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 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.
Claim(s) 16-19, 21, 23, 25-30, 33, and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soetermans (US 8490235) in view of Sharpe (US 3214780) and Wing (US 2005/0267421).
Regarding claim 16, Soetermans teaches a device for lubricating a surface of a tubular element for a medicament delivery device, the device comprising: a shaft portion (202) having a longitudinal axis, the shaft portion comprising a brush portion receiving section (Fig. 2A, the portion of 202 with 204 thereon); and a brush portion (204) located on the shaft portion, the brush portion comprising at least one radial projection having a helical form (col. 3, ll. 45-47), the at least one radial projection comprising at least one contact zone (circumferential surface of helix 204) for contacting the surface, the at least one contact zone being formed by a circumferential surface of the radial projection; wherein an outer diameter of the helical form formed by the at least one contact zone is tapered at both longitudinal ends of the brush portion (Fig. 2A), wherein the outer diameter of the helical form is reduced at the longitudinal ends of the brush portion such that the at least one contact zone at the longitudinal ends of the brush portion are closer to the longitudinal axis of the shaft portion than the at least one contact zone spaced from the longitudinal ends of the brush portion in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 2A); wherein the brush portion is formed from a brush portion material (sponge).
The embodiment of Soetermans Fig. 2A does not teach that the brush portion receiving section comprises a core section and at least one radial projection projecting radially from the core section or that the brush portion includes a lubricant agent which is configured to be transferred from the at least one contact zone to the surface during use.
Sharpe teaches a brush receiving section comprising a core section (inner section of threads 9) and at least one radial projection (9) projecting radially from the core section.
Wing teaches providing a cleaning tool with lubricant (¶0033 and 0035).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Soetermans to include at least one radial projection projecting radially from the core section as taught by Sharpe for the purpose of precluding the brush portion from slipping (Sharpe col. 2, ll. 5-9).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brush portion of Soetermans with a lubricant as taught by Wing for the purpose of making it easier to insert the cleaner into a tube (Wing ¶0035).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 16, wherein the at least one radial projection extends from a core section (Soetermans, inner portion of 204), the radial projection comprising the at least one contact zone which comprises at least one contact point configured to contact the surface of a tubular element to be lubricated.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein the at least one contact point is located at an extremity of the radial projection (Soetermans, Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein the at least one radial projection comprises a single helical form, the helical form comprising a single continuous contact zone that is formed by a free end at the outer diameter of the helical form (Soetermans, Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the taper of the outer diameter of the helical form extends across at least half a revolution of the helical form (Soetermans, Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 16, wherein the at least one radial projection comprises a single helical form, the helical form comprising a single continuous contact zone that is formed by a free end at the outer diameter of the helical form (Soetermans, Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 16, wherein the helical form of the at least one radial projection comprises a plurality of revolutions (Soetermans, Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 25, but does not teach that each helical form of the at least one radial projection comprises between 5 and 10 full revolutions.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to made the helical form of Soetermans with between 5 and 10 full revolutions because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular number of revolutions provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Soetermans's brushing portion and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the unspecified number of revolutions taught by Soetermans or the claimed 5 to 10 revolutions because both helical forms are equally capable of applying lubricant to the interior of a tube.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the helical body of Soetermans to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Soetermans.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 25, but does not teach that each helical form of the at least one radial projection comprises between 5 and 7 active contact zones that are configured to contact and lubricate the surface during movement of the device through a tubular element.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to made the helical form of Soetermans with between 5 and 7 active contact zones because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular number of active contact zones provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Soetermans's brushing portion and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the unspecified number of active contact zones taught by Soetermans or the claimed 5 to 7 active contact zones because both helical forms are equally capable of applying lubricant to the interior of a tube.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the helical body of Soetermans to obtain the invention as specified in claim 27 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Soetermans.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 27, wherein the brush portion comprises a single helical form (Soetermans, Fig. 2A), but does not teach that the single helical form comprises 8 full revolutions and 7 active contact zones.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to made the helical form of Soetermans with 8 full revolutions and 7 active contact zones because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular number of revolutions and active contact zones provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Soetermans's brushing portion and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the unspecified number of revolutions and active contact zones taught by Soetermans or the claimed 8 revolutions and 7 active contact zones because both helical forms are equally capable of applying lubricant to the interior of a tube.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the helical body of Soetermans to obtain the invention as specified in claim 28 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Soetermans.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 16, wherein the shaft portion comprises a guiding feature (Soetermans, portion of 202 to the right of element 208 in Fig. 2A) on an end of the shaft portion, the guiding feature comprising an axle portion (Soetermans, end of 202) defining an extremity of the shaft portion, the axle portion being configured to allow the device to be gripped and/or driven through a tubular element to be lubricated during use (Soetermans, col. 3, 59-67).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 29, but does not teach that the axle portion comprises a cross-shaped cross-section configured to allow the device to be gripped and/or driven through a tubular element to be lubricated during use.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the shape of the axle portion such that it comprises a cross-shaped cross-section because Applicant has not disclosed that the cross-sectional shape of the axle portion provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Soetermans's device and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the cylindrical axle portion taught by Soetermans or the claimed axle portion with a cross-shaped cross-section because both axle portions are equally capable of being gripped or driven.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of Soetermans’s axle portion to obtain the invention as specified in claim 30 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Soetermans.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 29, wherein a brush portion receiving section of the shaft portion extends away from the guiding feature in the longitudinal direction (Soetermans, Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 16, wherein the shaft portion is formed from plastic (Soetermans, col. 3, ll. 29-31).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 16, wherein the at least one radial projection projecting radially from the core section extends at least partially along the core section of the brush portion receiving section in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the shaft portion (the threads 9 of Sharpe extend in both the longitudinal and circumferential directions).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 16, wherein the at least one radial projection projects radially from the core section in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the shaft portion (the threads 9 of Sharpe extend in both the longitudinal and circumferential directions).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Redin (US 2763017).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 17, but does not teach that the brush portion comprises a plurality of radial projections, each radial projection of the plurality of radial projections having a helical form.
Redin teaches a brush portion with a plurality of radial projections (groups of 4 separated by reduced diameter portions 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brush portion of Soetermans such that the brush portion comprises a plurality of radial projections, each radial projection of the plurality of radial projections having a helical form as taught by Redin for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the device (col. 2, ll. 34-36).
Claim(s) 31-32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soetermans as applied to claims 29 and 33 above, and further in view of Chevallier (US 2008/0200101).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device according to claim 29, but does not teach that the guiding feature comprises a projection, the projection having a surface extending substantially perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the shaft portion configured to prevent longitudinal movement of the brush portion relative to the shaft portion.
Chevallier teaches a projection (17A, 17B), the projection having a surface extending substantially perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the shaft portion configured to prevent longitudinal movement of the brush portion relative to the shaft portion.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Soetermans a projection, the projection having a surface extending substantially perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the shaft portion configured to prevent longitudinal movement of the brush portion relative to the shaft portion as taught by Chevallier for the purpose of holding the brushing portion axially (Chevallier ¶0044).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, Wing, and Chevallier teaches the device according to claim 31, wherein the projection comprises a generally conical or frusto-conical section, the conical or frusto-conical section comprising the surface (Chevallier Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Soetermans, Sharpe, and Wing teaches the device of claim 33, wherein the shaft portion comprises two guiding features (Soetermans, on either side of 204) spaced apart in the longitudinal direction which define the brush portion receiving section of the shaft portion.
The combination does not teach that the brush receiving section of the shaft portion is between opposing substantially perpendicular surfaces.
Chevallier teaches a brush receiving portion between opposing substantially perpendicular surfaces (17A, 17B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to provided the device of Soetermans with opposing substantially perpendicular surfaces as taught by Chevallier for the purpose of holding the brushing portion axially (Chevallier ¶0044).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that Chevallier does not teach a shaft portion that includes a brush portion receiving section, the brush portion receiving section including a core section and at least one radial projection projecting radially from the core section, it is noted that Chevallier is not relied upon to teach these features.
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 BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights