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 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.
Claim 3 is 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 claims 3, the claim positively recites “a barrel” which was previously recited in parent claim 1. The examiner will interpret claim 3 as reciting – the barrel—.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2005/0277887 to Douglas et al. (Douglas hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2011/0251481 to Strobl (Strobl).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Douglas teaches a piezoelectric actuator comprising: a plunger (80), a frame (45) at least indirectly attached to the plunger, an advance piezoelectric unit (35, 36, 37, see Fig. 5 and discussion thereof in paragraphs 85-88) disposed within the frame, the advance piezoelectric unit comprising a first piezoelectric element (36), wherein application of an electric field to the first piezoelectric element causes the first piezoelectric element to expand along a first axis (horizontal in Fig. 5), and a lock piezoelectric unit (60, 70) disposed within the frame, the lock piezoelectric unit comprising a second piezoelectric element (70), wherein application of an electric field to the second piezoelectric element causes the second piezoelectric element to expand along a second axis (vertical in Fig. 5), wherein the second axis forms an orthogonal angle with respect to the first axis. Regarding claim 15, Douglas teaches that the apparatus is a fluid medication pump (1) generally which has the barrel (10) and actuator as discussed above. Douglas does not teach attachment of the drive apparatus to the plunger (25). Strobl teaches another dosing apparatus generally, and particularly teaches that a piston (32) which seals with a cylinder may be provided with a plunger coupler (34, 36a, 36b) to allow for retraction of the piston (paragraph 31). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to attach the frame and piston of Douglas with the piston thereof in order to allow it to be retracted instead of only advanced.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Douglas teaches an orthogonal angle (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Douglas teaches a plunger fitting within a barrel (see e.g. paragraph 76, “plunger 25 positioned in the barrel”).
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19, Douglas teaches the invention of the parent claims as discussed above. Douglas is silent as to a piezoelectric stack. Strobl teaches another piezoelectric medication pump generally, and particularly teaches that a piezoelectric actuator (112) in such an application may be a piezoelectric stack (see e.g. paragraph 58). Strobl further teaches that the motion of the actuator may be accurately controlled via voltage (paragraph 58, last sentence). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use a piezoelectric stack as each of the piezoelectric actuators of Douglas in order to allow for accurate control thereof.
Regarding claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20-21, Douglas teaches the invention of the parent claims as discussed above. Douglas does not explicitly teach a circular cross-section. Strobl teaches circular syringes and plungers (see e.g. Fig. 2B). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use known cartridges, such as the circular cartridges of Strobl as the vials (10) of Douglas in order to take advantage of conventional and commercially available medication storage solutions. Furthermore, in so doing, it would have been obvious to arrange the cross sections of the actuators of Douglas to be circular so as to properly fit within and grip such circular barrels.
Regarding claim 9, Douglas teaches a fluid medication delivery method comprising: holding a fluid medication within a barrel (10) of a syringe, wherein the syringe comprises the barrel and a piezoelectric actuator within a barrel (10) of a syringe, the piezoelectric actuator comprising a plunger (80), a frame (45 and/or plunger skin) at least indirectly attached to the plunger, an advance piezoelectric unit (35, 36, 37) disposed within the frame and comprising a first piezoelectric element (36), and a lock piezoelectric unit (60, 70) disposed within the frame and comprising a second piezoelectric element (70); applying a first electric field to the second piezoelectric element thereby causing the second piezoelectric element to expand in a radial direction of the barrel and exert a pressure on an inner circumference of the barrel, clamping the frame in a rear position in the barrel (paragraph 86, “causing… the microactuator 60 to expand and grip the inner dimension of cartridge 10”); while maintaining the first electric field applied to the second piezoelectric element, applying a second electric field to the first piezoelectric element thereby causing the first piezoelectric element to extend along an axial direction of the barrel (paragraph 86, “control processor 200 then provides a stimulus to micro actuators 36 such that the actuator change length pushing the internal slide forward… The stimulus causes the piston 80 to move forward”), orthogonal to the radial direction, thereby advancing the plunger toward a front end of the barrel and pumping fluid medication out of the syringe; while maintaining the second electric field applied to the first piezoelectric element, removing the first electric field from the second piezoelectric element thereby causing the second piezoelectric element to retract in the radial direction away from the inner circumference of the barrel, releasing the clamping of the frame (paragraph 87, “deactivates micro actuator 60… which disengages the gripper from the cartridge”); and releasing the second electric field from the first piezoelectric element thereby causing the first piezoelectric element to retract in the axial direction pulling the frame toward the plunger (paragraph 87, “deactivates the micro actuators 36 causing it to pull the rear end of the piston forward”).
Regarding claim 10, Douglas teaches repeating the method (paragraph 86, “step-and-repeat process”).
Regarding claim 22, Douglas teaches radial expansion of the second piezoelectric element (paragraph 86, “causing… the microactuator 60 to expand and grip the inner dimension of cartridge 10”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Douglas in view of Strobl as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 12 September 2026
Prosecution Insights