DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 should be amended to - which acts progressively on the at least one fluid product reservoir to repel successive fluid product -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following claim limitations
Actuation member (claim 1)
Transmission means (claim 1)
Catch device (claim 8)
Disengagement means (claim 9)
an engagement member (claim 10)
actuation means (claim 14)
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder
Member (Actuation member - claim 1)
Means (Transmission means - claim 1)
Device (Catch device - claim 8)
Means (Disengagement means - claim 9)
Member (an engagement member - claim 10)
Means (actuation means - claim 14)
coupled with functional language
for conveying the fluid product from the fluid product reservoir to the fluid product outlet (Actuation member - claim 1)
for transmitting the vibrations generated by the motor of the motor module to the microneedles of the cartridge module (Transmission means - claim 1)
can be axially moved against a counter spring (I124) from a retracted starting position to several successive advanced position, in which it is blocked in position against any backward return by (Catch device - claim 8)
to allow the catch device to release the actuation rod, which thus elastically returns to its retracted starting position (Disengagement means - claim 9)
which can be moved from a free state, corresponding to the disengaged state, to a constrained state, corresponding to the operative state, by a cam formed by the cartridge module and which can be moved from the constrained state to the free state by a counter spring, as soon as it is disengaged from the cam (an engagement member - claim 10)
Means (actuation means - claim 14)
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 10, 14 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
a lateral push button (page 5 of the specification) (Actuation member - claim 1)
see the 35 USC 112(b) claim rejection below (Transmission means - claim 1)
a catch (page 13 of the specification) (Catch device - claim 8)
plate or rail (page 13 or 15 of the specification) (Disengagement means - claim 9)
see the 35 USC 112(b) claim rejection below (an engagement member - claim 10)
see the 35 USC 112(b) claim rejection below (actuation means - claim 14)
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim limitation “the fluid product reservoir” in lines 9-10 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because structure is introduced in 7 as a possible plurality but this limitation in lines 9-10 only indicates that it is one fluid product reservoir which conflicts. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that “the fluid product reservoir” in line 9 can be a plurality of fluid product reservoirs however the applicant should amend this limitation (and the following limitations) to clarify that a plurality of fluid product reservoirs is possible.
The limitation “transmission means” in line 19 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because it has been interpreted to invoke 35 USC 112(f) however the specification fails to shed light on the structure of the limitation. The specification indicates transmission means can include the vibration transmission means (see page 23 of the specification) but the fails to elaborate what the vibration transmission means includes. For the sake of examination, the office has interrupted this limitation to refer to a shaft or rod however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Claims 2-15 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 10:
The claim recites the limitation "the connector" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “engagement member” in line 5 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because it has been interpreted to invoke 35 USC 112(f) however the specification fails to shed light on the structure of the limitation. The specification indicates engagement member can be I143 or I143’ in the figures but fails to elaborate what the structure in the figures includes. For the sake of examination, the office has interrupted this limitation to refer to a catch however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
The claim recites the limitation "the operative state" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11:
The claim limitation “an actuation member” in line 4 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “an actuation member” in line 9 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two of actuation members are required by the claim 11 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one actuation member is required by the claim.
The limitation “the reservoir” in line 5 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because “several fluid product reservoirs” has been introduced in line 2 of this claim and “at least one fluid product reservoir” has been introduced in line 7 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) raising a question as to which this limitation (the reservoir in line 5 of claim 11) refers to. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that the limitation in line 5 refers to the product reservoirs in line 2 of the same claim. However, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Claims 12-15 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 11.
Regarding claim 12:
The claim limitation “the actuation member” in line 2 is unclear. Its unclear because and actuation member has been established in claim 11 and 1 (on which this claim depends) raising a question of which structure this limitation refers to. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that this limitation and the other recitations of the actuation member in claims 11 and 1 all refer to the same structure. However, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify.
The claim limitation “the reservoir” in line 4 is unclear for the same reasons identified in the “actuation member” in line 2 rejection above. The structure of the reservoir has been introduced in claim 11 and 1 raising the issue of which is being referred to. The office has taken the same interpretation that they all refer to the same structure. Further, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify.
Claims 13-15 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 12.
Regarding claim 13:
The claim limitation “the actuation member” in line 2 is unclear. It’s unclear because and actuation member has been established in claim 11 and 1 (on which this claim depends) raising a question of which structure this limitation refers to. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that this limitation and the other recitations of the actuation member in claims 11 and 1 all refer to the same structure. However, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify.
The claim limitation “the reservoir” in line 2 is unclear for the same reasons identified in the “actuation member” in line 2 rejection above. The structure of the reservoir has been introduced in claim 11 and 1 raising the issue of which is being referred to. The office has taken the same interpretation that they all refer to the same structure. Further, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify.
Claims 14-15 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 13.
Regarding claim 14:
The limitation “actuation means” in line 2 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because it has been interpreted to invoke 35 USC 112(f) however the specification fails to shed light on the structure of the limitation. The specification fails to elaborate what the structure of the actuation means is and for this reason the limitation is unclear. Its unclear how to interpret this limitation since the specification doesn’t identify the structure or identify it in the drawings.
Regarding claim 15:
The limitation “each reservoir” is unclear since it refers to an earlier recitation of the reservoir structure however several have been established in the claims and its unclear which this limitation refers to. The reservoir structure has been established in claim 11 and 1 and its unclear which one this limitation refers to. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that they all refer to the same structure however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach “a cartridge module housing said at least one fluid product reservoir and forming the application face” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 1.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following is pertinent prior art:
US-20070038181-A1
Melamud
See needles 12
US-20180280675-A1
Tharp
See needles 216
US-20170354810-A1
O'Brien
See needles 215
DE-202004010659-U1
Kohr
See the needles 10
KR-20140046890-A
KIM
See needles 50
WO-2011014514-A1
GONZALEZ
See needles 205
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783