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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8, “an encoder” should be “the encoder”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 16-19, 22-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al (US 2015/0343152) in view of Grubbe et al (US 2016/0331901) further in view of Mirov et al (US 2017/0312455) . Regarding claim 16 , Butler discloses: An electronic encoder module (116; Fig. 2) for use with a drug delivery device (100; Fig. 1) for recording doses that are delivered from the drug delivery device (¶0048) , the electronic encoder module (116) comprising: an electrical power supply (218; Fig. 4) ; a memory (204) ; a processor (202) configured to control operation of the electronic encoder module (116) and coupled to the electrical power supply (218) and to the memory (204) ; at least one sensor arrangement (212, 214) , which is in communication with the processor (202) , wherein the sensor arrangement (212, 214) is configured for detecting a movement of an encoder (300; Fig. 5a) of the drug delivery device (100) (¶0088) , the movement being indicative of doses that are dialed and/or delivered from the drug delivery device (¶0088) ; a coupling portion (¶0045 – “Fastening means, such as a clip (not shown), may be provided on the second longitudinal edges of the lower part 118 and upper part 120 , allowing the supplementary device 116 to be releasably secured to the drug delivery device 100”) for releasably mounting the electronic encoder module (116) to the drug delivery device (100) ( the module is fully capable of being mounted to a charging station when not used in combination with the drug delivery device 100) . Butler is silent regarding the electrical power supply being “rechargeable” or the device having “at least one electrical power transfer component located within the coupling portion and connected to the PCBA and/or to the rechargeable electrical power supply.” However, Grubbe teaches an injection device (10; Fig. 2) that uses a battery (¶0035) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, that is rechargeable and can connect to an external power supply (20) using an electrical power component (12) that is connected to the battery (¶0035) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical power supply of Butler to incorporate the recharging capability taught by Grubbe in order to provide sufficient structure to reuse the electronic module without having to change the battery, as recognized by Grubbe. Butler is silent regarding the processor being part of “a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA).” However, Mirov teaches a dosage tracker for a drug delivery device (Abstract) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the processor is part of a printed circuit board (¶0044) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the processor of Butler to be part of a printed circuit board assembly as taught by Mirov in order to provide sufficient structure. Regarding claim 17 , Butler in view of Grubbe and Mirov discloses the electronic encoder module of claim 16, wherein the at least one electrical power transfer component taught by Grubbe in the rejection of claim 16 is adapted to supply electric energy to rechargeable electrical power supply by the charging station by direct conductive transfer when the coupling portion is mounted to the charging station (Grubbe; ¶0039) . Regarding claim 18 , Butler in view of Grubbe and Mirov discloses the electronic encoder module of claim 17, wherein the PCBA ( as taught by Mirov in the rejection of claim 16 ) comprises at least two contact pads facing into the coupling portion to be connected by pins of the charging station because the charging arrangement taught by Grubbe in the rejection of claim 16 teaches the electrical connection being between two contact points (Grubbe, ¶0039) . Regarding claim 19 , Butler in view of Grubbe and Mirov discloses the electronic encoder module of claim 16, wherein the at least one electrical power transfer component taught by Grubbe in the rejection of claim 16 is adapted to supply electric energy to rechargeable electrical power supply (Grubbe ¶0035) by the charging station but is silent regarding the charging occurring “by wireless energy transfer when the coupling portion is mounted to the charging station.” However, Mirov further teaches that a rechargeable system may be via wireless energy transmission (¶0072) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging system taught by Grubbe to be wireless as taught by Mirov in order to provide sufficient structure to more easily connect and disconnect a charging device. Regarding claim 22 , Butler in view of Grubbe and Mirov discloses: The electronic encoder module of claim 16, wherein the coupling portion comprises a clip-on feature (¶0045 – “Fastening means, such as a clip (not shown), may be provided on the second longitudinal edges of the lower part 118 and upper part 120 , allowing the supplementary device 116 to be releasably secured to the drug delivery device 100”) for axially and/or rotationally positioning the electronic encoder module (116) on the drug delivery device (100) (¶0045 – axially secured ) and/or on the charging station. Regarding claim 23 , Butler in view of Grubbe and Mirov discloses: The electronic encoder module of claim 16, wherein the processor (202) is configured to operate the sensor arrangement (212, 214) in a first low-power-consumption state ( when the device is off ) and at least one further state having a higher power consumption ( when module is in use ) compared with the first low-power-consumption state (¶0052) . Regarding