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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 130. 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. 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 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. Claims 1-9 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. Claim 1 recite in the preamble “ a multi-needle module for skin treatment, which is connected to a syringe and mounted on an injection device .” The claim appears to positively recite the syringe and injection device however the first part of the preamble appears to just be for a module as opposed to a system. It is not clear if the syringe and injection device are intended to be claimed as part of the device or to work functionally with the module. Later the claim recites “a syringe coupling part connected to a syringe” it is not clear if this is the same or a different syringe than recited in the preamble. For purposes of the rejection, it is taken as the same. Claim 1 recites “a needle” then later recites “a plurality of needles.” Claim 1 recites “a needle hole through which the needle is passed and an injection howl through which adhesive is injected.” Claim 6 recited “the adhesive is filled.” It is not clear if these recitations are intended to recite positive steps of passing, injection, and filling. As per MPEP 2173.05(p)( ll ), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. It is not clear if the claims are drawn only to structures that are capable of performing the method steps or if the claims are intended to be written as method steps. For the sake of examination, the claims have been interpreted as only requiring that the claimed structures be capable of performing the method steps and are not so narrow as to require the method steps to actually be performed. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). The term s “ close ” and “closely” in claim s 3-5 are relative term s which render the claim s indefinite. The term s “ close ” and “closely” are not defined by the claim s , the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the connections between the recited components are indefinite. 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. Clai m(s) 1 -9 is/are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US 2018/0078714 A1) in view of Lee ( KR 101757759 ). With regard to claim 1, Ozawa et al. teach a multi-needle module for skin treatment, which is connected to a syringe and mounted on an injection device (Fig. 1 connects at 43 to syringe and injection device) and comprises: a needle (Fig. 2 member 3) ; a cap part (Fig. 2 member 69) including a front plate including, formed therein, a needle hole through which the needle is passed (Fig. 3 holes 67) and a receiving portion including an opening formed at a rear side and an empty space formed therein (Figs. 2 and 3 space within 75) ; a housing including an opening portion coupled to the rear opening portion of the cap part, a space formed therein (Fig. 2 member 25) , and a syringe coupling part connected to a syringe (Fig. 1 43) ; and a connector inserted into the housing (Fig. 2 member 11) , and includes a concave adhesive injection part formed on a side to be filled with adhesive ( [0012], Fig s . 2 and 5 annular concave edge at 49 allows for adhesive 57) , and mounted with a plurality of needles on an upper portion thereof (Figs. 2 and 3) , wherein the connector is spaced apart from the front plate of the cap part so as to form the adhesive injection part (Figs. 3 and 5, adhesive 57) . Ozawa et al. teach adhesive may be used to hold the needle ([0051]) but do not disclose the adhesive applied through a hole in the front plate . However, Lee teaches a funnel-shaped hole in the cap through which adhesive is injected to hold the needle (Fig. 5a, 212b, Pg. 5 of translation paragraphs 6 and 7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a funnel shaped hole in the cap for passage of the needle and the adhesive in Ozawa et al. as Lee teaches this is an art effective means for providing adhesive and would yield the same predictable result. As combined the wider portion of the hole at the upper surface of the plate is taken as the injection hole and the narrower hole at the bottom surface of the plate is taken as the needle hole. With regard to claim 2, Ozawa et al. teach an inlet hole 37 (Fig. 4) but do not disclose a plurality of distribution passages. However, Lee teaches distribution passages connected to the needles to uniformly provide fluid to the needles (Fig. 5 holes connected to 214b, translation pg. 6 paragraph 5) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use distribution passages in Ozawa et al. as Lee teaches this is beneficial for uniform flow. With regard to claim 3, see Figs. 2 and 4, walls of 19 form an insertion part. With regard to claim 4, see Figs. 4 and 5, at least adhesive portion 55 in a gap. Components are capable of being fixed at once when adhesive is injected into the gap. With regard to claim 5, space between members 71 and/or indents 79 form a jaw coupled to the inner surface of the housing via 41. (Figs. 2 and 3). With regard to claim 6, the indented area does not cover the length of the opening. Adhesive is placed at 55 which works with the connections of the device to bond the inner surface of the opening of the housing to other device components (Fig. 5, no particular extend of a thickness is claimed). Ozawa et al. do not teach particular dimensions; however, i t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the dimensions of the device for secure connection as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With regard to claim 7, see portion 43 with locking protrusion 45 (Fig. 2). With regard to claim s 8 and 9, Ozawa et al. do not explicitly disclose or show that the locking surface protrusions is flat and straight. However, Lee shows flat protrusions on the coupling part for connecting to a n injection device. (Figs. 2 and 5 protrusions of 214). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use flat straight locking protrusions in Ozawa et al. as Lee teaches this to be an art effective equivalent which would yield the same predictable result. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EMILY L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3648 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Thursday 7:00 AM to 4:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kevin Sirmons can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /EMILY L SCHMIDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783