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 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the side wall of the sleeve” and should recite “a side wall of the sleeve”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 28 is 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 28 recites “a second stop”. There is no first stop recited in this claim or an of its antecedent claims. It is therefore unclear if this limitation requires two stops as indicated by the term “second” or if “second” is used as an adjective and this requires only one stop. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination this limitation is assumed to require only one stop
Claims dependent thereon inherit the deficiencies of the respective base claim.
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.
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 1-2, 6, 8-11, 22-24, 28, 31-32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paques et al. (US 2010/0010452) in view of Iwase et al. (US 2011/0166520).
Regarding claim 1, Paques discloses an ocular injection assembly (Figure 3) comprising a sleeve (121) and a needle (133), wherein the needle can be set within the sleeve (Figure 3), a clamping port (112) is provided at the end of the sleeve (Figure 3), and a tip portion of the needle (Figure 3, lower part of needle 133) can pass through the clamping port (Figure 3), and wherein when the ocular injection assembly is used, the clamping port is contacted with and pressed against ocular tissue (paragraph 51 describes plate 110 and associated clamping port 112 in contact with eye tissue) at an injection site (Figure 3 shows the clamping port 112 is pressed against the ocular tissue 111 at the injection site, i.e. right below the tip of needle 133) to cause the ocular tissue at the injection site to protrude into the sleeve (Intended use, when the annular plate 110 as shown in figure 2 is pressed against the eye, a portion of the ocular tissue will bulge through port 112).
Paques is silent on wherein the clamping port has an inner diameter of 1 mm-3 mm.
Iwase teaches wherein the clamping port has an inner diameter of 1 mm-3 mm (paragraph 65 describes the adjustment unit diameter, i.e. clamping port diameter, is 3mm).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paques’s invention to include wherein the clamping port has an inner diameter of 1 mm-3 mm in order to prevent forming a blister when administering medication as suggested and taught by Iwase in paragraph 65.
Regarding claim 2, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses wherein the clamping port has an annular end surface (Figure 2 show the end surface of the clamping port 112, which makes contact with the eye, is annular).
Regarding claim 6, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses wherein the end of the sleeve is a constricted section (Figure 3, lower section near numeral 133) and the clamping port is located at the end of the constricted section (Figure 3); the constricted section has a cross-sectional size that is progressively larger in a direction away from the clamping port (Figure 3 shows this).
Regarding claim 8, Paques in view of Iwase teaches he invention as claimed and described above. Iwase further teaches wherein the needle tip portion has a blade length less than or equal to 550 micrometers (paragraph 33 describes the blade length as .5mm, i.e. 500 micrometers).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paques’s invention to include wherein the needle tip portion has a blade length less than or equal to 550 micrometers in order to use a standard injection needle as suggested and taught in Iwase paragraph 33.
Regarding claim 9, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses wherein the needle, when mated with the sleeve, extends with the tip portion outside the clamping port for 500- 2000 micrometers (paragraph 70 describes the needle extending its tip portion 3mm into the eye, i.e. 300 micrometers outside the clamping port, so during this operation the needle extends its tip to 500 micrometers and 2000 micrometers outside of the clamping port).
Regarding claim 10, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses wherein the sleeve is provided with a canal (Figure 3 shows the sleeve 121 has an interior canal in which the needle 133 sits) and the needle is movably attached within the canal (Figure 3 shows the needle 133 is attached within the canal via the structures at the top of the figure and moves longitudinally through the canal in use).
Regarding claim 11, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses wherein a needle hub (Figure 3, 123 and 137) is attached to the needle at an end opposite to the tip portion (Figure 3 shows the needle is attached to the needle hub at the upper end of the needle, opposite the tip portion near the ocular tissue), and the sleeve and the needle hub are provided with an adjusting assembly (131) for adjusting the length of the tip portion outside the clamping port (paragraph 60 describes the adjusting assembly 131 adjusting the movement of the needle support 134 and thus the tip of the needle).
Regarding claim 22, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses wherein a chamber within the sleeve (Figure 3, space within sleeve 121) forms a hermetically sealed chamber when the clamping port is closed (paragraph 83 describes a removable cap that is positioned over 212, which is the clamping port 112 in figure 3, and seals the chamber).
Regarding claim 23, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses the ocular injection device (Figure 3, 130 and 132) comprising a syringe (130), and an ocular injection assembly as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) being mountable on the syringe (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 24, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses wherein the syringe comprises a medication container (131) and a pushrod (132), the pushrod being capable of sliding within the medication container (paragraph 58), the medication container being used for storing a medicinal solution (paragraph 58 describes a therapeutic medium and paragraph 147 describes the therapeutic medium as treating and/or preventing disorders of the eye, i.e. a medicinal solution), and the medication container being cooperatively connected to the needle (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 28, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses further comprising a second stop (See 112 above. The stop is the lip provided in the upper portion of 131 right above the numeral 136) provided between the pushrod and the medication container to limit a pushing stroke of the pushrod (Figure 3 shows the stop works to physically stop the pushrod 132 from proceeding all the way into medication container 131).