claim 24 , Butler in view of Grubbe and Mirov discloses: The electronic encoder module of claim 16, wherein the at least one sensor arrangement (212, 214) comprises optical sensors (¶0060) comprising a first light source, a second light source, a first optical sensor (212) and a second optical sensor (214) (¶0060 – each sensor 212, 214 is in a corresponding aperture 112, 114 and therefore each sensor has its own light source, see ¶0056) , wherein, when the electronic encoder module (116) is mounted to the drug delivery device (100) , the optical sensors (212, 214) are arranged to detect light emitted by the respective light source and reflected for example by the encoder (300) of the drug delivery device (100) (¶0056) . Regarding claim 27 , Butler in view of Grubbe and Mirov discloses the electronic encoder module of claim 16, wherein the rechargeable electrical power supply as modified by Grubbe in the rejection of claim 16 comprises a rechargeable battery (Grubbe; ¶0035 – the battery is a rechargeable battery ) and/or an electric capacitor. Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in view of Grubbe further in view of Mirov further in view of Olson et al (US 2019/0358395) . Regarding claim 20 , Butler in view of Grubbe and Mirov discloses the electronic encoder module of claim 19 but is silent regarding “at least one receiver coil facing towards the coupling portion and a transmitter coil of the charging station.” However, the teaching of Mirov includes using electromagnetic induction transmission (Mirov; ¶0026) . Olson teaches a medical device with a inductively rechargeable power source (Abstract) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the device has a secondary coil in the medical device and the charging device has a primary coil to induce current and charge the rechargeable battery (¶0055) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless charging of Mirov to incorporate the receiver coil and transmitter coil of Olson to provide sufficient structure to wirelessly charge the device. Regarding claim 21 , Butler in view of Grubbe, Mirov, and Olson discloses the electronic encoder module of claim 20, wherein the PCBA comprises a receiver coil controller as taught by Olson in the rejection of claim 20 and the charging station comprises a transmitter coil controller as taught by Olson in the rejection of claim 20 . Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in view of Grubbe further in view of Mirov further in view of Neer (US 2010/0030153) . Regarding claim 28 , Butler in view of Grubbe and Mirov discloses the electronic encoder module of claim 16, but is silent regarding “a protection circuit for protecting the rechargeable electrical power supply from excessive current, excessive voltage and/or overcharging.” However, Neer teaches an injector (12; Fig. 1) with an energy storage device (26) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, that uses a protection circuit (24) to limit the magnitude of currents flowing into the energy storage device (26) (¶0024, 0029) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the module of Butler to incorporate the protection circuit of Neer in order to prevent excessive current from running through the power supply, as recognized by Neer. Regarding claim 29 , Butler in view of Grubbe and Mirov discloses the electronic encoder module of claim 16 but is silent regarding “a battery charge control for controlling the charging of the rechargeable electrical power supply by the charging station.” However, Neer teaches an injector (12; Fig. 1) with an energy storage device (26) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, that has a battery charge control for controlling the charging of the energy storage device in the form of a protection circuit (24) to limit the magnitude of currents flowing into the energy storage device (26) (¶0024, 0029) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the module of Butler to incorporate the battery charge control system of Neer in order to prevent excessive current from running through the power supply, as recognized by Neer. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in view of Olesen et al (US 2020/0330693) . Regarding claim 30 , Butler discloses: A drug delivery device (100; Fig. 1) for setting and dispensing doses of a liquid drug (¶0039) , the drug delivery device (100) comprising: a housing (104) ; a cartridge holder (106) containing a cartridge (¶0043) filled with a liquid drug (¶0043) and a dose setting and drive mechanism (¶0044) with a dial grip (108) and a dose setting drum (300; Fig. 5a) , wherein the dose setting and drive mechanism is configured to perform a dose dialing operation for selecting a dose to be delivered by the drug delivery device (100) by rotating the dial grip and the dose setting drum relative to the housing (104) and a dose delivery operation for delivering the dose by rotating the dose setting drum relative to the dial grip and the housing (¶0044) , wherein the dose setting drum (300) comprises an array of encoder features (304, 306) formed in a circular pattern at its distal end for detecting rotational movement of the dose setting drum (300) relative to the dial grip (108) (¶0064) , wherein the dial grip (108) has at least one aperture (112, 114) that is coincident with at least a portion of the array of encoder features of the dose setting drum (300) (¶0067) ; and an electronic encoder module (116; Fig. 2) Butler is silent regarding the electronic encoder module being “releasably attached to the dial grip such that the dial grip is received in a coupling portion of the electronic encoder module.” Instead, the device of Butler attaches to the housing of its device. However, Olesen teaches a drug delivery device (200; Fig. 4A) with an attachable dose logging module (300) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the logging module (300) receives the dial grip (280) of the drug delivery device (200) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attachment of the module to the drug delivery device of Butler to be attached to the dial grip as taught by Olesen because doing so would be obvious to try by choosing from a fine number of identified predictable solutions (attaching an add-on on the side of a device as taught by Butler, attaching an add-on onto the back of a device as taught by Olesen, or theoretically attaching an add-on to the front of a device) with a reasonable expectation of success. Claims 31 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in view of Olesen further in view of Grubbe further in view of Mirov . Regarding claim 31 , Butler in view of Olesen discloses: The drug delivery device of claim 30, wherein the electronic encoder module (116) comprises: an electrical power supply (218; Fig. 4) ; a memory (204) ; a processor (202) configured to control operation of the electronic encoder module (116) and coupled to the electrical power supply (218) and to the memory (204) ; at least one sensor arrangement (212, 214) , which is in communication with the processor (202) , wherein the sensor arrangement (212, 214) is configured for detecting a movement of an encoder (300; Fig. 5a) of the drug delivery device (100) (¶0088) , the movement being indicative of doses that are dialed and/or delivered from the drug delivery device (¶0088) ; a coupling portion (¶0045 – “Fastening means, such as a clip (not shown), may be provided on the second longitudinal edges of the lower part 118 and upper part 120 , allowing the supplementary device 116 to be releasably secured to the drug delivery device 100”) for releasably mounting the electronic encoder module (116) to the drug delivery device (100) ( the module is fully capable of being mounted to a charging station when not used in combination with the drug delivery device 100) . Butler is silent regarding the electrical power supply being “rechargeable” or the device having “at least one electrical power transfer component located within the coupling portion and connected to the PCBA and/or to the rechargeable electrical power supply.” However, Grubbe teaches an injection device (10; Fig. 2) that uses a battery (¶0035) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, that is rechargeable and can connect to an external power supply (20) using an electrical power component (12) that is connected to the battery (¶0035) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical power supply of Butler to incorporate the recharging capability taught by Grubbe in order to provide sufficient structure to reuse the electronic module without having to change the battery, as recognized by Grubbe. Butler is silent regarding the processor being part of “a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA).” However, Mirov teaches a dosage tracker for a drug delivery device (Abstract) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the processor is part of a printed circuit board (¶0044) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the processor of Butler to be part of a printed circuit board assembly as taught by Mirov in order to provide sufficient structure. Regarding claims 32 and 33 , Butler in view of Olesen, Grubbe, and Mirov discloses the drug delivery device of claim 31, wherein the at least one electrical power transfer component taught by Grubbe in the rejection of claim 31 is adapted to supply electric energy to rechargeable electrical power supply by the charging station by direct conductive transfer when the coupling portion is mounted to the charging station (Grubbe; ¶0039) . Regarding claim 34 , Butler in view of Olesen, Grubbe, and Mirov discloses: The drug delivery device of claim 31, wherein the at least one sensor arrangement (212, 214) comprises optical sensors (¶0060) comprising a first light source, a second light source, a first optical sensor (212) and a second optical sensor (214) (¶0060 – each sensor 212, 214 is in a corresponding aperture 112, 114 and therefore each sensor has its own light source, see ¶0056) , wherein, when the electronic encoder module (116) is mounted to the drug delivery device (100) , the optical sensors (212, 214) are arranged to detect light emitted by the respective light source and reflected for example by the encoder (300) of the drug delivery device (100) (¶0056) . Regarding claim 35 , Butler in view of Olesen, Grubbe, and Mirov discloses: The drug delivery device of claim 30, wherein the coupling portion comprises a clip-on feature (¶0045 – “Fastening means, such as a clip (not shown), may be provided on the second longitudinal edges of the lower part 118 and upper part 120 , allowing the supplementary device 116 to be releasably secured to the drug delivery device 100”) for axially and/or rotationally positioning the electronic encoder module (116) on the drug delivery device (100) (¶0045 – axially secured ) and/or on the charging station. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 25-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TASNIM M AHMED whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9536 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-5pm Pacific 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bhisma Mehta can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /TASNIM MEHJABIN AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783