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 a) figures 1a-7, claims 1-7, 12, 15-18, 28, and 33 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 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)).
Claims 8-11, and 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference numeral 165 is not shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 6 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiles (US 20140221924 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hiles discloses a needle bending device 1 comprising:
a base 2;
a hollow slider conduit 2.1; and
a bending element 2.5.
Regarding claim 2, Hiles discloses wherein the base 2 comprises a needle hub housing (connection between needle bub 2.2 and delivery device 1; [0020]) at a proximal end of a shaft 1.1.
Regarding claim 3, Hiles discloses wherein the needle hub housing is configured to receive a needle 2.3 and engage a needle hub 2.2.
Regarding claim 6, Hiles discloses wherein the hollow slider conduit 2.1 has an open distal end.
Regarding claim 33, Hiles discloses a method comprising bending a needle using the device of claim 1.
Claims 1, 7 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reenstierna (US 4332323 A).
Regarding claim 1, Reenstierna discloses a needle bending device comprising:
a base 6;
a hollow slider conduit 5 (figs 1-2); and
a bending element 9.
Regarding claim 7, Reenstierna discloses wherein the hollow slider conduit 5 has a closed distal end comprising an aperture 10.
Regarding claim 33, Reenstierna discloses a method comprising bending a needle using the device of claim 1.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reenstierna (US 4332323 A) in view of Mayer (US 4485918 A).
Reenstierna discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, it fails to disclose a kit including device of claim 1, a needle and a container.
Mayer teaches a needle 14 and a container 40 for safe needle disposal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reenstierna with Mayer teachings of a needle and container for safely dispose a needle after using Reenstierna’s bending device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 12, 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cris L Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)272-4964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am- 2pm..
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.
/Cris L. Rodriguez/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3783