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 Group I (Claims 1-24) in the reply filed on 4/27/26 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 Claim 25 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one two or more” should be amended to at least provide a comma between “one” and “two”; see claim 6 for example. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19 and 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “which wall” and “which chamfer” respectively should be amended to utilize “the” or “said” to clearly identify antecedent basis to the prior recited wall in claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 5, and 7-24 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
“the diameter of the first section” and “the diameter of the second section” in claim 2
“the lateral surface of the third section” in claim 5
“the edge thereof” in claim 7, “thereof” apparently referencing the piston’s lateral surface, but a prior edge already having been recited in claim 1 as “an edge of the piston-side opening”, leading to further indefiniteness
“the centre of the bottom” in claim 8
“the piston skirt” in claim 9
“the region of the piston’s lateral surface” in claim 10
“the complementary connector of the plunger” in claim 11
“the fingertip of a user” in claim 12
“the complementary connector of the grip piece” in claim 13
“the male partner”, “the female partner”, and “the corresponding shaft” in claim 14
“the angle of the piston bottom”, “the volume enclosed between the piston bottom and the sleeve…”, “the tip of the bottom”, “the first end face of the sleeve”, and “the volume of all the channels of the applicator” in claim 18
“the latter” and “the opening of which” in claim 19
“the outer wall of the container” in claim 20
“the complementary first closure element” in claim 21
“the inner wall of the container” in claim 22
“the inner side” and “the container opening” in claim 23
“the dimensions of the chamfer”, “the region where the container makes contact with the sleeve”, and “the sealing lug of the plunger” in claim 24
Further regarding claim 7, the limitation “all the way round” is unclear as it lacks a clear point of reference for determining the position claimed, and “the way” may be considered to lack antecedent basis further in light of this lack of clarity.
Further regarding claim 14, it is unclear whether there is one or two of “corresponding shaft”, and thus unclear how to interpret these two limitations in relation to the rest of the claim, based at least partially in these limitations’ lack of antecedent basis in the claims as noted above.
Further regarding claim 24, “the chamfer” is indefinite for failing to clearly link back to a specific one of the two chamfers previously recited in the claim.
The remaining claims identified but not specifically addressed are rejected as they depend from a claim rejected above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 allowed.
Claims 2, 5, and 7-24 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to disclose or teach either singly or in combination the claimed applicator.
The closest prior art of record is Ettlin et al. (US 20160346525).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ettlin et al. fails to disclose/teach two or more piercing elements provided at an edge of a piston-side opening of the channel, arranged as claimed, in combination with the total structure and function as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kopfer (US 4516967)
Grant et al. (US 20090204071)
Kubo (US 20120123382) – opposed piercing elements on opposite surfaces
Muir et al. (US 20090216213) – circumferential piercing elements on a closure
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