Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/312,233

MULTI-SLOT INJECTION NEEDLE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
May 04, 2023
Examiner
MEDWAY, SCOTT J
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
583 granted / 871 resolved
-3.1% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
923
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 871 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(s) filed on the record are in compliance with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 and have been considered. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 6-9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to for containing a grammatical error: “the first group of slots are [sic] aligned on the same side of the shaft, and the second group of slots are [sic] aligned on an opposing side of the shaft.” The claim should be corrected to recite “the first group of slots is aligned on the same side of the shaft, and the second group of slots is aligned on an opposing side of the shaft.” 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 6, 7 and 8 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. Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the first group of slots are aligned on the same side of the shaft, and the second group of slots are aligned on an opposing side of the shaft” is unclear because only one first group of slots, and one second group of slots, has been claimed. Therefore, it is not known with what, specifically, the first group of slots is aligned; and it is also not known with what, specifically, the second group of slots is aligned. Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the first group of slots are spaced apart from one another” and “the second group of slots are spaced apart from one another at regular intervals” is unclear because only one first group of slots, and one second group of slots, has been claimed. Therefore, it is not clear how “the first group of slots” could be “spaced apart from one another” and “the second group of slots” could be “spaced apart from one another”. Regarding claim 8, the limitation “each of the first group of slots is diametrically opposed to a corresponding slot of the second group of slots” is unclear because only one first group of slots has been claimed, and so it is not clear what is meant by “each of the first group of slots”. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be interpreted to require that the first group of slots comprises at least two slots, every slot of the first group of slots being aligned, and the second group of slots comprises at least two slots, every slot of the second group of slots being aligned. For examination purposes, claim 7 will be interpreted to require that the first group of slots comprises at least two slots, each slot of the first group of slots being spaced at a regular interval, and the second group of slots comprises at least two slots, each slot of the second group of slots being spaced at a regular interval. For examination purposes, claim 8 will be interpreted to require that the first group of slots consists of two slots diametrically opposed to one another; and the second group of slots consists of two slots diametrically opposed to one another. 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. Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silverman et al (U.S. Pat. 5,478,328, hereinafter “Silverman”). Regarding claim 1, Silverman discloses an injection needle 1 (see Fig. 3p), comprising: a shaft extending between a hub end (adjacent to a hub/shaft junction shown in Fig. 9a), an injection end (adjacent to the beveled end 2; see Fig. 3p), and a lumen (combination of passages 4 and 16; see Fig. 3p) forming an opening (see “opening” in annotated Fig. 3p, below) that extends through the shaft from the hub end to the injection end (see Fig. 3p); the injection end includes at least one bevel (the tapered end 2) having a point and a heel (see Fig. 3p), with the opening formed by the lumen passing through the bevel (see Fig. 3p); and at least one slot formed within the shaft proximal to the injection end (see “slots” 1, 2 and 3 in annotated Fig. 3p, below). PNG media_image1.png 525 570 media_image1.png Greyscale Silverman, Fig.3p, annotated Regarding claims 2 and 3, Silverman discloses that the at least one slot includes a first slot (“slot 1” in annotated Fig. 3p) and a second slot (“slot 2” in annotated Fig. 3p), with the first and second slots being located on different sides of the shaft, and as per claim 3, wherein the first and second slots are diametrically opposed (see annotated Fig. 3p). Regarding claim 4, Silverman disclose that the at least one slot is elliptical (see “slots” 1, 2 and 3, all of which are elliptical). Regarding claim 10, Silverman discloses that the at least one slot is formed on the shaft at a location where a circumference of the shaft includes a portion of the bevel (see “slot 3” in annotated Fig. 3p). Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Sausmarez Lintell (U.S. Pat. 8,747,365, hereinafter “De Sausmarez Lintell”). Regarding claim 1, De Sausmarez Lintell discloses an injection needle (see Abstract disclosing a “needle cannula”), comprising: a shaft 400 (shown in Figs. 4a-4b) extending between a hub end (adjacent to a module 500 shown in Fig. 5), an injection end (406 in Fig. 4a), and a lumen (shown in Figs. 4a-3b) forming an opening 404 (see Fig. 4a) that extends through the shaft from the hub end to the injection end (see Fig. 4a); the injection end includes at least one bevel (see Fig. 4a) having a point and a heel (see Fig. 4a), with the opening formed by the lumen passing through the bevel (see Fig. 4a); and at least one slot 408, 410, 412 and 414 formed within the shaft proximal to the injection end (see Fig. 4a). Regarding claim 2, De Sausmarez Lintell discloses that the at least one slot includes a first slot 412 (see Fig. 4a) and a second slot 408 (see Fig. 4a), with the first and second slots being located on different sides of the shaft. Regarding claim 3, De Sausmarez Lintell discloses that the first and second slots 412 and 408 are diametrically opposed (see Fig. 4a). Regarding claim 5, De Sausmarez Lintell discloses that the at least one slot includes a first group of slots (consisting of slots 412 and 414) formed on one side of the shaft and a second group of slots (consisting of slots 408 and 410) formed on an opposing side of the shaft (see Fig. 4a). Regarding claim 6 (see interpretation above under the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection), De Sausmarez Lintell discloses that every slot in the first group of slots is aligned on the same side of the shaft (slots 412 and 414 are on the same side of the shaft and aligned parallel to the longitudinal axis of the needle, as shown in Fig. 4a), and every slot in the second group of slots are aligned on an opposing side of the shaft (slots 408 and 410 are on the same side of the shaft and aligned parallel to the longitudinal axis of the needle, as shown in Fig. 4a). Regarding claim 7 (see interpretation above under the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection), De Sausmarez Lintell discloses the that first group of slots comprises at least two slots, each slot of the first group of slots being spaced at a regular interval slots 412 and 414 are evenly spaced from one another), and the second group of slots comprises at least two slots, each slot of the second group of slots being spaced at a regular interval (slots 408 and 410 are evenly spaced from one another). Regarding claim 8 (see interpretation above under the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection), De Sausmarez Lintell discloses an alternative in which the first group of slots are slots 412 and 408 and are diametrically opposed to one another; and the second group of slots are 414 and 410 and are diametrically opposed to one another. Regarding claim 9, De Sausmarez Lintell discloses that the first group of slots (slots 412 and 414) and the second group of slots (slots 408 and 410) are formed in an “alternating pattern” on opposing sides of the shaft (i.e., the first group of slots opposes the second group of slots, and the claim does not require how many times the alternating pattern must be repeated). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J MEDWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 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, 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. /SCOTT J MEDWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 09/30/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 04, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594374
STACKABLE MANIFOLDS FOR MEDICAL FLUIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12558480
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR FILLING IV BAGS WITH THERAPEUTIC FLUID
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551683
NEEDLELESS CONNECTOR AND ACCESS PORT DISINFECTION CLEANER AND ANTIMICROBIAL PROTECTION CAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544506
INFUSION SET AND INSERTER ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12533467
Medicament Delivery Device and Actuation Mechanism for a Drug Delivery Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
67%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+23.4%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 871 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month