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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, “where the drive member move” does not make grammatical sense. The examiner suggests “moves”. 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 24-27 and 34 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 claims 24 and 26, “the arms” lacks antecedent basis. It appears claim 24 should depend from claim 21 instead of 15 perhaps?
In claim 34, it is unclear what “an FRID reader” is and “the RFID reader” lacks antecedent basis. It is assumed the first instance was a misspelling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-23 and 28-33 are allowed. With 24-27 and 34 objected to as being allowable except for the 112 rejections against them.
The examiner did not find a teaching or suggestion for modifying closest art Liscio (US 2020/0297580) such that the housing has first and second axial channels with a plurality of first and second segments in their respect channels which move radially towards each other into the central channel to subject the medicament container to oppositely directed radial forces, in addition to the other limitations. Such a modification of Liscio’s first and second legs 26.1/26.2 would be based on impermissible hindsight.
Note
The examiner left a message at 312-913-0001 (as it is unclear to which attorney this case is assigned) about an examiner’s amendment on Wed, Jan 21 at 2:30PM. No return call was received by Sat, Jan 24 at 5PM.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY JAMES OSINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9AM to 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 at (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.
/BRADLEY J OSINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783