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 17, 39 and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, lines 6-7 recites “a respective piston rod” and should recite “the respective piston rod”.
Claim 39 depends from claim 1; however, the last three clauses redefine elements described in claim 1 and should recite them as previously defined; e.g. “a first dispensing unit” should be “the first dispensing unit”.
Claim 42 recites “a respective dispensing unit” in the last line of the claim and should recite “the respective dispensing unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11, 13, 17-18, 20, 24, 26, 31, 33, 39-40, 42, 45-46, 48-52, 56, and 59 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.
Claim 1 recites “a second set of distinguishing members” in the last clause of the claim. There is no recitation of a first set of distinguishing members and it is unclear if this requires a first set in addition to the second set or if the term “second” is used as a non-numerical adjective and the limitation requires only one set of distinguishing members. Clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites “the dose definition mechanisms of the first drug delivery device and of the second drug delivery device define different numbers of settable doses” and base claim 11 recites “the dose definition mechanisms of the first drug delivery device and of the second drug delivery device define a same number of settable doses”. These are opposites and it is not clear whether the two drug delivery devices have the same or different numbers of settable doses. Clarification is required. Additionally, the first clause of claim 13 is an exact duplicate of the first clause of claim 11.
Claim 26 recites “the relative rotational positions in which each of the respective dose setting members and the respective dose indication members of the first drug delivery device and of the second drug delivery device are coupled to each other during dose setting are identical” and base claim 24 recites “wherein the relative rotational positions in which each of the respective dose setting members and the respective dose indication members are coupled to each other during dose setting differ from each other between the first drug delivery device and the second drug delivery device”. These are opposites and it is not clear if the they are the same or different from each other. Clarification is required. Additionally, the first two clauses of claim 26 are an exact duplicate of the first two clauses of claim 24.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the respective base claim.
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 20 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 20 depends from cancelled claim 14; it is therefore unclear which limitations of any parent claim it includes. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
As described in parent application 17/472,554, the closest prior art of records is/are Wark (WO 99/16487), Osborne et al. (US 2011/0106054), Pizzino (US 4,610,666), Leak et al. (US 2013/0267908), Jones et al. (US 2013/0261556).
Regarding claim 1, the cited prior art fails to disclose/teach among all the limitation or render obvious a set of at least two drug delivery devices comprising a first drug delivery device and a second drug delivery device wherein each comprises a housing, a dosing mechanism, a dose setting member, a dose indication member, a piston rod, a first set of mutual members that are identical in both the first device and the second device, and a second set of distinguishing members that differ among the first and second devices, wherein the first device comprises a first connector configured to attach a first dispensing unit to the housing of the first device and the second device comprises a second connector configured to attach a second dispensing unit to the housing of the second device, and the first and second connectors differ from each other so that the second dispensing unit is not attachable to the first connector and the first dispensing unit is not attachable to the second connector, in combination with the total structure and function as claimed. No combination of prior art was found to teach or suggest each and every element of claim 1.
Claims dependent thereon inherit the allowable subject matter of the respective base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights