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. Claim Objections Claim 1 and 11 is objected to because of the following grammatical informalities: Claim 1 , line 3, recites “the interior”, should read, “an interior”. Claim 11 , line 4, recites “this first electric motor”, should read, “the first electric motor”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2, 6- 7, 9-11, and 13 -15 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 2 , it recites the limitation “it comprises” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “it” is referring to, whether it is the device itself, or structure specific in the device. For examining purposes, the examiner will be interpretin g “it” as the device itself. Regarding claim 2 , it recites the limitation “ means for synchronizing the first and second electric motors so that the re-entry of the needle after injection of said substance and the refilling of the chamber …” in line s 2-3. T his limitation renders the claim indefinite because this claim fails to define the structural relationship between the second motor and the chamber sufficient enough, to inform, how the refilling is accomplished. In particular, it is unclear what structure is required for the second motor to “refill” the chamber and what constitutes “refilling” in this context. Regarding claim 6 , it recites the limitation “ when said drive member is moved by said servomotor, said supply circuit is moved into the injection-device body ” in lines 3-4. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the drive member being moved by the servomotor, allows for movement of the supply circuit, which comprises the chamber, into the injection-device body. Regarding claim 7 , it recites the limitation “drive member is rigidly connected to the first motor” in line 2. This limitation r enders the claim indefinite because claim 7 depends from claim 6, which recites that the drive member is moved by the servomotor (second motor). It is unclear whether claim 7 is intended to modify the connection of the drive member, requiring connection to both the first and second motor, or if this is a typographical err or. Regarding claim 9 , it recites the limitation “it comprises” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “it” is referring to, whether it is the device itself, or structure specific in the device. For examining purposes, the examiner will be interpreting “it” as the device itself. Regarding claim 10 , the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 10 , it recites the limitations "the main body part" in lines 3-4 and “the floor surface” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the limitations as: “the main body part” as “a main body part”. “the floor surface” as “a floor surface”. Regarding claim 11 , it recites the limitation “it comprises” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “it” is referring to, whether it is the device itself, or structure specific in the device. For examining purposes, the examiner will be interpreting “it” as the device itself. Regarding claim 11 , it recites the limitations " the supply signal " in line 3, “ the coil ” in line 3, “the resisting torque” in line 3, and “the rotor” in line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the limitations as: “the supply signal” as “a supply signal”. “the coil” as “a coil”. “the resisting torque” as “a resisting torque”. “the rotor” as “a rotor”. Regarding claim 13 , it recites the limitation “it comprises” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “it” is referring to, whether it is the device itself, or structure specific in the device. For examining purposes, the examiner will be interpreting “it” as the device itself. Regarding claim 14 , it recites the limitation “ said chamber is filled with said substance during the movement of said injection needle from its second position to its first position ” in lines 14-15. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define the structural or functional relationship by which the chamber is filled. It is unclear what element or mechanism is responsible for the filling of the chamber and whether the movement of the needle causes the filling or occurs simultaneously with it. Therefore, the claim does not clearly set forth what is required to achieve filling the chamber as recited in the claim. Additionally, claim 14 is set forth as a method claim but there are no actual method steps being recited so it is unclear what the scope of this method claim is. The same applies for claim 15 as there is no actual method step in claim 15. Claim 15 is also rejected due to depending on claim 14. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 12- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Slate et al. (US Pub No. 20160271326 A1, herein, Slate) . Regarding claim 1 , Slate discloses a portable substance-injection device comprising a supply circuit (326 – Fig.11A) comprising a chamber (326a – Fig.11A) comprising a first end with an outlet orifice and a second open end (See annotated Fig.10C below ) , a piston (356c – Fig.10A) extending towards an interior of said chamber from this second end (“advances the pusher in the distal direction against the plunger in the fluid chamber” – Para [0092]) , said chamber having a volume that varies as the piston moves (“to inject the fluid medicament from the fluid chamber” – Para [0092]) , a first electric motor (354 – 10A) to ensure the movement of said piston (“the second motor in a first rotary direction, which advances the pusher in the distal direction” – Para [0092]) , said outlet orifice of said chamber being connected to a retractable injection needle (326b – Fig.11A) to supply this needle with the contents of said chamber (“expelling medicament from the chamber through the injection needle” – Para [0084]) , characterized in that - said injection device comprising an injection-device body (315, 312 – Fig.9) , said supply circuit is placed in said portable injection-device body (Fig.9, Fig.11A, Para [0084]) , - the injection-device body comprises a system for driving said needle between a first position, in which the needle is housed inside the body of the injection device (“needle concealed (proximal) position” – Para [0091]) , and a second position, in which the needle protrudes outside the body of the injection device (“the needle is in a needle extended (distal) position and penetrating into the skin tissue of the user/patient” – Para [0091]) , said system for driving said needle comprising a second motor (350 – Fig.10B, Para [0091] ) separate from said first electric motor . The limitation, “ so that the functions of retracting/deploying the injection needle and of refilling/discharging a dose of substance, are dissociated ” is interpreted to be a functional limitation (The injection device of Slate is capable of performing these functions since the assembly comprises all the elements provided above, also disclosing the second motor “moves the syringe from the home position, where the needle is in the needle concealed (proximal) position to the injection position, where the needle is in a needle extended (distal) position” – Para [0091] and the first motor “advances the pusher in the distal direction against the plunger in the fluid chamber of the syringe 326 to inject the fluid medicament from the fluid chamber 326 a of the syringe” – Para [0092] ). Regarding claim 3 , Slate discloses the portable substance-injection device as recited above, characterized in that the first electric motor (354 – Fig.10A) is a stepper motor (“stepper motors” – Para [0078]) . Regarding claim 9 , Slate discloses the portable substance-injection device as recited above, characterized in that it comprises a gripping handle (Shown at 314 – Fig.9) . Regarding claim 10 , Slate discloses the portable substance-injection device as recited above, characterized in that at least a portion of the supply circuit (326 – Fig.11A) , and in particular its chamber (326a – Fig.11A) , is arranged non-horizontally in the portable injection device when the main body part (surface of 314 – Fig.9) is held parallel to the floor surface (When the device of Fig.9 is held such that the main body part, is held parallel to the floor surface, the supply circuit is going to be arranged non-horizontally) . Regarding claim 12 , Slate discloses the portable substance-injection device as recited above, characterized in that said chamber (326a – Fig.11A) is sized to determine an injection dose (“a fluid chamber pre-filled with a predetermined dose of a fluid medicament of a predetermined viscosity” – Para [0084]) . Regarding claim 13 , Slate discloses the portable substance-injection device as recited above, characterized in that it comprises one or more elements selected from a position sensor (374 – Fig.9, 353 – Fig.10A ) . 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. Claim s 4 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slate in view of Almoumen (US Pub No. 20180310954 A1). Regarding claim 4 , Slate discloses the portable substance-injection device as recited above characterized in that said drive system (352 – Fig.10B) of said injection needle (326b – Fig.11A) comprises a drive member (352b – Fig.10B) moved by a second motor (350 – Fig.10B) . However, Slate fails to explicitly disclose a drive member moved by a servomotor. Almoumen teaches a drive member (112 – Fig.3) moved by a servomotor (114 – Fig.3, “servomotor” – Para [0109]) . It would be obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the second motor as disclosed by Slate to be a servomotor to move the drive member as taught by Almoumen since Almoumen teaches that a servomotor is a known type of electric motor used to move a drive member (Almoumen, Para [0109]) . Regarding claim 8 , Slate discloses the portable substance-injection device , as modified above, characterized in that said injection needle (326b – Fig.11A) being carried by a needle support (352c – Fig.10B) separate from said supply circuit, said drive member (352b – Fig.10B) is connected to said needle support to move said needle between its first and second positions (Para [0091]-[0092]) . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slate in view of Almoumen as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bagwell et al. (US Pub No. 20180325547 A1, herein, Bagwell) . Regarding claim 5 , Slate discloses the portable substance-injection device, as modified above, characterized in that said drive member (352b – Fig.10B) is a gear system but Slate, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose said drive member is a conrod/crank system . Bagwell teaches a drive member (176a – Fig.15) that is a conrod/crank system (“slider crank mechanism” - Para [0112]) . It would be obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify drive member as disclosed by Slate to be a conrod/crank system as taught by Bagwell since Bagwell teaches that a crank system is a well-known type of drive member for converting rotational motion to linear motion (Bagwell, Para [0112]) . Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slate in view of Smith et al. (US Pub No. 20170232191 A1, herein, Smith). Slate discloses the portable substance-injection device as recited above characterized in that it comprises an electronic module (319 – Fig.10c) , but Slate does not explicitly disclose that the electronic module is configured to adjust the supply signal of the coil of the first motor as a function of the resisting torque applied to the rotor of this first electric motor . Smith teaches an electronic module (223 – Fig.5A) configured to adjust the supply signal (“energizing” – Para [0089]) of the coil (224 – Fig.5A) of the first motor (“two-piece motor “ – Para [0089]) as a function of the resisting torque (“electromagnetic torque” – para [0089]) applied to the rotor (331 – Fig.5A) of the first electric motor (Para [0089]) . It would be obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify electronic module disclosed by Slate to be configured to adjust the supply signal of the coil of the first motor as a function of the resisting torque applied to the rotor of th e first electric motor as taught by Smith in order to compensate for varying resistance during operation and ensure consistent and reliable performance of the device. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 6, and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Marissa Taylor whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3542 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm EST . 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. /MARISSA TAYLOR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /BHISMA MEHTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783