DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 28 August 25. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 28 August 2025. These amendments are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 August 2025, in combination with cancelation of Claims 21-22 and 27, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive, particularly in view of the Farieta Declaration filed on 28 August 2025 which provides clear context for the originally filed subject matter shown in the figures to clearly demonstrate that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing and the drawings sufficiently demonstrate support for the specific subject matter including, inter alia, the “recess adjacent the slot”, the “window for allowing visual access”, the “aperture opposite the slot”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Claim(s) 31-38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) as failing to demonstrate due diligence as to provoking interference over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0054758 (“Houmand”) based on the publication thereof on 24 February 2022 which antedates the first appearance of the instant claims (01 August 2023) by more than one year.
35 U.S.C. 135(a)(2) recites:
“(2) TIME FOR FILING.—A petition under this section with respect to an invention that is the same or substantially the same invention as a claim contained in a patent issued on an earlier application, or contained in an earlier application when published or deemed published under section 122(b), may not be filed unless such petition is filed during the 1-year period following the date on which the patent containing such claim was granted or the earlier application containing such claim was published, whichever is earlier.
Specifically, while the instant claims are purported to be copied from U.S. Patent No. 11,400,223 (published on 02 August 2022), the above noted claims first appeared in publication in the above noted pre-grant publication in substantially identical form to those which later issued. Claim(s) 31-38 of the instant application correspond in identical scope to Claim(s) 21-29 of the ‘758 publication and therefore antedate the instant filing by more than one year.
Claims 11-20, 23-26, and 28-30 of the instant application present text which was copied from Claims 1-20 of the Hourmand patent, but where the scope of these claims was substantially amended between the pre-grant Hourmand publication and the issued Hourmand patent. Therefore Claims 11-20, 23-26, and 28-30 are not rejected under 35 USC 102(g).
Interference
Applicant has suggested an interference pursuant to 37 CFR 41.202(a) in a communication filed 01 August 2023.
Applicant failed to (1) identify all claims the applicant believes interfere, and/or (2) propose one or more counts, and/or (3) show how the claims correspond to one or more counts. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(2) and MPEP § 2304.02(b). As such, Claims 11-20, 23-26, and 28-30 is/are object to.
Applicant failed to provide a claim chart comparing at least one claim of each party corresponding to the count. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(3) and MPEP § 2304.02(c).
Applicant failed to provide a detailed explanation as to why applicant will prevail on priority. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(4), (a)(6), (d) and MPEP § 2304.02(c).
Applicant failed to provide a claim chart showing the written description for each claim in the applicant’s specification. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(5) and MPEP § 2304.02(d).
Furthermore, as noted above, Claims 31-38 have been rejected under 35 USC 102(g) inasmuch as any petition to consider prior conception and invention for purposes of interferences was not made within at least one year as per the earliest publication of the claims in question. As such, there is insufficient showing that Applicant possesses the necessary standing to bring forth a claim of interference and would be likely to prevail.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in response to the provided amendments to the specification, drawings, and provided evidence contextualizing the originally filed drawings to establish clear written description support for the claimed subject matter and to establish the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed subject matter over the detailed disclosure the instant claims, issues concerning interference proceedings notwithstanding, the claims are found define and distinguish over the remaining prior art (re: Harrison). Specifically, the phrase “configured to allow a syringe to be inserted through the collar” has been interpreted, in contrast to Harrison, to require the carrier to be purposefully designed in a manner which permits the intended syringe to be passed axially through the identified collar structure, the phrase “through” being defined as “a function word to indicate movement into at one side or point and out at another and especially the opposite side of”, see Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R CARPENTER whose telephone number is (571)270-3637. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Thus. - 7:00AM to 5:00PM (EST/EDT).
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, KEVIN SIRMONS can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/WILLIAM R CARPENTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
10/03/2025