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 with traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply filed on March 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the common special technical feature of "a cartridge having a base section with at least two opposite locking wings and a dispensing gun in which the injection gate comprises a distal plate with an aperture whose shape corresponds to the shape of the base section of the cartridge" is not disclosed by Friedman. This is not found persuasive because the examiner maintains that these elements as outlined in the restriction requirement of January 30, 2026 are disclosed by Friedman. The applicant additionally presents arguments regarding the intended use of the device; however, the applicant is reminded that patentable weight is only given to claimed structural elements.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “base section” of the cartridge of Claims 19, 26, 29, and 31, the “two opposite locking wings” of the cartridge of Claims 19, 26, 29, 31, and 32, and the “rib(s)” of Claims 23 and 24 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Please note: [0067] of the specification references the ribs as element 76 in Figure 8, however, there is not a corresponding element 76 labeled in Figure 8. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10 the word “the” before “first notch” should be changed to “a” as this is the first recitation of this limitation, and the word “the” before “first tooth” should be changed to “a” as this is the first recitation of this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 the phrase “the pivot” should be changed to “a pivot” if the pivot is intended to be a noun (i.e. a point on the lever or object) or to “pivoting” if pivot is intended to be a verb. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 24, the phrase “the frame’s rib” should be changed to “one of the ribs of the one or more ribs.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 the word “the” before external sleeve should be changed to “an” as this is the first recitation of this limitation and the word “its” should be changed to “the”. 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 19, 22, 26, 29 and 31-32 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 19 recites the limitation "a cartridge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear if this is to be considered the same “cartridge” as that of claim 16 or is an additional cartridge. Claims 26 and 32 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 19.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the internal piston" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear if this is to be considered the same as the “piston” of Claim 1 or if the “internal piston” is an additional element.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "a cartridge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear if this is to be considered the same “cartridge” as that of claim 16 or is an additional cartridge.
Claim 31 recites structure of the cartridge with the limitations of the base section and the at least two opposite locking wings. Please note: as Claim 16 from which Claim 31 depends does not positively recite the cartridge, dependent Claim 31 can not further limit the structure of the cartridge. It is unclear how Applicant intends for the claim to be interpreted.
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 16-29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pauser et al. (WO 2019/211682 A2, hereinafter “Pauser”).
Regarding Claim 16, Pauser discloses a dispensing gun for a cartridge (abstract) comprising a frame (Figure 1,10) having a handle (12), an injection gate (114) for connecting a cartridge (as seen in Figure 1), the injection gate being located at the distal part of the frame (as seen in Figure 1), a lever (Figure 2, 121) comprising at least two teeth (as seen in Figure 2) and a piston (13 and 23 taken together) comprising at least two notches (131, as seen in Figure 2). Pauser further discloses that the dispensing gun comprises a means for directly locking the cartridge on the injection gate (via slit 115 as seen in Figure 3 and described on page 15, lines 3-6), the dispensing gun comprises means for pushing the piston inside the cartridge so that the material contained in the cartridge is extruded in a single piston stroke (via plunger 13 as described on page 12 lines 18-33), and the dispensing gun is configured so that the lever comprises an actuating state in which the first notch of the piston and the first tooth of the lever are engaged together prior to connecting the cartridge so that the lever and the handle form an angle ranging from 80° to 120° (as the toothing allows for multiple positions of the lever and the handle relative to one another the lever and the handle would form this angulation).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Pauser discloses the dispensing gun of claim 16, and as per the notch and tooth configuration as seen in Figure 2, is capable of a final state in which the lever is depressed and the piston of the dispensing gun is engaged in the cartridge so that the material initially contained in the cartridge has been entirely extruded, and an intermediate state in which the lever is maintained in a position between the actuating state and a final state, for contacting the piston close to the piston of the cartridge so that the dispensing gun is ready to use for extruding the material contained in the cartridge.
Regarding Claim 19, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the injection gate is configured for locking (per slit 115 as described above) a cartridge which has a base section with two opposite locking wings (see annotated figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the piston comprises a rod (23) configured to be received in the internal volume of the cartridge when locked on the distal part of the injection gate (as seen in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 21, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the pivot of the lever from the actuating state to the final state displaces the piston in the range from 10 mm to 20 mm (page 5, lines 25-31).
Regarding Claim 22, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that when the lever is in an actuating state, the distal end of the internal piston is located at the proximal end of the injection gate (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 23, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the frame comprises one or more ribs (112c).
Regarding Claim 24, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 23, and further discloses that the dispensing gun comprises a washer (disc made out of metal retention means as described on page 13, lines 17-20) positioned behind the frame's rib.
Regarding Claim 25, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 18, and further discloses that when the lever is in the intermediate state, the lever is maintained in a position between the actuating state and a final state by a spring plunger (as described on page 6, lines 15-30).
Regarding Claim 26, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 19, and further discloses that the injection gate comprises a proximal part (Figure 3, 117) configured to connect the distal end of the frame and a distal part (116) configured to connect and lock the two opposite locking wings of the base section of the cartridge.
Regarding Claim 27, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the frame is made of an injected-molded polymer and the injection gate is made of metal (as described on page 8, lines 4-8).
Regarding Claim 28, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the dispensing gun is autoclavable and/or decontaminable (as the device of Pauser is capable of being cleaned, it is decontaminable).
Regarding Claim 29, Pauser discloses a system comprising the dispensing gun according to claim 16 (as described above) and a cartridge (Figure 5, 20) having a base section with two opposite locking wings (see annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding Claim 31, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the cartridge has a base section with at least two opposite locking wings (see annotated Figure 5 above). Please note: as the cartridge is not positively recited in Claim 16, the structure of the cartridge cannot be positively recited in a dependent claim.
Regarding Claim 32, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 19, and further discloses that the injection gate comprises means for directly locking an external sleeve of the cartridge (as seen in Figure 5 where the outer surface of the cartridge is considered an external sleeve) via its two locking wings (as seen in Figure 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772