Regarding claim 31, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses comprising using the ocular injection device to contact and press the clamping port of the sleeve against the ocular tissue at the injection site (Figure 3 shows the clamping port 112 is pressed against the ocular tissue 111 at the injection site, i.e. right below the tip of needle 133) to cause the ocular tissue at the injection site to bulge into the sleeve (when pressure is applied to the assembly as described in paragraph 67, the assembly will necessarily cause the ocular tissue to bulge into the sleeve).
Regarding claim 32, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses wherein when or after a bulge of the ocular tissue at the injection site into the sleeve is formed by contacting and pressing the clamping port of the sleeve on the ocular tissue at the injection site (Step 2 as shown in figure 5), the tip portion of the needle punctures the ocular tissue at the injection site to reach a distal end of the needle to a target ocular tissue at the injection site (Paragraph 69 describes inserting the tip portion of the needle until a distal end of the needle reaches the vitreous body of the eye, i.e. the target ocular tissue, in step 3 shown in figure 6).
Regarding claim 35, Paques in view of Iwase teaches the invention as claimed and described above. Paques further discloses wherein one side of the clamping port is first brought into contact with an eye surface to become a pivot part (Figure 4 shows that the left side of the apparatus makes contact with the ocular tissue first, and thus the left side of the clamping port 112 with respect to figure 4 comes in contact with the ocular tissue and acts as a pivot part), then the clamping port is pivoted around the pivot part so that the needle pierces the ocular tissue at the injection site (Figure 6 shows the clamping port is fully pivoted so that the needle 133 pierces the ocular tissue), and the clamping port is further pivoted so that the other side of the clamping port is brought into contact with the eye surface and the ocular tissue forms a bulge into the sleeve (Figure 5 shows the right side of the apparatus, and thus the right side of the clamping port 112 is pivoted to make contact with the ocular tissue, and thus forms the bulge when pressure is applied to deploy the needle).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paques et al. (US 2010/0010452) in view of Iwase et al. (US 2011/0166520), and further in view of Eaton et al. (US 2014/0221970).
Regarding claim 7, Paques in view of Iwase teaches all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the side wall of the sleeve is provided with a visible window of transparent material, or the sleeve is a transparent material member.
Eaton teaches wherein the side wall of the sleeve is provided with a visible window of transparent material, or the sleeve is a transparent material member (paragraph 9 describes the sleeve as clear or transparent).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paques in view of Iwase’s invention to include wherein the side wall of the sleeve is provided with a visible window of transparent material, or the sleeve is a transparent material member in order to allow visualization of the needle as suggested and taught by Eaton in paragraph 9.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paques et al. (US 2010/0010452) in view of Iwase et al. (US 2011/0166520), and further in view of Cabiri et al. (US 2022/0047813).
Regarding claim 15, Paques in view of Iwase teaches all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein a needle hub is connected to the rear end of the sleeve; the needle hub is provided with an adjustment assembly comprising a telescopic rod assembly and a drive mechanism;
the telescoping rod assembly comprises an outer tube and an inner tube, one end of the outer tube is connected to a rear end of the needle hub and an other end of the outer tube is sheathed on the inner tube, and an other end of the inner tube is connected to a rear end of the needle; and the outer tube, the inner tube, and the needle are sequentially connected, or, the rear end of the needle passes sequentially through the inner and the outer tubes and outside the outer tube; and
the drive mechanism is connected to the inner tube to drive the inner tube axially relative to the outer tube, and the inner tube is capable of moving the needle.
Cabiri teaches wherein a needle hub (Figure 7J, 758) is connected to the rear end of the sleeve (646); the needle hub is provided with an adjustment assembly (767, 650 and 744) comprising a telescopic rod assembly (767 and 650) and a drive mechanism (Figure 7J, 744);
the telescoping rod assembly comprises an outer tube (767) and an inner tube (650), one end of the outer tube is connected to a rear end of the needle hub (Figure 7J shows the lower end of the outer tube 767 is connected to the rear end of the flange 647 of the needle hub 758) and an other end of the outer tube is sheathed on the inner tube (Figure 7J), and an other end of the inner tube is connected to a rear end of the needle (Figure 7J shows the lower end of the inner tube 650 is connected to the rear end 648 of needle 660); and the outer tube, the inner tube, and the needle are sequentially connected, or, the rear end of the needle passes sequentially through the inner and the outer tubes and outside the outer tube (Figure 7J); and
the drive mechanism is connected to the inner tube to drive the inner tube axially relative to the outer tube, and the inner tube is capable of moving the needle (Figure 7J shows the drive mechanism moves the inner tube axially along 677 with respect to the outer tube and moves needle 660).
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person having ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR at 1397.
There had been a recognized problem or need in the art including a design need or market pressure to solve a problem. In this case, extending or retracting a needle can be accomplished by rotating couplings, telescoping transmission or a direct linear movement of a plunger as described by Cabiri in paragraph 286. One having ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options (rotating couplings, telescoping transmission or a direct linear movement) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore wherein a needle hub is connected to the rear end of the sleeve; the needle hub is provided with an adjustment assembly comprising a telescopic rod assembly and a drive mechanism;
the telescoping rod assembly comprises an outer tube and an inner tube, one end of the outer tube is connected to a rear end of the needle hub and an other end of the outer tube is sheathed on the inner tube, and an other end of the inner tube is connected to a rear end of the needle; and the outer tube, the inner tube, and the needle are sequentially connected, or, the rear end of the needle passes sequentially through the inner and the outer tubes and outside the outer tube; and
the drive mechanism is connected to the inner tube to drive the inner tube axially relative to the outer tube, and the inner tube is capable of moving the needle would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense”.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paques et al. (US 2010/0010452) in view of Iwase et al. (US 2011/0166520), and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2018/0250224).
Regarding claim 18, Paques in view of Iwase teaches all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein a needle hub is connected to a rear end of the sleeve, and a release assembly comprising a resilient member and a first stop member is provided between the sleeve and the needle hub; the sleeve is connected to the needle hub via the resilient member;
one end of the first stop member is detachably connected to the sleeve and/or the other end of the first stop member is detachably connected to the needle hub;
when the first stop member is connected to the sleeve and the needle hub, the resilient member is in a tensile state, capable of providing tension along an axial axis.
Yamamoto teaches wherein a needle hub (Figure 9, 6) is connected to a rear end (right end of 10 in figures 9 and 10) of the sleeve (Figure 10, 10), and a release assembly (Annotated figure 9) comprising a resilient member (9) and a first stop member (Annotated figure 9) is provided between the sleeve and the needle hub (Annotated figure 9); the sleeve is connected to the needle hub via the resilient member (Annotated figure 9);
one end of the first stop member (left end in figure 9) is detachably connected to the sleeve (Figure 9) and/or the other end of the first stop member (right end in figure 9) is detachably connected to the needle hub (Figure 9);
when the first stop member is connected to the sleeve and the needle hub, the resilient member is in a tensile state, capable of providing tension along an axial axis (Intended use, paragraph 73).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paques in view of Iwase’s invention to include wherein a needle hub is connected to a rear end of the sleeve, and a release assembly comprising a resilient member and a first stop member is provided between the sleeve and the needle hub; the sleeve is connected to the needle hub via the resilient member;
one end of the first stop member is detachably connected to the sleeve and/or the other end of the first stop member is detachably connected to the needle hub;
when the first stop member is connected to the sleeve and the needle hub, the resilient member is in a tensile state, capable of providing tension along an axial axis in order to maintain pressure of the tissue and apparatus as suggested and taught in paragraph 74.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paques et al. (US 2010/0010452) in view of Iwase et al. (US 2011/0166520), and further in view of Van Damme et al. (US 2015/0073344).
Regarding claim 25, Paques in view of Iwase teaches all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein a thrust assembly is provided between an end of the pushrod and the medication container to apply a constant thrust at the pushrod.
Van Damme teaches wherein a thrust assembly (Figure 40, 8) is provided between an end of the pushrod (Far left portion of pushrod 6) and the medication container (reservoir 3) to apply a constant thrust at the pushrod (Intended use, paragraph 190 describes a constant force).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paques in view of Iwase’s invention to include wherein a thrust assembly is provided between an end of the pushrod and the medication container to apply a constant thrust at the pushrod in order to provide a system that is maximally comfortable for both the subject and the operator as suggested and taught by Van Damme in paragraph 190.
Regarding claim 27, Paques in view of Iwase and Van Damme teach the invention as claimed and described above. Van Damme further discloses wherein the thrust assembly produces a constant thrust with a threshold value of no more than 6N (paragraph 190 describes a threshold of 4N).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks with regard to claim 28 that the word “second” in “a second stop” is merely an adjective. However, the claim implies two stops; therefore the claim is indefinite. Examiner notes that amending the claim to recite “a stop” would ameliorate this issue.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that Paques fails to disclose the amended limitations of claim 1. First, Applicant alleges that Paques’s invention technical solution could cause additional problems. This does not affect the limitations of the claims, therefore this is a moot point. Second, Applicant argues that Paques does not teach the inner diameter of the clamping port. This is a moot point as Iwase teaches this limitation as described in the 103 section above.
Applicant argues on pages 10-13 that Iwase does not teach the diameter limitation of claim 1 because the disclosed invention and Iwase have different purposes. This is a moot point as none of this is claimed. Therefor this argument is not persuasive.
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 Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights