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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 has been substantively incorporated into claim 1 and as such does not further limit the scope of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0178079 to Huang et al. (Huang hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0052071 to Pickhard et al. (Pickhard).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Huang teaches a composite self-destructing injection syringe comprising an injection tube (1), a needle seat (4), a sealing rubber plug (12), an injection rod (2), the needle seat (4) slidably provided in the injection tube and movably connected to an (upper) injection end of the injection tube, the sealing rubber plug is slidably provided in the injection tube by the pushing of the injection rod (2), and the sealing rubber plug is movably connected to a feed end (upper end) of the injection rod, wherein an inside of the injection tube is provided with a sealing ring (3), and a rear (lower) end of the needle seat contacts and limits the position with the sealing ring by a through hole (14), a spring sleeve (8) is connected between the sealing rubber plug and the injection rod and outer side wall at both ends of the spring sleeve are respectively clamped with the sealing rubber plug and the injection rod (see Fig. 7), an end surface of the spring sleeve is provided with a clamping joint (11) and an end of the injection rod has a rear cover (22). Huang further teaches a first convex rib (above groove 7) and a fixing groove (7). Huang further teaches a second rib (on 12) engaging the first, as well as a clamp effect achieved by the two ribs. Huang further teaches that the through hole is arranged on an end surface of the sealing ring (3, see Fig. 3) and is expanded in an inclined manner (at 21) toward the lower end, as well as a buffer cavity (24). Huang does not teach a symmetrically arranged second first rib. Pickhard teaches another safety syringe generally, and particularly teaches that more than one rib (31) may be used to enhance a connecting effect (see paragraph 65). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a second rib as taught by Pickhard to the syringe of Huang in order to enhance the connection with the injection tube and the sealing ring. A symmetrical arrangement and groove would arise from the mere duplication of the already present rib of Huang. Such duplication has been held to be obvious (see MPEP 2144.04 VI).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches an outer side wall of an end of the spring sleeve away from the clamping joint is fixed with a flange forming a first clamping block, and an inner side wall of the injection rod is fixed with a flange forming second clamping blocks. The clamping blocks are illustrated as the surfaces in Fig. 7 which are in contact with the end turns of the compression spring.
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches that a side wall of a buffer cavity (24) and a side wall of the through hole (14) are inclined in opposite directions (see Fig. 3) and that an end surface of the sealing ring away from the needle seat is an inclined surface with a concave center (this refers to the curved cross section of 14 at the upper opening).
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches a clamping groove (23) connecting to an end of the injection rod (2), a widening groove (angled lower inner surface of 12 as shown in Fig. 5) and an outer side wall of the plug is provided with a convex rib (15).
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches a spring (9) limited and compressed between an inner end surface of the feed end by the first and second clamping blocks.
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches a stuck groove (19), an outer side wall of an end of the needle seat is arranged to be an outwardly convex inclined surface (at 16) and is matched with the inclined surface of an inner side wall of the through hole (as illustrated in Fig. 8), and an end surface (shoulders illustrated in Fig. 4) of the forms a first step.
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches a third rib in the inside of the rear cover (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches that the injection rod is provided in the syringe cavity, and a sidewall thereof includes a vent hole (10).
Applicant's arguments filed 24 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to obviousness. The anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn.
With respect to the argument that Huang is “unreasonable”, the examiner notes that references are assumed to be operable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, attorney arguments cannot take the place of such evidence. As such, the examiner is not persuaded as the applicant has not met the threshold burden for demonstrating that the prior art is inoperable.
With respect to the argument that the ribs of Pickhard have a different application, this is not a relevant consideration to the determination of obviousness and is therefore not persuasive. See MPEP 2145 VI.
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 PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 2 February 2026