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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings Figure 8A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because : Line 5 recites “the groove”. Line 3 recites “at least one annular groove”. Examiner suggests replacing “the groove” in line 5 with “the at least one annular groove” to put the abstract in clearer form and clearly refer to the at least one annular groove of line 3. Line 5 recites “the channels”. Line 4 recites “a plurality of channels”. Examiner suggests either replacing “the channels” in line 5 with “the plurality of channels” to put the abstract in clearer form OR replacing “a plurality of channels” in line 4 with “channels”. Line 6 recites “the groove . An O-ring is received in the groove ”. Line 3 recites “at least one annular groove”. Examiner suggests replacing “the groove. An O-ring is received in the groove” in line 6 with “the at least one annular groove. An O-ring is received in the at least one annular groove” to put the abstract in clearer form and clearly refer to the at least one annular groove of line 3. Line 6 recites “the channels”. Line 4 recites “a plurality of channels”. Examiner suggests either replacing “the channels” in line 6 and line 5 with “the plurality of channels” to put the abstract in clearer form OR replacing “a plurality of channels” in line 4 with “channels”. Examiner notes line 6 should be amended accordingly depending on how “the channels” in line 5 is amended. Line 8 recites “a syringe” . Line 1 of the abstract recites “a syringe”. If the syringe of line 8 is intended to be the same as the syringe of line 1, Examiner suggests replacing “a syringe” in line 8 with “the syringe” to put the abstract in clearer form. Line 8 recites “a micro-dosing syringe pump”. Line 1-2 of the abstract recites “a micro-dosing syringe pump”. If the micro-dosing syringe pump of line 8 is intended to be the same as the micro-dosing syringe pump of line 1-2, Examiner suggests replacing “a micro-dosing syringe pump” in line 8 with “the micro-dosing syringe pump” to put the abstract in clearer form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet , apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0001] of the disclosure, provision application 63/125, 603 is referenced. The instant application is also a 371 of PCT/US2021/062596 filed 12/9/2021. PCT/US2021/062596 is not referenced in paragraph [0001]. Examiner suggests amending paragraph [0001] to include the missing continuity data regarding PCT/US2021/062596. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 recites “ said opposed sidewalls ” . Line 3-4 recites “a pair of opposed sidewalls”. Examiner suggests replacing “said opposed sidewalls” in line 6 of claim 1 with “said pair of opposed sidewalls” to more clearly refer to the sidewalls of line 3-4 and to put the claim in clearer form. Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “in claim 1 wherein”. Examiner suggests adding a comma between “claim 1” and “wherein” to put the claim in clearer form. Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “in claim 5 wherein”. Examiner suggests adding a comma between “claim 5” and “wherein” to put the claim in clearer form. Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “in claim 1wherein”. This is grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests replacing “in claim 1wherein” in line 1 with “in claim 1, wherein”. Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 recites “ said opposed sidewalls ” . Line 5 recites “a pair of opposed sidewalls”. Examiner suggests replacing “said opposed sidewalls” in line 7 of claim 11 with “said pair of opposed sidewalls” to more clearly refer to the sidewalls of line 5 and to put the claim in clearer form. Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “in claim 11 wherein”. Examiner suggests adding a comma between “claim 11” and “wherein” to put the claim in clearer form. Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “in claim 15 wherein”. Examiner suggests adding a comma between “claim 15” and “wherein” to put the claim in clearer form. Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “in claim 11 wherein”. Examiner suggests adding a comma between “claim 11” and “wherein” to put the claim in clearer form. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-8, 10-18, and 20 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. In regard to claim 1, Line 3 recites “said annular groove”. Line 2 recites “at least one annular groove”. It is unclear if “said annular groove” refers to a specific groove of the at least one annular groove or if “said annular groove” is intended to refer to the at least one annular groove. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said annular groove” to be “said at least one annular groove”. Examiner suggests replacing “said annular groove” in line 3 of claim 1 with “said at least one annular groove”. Line 5 recites “said groove”. Line 2 recites “at least one annular groove” and line 3 recites “said annular groove”. It is unclear if “said groove” refers to a specific groove of the at least one annular groove or if “said groove” is intended to refer to the at least one annular groove. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said groove” to be “said at least one annular groove”. Examiner suggests replacing “said groove” in line 5 of claim 1 with “said at least one annular groove”. Line 7 recites “said groove”. Line 2 recites “at least one annular groove” and line 3 recites “said annular groove”. It is unclear if “said groove” refers to a specific groove of the at least one annular groove or if “said groove” is intended to refer to the at least one annular groove. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said groove” to be “said at least one annular groove”. Examiner suggests replacing “said groove” in line 7 of claim 1 with “said at least one annular groove”. Line 7-8 recites “said channels”. Line 7 recites “a plurality of channels”. It is unclear if said channels refers to the plurality of channels of line 7 or to specific channels of the plurality of channels. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said channels” to be “said plurality of channels”. Examiner suggests replacing “said channels” in line 7-8 of claim 1 with “said plurality of channels”. Examiner notes claims 2-8, and 10 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. In regard to claim 2 , Line 2 recites “said channels”. Claim 2 depends on claim 1. Claim 1, line 7 recites “a plurality of channels”. It is unclear if said channels refers to the plurality of channels of claim 1 or to specific channels of the plurality of channels. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said channels” to be “said plurality of channels”. Examiner suggests replacing “said channels” in line 2 of claim 2 with “said plurality of channels”. Examiner notes claims 3-4 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2. In regard to claim 3, Line 1-2 recites “said channels”. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and claim 2. Claim 1, line 7 recites “a plurality of channels”. It is unclear if said channels refers to the plurality of channels of claim 1 or to specific channels of the plurality of channels. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said channels” to be “said plurality of channels”. Examiner suggests replacing “said channels” in line 1-2 of claim 3 with “said plurality of channels”. Line 2 recites “a bottom of said groove”. Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and claim 1. Claim 1 recites “said annular groove including a pair of opposed sidewalls and a bottom”. It is unclear if the bottom of claim 3 is the same or different than the bottom of the groove of claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “a bottom” in line 2 of claim 3 with “the bottom”. Line 2 recites “said groove”. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and claim 2. Claim 1, line 2 recites “at least one annular groove” and claim 1, line 3 recites “said annular groove”. It is unclear if “said groove” of claim 3 refers to a specific groove of the at least one annular groove or if “said groove” is intended to refer to the at least one annular groove. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said groove” to be “said at least one annular groove”. Examiner suggests replacing “said groove” in line 2 of claim 3 with “said at least one annular groove”. In regard to claim 6, Line 1-2 recites “said channels”. Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and claim 5. Claim 1, line 7 recites “a plurality of channels”. It is unclear if said channels refers to the plurality of channels of claim 1 or to specific channels of the plurality of channels. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said channels” to be “said plurality of channels”. Examiner suggests replacing “said channels” in line 1-2 of claim 6 with “said plurality of channels”. In regard to claim 11, Line 4 recites “said annular groove”. Line 3-4 recites “at least one annular groove”. It is unclear if “said annular groove” refers to a specific groove of the at least one annular groove or if “said annular groove” is intended to refer to the at least one annular groove. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said annular groove” to be “said at least one annular groove”. Examiner suggests replacing “said annular groove” in line 4 of claim 1 1 with “said at least one annular groove”. Line 6 recites “said groove”. Line 3-4 recites “at least one annular groove” and line 4 recites “said annular groove”. It is unclear if “said groove” refers to a specific groove of the at least one annular groove or if “said groove” is intended to refer to the at least one annular groove. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said groove” to be “said at least one annular groove”. Examiner suggests replacing “said groove” in line 6 of claim 11 with “said at least one annular groove”. Line 8 recites “said groove”. Line 3-4 recites “at least one annular groove” and line 4 recites “said annular groove”. It is unclear if “said groove” refers to a specific groove of the at least one annular groove or if “said groove” is intended to refer to the at least one annular groove. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said groove” to be “said at least one annular groove”. Examiner suggests replacing “said groove” in line 8 of claim 11 with “said at least one annular groove”. Line 9 recites “said channels”. Line 8 recites “a plurality of channels”. It is unclear if said channels refers to the plurality of channels of line 8 or to specific channels of the plurality of channels. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said channels” to be “said plurality of channels”. Examiner suggests replacing “said channels” in line 9 of claim 11 with “said plurality of channels”. Examiner notes claims 12-18 and 20 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11. In regard to claim 12, Line 2 recites “said channels”. Claim 12 depends on claim 11. Claim 11, line 8 recites “a plurality of channels”. It is unclear if said channels refers to the plurality of channels of claim 11 or to specific channels of the plurality of channels. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said channels” to be “said plurality of channels”. Examiner suggests replacing “said channels” in line 2 of claim 12 with “said plurality of channels”. Examiner notes claims 13-14 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12. In regard to claim 13, Line 1 recites “said channels”. Claim 13 depends on claim 11 and claim 12. Claim 11, line 8 recites “a plurality of channels”. It is unclear if said channels refers to the plurality of channels of claim 11 or to specific channels of the plurality of channels. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said channels” to be “said plurality of channels”. Examiner suggests replacing “said channels” in line 1 of claim 13 with “said plurality of channels”. Line 2 recites “a bottom of said groove”. Claim 13 depends on claim 12 and claim 11. Claim 11 recites “said annular groove including a pair of opposed sidewalls and a bottom”. It is unclear if the bottom of claim 13 is the same or different than the bottom of the groove of claim 11. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “a bottom” in line 2 of claim 13 with “the bottom”. Line 2 recites “said groove”. Claim 13 depends on claim 11 and claim 12. Claim 11, line 3-4 recites “at least one annular groove” and claim 1, line 4 recites “said annular groove”. It is unclear if “said groove” of claim 13 refers to a specific groove of the at least one annular groove or if “said groove” is intended to refer to the at least one annular groove. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said groove” to be “said at least one annular groove”. Examiner suggests replacing “said groove” in line 2 of claim 13 with “said at least one annular groove”. In regard to claim 16, Line 1 recites “said channels”. Claim 16 depends on claim 11 and claim 15. Claim 11, line 8 recites “a plurality of channels”. It is unclear if said channels refers to the plurality of channels of claim 11 or to specific channels of the plurality of channels. For examination purposes Examiner construes “said channels” to be “said plurality of channels”. Examiner suggests replacing “said channels” in line 1 of claim 16 with “said plurality of channels”. 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. Claims 1 -3, 7-8, 10 -13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash (U.S. PG publication 20180318525) and further in view of Major (U.S. Patent no 5865803). In regard to claim 1, 2276475 198755 Front face 0 20000 Front face 2409825 436880 2030544 645229 0 0 Prakash discloses a plunger piston (figure 3, item 24, 40, and 100) comprising: a front face ( see labeled portion of figure 3 above OR figure 3, item 21; Examiner notes both the labeled portion of figure 3 above or item 21 can be construed as the front face) opposite a rear face (figure 3, item 23) and at least one annular groove (see figure 3 wherein a groove is present which item 45 is within; paragraph [0045]: “a rear seal 45 of the plunger head seal 40 sits in a groove created between seal holding disc 21 and the seal pushing disc 23”) positioned between said front face and said rear face (see figure 3 wherein the groove is located between the labeled portion of figure 3 above and 23 OR also between item 21 and 23) , said annular groove including a pair of opposed sidewalls and a bottom (see figure 3) ; a seal (figure 3, item 45) located in said groove (See figure 3; paragraph [0045]) , said seal being sized to contact at least a portion of said opposed sidewalls and said bottom (see figure 3) ; and a plurality of channels (see channels formed by each item 100) extending from said front face into said groove (see figure 3) , said channels providing communication between said front face and said seal (see figure 3) to equalize a pressure on the seal when the front face of the plunger piston is moved against a fluid (paragraph [0054], [0059], and [0061]-[0062]) . Prakash is silent that the seal in the groove is specifically an O-ring and therefore fails to disclose an O-ring located in said groove, said O-ring being sized to contact at least a portion of said opposed sidewalls and said bottom, and said channels providing communication between said front face and said groove O-ring to equalize a pressure on the O-ring when the front face of the plunger piston is moved against a fluid . Major teaches an O-ring (figure 1, item 38) located in said groove (see figure 2; column 4, line 25-32), said O-ring being sized to contact at least a portion of said opposed sidewalls and said bottom (see figure 2; column 4, line 25-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash to substitute a suitably sized O-ring in place of the seal 45 in the groove of Prakash , as taught by Major , because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of providing an effective seal (column 4, line 25-32 of Major and paragraph [0006] and [0047] of Prakash : ”a rear side contact surface 44 of the plunger head seal 40 are in contact with an inner surface of the syringe body 1 to create a seal between the plunger head 24 and the syringe body 1” ) . Furthermore, Prakash supports modifications can be made (paragraph [0073] of Prakash). Examiner notes s ubstitut ing a suitably sized O-ring in place of the seal 45 in the groove of Prakashan would result in an O-ring located in said groove, said O-ring being sized to contact at least a portion of said opposed sidewalls and said bottom, and said channels providing communication between said front face and said groove O-ring to equalize a pressure on the O-ring when the front face of the plunger piston is moved against a fluid . In regard to claim 2, Prakash in view of Major teaches the plunger piston as recited in claim 1 wherein said front face (see labeled portion of figure 3 above of Prakash OR figure 3, item 21 of Prakash) includes an outer rim (figure 3 above of Prakash) and wherein said channels are located in said outer rim (see figure 3 of Prakash) . In regard to claim 3, Prakash in view of Major teaches the plunger piston as recited in claim 2, wherein said channels have a depth that extends from said outer rim to a bottom of said groove (see figure 3 of Prakash; Examiner notes said channels have a depth that extends from said outer rim to a bottom of said groove and past the bottom of said groove) . In regard to claim 7, Prakash in view of Major teaches the plunger piston as recited in claims 1, wherein said front face (figure 3, item 2 1 of Prakash) has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of said rear face (figure 3, item 23 of Prakash; see figure 3 of Prakash) . In regard to claim 8, Prakash in view of Major teaches the plunger piston as recited in claim 1, wherein said rear face includes at least one detent (see figure 3, item 103 of Prakash which forms a detent) . In regard to claim 10, Prakash in view of Major teaches the plunger piston as recited in claim 1 wherein said O-ring (see analysis of claim 1 above wherein the seal 45 of Prakash has been replaced with a suitable sized O-ring which contacts syringe 1 of Prakash) has an outer diameter that is greater than an outer diameter of said front face (figure 3, item 21 of Prakash; see figure 3 of Prakash and analysis of claim 1). In regard to claim 11, Prakash discloses a syringe (figure 3, item 10) comprising: a barrel (figure 3, item 1) and a plunger piston (figure 3, item 24, 40, and 100) received in said barrel (see figure 3) : said plunger piston comprising a front face (see labeled portion of figure 3 above OR figure 3, item 21; Examiner notes both the labeled portion of figure 3 above or item 21 can be construed as the front face) opposite a rear face (figure 3, item 23) and at least one annular groove (see figure 3 wherein a groove is present which item 45 is within; paragraph [0045]: “a rear seal 45 of the plunger head seal 40 sits in a groove created between seal holding disc 21 and the seal pushing disc 23”) positioned between said front face and said rear face (see figure 3 wherein the groove is located between the labeled portion of figure 3 above and 23 OR also between item 21 and 23) , said annular groove including a pair of opposed sidewalls and a bottom (see figure 3) ; a seal (figure 3, item 45) located in said groove (See figure 3; paragraph [0045]) , said seal being sized to contact at least a portion of said opposed sidewalls and said bottom (see figure 3) ; and a plurality of channels (see channels formed by each item 100) extending from said front face into said groove (see figure 3) , said channels providing communication between said front face and said seal (see figure 3) to equalize a pressure on the seal when the front face of the plunger piston is moved against a fluid (paragraph [0054], [0059], and [0061]-[0062]). . Prakash is silent that the seal in the groove is specifically an O-ring and therefore fails to disclose an O-ring located in said groove, said O-ring being sized to contact at least a portion of said opposed sidewalls and said bottom; and said channels providing communication between said front face and said O-ring to equalize a pressure on the O-ring when the front face of the plunger piston is moved against a fluid . Major teaches an O-ring (figure 1, item 38) located in said groove (see figure 2; column 4, line 25-32), said O-ring being sized to contact at least a portion of said opposed sidewalls and said bottom (see figure 2; column 4, line 25-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash to substitute a suitably sized O-ring in place of the seal 45 in the groove of Prakash , as taught by Major , because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of providing an effective seal (column 4, line 25-32 of Major and paragraph [0006] and [0047] of Prakash: ”a rear side contact surface 44 of the plunger head seal 40 are in contact with an inner surface of the syringe body 1 to create a seal between the plunger head 24 and the syringe body 1”) . Furthermore, Prakash supports modifications can be made (paragraph [0073] of Prakash). Examiner notes s ubstitut ing a suitably sized O-ring in place of the seal 45 in the groove of Prakashan would result in an O-ring located in said groove, said O-ring being sized to contact at least a portion of said opposed sidewalls and said bottom; and said channels providing communication between said front face and said O-ring to equalize a pressure on the O-ring when the front face of the plunger piston is moved against a fluid . In regard to claim 12, Prakash in view of Major teaches the syringe as recited in claim 11 wherein said front face (see labeled portion of figure 3 above of Prakash OR figure 3, item 21 of Prakash) includes an outer rim (figure 3 above of Prakash) and wherein said channels are located in said outer rim (see figure 3 of Prakash) . In regard to claim 13, Prakash in view of Major teaches the syringe as recited in claim 12, wherein said channels have a depth that extends from said outer rim to a bottom of said groove (see figure 3 of Prakash; Examiner notes said channels have a depth that extends from said outer rim to a bottom of said groove and past the bottom of said groove). In regard to claim 17, Prakash in view of Major teaches the syringe as recited in claim 11, wherein said front face (figure 3, item 21 of Prakash) has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of said rear face ( figure 3, item 23 of Prakash; see figure 3 of Prakash). In regard to claim 18, Prakash in view of Major teaches the syringe as recited in claim 11, wherein said rear face includes at least one detent ( see figure 3, item 103 of Prakash which forms a detent) . In regard to claim 20, Prakash in view of Major teaches the syringe as recited in claim 11 wherein said O-ring (see analysis of claim 1 1 above wherein the seal 45 of Prakash has been replaced with a suitable sized O-ring which contacts syringe 1 of Prakash) has an outer diameter that is greater than an outer diameter of said front face (figure 3, item 21 of Prakash; see figure 3 of Prakash and analysis of claim 1 1 ). Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash (U.S. PG publication 20180318525) in view of Major (U.S. Patent no 5865803), and further in view of Fischer (U.S. Patent no 4986820). In regard to claim 4, Prakash in view of Major teaches the plunger piston as recited in claim 2, wherein said outer rim (see outer rim of the l abeled portion of figure 3 above of Prakash ) has a shape (see figure 3 of Prakash) . Prakash in view of Major fails to disclose wherein said outer rim has a wedge shape. Fischer teaches wherein said outer rim (see item 28 in figure 3) has a wedge shape (see figure 3 and 5) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the outer rim of Prakash in view of Major to be a wedge shape , as taught by Fischer , for the purpose of helping to provide a satisfactory fluid-tight seal (column 5, line 8-11 of Fischer). Examiner notes paragraph [00030] of the instant disclosure states “The outer rim 64 does not have to have a wedge shape for this inventive concept.” In regard to claim 14, Prakash in view of Major teaches the syringe as recited in claim 12, wherein said outer rim (see outer rim of the l abeled portion of figure 3 above of Prakash ) has a shape (see figure 3 of Prakash) . Prakash in view of Major fails to disclose wherein said outer rim has a wedge shape. Fischer teaches wherein said outer rim (see item 28 in figure 3) has a wedge shape (see figure 3 and 5) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the outer rim of Prakash in view of Major to be a wedge shape , as taught by Fischer , for the purpose of helping to provide a satisfactory fluid-tight seal (column 5, line 8-11 of Fischer). Examiner notes paragraph [00030] of the instant disclosure states “The outer rim 64 does not have to have a wedge shape for this inventive concept.” Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash (U.S. PG publication 20180318525) in view of Major (U.S. Patent no 5865803), and further in view of Schuetz (U.S. PG publication 20130197467). In regard to claim 5, Prakash in view of Major teaches the plunger piston as recited in claim 1, wherein said plunger piston has a shape (see figure 3 of Prakash) . Prakash in view of Major is silent as to wherein said plunger piston has an oval shape. Schuetz teaches wherein said plunger piston (figure 1, item 2) has an oval shape (paragraph [0025] and [0078]) and that an oval shape or other shape (circular, rectangular , quadratic) could all be used to achieve the same result (paragraph [0078] and [0025]) and thus an oval shape and other shape (circular, rectangular , quadratic) were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an oval shape in place of the shape of the plunger piston of Prakash in view of Major since it has been held that substituting parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Paragraph [00030] of the instant disclosure also states that the plunger piston “could also be circular as known in the art”. In regard to claim 6, Prakash in view of Major in view of Schuetz teaches the plunger piston as recited in claim 5 wherein said channels are oriented perpendicular to a centerline of said oval shape (see analysis of claim 5 above and figure 3 of Prakash ) . In regard to claim 15, Prakash in view of Major teaches the syringe as recited in claim 11, wherein said plunger piston has a shape (see figure 3 of Prakash) and wherein said barrel has an inner wall with a matching shape (see figure 3 of Prakash) . Prakash in view of Majo r is silent as to wherein said plunger piston has an oval shape and wherein said barrel has an inner wall with a matching oval shape. Schuetz teaches wherein said plunger piston (figure 1, item 2) has an oval shape (paragraph [0025] and [0078]) and wherein said barrel (figure 1, item 1) has an inner wall with a matching oval shape (paragraph [0078]) and that an oval shape or other shape (circular, rectangular , quadratic) could all be used to achieve the same result (paragraph [0078] and [0025]) and thus an oval shape and other shape (circular, rectangular , quadratic) were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an oval shape in place of the shape of the plunger piston of Prakash in view of Major and to substitute a matching oval shape in place of the shape of the inner wall of the barrel of Prakash in view of Major since it has been held that substituting parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Paragraph [00030] of the instant disclosure also states that the plunger piston “could also be circular as known in the art”. In regard to claim 16, Prakash in view of Major in view of Schuetz teaches the syringe as recited in claim 15 wherein said channels are oriented perpendicular to a centerline of said oval shape (see analysis of claim 15 above and figure 3 of Prakash ) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH LALONDE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-6594 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kevin Sirmons can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4965 . 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. /ALEXANDRA LALONDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /CHELSEA E STINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783