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 6/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: item 15C. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract is written as one long sentence similar to a claim. The abstract should be in narrative form. Appropriate correction is required.
Line 6 includes the term “means”. Legal phraseology should be avoided. Examiner suggests replacing “means of a bayonet connection” with “a bayonet connection”.
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:
Page 8, line 22 refers to the stopper as item 15. This appears to be a typo as the syringe is item 15, not the stopper.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests adding the term “and” after “the syringe holder,” in line 8 to put the claim in clearer grammatical form.
Claim 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 5 recites “the release button is configured move”. This is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests replacing “the release button is configured move” in line 5 with “the release button is configured to move”.
Claim 34 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “where an inside”. This is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests replacing “where an inside” in line 2 with “wherein an inside” to put the claim in clearer form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 32,
Line 1-3 recites “wherein the pin slides within the bayonet slot along a non-linear path when the front body moves axially relative to the rear body”. There is not support in the original disclosure for this limitation. Claim 32 is not an original filed claim. As shown in figure 2, item 19b and 19c are linear. The disclosure is completely silent as to the bayonet slot being non-linear. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 33,
Line 1-2 recites “wherein the non-linear path comprises an axial slot that defines a stroke length of the front body”. There is not support in the original disclosure for this limitation. Claim 33 is not an original filed claim. As shown in figure 2, item 19b and 19c are linear. The disclosure is completely silent as to the non-linear path comprises an axial slot that defines a stroke length of the front body. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-25, 27-29, and 31-35 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 17,
Line 1-2 recites “wherein the front body has a radial pin forming one part of the bayonet connection and the rear body has a bayonet slot forming another part of the bayonet connection, and wherein the pin is configured to run in the bayonet slot”. Claim 17 depends on claim 16. Claim 16 does not positively require the bayonet connection. Claim 17 however further defines parts of the bayonet connection. It is unclear if claim 17 positively requires the bayonet connection. For examination purposes Examiner construes the bayonet connection to not be positively required.
Examiner notes claims 18-23 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 17.
In regard to claim 18,
Line 1-2 recites “wherein the bayonet slot transitions into an axial slot extending rearwards along the rear body”. It is unclear if a method step is being claimed due to the positive term “transitions”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p). For examination purposes Examiner construes “wherein the bayonet slot transitions into an axial slot extending rearwards along the rear body” to be “wherein the bayonet slot is configured to transition into an axial slot extending rearwards along the rear body”. Examiner suggests replacing “wherein the bayonet slot transitions into an axial slot extending rearwards along the rear body” in line 1-2 of claim 18 with “wherein the bayonet slot is configured to transition into an axial slot extending rearwards along the rear body”.
Examiner notes claim 19 is similarly rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 18.
In regard to claim 19,
Line 2 recites “the axial length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the axial length” to be “an axial length”. Examiner suggests replacing “the axial length” in line 2 of claim 19 with “an axial length”.
In regard to claim 21,
Line 3 recites “its inner surface”. It is unclear what structure the term “its” refers to. For examination purposes Examiner construes “its inner surface” to be “an inner surface of the outer rear body”. Examiner suggests replacing “wherein the outer rear body has an axial rib provided on its inner surface” in line 3 with “wherein an axial rib is provided on an inner surface of the outer rear body”.
Examiner notes claims 22-23 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 21.
In regard to claim 22,
Line 2-3 recites “the mouth of the bayonet slot”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the mouth of the bayonet slot” to be “a mouth of the bayonet slot”. Examiner suggests replacing “the mouth of the bayonet slot” in line 2-3 of claim 22 with “a mouth of the bayonet slot”.
In regard to claim 23,
Line 2 recites “an outer rear body”. Claim 23 depends on claim 21. Claim 21 introduces an outer rear body. It is unclear if the outer rear body of line 2 of claim 23 is a second outer rear body or is the same as the outer rear body of claim 21. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “an outer rear body” in line 2 of claim 23 with “the outer rear body”.
In regard to claim 24,
Line 2 recites “the release button”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 24 to be dependent on claim 23.
Line 2 recites “with one end being provided”. It is unclear if the one end is of the release button or the seesaw-structure. For examination purposes Examiner construes the one end to be of the seesaw-structure. Examiner suggests replacing “with one end being provided” in line 2 with “with one end of the seesaw-structure being provided”.
Line 2-3 recites “the radially inwards extending structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 24 to be dependent on claim 23.
In regard to claim 25,
Line 3 recites “the forward direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the forward direction” to be “a forward direction”. Examiner suggests replacing “the forward direction” in line 3 of claim 25 with “a forward direction”.
In regard to claim 27,
Line 1 recites “The medicament delivery member as claimed in claim 16”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. It is unclear if the medicament delivery member is intended to be the same as the medicament delivery device. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “The medicament delivery member as claimed in claim 16” in line 1 of claim 27 with “The medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 16”.
Examiner notes claims 28-29 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 27.
In regard to claim 29,
Line 2 recites “the front resilient member”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Claim 29 depends on claim 27 and 16. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the front resilient member” to be “a front resilient member”. Examiner suggests replacing “the front resilient member” in line 2 of claim 29 with “a front resilient member”.
In regard to claim 31,
Line 12 recites “a bayonet connection”. Line 4 also recites a bayonet connection. It is unclear the bayonet connection in line 12 is a second bayonet connection or if the bayonet connection in line 12 is the same as the bayonet connection in line 4. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “by means of a bayonet connection” in line 11-12 of claim 31 with “by the bayonet connection”.
Examiner notes claims 32-35 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 31.
In regard to claim 35,
Line 1-4 recites “a release button having a seesaw-structure such that a radially outward movement of a proximal end of the release button disengages from the pin to allow the front body to move distally relative to the rear body”. It is unclear what is meant by this or what structure disengages from the pin. The release button has not been claimed as being engaged with the pin. It is unclear what structure the movement causes to disengage from the pin. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner construes a portion of the seesaw-structure to disengage from the pin to allow the front body to move distally relative to the rear body. Examiner suggests clarifying what structure disengages from the pin.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 24 is dependent on claim 8. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claim 24 is therefore in improper dependent form. Examiner suggests amending claim 24 to be dependent on claim 23. For examination purposes Examiner construes claim 24 to be dependent on claim 16.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 16-20, 24-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wozencroft (U.S. PG publication 20110202011).
In regard to claim 16,
Wozencroft discloses a medicament delivery device (see entire device of figure 1-8B; paragraph [0037] and [0044]; Examiner notes the medicament within the syringe can be delivered) comprising:
a front assembly (figure 3, item 14, 16, and 38), and
a rear assembly (figure 3, item 18 and 12) configured to be attached to the front assembly (see figure 1, 2A, 5A-6C, and 8A-8B),
wherein the front assembly has a front body (body formed by item 14 and 16) and a syringe holder (figure 2B, item 38) arranged in the front body (see figure 2B and 5B),
wherein the rear assembly has a rear body (body of item 18 and 12) provided with a plunger rod (figure 5B, item 4), wherein the front body is configured to move axially relative to the rear body (see figure 8A) to enable the plunger rod to move forward inside the syringe holder (paragraph [0044]),
wherein the front assembly and the rear assembly are configured to be attached by means of a bayonet connection (figure 3, item 60, 62, and 64; Examiner notes the bayonet connection is not positively required by the claim. Item 60, 62, and 64 function as a bayonet connection. A bayonet connection is fully capable of being used to attach the front assembly and the rear assembly).
In regard to claim 17,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the front body has a radial pin (figure 3, item 60) forming one part of the bayonet connection (see analysis of claim 16 above) and the rear body has a bayonet slot (figure 3, item 62) forming another part of the bayonet connection (see analysis of claim 16 above), and wherein the pin is configured to run in the bayonet slot (paragraph [0039], and [0044]).
In regard to claim 18,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 17, wherein the bayonet slot transitions into an axial slot (figure 3, item 64) extending rearwards along the rear body (see figure 3), wherein the pin is configured to run in the axial slot to enable axial movement of the front body relative to the rear body (paragraph [0039]-[0040] and [0044]) when the front body and the rear body are locked by the bayonet connection (rotationally locked as item 60 cannot rotate further out of item 64; paragraph [0039]-[0040]; Examiner notes claim 18 does not specify if the front body and rear body are rotationally locked or axially locked).
In regard to claim 19,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 18, wherein the axial length of the axial slot defines a stroke length of the front body (Examiner notes the stoke length is not defined relative to the medicament delivery. The axial length of the axial slot defines a stroke length of the front body as shown in figure 3).
In regard to claim 20,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 17, wherein the pin is provided on an outer surface of the front body (see figure 3) and the bayonet slot extends radially through the rear body (see figure 3).
In regard to claim 24,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 8 (see 112 rejection above where claim 24 is construed as being dependent on claim 16), wherein the release button (figure 3, item 92; paragraph [0044] wherein piston 90 is released when item 92 pivots) has a seesaw-structure (structure which enables item 92 to pivot; paragraph [0041]) with one end being provided with the radially inwards extending structure (see figure 3 wherein the structure is 3D and therefore one end includes a structure which extends radially inwards).
In regard to claim 25,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the rear body has an outer shell (item 18), and the plunger rod is arranged immovable relative to the outer shell (see figure 5B wherein in the position shown in figure 5B the plunger rod is immovable relative to the outer shell), wherein the plunger rod extends in the forward direction inside the outer shell (see figure 5B).
In regard to claim 26,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 16, comprising a front resilient member (figure 2B, item 40) arranged in the front body (see figure 2B) and configured to bias the syringe holder towards a rear end of the front body (paragraph [0038]).
In regard to claim 27,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery member as claimed in claim 16, comprising an axially movable syringe stop (figure 9, item 30) arranged in the rear body concentrically with the plunger rod (see figure 5B), wherein the syringe stop has radial protrusions (figure 9, item 32) and the rear body comprises axial slots (figure 9, item 34) in which the radial protrusions are configured to run to guide axial movement of the syringe stop (paragraph [0038]), and a rear resilient member (figure 2B, item 36) configured to bias the syringe stop towards a front end of the rear body (see figure 2B wherein item 30 is located in a front end of the rear body).
In regard to claim 28,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 27, wherein the syringe stop is configured to bear against a rear end of the syringe holder (paragraph [0038]).
In regard to claim 30,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the front body is a needle cover (see figure 6A and 5B wherein the front body covers the needle).
Claims 16-20, 25, and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts (U.S. PG publication 20190209785).
In regard to claim 16,
Roberts discloses a medicament delivery device (see all of figure 1; paragraph [0028]) comprising:
a front assembly (figure 1, item 1.1 and 2.2), and
a rear assembly (figure 1, item 1.2) configured to be attached to the front assembly (see figure 1),
wherein the front assembly has a front body (see body of item 1.1) and a syringe holder (item 2.2; Examiner notes item 2.2 functions as a syringe holder as the syringe is held in position when item 2.2 is engaged with the syringe) arranged in the front body (see figure 2), wherein the rear assembly has a rear body (body of item 1.2) provided with a plunger rod (item 2.5),
wherein the front body is configured to move axially relative to the rear body to enable the plunger rod to move forward inside the syringe holder (paragraph [0073] and [0079]-[0080]),
wherein the front assembly and the rear assembly are configured to be attached by means of a bayonet connection (figure 1, item 1.2.1 and 1.1.3).
In regard to claim 17,
Roberts discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the front body has a radial pin (figure 1, item 1.1.3) forming one part of the bayonet connection (see analysis of claim 16 above) and the rear body has a bayonet slot figure 1, item 1.2.1) forming another part of the bayonet connection (see analysis of claim 16 above), and wherein the pin is configured to run in the bayonet slot (see figure 8A-8F).
In regard to claim 18,
Roberts discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 17, wherein the bayonet slot transitions into an axial slot (figure 1, item 1.2.1.2) extending rearwards along the rear body (see figure 1), wherein the pin is configured to run in the axial slot to enable axial movement of the front body relative to the rear body when the front body and the rear body are locked by the bayonet connection (paragraph [0074]; Examiner notes claim 18 does not specify if the front body and rear body are rotationally locked or axially locked; the front body and rear body are locked by the bayonet connection as the bayonet connection locks and limits the movement of the front body relative to the rear body).
In regard to claim 19,
Roberts discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 18, wherein the axial length of the axial slot defines a stroke length of the front body (Examiner notes the stoke length is not defined relative to the medicament delivery. The axial length of the axial slot defines a stroke length of the front body as shown in figure 1).
In regard to claim 20,
Roberts discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 17, wherein the pin is provided on an outer surface of the front bod y(see figure 1) and the bayonet slot extends radially through the rear body (see figure 1).
In regard to claim 25,
Roberts discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the rear body has an outer shell (figure 1, item 1.3), and the plunger rod is arranged immovable relative to the outer shell (see figure 2 wherein in the position shown in figure 2 the plunger rod is arranged immovable relative to the outer shell), wherein the plunger rod extends in the forward direction inside the outer shell (see figure 2).
In regard to claim 30,
Roberts discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the front body is a needle cover (see figure 2 and 5).
In regard to claim 31,
Roberts discloses a medicament delivery device (see all of figure 1; paragraph [0028]) comprising:
a front assembly (figure 1, item 1.1 and 2.2);
a rear assembly (figure 1, item 1.2) configured to be attached to the front assembly (see figure 1); and
a bayonet connection (figure 1, item 1.2.1 and 1.1.3) comprising a pin (figure 1, item 1.1.3) extending radially outward from the front assembly (see figure 1) and a bayonet slot (figure 1, item 1.2.1) located on the rear assembly (paragraph [0044]; see figure 1),
wherein the front assembly has a front body (see body of item 1.1) and a syringe holder (item 2.2; Examiner notes item 2.2 functions as a syringe holder as the syringe is held in position when item 2.2 is engaged with the syringe) arranged in the front body (see figure 2), wherein the rear assembly has a rear body (body of item 1.2) provided with a plunger rod (item 2.5),
wherein the front body is configured to move axially relative to the rear body to enable the plunger rod to move forward inside the syringe holder (paragraph [0073] and [0079]-[0080]),
wherein the front assembly and the rear assembly are configured to be attached by means of a bayonet connection (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see figure 1).
In regard to claim 32,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device of claim 31, wherein the pin slides within the bayonet slot along a non-linear path when the front body moves axially relative to the rear body (see figure 8B compared to figure 8A; paragraph [0073]).
In regard to claim 33,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device of claim 32, wherein the non-linear path comprises an axial slot that defines a stroke length of the front body (see figure 8A and 8B; (Examiner notes the stoke length is not defined relative to the medicament delivery. The axial length of the axial slot defines a stroke length of the front body as shown in figure 8A and 8B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wozencroft (U.S. PG publication 20110202011) and further in view of Dasbach (U.S. PG publication 20150374927).
In regard to claim 29,
Wozencroft discloses the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 27, comprising the front resilient member (Examiner notes item 52 or item 88 could be construed as the front resilient member).
Wozencroft is silent as to wherein the rear resilient member has a higher stiffness than the front resilient member.
Dasbach teaches a resilient member (item 42; Examiner notes item 42 is used to shield the needle) has a higher stiffness than a second resilient member (item 52; paragraph [0145]).
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 item 36 of Wozencroft which is used to shield the needle (paragraph [0045] of Wozencroft) to include a higher stiffness, as taught by Dasbach, therefore resulting in wherein the rear resilient member has a higher stiffness than the front resilient member for the purpose of protecting the needle (paragraph [0145] of Dasbach).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23, and 34-35 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 21,
The prior art of record does not teach or otherwise render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in combination with all claim limitations the medicament delivery device as claimed in claim 20, comprising wherein the outer rear body has an axial rib provided on its inner surface, the axial rib being configured to restrict movement of the pin in the bayonet slot to maintain the front body and the rear body in a locked state. Wozencroft (U.S. PG publication 20110202011) fails to disclose an outer rear body. Roberts (U.S. PG publication 20190209785) discloses an outer rear body (figure 1, item 1.3). The outer rear body of Roberts does not have an axial rib provided on its inner surface, the axial rib being configured to restrict movement of the pin in the bayonet slot to maintain the front body and the rear body in a locked state. The subject matter of wherein the outer rear body has an axial rib provided on its inner surface, the axial rib being configured to restrict movement of the pin in the bayonet slot to maintain the front body and the rear body in a locked state in combination with all limitations of claim 20 could not be found nor was suggested elsewhere in the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 22-23 would be allowable by virtue of being dependent upon allowable claim 21.
In regard to claim 34,
The prior art of record does not teach or otherwise render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in combination with all claim limitations the medicament delivery device of claim 31 further comprising where an inside surface of the outer rear body comprises a longitudinal axial rib that defines a detent that prevents relative rotation of the front body relative to the rear body. Roberts (U.S. PG publication 20190209785) discloses an outer rear body (figure 1, item 1.3) in sliding engagement with the rear body (paragraph [0051]). The outer rear body of Roberts does not have an inside surface of the outer rear body that comprises a longitudinal axial rib that defines a detent that prevents relative rotation of the front body relative to the rear body.
In regard to claim 35,
The prior art of record does not teach or otherwise render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in combination with all claim limitations further comprising a release button having a seesaw-structure such that a radially outward movement of a proximal end of the release button disengages from the pin to allow the front body to move distally relative to the rear body. Roberts (U.S. PG publication 20190209785) does not disclose a release button having a seesaw-structure such that a radially outward movement of a proximal end of the release button disengages from the pin to allow the front body to move distally relative to the rear body. No motivation appears to be present to modify Roberts to teach the claimed release button.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hee-Hanson (U.S. Patent no 12343505) which has a later effective filing date than the instant inventions, discloses a medicament delivery device comprising a front assembly (figure 3A, item 110), a rear assembly (figure 3A, item 108) and a bayonet connection (figure 3A-3D, item 126, 120, 124).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH LALONDE whose telephone number is (313)446-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (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
/KEVIN C SIRMONS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights