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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, the examiner recommends amending the preamble to say “A system for operating a syringe, the system comprising:” to make it clear that the word “comprising” applies to the system and not to the syringe (note this does not address the rejections 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below).
As to claim 12, “one or more fluid” in line 6 should likely read “one or more fluids” for grammar.
Claims 2-18 are objected to as they depend from an objected-to claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claim 1 introduces “a syringe” in 3 separate instances (line 1, line 2, lines 2-3). While it is believed the first two introductions refer to intended uses of the system and the apparatus, the claim is still unclear when it later refers to “the syringe” and/or how many different syringes are intended to be used with the system/apparatus. The examiner recommends only introducing a single instance of “a syringe” and then referring to the same syringe throughout the claims, and/or removing the intended use from the claims.
Claims 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13 also recite “a syringe” in at least one instance, and are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 5, 8, 11-14 and 16 each recite “the syringe” in at least one instance, and are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the basis of a set mode" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the basis of the amount of the second fluid that is discharged from the syringe" in lines 3-4. Both “the basis” and “the amount of the second fluid that is discharged from the syringe” lack a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the basis of the amount of the first fluid that is discharged from the syringe” in lines 5-6. Both “the basis” and “the amount of the first fluid that is discharged from the syringe” lack a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 introduces “a second fluid storage” without recitation of a first fluid storage.
As to claim 11, it is not clear which component “at an end thereof” in the final line refers to (i.e. the third link, the second link, the apparatus, etc…).
Claim 12 introduces “a second fluid supplier”, “a second fluid storage”, “a second fluid injection port”, and “a second fluid” without recitation of a first instance of any of these terms. It is therefore unclear how many fluid suppliers, fluid storages, injection ports, and fluids are required by the claim.
Claim 13 introduces “a second fluid” in two instances and recites “the second fluid” in the final line of the claim. Additionally, claim 12 already introduced a second fluid. It is thus unclear if each instance of “a second fluid” refers to the same second fluid.
Claim 13 introduces “a second fluid injection port” in line 10. This is unclear because claim 12 already introduced “a second fluid injection port” and because the claims never introduce a first injection port and it is therefore not clear how many fluid injection ports are required.
Claim 18 introduces “a second fluid injection port” in lines 2-3 and “a second fluid supplier” in line 3, which are unclear because claim 12 already introduced a second fluid injection port and a second fluid supplier, and because the claims never introduce a first fluid supplier or a first injection port, and it is therefore not clear how many fluid injection ports and fluid suppliers are required.
Claims 2-18 are rejected as they inherit the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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 of this title, 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick et al. (US 2016/0228645 A1, hereafter "Patrick") in view of KR 10-1887641 B1 (the applicant provided a copy of this foreign reference on 3/10/23 – the examiner has attached a machine-translated copy of the written description to this office action as an appendix; paragraph numbers that follow refer to the machine translation).
As to claim 1, Patrick discloses a system (100; see Fig. 1) for operating a syringe, comprising:
an apparatus (110) for operating a syringe in which a syringe (130) filled with one or more fluids is mounted (Fig. 2, para 0062) and that includes a motor configured to selectively discharge the one or more fluids filled in the syringe by moving forward and backward a piston (136) of the syringe (para 0062, 0063); and
a controller (“one or more controllers 150”, or alternatively, electronic components discussed in para 0063) configured to control movement of the piston of the syringe through the motor (para 0013, 0058, also see para 0063 mentioning “…one or more internal components, such as, for example, motors, actuators, processors, memory units, controllers, wires or other electrical connections and components and/or the like…”),
Patrick does not expressly recite wherein the controller moves the piston to follow a predetermined motion on the basis of a set mode when recognizing a request to operate or stop the apparatus for operating a syringe.
