DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/04/26 has been entered in the case. Claims 1-3 & 5 are pending for examination and claim 4 is cancelled.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 & 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Letzing (US 2004/0039337) in view of Jacobs et al. (US 2007/0197976) & Polzin et al. (US 2003/0172498).
Regarding claim 1, Letzing discloses a housing 21 for a drug-delivery device 20, in Fig. 1 comprising:
a first gripping region 23 formed on a proximal terminal end of the housing;
a second gripping region 21; and
opposing concave regions 22 abutting the first and second overmolded gripping portions 21 & 23,
wherein the housing 21 encloses a cavity for accommodating a container 48.
Letzing does not disclose that the first gripping region include overmolded surface/structure.
Jacobs discloses a medication dispensing apparatus comprising: a first gripping region 97 formed on a proximal terminal end of the housing; wherein the firs gripping region 97 is an overmolded gripping region (soft touch material formed via an overmolding process, para [0036].
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Letzing with including an overmolded/soft touch material formed on a proximal terminal end of a housing, as taught by Jacobs, in order to provide a soft touch and non-slip surface for friendly user.
Letzing (or Letzing in view of Jacobs) does not disclose that the second gripping region include overmolded surface/structure.
Polzin discloses an apparatus 5 comprising: a housing 10/14 comprising: a first region (a disk-shaped) formed on a proximal terminal end of the housing; a second overmolded gripping region 20; and
opposing concave regions (located in between the disk-shaped region and the region 12/20) abutting the first gripping region and second overmolded gripping portion 20.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Letzing (or Letzing in view of Jacobs) with including an overmolded/soft touch material formed on a second gripping region, as taught by Polzin, in order to provide a soft touch and non-slip surface for friendly user.
PNG
media_image1.png
417
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Letzing in view of Jacobs and Polzin discloses all claimed subject matter as required. Letzing in view of Jacobs and Polzin further discloses that wherein a width W3 of the housing along a portion of the opposing concave regions is smaller than a width W1 of the housing along at least a portion of the first overmolded gripping region and an opposite portion of a width of the housing at the second overmolded gripping region, see the marked-up figure above.
Regarding claim 3, Letzing in view of Jacobs and Polzin discloses all claimed subject matter as required. Letzing in view of Jacobs and Polzin further discloses that wherein opposing concave regions of the housing lack a gripping surface.
Regarding claim 5, Letzing in view of Jacobs and Polzin discloses all claimed subject matter as required. Polzin discloses that the second overmolded gripping region of the housing has a tapered tubular structure. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the second overmolded gripping region 21 in Letzing can be modified in tapered tubular structure/shape, as suggested by Polzin, in order to allow a user to hold the device in firmly.
In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to obtain a second gripping region, since applicant has not disclosed that the tapered tubular shape/structure solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any shape, i.e. cylindrical shaped as shown in Letzing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 & 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 QUYNH-NHU HOANG VU whose telephone number is (571)272-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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.
/QUYNH-NHU H. VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783