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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication of 8/12/2024. Currently claims 10-24 are pending and rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/8/2024 and 7/23/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 10-16, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticpated by OLSON et al. (US 2018/0008784 A1).
Olson discloses a rotator (i.e. 126 in figures 12) for a medicament delivery device, the rotator comprising: a tubular body extending from a proximal end to a distal end in an axial direction relative to a longitudinal axis (figure 12); and one or more ridges (150, 152, 154) extending from a surface of the tubular body, the one or more ridges defining a track on the surface of the tubular body, the track extending in the axial direction from a distal end of the track to a proximal end of the track (again figure 12), the track comprising one pathway at the distal end of the track and two pathways at the proximal end of the track, wherein the two pathways at the proximal end of the track are separated by at least one of the one or more ridges (see para [0062]-[0064] defined by sides of ridge 152), wherein a first pathway of the two pathways at the proximal end of the track is bounded at the distal end of the first pathway by a portion of the one or more ridges (154), wherein the portion is angled relative to the longitudinal axis, and wherein a first section of the portion is at a different angle relative to the longitudinal axis than a second section of the portion (see pathways on different angles in figure 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
437
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 11 and the first section of the portion is angled at a larger angle relative to the longitudinal axis than the second portion (note first section at a greater angle than the second as shown in figure 12).
Concerning claim 12 and the second section is closer to the distal end of the rotator than the first section (see figure 12 and the second section extends greater distal).
Concerning claim 13 and the first section is attached to the second section (note both section connect as in figure 12).
Concerning claim 14 and the second section of the portion is angled at between 10 and 80 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis (the angle appears to be 30 degrees).
Concerning claim 15 and the second section of the portion is angled at between 20 and 70 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis (the angle appears to be 30 degrees).
Concerning claim 16 and the second section of the portion is angled at between 25 and 50 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis.
Concerning claim 20 and the first section is angled at between 5 and 45 degrees more relative to the longitudinal axis than the second portion (the angle appears to be 30 degrees).
Concerning claim 21 and the first section is angled at between 5 and 35 degrees more relative to the longitudinal axis than the second portion (the angle appears to be 30 degrees).
Concerning claim 22 and the first section is angled at between 10 and 30 degrees more relative to the longitudinal axis than the second portion (the angle appears to be 30 degrees).
Concerning claim 23 note figure 12 and 114 the rest of the medical delivery device which contains a rotator as of claim 10.
Concerning claim 24 and the medicament delivery device is an autoinjector (see para [0043]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OLSON et al. (US 2018/0008784 A1).
Concerning claim 17 and the first section of the portion is angled at between 20 and 75 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. Olson discloses the claimed invention except for the first section of the portion is angled at between 20 and 75 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the first section of the portion is angled at between 20 and 75 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). A PHOSITA would know that it would be an obvious change to discover the optimum value of the degree of the pathway in order to control the amount of rotation that is affected by the rotator in order to greater rotate a shield, injection cam, or other component of the auto injector.
Concerning claim 18 and the first section of the portion is angled at between 20 and 75 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. Olson discloses the claimed invention except for the first section of the portion is angled at between 30 and 70 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the first section of the portion is angled at between 30 and 70 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). A PHOSITA would know that it would be an obvious change to discover the optimum value of the degree of the pathway in order to control the amount of rotation that is affected by the rotator in order to greater rotate a shield, injection cam, or other component of the auto injector.
Concerning claim 19 and the first section of the portion is angled at between 20 and 75 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. Olson discloses the claimed invention except for the first section of the portion is angled at between 30 and 60degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the first section of the portion is angled at between 30 and 60 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). A PHOSITA would know that it would be an obvious change to discover the optimum value of the degree of the pathway in order to control the amount of rotation that is affected by the rotator in order to greater rotate a shield, injection cam, or other component of the auto injector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP A GRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST (FLEX).
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571)270-5246. 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.
PHILLIP A. GRAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/PHILLIP A GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights