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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group 1, claims 1-14 and of the species of Group (a) in the reply filed on 2/16/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are examined herein as reading on the elected invention and species.
Claims 11 and 15-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/16/26.
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 1-10 and 12-14 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.
The claims are indefinite because they are drafted in such a way that they are not clear as to the features positively recited therein and the features only functionally claimed. Therefore, the claims are not clear as to the combinations and/or sub-combinations claimed.
For example, the preamble of claim 1 appears to clearly indicate that the drug delivery device is only functionally claimed, and therefore, that what the claim is directed to is the sub-combination of the storage hub only. On the other hand, the last four lines of claim 1 recite structure that depends on the drug delivery device, and therefore suggests that what is claimed is the combination of the storage hub and the drug delivery device.
In another example, claim 1 line 3 defines the size of the port in terms of the drug delivery device, again reciting claimed structure in terms of, and/or that depends on, the drug delivery device. Thus, claim 1 line 3 also suggests that claim 1 might be directed to the combination of the storage hub and the drug delivery device.
In yet another example, the phrase “configured to store a medication cartridge” in claim 1 line 8 suggests that the medication cartridge is only functionally claimed. However, at least the last two lines of claim 1 are drafted so that they structurally depend on the medication cartridge (per the last two lines of claim 1 the drug-delivery device must be able to withdraw the medication cartridge from the medication storage chamber, a feature that at least implicates the configuration of not just the drug delivery device and the medication storage chamber, but also the medication cartridge itself).
In a final example, dependent claim 2 further structurally limits the medication cartridge, suggesting that the medication cartridge is positively claimed in combination with the hub (when as indicated above, at least claim 1 line 8 only recites the medication cartridge functionally and therefore suggests that the medication cartridge is not positively claimed in combination with the hub).
Corrections to the claims are required wherever appropriate but not specifically pointed out above. In the comparison of the claims with the prior art below, the claims are interpreted as if what is claimed is the combination of the storage hub and the drug delivery device and the medication cartridge, in order for the examiner to give effect to all of the limitations in the claims that structurally implicate these features. So as one example only, “for” in claim 1 line 1 is interpreted for purposes of the prior art rejection below as meaning something like “including”. In making the required corrections to the claims the applicant should keep the above in mind so as not to unnecessarily delay prosecution in the subject application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2010/038182 hereinafter Kassies (also cited by the applicant in the IDS filed on 6/16/23).
See also the Written Opinion from the parent PCT application. The Written Opinion was cited by the applicant in the subject application as indicated above.
Thus, looking at Fig. 1 of Kassies, the reference discloses all of the features of the claims.
For example, the claimed recharging and medication storage hub including a drug delivery device can be system 102 in Fig 1. The claimed drug delivery device can be drug delivery device 108.
The claimed housing can be drug cartridge loading device 104 in Fig 1 and the claimed port can be guiding geometry 118 in the same figure.
The claimed charging station can be battery charger 148. It recharges a rechargeable power source (such as rechargeable battery 150) mounted on the drug delivery device.
The claimed medication storage chamber can be storing unit 110. It aligns with the port 118 and stores at least one medication cartridge such as drug cartridge 106.
Per the last 4 lines of claim 1, the drug-delivery device can be inserted through the port and into the medication storage chamber (when following geometry 120 of drug delivery device 108 mates with guiding geometry 118 as shown in Fig. 1), and can be withdrawn from the storage chamber. Moreover, when the drug delivery device is withdrawn from the medication storage chamber, the medication cartridge 106 can also be withdrawn from the medication storage chamber.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassies. The reference may not disclose the details of these claims but from Kassies and the other prior art of record the missing details appear to be conventional or well within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art to provide. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of Kassies to provide the hub disclosed therein with the missing features in order to make it more convenient to use or more economical to make.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights