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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed 27 March 2026 wherein Claims 1, 17, 19, and 22 are amended, no claims are newly added, no claims are cancelled, and no claims are previously withdrawn. Therefore Claims 1 – 22 are currently pending.
The Applicant’s replacement drawing sheets filed 27 March 2026 and argument, see page 10 of Remarks dated 27 March 2026, have been fully considered. The replacement drawing sheets and argument overcome the Drawing Objections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 29 December 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Non-Final Rejection”). Therefore, each Drawing Objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection is withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments to the Specification filed 27 March 2026 have been fully considered. The amendments to the Specification overcome the Specification Objections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection. Therefore, each Specification Objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection is withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments the Claims dated 27 March 2026 have been fully considered. The amendments to the Claims have overcome each Claim Objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection. Therefore, each Claim Objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection is withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments to the Claims dated 27 March 2026 has been fully considered. The amendments to the Claims have overcome each of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection. Therefore, each of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11 – 12, filed 27 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 22 under statutory and non-statutory double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following:
U.S. Patent No. 10,589,035 B2;
U.S. Patent No. 10,589,035 B2 and Ekman et al. (US 2013/0296795 A1);
U.S. Patent No. 11,878,156 B2; and
U.S. Patent No. 11,878,156 B2 and Ekman et al. (US 2013/0296795 A1).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 21 – 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20 – 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,589,035 B2 (hereinafter referred to as ’035 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
With regards to claim 21, claim 20 of the ’035 Patent recites an auto-injector device consisting of:
a syringe having a needle;
a housing retaining the syringe;
a return spring;
a needle guard slidably coupled to the housing and spring biased relative to the housing by the return spring;
a main spring;
a ram slidably coupled to the housing and spring biased relative to the housing by the main spring; and
a cap coupled to a proximal end of the housing (see Col. 10, lines 14 – 23 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 22, claim 20 of the ’035 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 21, and Claim 21 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein a portion of the ram and a portion of the needle guard slide between the syringe and the housing during use (see Col. 10, lines 24 – 26 of the ’035 Patent).
Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 19 of the ’035 Patent in view of Ekman et al. (US 2013/0296795 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Ekman”).
With regards to claim 1, claim 1 of the ’035 Patent recites an injection device for injecting medicament in a patient comprising:
a housing having at least one retaining arm and at least one retaining rib;
a syringe coupled to the housing and radially retained relative to the housing by the at least one retaining rib, the syringe having a needle and a piston;
a needle guard slideably coupled to the housing and spring biased in a distal direction relative to the housing by a return spring;
a ram slideably coupled to the housing and spring biased in the distal direction relative to the housing by a main spring, the ram having a rod coupled to the piston, the ram having at least one lock arm;
an initial position defined by the at least one retaining arm being disposed in a longitudinal path of the ram preventing firing of the ram;
a released position defined by the at least one retaining arm being clear from the longitudinal path of the ram allowing the ram to extend distally relative to the housing; and
a locked position defined by the at least one retaining arm being disposed in the longitudinal path of the ram and the at least one lock arm being disposed in a longitudinal path of the needle guard preventing the needle guard from being retracted relative to the housing (see Col. 8, lines 28 – 53 of the ’035 Patent).
However, Claim 1 of the ’035 Patent is silent with regards to:
the syringe distally retained relative to the housing by the at least one retaining rib.
Nonetheless Ekman, which is within the analogous art of auto-injectors (see abstract and title), teaches a syringe (4) distally retained relative to the housing (2) by the at least one retaining rib (2.1, 2.3) (see [0051], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the recited invention of Claim 1 of the ’035 Patent in view of a teaching of Ekman such that the syringe is distally retained relative to the housing by the at least one retaining rib. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the injection depth of the needle is controlled by retaining rib (see [0061] of Ekman).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the recited invention of Claim 1 of the ’035 Patent in view of a teaching of Ekman such that the syringe is distally retained relative to the housing by the at least one retaining rib because it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts that do not effect operation of the device is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Here, Ekman teaches that it is well known in the prior art to arrange the syringe such that it is distally retained relative to the housing by the at least one retaining rib. Therefore, arranging the syringe in this manner would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
The recited injection device of the ’035 Patent modified in view of a teaching of Ekman will hereinafter be referred to as the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman.
With regards to claim 2, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 2 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the needle guard includes at least one window and the at least one retaining arm extends through the at least one window (see Col. 8, lines 58 – 60 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 3, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 2, and Claim 3 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the needle guard extends between the at least one retaining arm and the housing in the initial and locked positions and the at least one window is aligned with the at least one retaining arm in the released position (see Col. 8, lines 61 – 65 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 4, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 4 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining rib is integral with the housing (see Col. 8, lines 66 – 67 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 5, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 5 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining rib includes four retaining ribs (see Col. 9, lines 1 – 2 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 6, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 6 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining rib includes a radially extending stop configured to abut a bottom surface of a flange of the syringe (see Col. 9, lines 3 – 5 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 7, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 7 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one lock arm is integral with the ram (see Col. 9, lines 6 – 7 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 8, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 8 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one lock arm includes two diametrically opposed lock arms (see Col. 9, lines 8 – 9 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 9, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 9 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one lock arm extends distally further than the rod (see Col. 9, lines 10 – 11 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 10, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 10 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining arm is integral with the housing (see Col. 9, lines 12 – 13 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 11, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 11 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining arm includes two diametrically opposed retaining arms (see Col. 9, lines 14 – 16 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 12, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 12 of the ’035 Patent further recites further comprising a cap (see Col. 9, lines 17 – 18 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 13, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 12, and Claim 13 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the cap includes an extension that extends through the main spring (see Col. 9, lines 19 – 20 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 14, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 14 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the return spring abuts against the at least one retaining rib (see Col. 9, lines 21 – 22 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 15, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 1 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the housing includes at least one hook configured to abut against a portion of the needle guard in the released position and radially flex the at least one lock arm as the lock arm extends distally (see Col. 8, lines 54 – 57 of the ’035 Patent) (additionally, see Col. 8, lines 28 – 53 which recites the claim limitations of Claim 1 of the current application).
With regards to claim 16, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 15 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining arm includes a cantilever arm that extends in a proximal direction (see Col. 9, lines 23 – 25 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 17, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 16 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining arm includes a radial projection having a sloped surface that abuts a sloped surface of the ram in the initial position (see Col. 9, lines 26 – 29 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 18, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 17 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the ram includes at least one window configured to couple with the at least one retaining arm in the locked position (see Col. 10, lines 1 – 3 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 19, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 18 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the injection device only comprises the housing, the syringe, the needle, the ram, the needle guard, the return spring, the main spring, and a cap (see Col. 10, lines 4 – 7 of the ’035 Patent).
With regards to claim 20, the injection device of the ’035 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 19 of the ’035 Patent further recites wherein the at least one lock arm includes two diametrically opposed lock arms and the at least one retaining arm includes two diametrically opposed retaining arms, each of the two lock arms being circumferentially spaced from each of the two retaining arms (see Col. 10, lines 8 – 13 of the ’035 Patent).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,878,156 B2 (hereinafter referred to as the ’156 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
With regards to claim 21, Claim 18 of the ’156 Patent recites of an auto-injector device consisting of:
a syringe having a needle;
a housing retaining the syringe;
a return spring;
a needle guard slidably coupled to the housing and spring biased relative to the housing by the return spring;
a main spring;
a ram slidably coupled to the housing and spring biased relative to the housing by the main spring; and
a cap coupled to a proximal end of the housing (see Col. 10, lines 7 – 37 of the ’156 Patent).
Claim(s) 1 – 14, 16 – 20, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 17 of ’156 in view of Ekman.
With regards to claim 1, Claim 1 of the ’156 Patent recites an injection device for injecting medicament in a patient comprising:
a housing having at least one retaining arm and at least one retaining rib;
a syringe coupled to the housing and radially retained relative to the housing by the at least one retaining rib, the syringe having a needle and a piston;
a needle guard slideably coupled to the housing and spring biased in a distal direction relative to the housing by a return spring;
a ram slideably coupled to the housing and spring biased in the distal direction relative to the housing by a main spring, the ram having a rod coupled to the piston, the ram having at least one lock arm;
an initial position defined by the at least one retaining arm being disposed in a longitudinal path of the ram preventing firing of the ram;
a released position defined by the at least one retaining arm being clear from the longitudinal path of the ram allowing the ram to extend distally relative to the housing; and
a locked position defined by the at least one retaining arm being disposed in the longitudinal path of the ram and the at least one lock arm being disposed in a longitudinal path of the needle guard preventing the needle guard from being retracted relative to the housing (see Col. 8, lines 33 – 62 of the ’156 Patent).
However, Claim 1 of the ’156 Patent is silent with regards to:
the syringe distally retained relative to the housing by the at least one retaining rib.
Nonetheless Ekman, which is within the analogous art of auto-injectors (see abstract and title), teaches a syringe (4) distally retained relative to the housing (2) by the at least one retaining rib (2.1, 2.3) (see [0051], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the recited invention of Claim 1 of the ’156 Patent in view of a teaching of Ekman such that the syringe is distally retained relative to the housing by the at least one retaining rib. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the injection depth of the needle is controlled by retaining rib (see [0061] of Ekman).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the recited invention of Claim 1 of the ’156 Patent in view of a teaching of Ekman such that the syringe is distally retained relative to the housing by the at least one retaining rib because it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts that do not effect operation of the device is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Here, Ekman teaches that it is well known in the prior art to arrange the syringe such that it is distally retained relative to the housing by the at least one retaining rib. Therefore, arranging the syringe in this manner would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
The recited injection device of the ’156 Patent modified in view of a teaching of Ekman will hereinafter be referred to as the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman.
With regards to claim 2, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 2 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the needle guard includes at least one window and the at least one retaining arm extends through the at least one window (see Col. 8, lines 63 – 65 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 3, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 2, and Claim 3 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the needle guard extends between the at least one retaining arm and the housing in the initial and locked positions and the at least one window is aligned with the at least one retaining arm in the released position (see Col. 8, line 66 – Col. 9, line 3 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 4, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 4 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining rib is integral with the housing (see Col. 9, lines 4 – 5 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 5, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 5 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining rib includes four retaining ribs (see Col. 9, lines 6 – 7 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 6, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 6 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining rib includes a radially extending stop configured to abut a bottom surface of a flange of the syringe (see Col. 9, lines 8 – 10 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 7, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 7 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one lock arm is integral with the ram (see Col. 9, lines 11 – 12 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 8, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 8 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one lock arm includes two diametrically opposed lock arms (see Col. 9, lines 13 – 14 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 9, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 9 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one lock arm extends distally further than the rod (see Col. 9, lines 15 – 16 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 10, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 10 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining arm is integral with the housing (see Col. 9, lines 17 – 18 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 11, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 11 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining arm includes two diametrically opposed retaining arms (see Col. 9, lines 19 – 21 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 12, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 1 of the ’156 Patent further recites further comprising a cap (see Col. 8, lines 49 – 50 of the ’156 Patent) (additionally see Col. 8, lines 33 – 48 and 51 – 62 for the claim limitations of Claim 1 of the claimed invention).
With regards to claim 13, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 12, and Claim 1 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the cap includes an extension that extends through the main spring (see Col. 8, lines 49 – 50 of the ’156 Patent) (additionally see Col. 8, lines 33 – 48 and 51 – 62 for the claim limitations of Claim 1 of the claimed invention).
With regards to claim 14, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 12 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the return spring abuts against the at least one retaining rib (see Col. 9, lines 22 – 23 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 16, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 13 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining arm includes a cantilever arm that extends in a proximal direction (see Col. 9, lines 24 – 26 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 17, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 14 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one retaining arm includes a radial projection having a sloped surface that abuts a sloped surface of the ram in the initial position (see Col. 9, lines 27 – 30 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 18, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 15 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the ram includes at least one window configured to couple with the at least one retaining arm in the locked position (see Col. 9, lines 31 – 33 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 19, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 16 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the injection device only comprises the housing, the syringe, the needle, the ram, the needle guard, the return spring, the main spring, and a cap (see Col. 9, lines 34 – 38 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 20, the injection device of the ’156 Patent and Ekman recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 17 of the ’156 Patent further recites wherein the at least one lock arm includes two diametrically opposed lock arms and the at least one retaining arm includes two diametrically opposed retaining arms, each of the two lock arms being circumferentially spaced from each of the two retaining arms (see Col. 10, lines 1 – 6 of the ’156 Patent).
With regards to claim 22, Claim 18 of the ’156 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 21, and however Claim 18 of the ’156 Patent is silent with regards to a portion of the ram and a portion of the needle guard slide between the syringe and the housing during use.
Nonetheless Ekman, which is within the analogous art of auto-injectors (see abstract and title), teaches a portion (7.2) of the ram (7) (see [0051]) and a portion (10.1) of the needle guard (10) (see [0055]) slide between the syringe (4) (see [0051]) and the housing (2) (see [0051]) during use (see Figs. 1 – 8 and the respective sliding of recited components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the recited invention of Claim 18 of the ’156 Patent in view of a teaching of Ekman such that a portion of the ram and a portion of the needle guard slide between the syringe and the housing during use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Ekman teaches that the sliding of these components creates an auto-injection device that prevents a user from finger-stick injuries (see [0059] of Ekman).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the recited invention of Claim 18 of the ’156 Patent in view of a teaching of Ekman such that a portion of the ram and a portion of the needle guard slide between the syringe and the housing during use because it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts that do not effect operation of the device is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Here, Ekman teaches that it is well known in the prior art for a portion of the ram and a portion of the needle guard to be able to slide between the syringe and the housing during use. Therefore, arranging the ram, needle guard, syringe, and housing in this manner would be a matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT F ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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.
/ROBERT F ALLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/WILLIAM R CARPENTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
06/04/2026
Prosecution Insights