or if structure prior to the “and/or” terms should even be applied to any of the phrases after any of the “and/or” terms. The grammar prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from determining where a limitation begins or ends. Examiner suggests clearly differentiating each of the provided options with designators, such as 1), or a), or i), or to use appropriately placed semicolons.
The phrase “to automatically unblock actuation of the second actuation part upon actuating the first actuation part” is indefinite. Claim 23 describes the second actuation part blocking either the plunger rod or the first actuation part, but does not describe the second actuation part ever being blocked. Additionally, the specification never describes the second actuation part being blocked. As such, it is not clear if the phrase is meant to define a new function, or if the phrase should have been “to automatically unblock actuation of the first actuation part upon actuating the second actuation part”. If the phrase is written as intended, it is not clear how the securing member is capable of automatically unblocking actuation of the second actuation part upon actuation of the first actuation part.
As to Claim 41, the limitation “securing member engages the plunger rod and/or wherein the securing member is configured to block a back-movement of the plunger rod and/or the first actuation part, at least in the initial position and/or in the administration position of the plunger rod” is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing, mostly due to the repeated use of the “and/or” terms. It is not clear which structure before the “and/or” terms to attach to the phrases after each of the “and/or” terms, or if structure prior to the “and/or” terms should even be applied to any of the phrases after any of the “and/or” terms. The grammar prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from determining where a limitation begins or ends. Examiner suggests clearly differentiating each of the provided options with designators, such as 1), or a), or i), or to use appropriately placed semicolons.
As to Claim 42, the limitation “the securing member engages the second actuation part and/or wherein the securing member is configured to block actuating the second actuation part and/or to automatically unblock actuation of the second actuation part upon actuating the first actuation part and/or when the administration position is reached” is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing, mostly due to the repeated use of the “and/or” terms. It is not clear which structure before the “and/or” terms to attach to the phrases after each of the “and/or” terms, or if structure prior to the “and/or” terms should even be applied to any of the phrases after any of the “and/or” terms. The grammar prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from determining where a limitation begins or ends. Examiner suggests clearly differentiating each of the provided options with designators, such as 1), or a), or i), or to use appropriately placed semicolons.
As to Claim 44, the limitation “the plunger rod is configured to tension and/or widen the securing member upon actuating the first actuation part and/or during movement of the plunger rod from the initial position towards the administration position” is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing, mostly due to the repeated use of the “and/or” terms. It is not clear which structure before the “and/or” terms to attach to the phrases after each of the “and/or” terms, or if structure prior to the “and/or” terms should even be applied to any of the phrases after any of the “and/or” terms. The grammar prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from determining where a limitation begins or ends. Examiner suggests clearly differentiating each of the provided options with designators, such as 1), or a), or i), or to use appropriately placed semicolons.
As to Claim 46, the limitation “the plunger rod is configured to at least partially and/or audibly release the securing member and/or to disengage the securing member from the second actuation part upon actuating the first actuation part and/or when reaching the administration position and/or in such a way that an audible and/or haptic feedback is provided” is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing, mostly due to the repeated use of the “and/or” terms. It is not clear which structure before the “and/or” terms to attach to the phrases after each of the “and/or” terms, or if structure prior to the “and/or” terms should even be applied to any of the phrases after any of the “and/or” terms. The grammar prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from determining where a limitation begins or ends. Examiner suggests clearly differentiating each of the provided options with designators, such as 1), or a), or i), or to use appropriately placed semicolons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 23-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawson (U.S. PGPub 2020/0188589).