KR 10-1887641 B1 teaches a controller (700) that moves a piston (140) to follow a predetermined motion on the basis of a set mode when recognizing a request to operate or stop (see para 0018-0027, 0030, 0032, 0055-0058, 0061-0065 describing various operational modes which include predetermined forward/backward motions of the piston).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Patrick in view of KR 10-1887641 B1 such that the controller moves the piston to follow a predetermined motion on the basis of a set mode when recognizing a request to operate or stop the apparatus for operating a syringe. One would have been motivated to do so based on a procedure being performed, for example to optimize delivery of multiple fluids or to maximize the effect of autologous dermal regeneration (see para 0018-0027, 0030, 0032, 0055-0058, 0061-0065 of KR 10-1887641 B1).
As to claim 2, Patrick in view of KR 10-1887641 B1 teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a pedal switch configured to transmit requests to operate and stop the apparatus for operating a syringe to the controller (para 0013, 0058, 0101-0103 of Patrick).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of KR 10-1887641 B1 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ford et al. (US 6,269,340 A1, hereafter “Ford”).
As to claim 3, Patrick in view of KR 10-1887641 B1 teaches the system of claim 2 as described above.
Patrick and KR 10-1887641 B1 do not expressly recite a setter configured to set motions of the piston, wherein a first mode or a second mode can be set through the setter.
Ford discloses a setter (“user interface” – see paragraph beginning line 4 col. 8) configured to set motions of a piston, wherein a first mode or a second mode can be set through the setter (see paragraphs beginning line 41 col. 3, line 19 col. 5, line 4 col. 8, line 14 col. 8, line 41 col. 12, claim 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Patrick (as already modified above) to include a setter configured to set motions of the piston, wherein a first mode or a second mode can be set through the setter. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a user to configure and/or set a mode that is appropriate for the procedure being performed (see paragraphs beginning line 41 col. 3, line 19 col. 5, line 4 col. 8, line 14 col. 8, line 41 col. 12, claim 24 of Ford).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The examiner notes that any amendments to address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph may affect the prior art considerations.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 4, although Patrick in view of KR 10-1887641 B1 and Ford teaches the system of claim 3 as described above, each are silent to wherein when the pedal switch is pressed down and released with the first mode set, the controller moves the piston backward by a preset first distance, forward by the sum of the preset first distance and a preset second distance, backward by a preset third distance, and then forward by a distance shorter than or the same as the third distance in combination with limitations of claims 1-3.
Claims 5 and 8-11 (either directly or via intervening claims) depend from claim 4.
As to claim 6, although Patrick in view of KR 10-1887641 B1 and Ford teaches the system of claim 3 as described above, each are silent to wherein, when the second mode is set, the controller moves the piston backward by a preset first distance and then forward by the sum of the preset first distance and a second preset distance when the pedal switch has been pressed, and; the controller moves the piston backward by a preset third distance and then forward by a distance shorter than or the same as the third distance when the pedal switch is released in combination with the limitations of claims 1-3.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6.
As to claim 12, Patrick in view of KR 10-1887641 B1 teaches the system of claim 1 as described above, and further wherein the apparatus for operating syringe includes one or more of: a body (114) in which a syringe (130) filled with one or more fluids is mounted (Figs. 2, 7, para 0062); an actuator (122) disposed behind the body and configured to selectively discharge the one or more fluid filled in the syringe by moving forward and backward a piston (136); but is silent to a holder provided on a bottom of the body, configured to hold a finger or a back of a hand of a user, and formed in a curved shape having a predetermined area to be able to be supported on the finger or the back of the hand of the user; a second fluid supplier disposed at a bottom of the actuator, connected to a second fluid storage, connected to a second fluid injection port, and configured to supply a second fluid to an outer barrel through the second fluid injection port; and a cover having a shape surrounding a top of the syringe, hinged at a side to the body, and configured to cover the syringe mounted in the body by rotating through a hinge, thereby fixing the syringe with the body in combination.
Claims 13-18 depend from claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James D Ponton whose telephone number is (571)272-1001. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/James D Ponton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783