Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/283,649

RECEPTACLE FOR SINGLE-HANDEDLY UNCAPPING, RECAPPING AND DISPOSING A SYRINGE'S CAP AND NEEDLE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Sep 22, 2023
Examiner
FLICK, JASON E
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Decap Research And Development Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
733 granted / 914 resolved
+10.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
952
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 914 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 09/22/2023, has been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “snuggly” (adjective) in the 11th line of the claim appears to be a misspelling of the word “snugly” (adverb). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrases “a needle cap” and “a needle head” in the 11th and 12th lines of the claim should be changed to “the syringe needle cap” and “the needle head,” in order to maintain proper antecedent basis. 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. 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 1 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. [Claim 1] The term “snugly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “snuggly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the required engagement of a needle cap or needle head is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that any type of engagement meets the limitations of the claim. [Claim 1] The claim recites the limitation of “wherein said wall channel comprises means for snuggly engaging a needle cap along a circumferential ridge and a needle head along a circumferential ridge” in the 11th and 12th lines of the claim. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, since it is unclear if the term “circumferential ridge” is meant to apply to the structure of the wall channel, or if the term is meant to describe the structures of needle cap and/or needle head. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that either scenario meets the limitations of the claim. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radmand et al. (PGPub 2017/0173272). [Claim 1] Radmand teaches a receptacle (figure 4, item 30) for single-handedly uncapping, recapping and disposing a syringe's needle cap and needle head (paragraph [0032]), comprising: a receptacle unit (annotated structure shown in figure 6a below) with first (see annotated figure below) and second (see annotated figure below) ends; a base (figure 5, item 36) connected to said second end (see annotated figure below) of said receptacle unit (annotated structure shown in figure 6a below) (figure 5); wherein said receptacle unit (annotated structure shown in figure 6a below) from said first end (see annotated figure below) to said second end (see annotated figure below) comprises a hollow opening (figure 6a, item 38); wherein said receptacle unit (annotated structure shown in figure 6a below) from said first end (see annotated figure below) to said second end (see annotated figure below) comprises a wall channel (figure 6, items 56/58); wherein said wall channel (figure 6, items 56/58) at said second end (see annotated figure below) is dimensioned to snugly engage the syringe needle cap (figure 6, item 20) (figure 6); wherein said wall channel (figure 6, items 56/58) comprises means for (figure 6, item 62) snuggly engaging a needle cap (figure 6, item 20) along a circumferential ridge and a needle head (figure 6, item 17) along a circumferential ridge (figure 6; paragraph [0032]). PNG media_image1.png 381 787 media_image1.png Greyscale Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON E FLICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Time. 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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. /JASON E FLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 02/08/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582769
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING DISRUPTIONS IN FLUID DELIVERY DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580076
MEDICAL DEVICE HAVING COMMMUNICATION FUNCTION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576204
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DELIVERING A FLUID TO A PATIENT WITH REDUCED CONTAMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564434
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR FLUID DISTRIBUTION FROM A CATHETER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564679
ADJUSTING MEDICAMENT DELIVERY PARAMETERS IN AN OPEN LOOP MEDICAMENT DELIVERY MODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+13.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 914 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month