As to Claim 23, Hawson teaches an administration device (100) for administration of a fluid (Paragraph 0001, where one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude a solution within the context of the Hawson reference is comprised of a fluid), the administration device (100) comprising:
a retainer (44) for holding (as shown in Figure 3) a container (30) containing (Paragraph 0076) the fluid (the solution described in Paragraph 0001), and
an actuation mechanism comprising a plunger rod (76), a first actuation part (72) and a second actuation part (86), the second actuation part (86) being movably attached to (since retainer 44 is fixed to second housing element 88, as described in Paragraph 0099, and second actuation part 86 rotates relative to second housing element 88, as described in Paragraph 0115, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude second actuation part 86 is “movably attached to” retainer 44) the retainer (44),
wherein the plunger rod (76) is adapted to act on (Paragraph 0093) a stopper (74) movably arranged (Paragraphs 0092/0093) within (as shown in Figure 3) the container (30),
wherein the first actuation part (72) can be manually actuated (Paragraph 0092) in order to axially move (Paragraph 0092) the plunger rod (76) relative to (since container 30 is formed integral with protective outer barrel 44, as described in Paragraph 0080, and plunger rod 76 moves relative to container 30, as described in Paragraph 0092, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude plunger rod 76 moves relative to retainer 44) the retainer (44) from an initial position (Figure 34a) to an administration position (Figure 34b) and from the administration position (Figure 34b) to a final position (Figure 34d), and
wherein the second actuation part (86) is configured to axially block (via 146, as described in Paragraphs 0111/0114) at least one of the plunger rod (76, via blocking first actuation part 72) or the first actuation part (72, where 144 is part of first actuation part 72; see Figure 12) in the administration position (Figure 34b) of the plunger rod (76), wherein the second actuation part (86) is to be actuated (Paragraph 0115; as shown in Figure 34c) in order to axially release (Paragraph 0126) at least one of the plunger rod (76) or the first actuation part (72) such that the first actuation part (72) can be actuated and the plunger rod (76) can be moved from (Paragraph 0126) the administration position (Figure 34b) to the final position (Figure 34d).
As to Claim 24, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the plunger rod (76) axially extends through at least one (as shown in Figures 2/3) of the retainer (44) or the second actuation part (86).
As to Claim 25, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the first actuation part (72) can be actuated by pushing (as shown in Figure 34) the first actuation part (72) towards (as shown in Figure 34) at least one of the second actuation part (86) or the retainer (44).
As to Claim 26, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the second actuation part (86) can be actuated by rotating (as shown in Figure 34) the second actuation part (86) relative to (as shown in Figure 34) the retainer (44) and/or around (as shown in Figure 34) the plunger rod (76).
As to Claim 27, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the plunger rod (76) comprises a cross section (the cross section shown in Figure 19b) that varies (as shown in Figures 19a/19b) along a main axis (the left and right axis of 76, as viewed in Figure 19b) of the plunger rod (76).
As to Claim 28, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the second actuation part (86) comprises an opening (90), wherein the second actuation part (86) is to be actuated to align (Paragraphs 0096/0115) the opening (90) with the plunger rod (76) such that the plunger rod (76) can move through (as shown in Figure 34) the opening (90).
As to Claim 29, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the first actuation part (72) can be actuated in order to move (as shown between Figure 34a to Figure 34b) the plunger rod (76) from the initial position (Figure 34a) to the administration position (Figure 34b) and subsequently and/or after actuating (as shown in Figure 34c) the second actuation part (86) from the administration position (Figure 34b) to the final position (Figure 34d).
As to Claim 30, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach actuation (Paragraph 0092) of the first actuation part (72) is needed (as shown in Figure 34) before actuating (Paragraph 0115; as shown in Figure 34c) the second actuation part (86) in order to move (as shown in Figure 34) the plunger rod (76) from the initial position (Figure 34a) to the administration position (Figure 34b) and/or to unblock the second actuation part and/or wherein the first actuation part is to be actuated again and/or after actuating the second actuation part in order to move the plunger rod from the administration position to the final position. Since the first option is taught, the remaining options do not need to be taught.
As to Claim 31, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the second actuation part is blocked in the initial position and/or before reaching the administration position and/or wherein the second actuation part (86) can be only actuated upon (Paragraph 0126) actuation of (as shown in Figure 34a) the first actuation part (72). Since the last option is taught, the remaining options do not need to be taught.
As to Claim 32, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the second actuation part (86) is configured to axially block (via 146, as described in Paragraphs 0111/0114) the plunger rod (76, via blocking first actuation part 72) and/or the first actuation part in the initial position of the plunger rod, wherein the second actuation part (86) is to be actuated (Paragraph 0115; as shown in Figure 34c) in order to unblock (Paragraph 0126) the plunger rod (76) and/or the first actuation part and/or such that the first actuation part can be actuated and/or such that the plunger rod can be moved from the initial position to the administration position. Since the first option of each option set is taught, the remaining options do not need to be taught.
As to Claim 33, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the second actuation part (86) is configured to axially block (via 146, as described in Paragraphs 0111/0114) the plunger rod (76, via blocking first actuation part 72) and/or the first actuation part in the administration position of the plunger rod, wherein the second actuation part (86) is to be actuated (Paragraph 0115; as shown in Figure 34c) in order to unblock (Paragraph 0126) the plunger rod (76) and/or the first actuation part and/or such that the first actuation part can be actuated and/or such that the plunger rod can be moved from the administration position to the final position. Since the first option of each option set is taught, the remaining options do not need to be taught.
As to Claim 34, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the actuation mechanism comprises a securing member (98) for securing (Paragraph 0098) at least one of the plunger rod (76), the first actuation part (72) or the second actuation part (86).
As to Claim 35, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the actuation mechanism comprises a securing member (98), wherein the securing member (98) is configured to block at least one of a back-movement (movement in the proximal direction, as described in Paragraph 0098; Figure 19b shows the securing member preventing movement in both the proximal and distal directions since guide element 92 is placed within channels 96) of the plunger rod (76) or the first actuation part (72) at least in one of (the securing member 98 may prevent movement in both of the initial and administration positions depending on which of the channels 96 of the plunger rod 76 the guide element 92 is placed within) the initial position (Figure 34a) or the administration position (Figure 34b) of the plunger rod (76) and wherein the securing member (98) is configured to block (via guide element 92 being placed within channels 96) the second actuation part (86) in the initial position (Figure 34a) and/or before reaching the administration position and to automatically unblock actuation of the second actuation part upon actuating the first actuation part and/or when the administration position is reached. Since the first option is taught, the remaining options do not need to be taught.
As to Claim 36, Hawson teaches an administration device (100) for administration of a fluid (Paragraph 0001, where one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude a solution within the context of the Hawson reference is comprised of a fluid), the administration device (100) comprising:
a retainer (44) for holding (as shown in Figure 3) a container (30) containing (Paragraph 0076) the fluid (the solution described in Paragraph 0001), and
an actuation mechanism comprising a plunger rod (76), a first actuation part (72) and a second actuation part (86), the second actuation part (86) being movably attached to (since retainer 44 is fixed to second housing element 88, as described in Paragraph 0099, and second actuation part 86 rotates relative to second housing element 88, as described in Paragraph 0115, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude second actuation part 86 is “movably attached to” retainer 44) the retainer (44),
wherein the plunger rod (76) is adapted to act on (Paragraph 0093) a stopper (74) movably arranged (Paragraphs 0092/0093) within (as shown in Figure 3) the container (30),
wherein the first actuation part (72) can be manually actuated (Paragraph 0092) in order to axially move (Paragraph 0092) the plunger rod (76) relative to (since container 30 is formed integral with protective outer barrel 44, as described in Paragraph 0080, and plunger rod 76 moves relative to container 30, as described in Paragraph 0092, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude plunger rod 76 moves relative to retainer 44) the retainer (44) from an initial position (Figure 34a) to an administration position (Figure 34b) and from the administration position (Figure 34b) to a final position (Figure 34d), and
wherein the actuation mechanism comprises a securing member (98), wherein the securing member (98) is configured to block at least one of a back-movement (movement in the proximal direction, as described in Paragraph 0098; Figure 19b shows the securing member preventing movement in both the proximal and distal directions since guide element 92 is placed within channels 96) of the plunger rod (76) or the first actuation part (72) at least in one of (the securing member 98 may prevent movement in both of the initial and administration positions depending on which of the channels 96 of the plunger rod 76 the guide element 92 is placed within) the initial position (Figure 34a) or the administration position (Figure 34b) of the plunger rod (76) and wherein the securing member (98) is configured to block (via guide element 92 being placed within channels 96) the second actuation part (86) in the initial position (Figure 34a) and/or before reaching the administration position and to automatically unblock actuation of the second actuation part upon actuating the first actuation part and/or when the administration position is reached. Since the first option is taught, the remaining options do not need to be taught.
As to Claim 37, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the securing member (98) is ring-shaped (as shown in Figures 19a/19b) and/or wherein the plunger rod (76) axially extends through (as shown in Figures 19a/19b) the securing member (98).
As to Claim 38, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the securing member (98) is embodied as a ring (as shown in Figures 19a/19b).
As to Claim 39, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the securing member (98) is coupled loosely (as shown in Figures 19b, where a gap is present between plunger rod 76 and element 92 on the top of plunger rod 76, as viewed in Figure 19b) and/or with radial play to (as shown in Figures 19b, where a gap is present between plunger rod 76 and element 92 on the top of plunger rod 76, as viewed in Figure 19b) the plunger rod (76) in at least one of (the securing member 98 may allow radial play in both of the initial and administration positions depending on which of the channels 96 of the plunger rod 76 the guide element 92 is placed within, due to the gap between plunger rod 76 and element 92) the initial position (Figure 34a) or the administration position (Figure 34b).
As to Claim 40, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the securing member (98) is radially pretensioned against and/or tightly coupled (as described in Paragraph 0096, where guiding element 92 of securing member 98 is guided by guiding channel 94 of –see Figure 19a-- plunger rod 76, where the term “tightly” is a very broad term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would assume guiding element has to be somewhat tightly fitted coupled to securing member 98 to function as designed) to the plunger rod (76) during movement (Paragraph 0115) of the plunger rod (76) from the initial position (Figure 34a) towards the administration position (Figure 34b). Since the second option is taught, the first option does not need to be taught.
As to Claim 41, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the securing member (98) engages (as described in Paragraph 0096, where guiding element 92 of securing member 98 is guided by guiding channel 94 of –see Figure 19a-- plunger rod 76) the plunger rod (76) and/or wherein the securing member (98) is configured to block a back-movement (movement in the proximal direction, as described in Paragraph 0098; Figure 19b shows the securing member preventing movement in both the proximal and distal directions since guide element 92 is placed within channels 96) of the plunger rod (76) and/or the first actuation part (72), at least in (the securing member 98 may prevent movement in both of the initial and administration positions depending on which of the channels 96 of the plunger rod 76 the guide element 92 is placed within) the initial position (Figure 34a) and/or in the administration position (Figure 34b) of the plunger rod (76).
As to Claim 42, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the securing member (98) engages (as shown in Figures 19a/19b, securing member 98 is attached to second actuation part 86) the second actuation part (86) and/or wherein the securing member is configured to block actuating the second actuation part and/or to automatically unblock actuation of the second actuation part upon actuating the first actuation part and/or when the administration position is reached. Since the first option is taught, the remaining options do not need to be taught.
As to Claim 43, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the plunger rod (76) comprises or forms (as shown in Figure 19a) a ramp (178) for the securing member (98).
As to Claim 44, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the plunger rod (76) is configured to tension (see end of paragraph for clarification) and/or widen the securing member (89) upon actuating (Paragraph 0092) the first actuation part (72) and/or during movement of the plunger rod from the initial position towards the administration position. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude a tension would form in the radially central portion of distal end face 102 as first actuation part 72 is actuated to the left in Figure 19b, causing guiding element 92 to contact and apply a leftward force onto distal end face 102 in Figure 19b.
As to Claim 45, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the plunger rod (76) comprises an indentation (96) for (Paragraph 0097) the securing member (98).
As to Claim 46, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the plunger rod (76) is configured to at least partially and/or audibly release (plunger rod 76 at least partially releases securing member 98 when second actuation part 86 is rotated, via either 96 or 178, as shown in Figure 19a) the securing member (98) and/or to disengage the securing member from the second actuation part upon actuating the first actuation part and/or when reaching the administration position and/or in such a way that an audible and/or haptic feedback is provided. Since the first option is taught, the remaining options do not need to be taught.
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.
Claims 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawson, in view of Shetty (U.S. PGPub 2016/0220761).
As to Claim 47, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 36, and continues to teach the administration device (100) is configured for ophthalmic injection device for intraocular use (Paragraph 0001) administration of the fluid (Paragraph 0001).
Hawson does not teach explicitly state which part of the eye the device is intended to be used on, so does not explicitly teach the administration device is configured for intravitreal administration of the fluid.
Shetty describes a similar administration device, and teaches the administration device (Figure 1) is configured for intravitreal administration of the fluid (Paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the administration device, as taught by Hawson, for intravitreal administration, as taught by Shetty, for accurate dosing to prevent potential patient harm (Paragraph 0003).
As to Claim 48, Hawson teaches all the limitations of Claim 23, and continues to teach the administration device (100) is configured for ophthalmic injection device for intraocular use (Paragraph 0001) administration of the fluid (Paragraph 0001).
Hawson does not teach explicitly state which part of the eye the device is intended to be used on, so does not explicitly teach the administration device is configured for intravitreal administration of the fluid.
Shetty describes a similar administration device, and teaches the administration device (Figure 1) is configured for intravitreal administration of the fluid (Paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the administration device, as taught by Hawson, for intravitreal administration, as taught by Shetty, for accurate dosing to prevent potential patient harm (Paragraph 0003).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tran (2015/0157801) and Lewkonya (2017/0354791) teach similar administration devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights