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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2022-152908, filed on 09/29/2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims must be written as a single sentence (see MPEP 608.01(m)), ending with a period a the end of the claim. Additionally, the desired ranges for lengths A, B and C are written as relational expressions. Examiner suggests they just be written a numeric ranges (ex. 3 to 5 mm; between 0.12 and 1.5 mm…) to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 5445523) in view of Petrich (US 6095814).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer discloses a syringe tip to be attached to a tip of a syringe containing viscous material to discharge the viscous material (Fig. 1: tip 32; col. 5, lines 46-52), comprising a syringe engaging portion that engages with the syringe (Fig. 1: proximal base of 32 connecting to 44 of syringe 20; col. 6, lines 34-36), a cylindrical portion having a hollow portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below) with a virtual center line at its center and held by a user in the case of engaging the syringe tip with the syringe (col. 6, lines 34-37, body is held at 42), and a nozzle portion discharging the viscous material contained in the syringe (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein in the case that the maximum length (mm) between both end portions of the cylindrical portion on a virtual straight line orthogonal to the virtual central line is defined as first length A (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the virtual straight line orthogonal to the virtual central line and including both end portions of the cylindrical portion constituting the first length A is defined as first virtual straight line (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and the length (mm) between both end portions of the cylindrical portion on a second virtual straight line orthogonal to the virtual central line and orthogonal to the first virtual straight line is defined as second length B (see annotated Fig. 1 below, B is represented but is in the z axis of the drawing), the first length A and the second length B satisfy the following relational expression (1) Relational expression (1): First length A / Second length B ≥ 1.5 (see annotated Fig. 1 below, A is at least 1.5x the length of B in ratio). Fischer fails, however, to explicitly disclose the dimensions of A and B to satisfy the cited relational expressions (2) and (3) in addition to (1).
Petrich teaches an analogous syringe tip, wherein the claimed length B relates to the diameter of the cylindrical body of the tip (10). Petrich teaches that the body has a diameter B of between 4.3 mm and 3.3 mm (col. 5, lines 29-42), satisfying Relational expression (3): 5 ≥ Second length B. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer device by incorporating the dimensions of B as approximately 4 mm, as taught by Petrich, in order to accommodate the space of a patient’s mouth while being large enough to allow for a viscous fluid to flow through at an acceptable rate for treatment (col. 7, lines 7-25). Although Fischer and Petrich do not explicitly disclose a dimension relating to A which additionally satisfies relational expression (3), it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich syringe tip device to have a length of approximately 6 to 9 mm, which in combination with the Petrich teaching and the Fischer Figures would satisfy Relational expression (2): 13 ≥ (First length A + Second length B) ≥ 5 and all three relational expressions claimed, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior arti device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A). In the instant case, the device of Fischer in view of Petrich would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions of A, since the length of A functions to provide a gripping surface for the user (Fischer: col. 6, lines 34-37, body is held at 42).
PNG
media_image1.png
775
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1, Fischer
Regarding claim 2, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 1, as described above, wherein the cylindrical portion comprises a main body portion formed with the hollow portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above) and a pair of blade portions provided on an outer wall portion of the main body portion (Fig. 1: 42), the first length A is a length between the tip portions of the pair of blade portions (see annotated Fig. 1 above), and the second length B is a length between the outer walls of the main body portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 1, as described above, wherein the nozzle portion extends in a direction inclined with respect to the virtual central line of the hollow portion of the cylindrical portion (Fischer: see annotated Fig. 1 above, the nozzle angled from the central line), and the pair of blade portions are provided parallel to an extending direction of the nozzle portion (Fischer: Fig. 1: blades 42 are parallel to the direction of the nozzle in the x-y plane seen in the figure, in other words, both the blades and nozzle extend outward along the x-y plane in the distal direction).
Regarding claim 4, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the length of A as being less than or equal to 8 mm. However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich syringe tip device to have a length between 6 and 8 mm, which in combination with the Petrich teaching and the Fischer Figures would satisfy Relational expression (4): First length A ≤ 8 and all three relational expressions claimed, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior arti device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A). In the instant case, the device of Fischer in view of Petrich would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions of A, since the length of A functions to provide a gripping surface for the user (Fischer: col. 6, lines 34-37, body is held at 42).
Regarding claim 6, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 2, as described above, wherein the nozzle portion extends in a direction inclined with respect to the virtual central line of the hollow portion of the cylindrical portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above, the nozzle angled from the central line), and the pair of blade portions are provided parallel to an extending direction of the nozzle portion (Fig. 1: blades 42 are parallel to the direction of the nozzle in the x-y plane seen in the figure, in other words, both the blades and nozzle extend outward along the x-y plane in the distal direction).
Regarding claim 7, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 2, as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the length of A as being less than or equal to 8 mm. However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich syringe tip device to have a length between 6 and 8 mm, which in combination with the Petrich teaching and the Fischer Figures would satisfy Relational expression (4): First length A ≤ 8 and all three relational expressions claimed, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior arti device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A). In the instant case, the device of Fischer in view of Petrich would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions of A, since the length of A functions to provide a gripping surface for the user (Fischer: col. 6, lines 34-37, body is held at 42).
Regarding claim 8, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 3, as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the length of A as being less than or equal to 8 mm. However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich syringe tip device to have a length between 6 and 8 mm, which in combination with the Petrich teaching and the Fischer Figures would satisfy Relational expression (4): First length A ≤ 8 and all three relational expressions claimed, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior arti device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A). In the instant case, the device of Fischer in view of Petrich would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions of A, since the length of A functions to provide a gripping surface for the user (Fischer: col. 6, lines 34-37, body is held at 42).
Regarding claim 9, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 6, as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the length of A as being less than or equal to 8 mm. However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich syringe tip device to have a length between 6 and 8 mm, which in combination with the Petrich teaching and the Fischer Figures would satisfy Relational expression (4): First length A ≤ 8 and all three relational expressions claimed, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior arti device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A). In the instant case, the device of Fischer in view of Petrich would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions of A, since the length of A functions to provide a gripping surface for the user (Fischer: col. 6, lines 34-37, body is held at 42).
Claims 5 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 5445523) in view of Petrich (US 6095814) in further view of Doubet (US 11446450).
Regarding claim 5, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 1, as described above, wherein in the case that an inner diameter (mm) of the nozzle portion on the discharge opening side is defined as inner diameter C (Fischer: see annotated Fig. 1 above), but fails to explicitly disclose C as being between 0.12 and 1.5 mm.
Doubet teaches an analogous syringe tip, wherein the inner diameter C satisfies the following relational expression (5) (col. 8, lines 55-56, C being 0.1 inches which equals 0.254 cm). Relational expression (5): 1.50 ≥ Inner diameter C ≥ 0.12. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich device by incorporating the specific diameter of the nozzle tip of 0.254 cm, taught by Doubet, in order to provide a small nozzle tip for precise extrusions that is compatible with a variety of syringes (col. 17, line 65 – col. 18, line 18).
Regarding claim 10, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 2, as described above, wherein in the case that an inner diameter (mm) of the nozzle portion on the discharge opening side is defined as inner diameter C (Fischer: see annotated Fig. 1 above), but fails to explicitly disclose C as being between 0.12 and 1.5 mm.
Doubet teaches an analogous syringe tip, wherein the inner diameter C satisfies the following relational expression (5) (col. 8, lines 55-56, C being 0.1 inches which equals 0.254 cm). Relational expression (5): 1.50 ≥ Inner diameter C ≥ 0.12. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich device by incorporating the specific diameter of the nozzle tip of 0.254 cm, taught by Doubet, in order to provide a small nozzle tip for precise extrusions that is compatible with a variety of syringes (col. 17, line 65 – col. 18, line 18).
Regarding claim 11, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 3, as described above, wherein in the case that an inner diameter (mm) of the nozzle portion on the discharge opening side is defined as inner diameter C (Fischer: see annotated Fig. 1 above), but fails to explicitly disclose C as being between 0.12 and 1.5 mm.
Doubet teaches an analogous syringe tip, wherein the inner diameter C satisfies the following relational expression (5) (col. 8, lines 55-56, C being 0.1 inches which equals 0.254 cm). Relational expression (5): 1.50 ≥ Inner diameter C ≥ 0.12. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich device by incorporating the specific diameter of the nozzle tip of 0.254 cm, taught by Doubet, in order to provide a small nozzle tip for precise extrusions that is compatible with a variety of syringes (col. 17, line 65 – col. 18, line 18).
Regarding claim 12, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 4, as described above, wherein in the case that an inner diameter (mm) of the nozzle portion on the discharge opening side is defined as inner diameter C (Fischer: see annotated Fig. 1 above), but fails to explicitly disclose C as being between 0.12 and 1.5 mm.
Doubet teaches an analogous syringe tip, wherein the inner diameter C satisfies the following relational expression (5) (col. 8, lines 55-56, C being 0.1 inches which equals 0.254 cm). Relational expression (5): 1.50 ≥ Inner diameter C ≥ 0.12. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich device by incorporating the specific diameter of the nozzle tip of 0.254 cm, taught by Doubet, in order to provide a small nozzle tip for precise extrusions that is compatible with a variety of syringes (col. 17, line 65 – col. 18, line 18).
Regarding claim 13, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 6, as described above, wherein in the case that an inner diameter (mm) of the nozzle portion on the discharge opening side is defined as inner diameter C (Fischer: see annotated Fig. 1 above), but fails to explicitly disclose C as being between 0.12 and 1.5 mm.
Doubet teaches an analogous syringe tip, wherein the inner diameter C satisfies the following relational expression (5) (col. 8, lines 55-56, C being 0.1 inches which equals 0.254 cm). Relational expression (5): 1.50 ≥ Inner diameter C ≥ 0.12. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich device by incorporating the specific diameter of the nozzle tip of 0.254 cm, taught by Doubet, in order to provide a small nozzle tip for precise extrusions that is compatible with a variety of syringes (col. 17, line 65 – col. 18, line 18).
Regarding claim 14, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 7, as described above, wherein in the case that an inner diameter (mm) of the nozzle portion on the discharge opening side is defined as inner diameter C (Fischer: see annotated Fig. 1 above), but fails to explicitly disclose C as being between 0.12 and 1.5 mm.
Doubet teaches an analogous syringe tip, wherein the inner diameter C satisfies the following relational expression (5) (col. 8, lines 55-56, C being 0.1 inches which equals 0.254 cm). Relational expression (5): 1.50 ≥ Inner diameter C ≥ 0.12. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich device by incorporating the specific diameter of the nozzle tip of 0.254 cm, taught by Doubet, in order to provide a small nozzle tip for precise extrusions that is compatible with a variety of syringes (col. 17, line 65 – col. 18, line 18).
Regarding claim 15, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 8, as described above, wherein in the case that an inner diameter (mm) of the nozzle portion on the discharge opening side is defined as inner diameter C (Fischer: see annotated Fig. 1 above), but fails to explicitly disclose C as being between 0.12 and 1.5 mm.
Doubet teaches an analogous syringe tip, wherein the inner diameter C satisfies the following relational expression (5) (col. 8, lines 55-56, C being 0.1 inches which equals 0.254 cm). Relational expression (5): 1.50 ≥ Inner diameter C ≥ 0.12. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich device by incorporating the specific diameter of the nozzle tip of 0.254 cm, taught by Doubet, in order to provide a small nozzle tip for precise extrusions that is compatible with a variety of syringes (col. 17, line 65 – col. 18, line 18).
Regarding claim 16, Fischer in view of Petrich teaches the syringe tip according to claim 9, as described above, wherein in the case that an inner diameter (mm) of the nozzle portion on the discharge opening side is defined as inner diameter C (Fischer: see annotated Fig. 1 above), but fails to explicitly disclose C as being between 0.12 and 1.5 mm.
Doubet teaches an analogous syringe tip, wherein the inner diameter C satisfies the following relational expression (5) (col. 8, lines 55-56, C being 0.1 inches which equals 0.254 cm). Relational expression (5): 1.50 ≥ Inner diameter C ≥ 0.12. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fischer-Petrich device by incorporating the specific diameter of the nozzle tip of 0.254 cm, taught by Doubet, in order to provide a small nozzle tip for precise extrusions that is compatible with a variety of syringes (col. 17, line 65 – col. 18, line 18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATERINA ANNA WITTLIFF whose telephone number is (703)756-4772. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9-7ET.
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, MICHAEL TSAI can be reached at 571-270-5246. 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.
/K.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/NATHAN R PRICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783