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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 21-34 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-34 are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/30/26 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: release means in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 27 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 27 recites the limitation "the inherent resiliency" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramel (US 5,366,470).
Regarding claim 21, Ramel discloses (Figures 1-8) a safety lancet, comprising: a foundation (bottom surface of 14); a base (14) extending upwardly from the foundation; a spring (8) having a first end (12) and a second end (10), the spring extending upwardly from the base at the first end (12) of the spring; a lancet body (Figure 2) connected to the second end (10) of the spring, the lancet body having a lancet (4) extending from a lancet holder (6), wherein the lancet body further comprises a first restriction means and a second restriction means (see Figure 2 annotated below); a pair of restriction arms (18) extending from the base, the pair of restriction arms each having a constraint end, wherein each constraint end comprises a hook (20) arranged to releasably engage one of the first and second restriction means of the lancet body to hold the lancet body in a compressed configuration (Figure 1), and wherein each constraint end further comprises a tapered tip (see Figure 4 annotated below); a housing (42) extending from the base; and, a sheath (24) slidably connected to the housing (Column 2, lines 50-51), the sheath having an aperture (32) arranged on an upper surface, the sheath further comprising a pair of release means (36), wherein the pair of release means are sloped members (see Figure 7 annotated below) arranged to engage the tapered tip of the constraint end of each of the pair of restriction arms when force is imparted on the sheath, thereby displacing the hook from engagement with the first and second restriction means of the lancet body and releasing the spring from the compressed configuration (Figure 7), allowing the lancet body to travel in a direction towards the aperture (Column 4, lines 24-27).
NOTE: the limitation "restriction means" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure described in the specification can be found in paragraph 00023, which discloses ridges, or shelves, that are arranged to provide a surface for the respective constraint ends to hold the lancet body in a position to compress the spring.
PNG
media_image1.png
208
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
240
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
566
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nicholls (US 2009/0287237 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Nicholls discloses (Figure 1-4) a safety lancet, comprising: a foundation (bottom surface of 12); a base (34) extending upwardly from the foundation; a spring (38) having a first end and a second end, the spring extending upwardly from the base at the first end of the spring; a lancet body (26) connected to the second end of the spring, the lancet body having a lancet (30) extending from a lancet holder (28), wherein the lancet body further comprises a first restriction means and a second restriction means (surfaces engaging projections 36); a pair of restriction arms (32) extending from the base (paragraph 0031), the pair of restriction arms each having a constraint end, wherein each constraint end comprises a hook (36) arranged to releasably engage one of the first and second restriction means of the lancet body to hold the lancet body in a compressed configuration (Figure 2), and wherein each constraint end further comprises a tapered tip (42; paragraph 0031); a housing (12) extending from the base; and, a sheath (14) slidably connected to the housing (paragraph 0026), the sheath having an aperture 18) arranged on an upper surface (16), the sheath further comprising a pair of release means (44), wherein the pair of release means are sloped members (46) arranged to engage the tapered tip of the constraint end of each of the pair of restriction arms when force is imparted on the sheath (paragraph 0032), thereby displacing the hook (36) from engagement with the first and second restriction means of the lancet body and releasing the spring from the compressed configuration (Figure 4), allowing the lancet body to travel in a direction towards the aperture (Figure 8; paragraph 0034).
NOTE: the limitation "restriction means" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure described in the specification can be found in paragraph 00023, which discloses ridges, or shelves, that are arranged to provide a surface for the respective constraint ends to hold the lancet body in a position to compress the spring.
Regarding claim 27, Nicholls discloses that the engagement between the sloped members (46) and the tapered tips (42) is configured such that: an initial downward travel of the sheath from a resting position (Figure 2) causes the sloped members to engage the tapered tips, thereby initiating an outward flexion of the pair of restriction arms which creates a resistive force against the downward travel, while the hooks remain engaged with the first and second restriction means of the lancet body; and, continued downward travel of the sheath to a firing point beyond the initial downward travel causes sufficient outward flexion of the pair of restriction arms to displace the hooks from engagement with the first and second restriction means (Figure 4, paragraph 0034), whereby release of the force imparted on the sheath during the initial downward travel and prior to the sheath reaching the firing point allows the inherent resiliency of the pair of restriction arms to return the sheath toward the resting position without releasing the spring. Nicholls discloses that the hooks remain engaged until they have been sufficiently displaced laterally (paragraph 0034).
Claims 21, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dicesare et al. (US 2008/0188882 A1) (“Dicesare”).
Regarding claim 21, Dicesare discloses (Figures 1-12) a safety lancet, comprising: a foundation (bottom surface of 20); a base (20) extending upwardly from the foundation; a spring (70) having a first end and a second end, the spring extending upwardly from the base at the first end of the spring; a lancet body connected to the second end of the spring, the lancet body having a lancet (52) extending from a lancet holder (50), wherein the lancet body further comprises a first restriction means (64) and a second restriction means (64); a pair of restriction arms (38) extending from the base, the pair of restriction arms each having a constraint end, wherein each constraint end comprises a hook (77) arranged to releasably engage one of the first and second restriction means of the lancet body to hold the lancet body in a compressed configuration (paragraph 0056), and wherein each constraint end further comprises a tapered tip (78; paragraph 0057); a housing (12) extending from the base; and, a sheath (13) slidably connected to the housing (paragraph 0040), the sheath having an aperture (Figure 6) arranged on an upper surface (42), the sheath further comprising a pair of release means (80), wherein the pair of release means are sloped members arranged to engage the tapered tip of the constraint end of each of the pair of restriction arms when force is imparted on the sheath (paragraph 0057), thereby displacing the hook (77) from engagement with the first and second restriction means (64) of the lancet body and releasing the spring from the compressed configuration (Figure 7), allowing the lancet body to travel in a direction towards the aperture (Figure 8; paragraph 0062).
NOTE: the limitation "restriction means" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure described in the specification can be found in paragraph 00023, which discloses ridges, or shelves, that are arranged to provide a surface for the respective constraint ends to hold the lancet body in a position to compress the spring.
Regarding claim 25, Dicesare discloses the lancet body includes a pair of guide means (60), and wherein the pair of release means define a pair of channels (61) arranged to slidably receive the pair of guide means to guide the travel of the lancet body (paragraph 0048).
NOTE: the limitation "guide means" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure described in the specification can be found in paragraph 00023, which discloses the first guide means and the second guide means are ridges, or like structures, that are arranged to slide within channel 45a of first channel arm 43a and channel 45b of second channel arm 43b, respectively.
Regarding claim 26, Dicesare discloses (Figure 9) a removable cap (98) arranged to cover said upper surface of said sheath (paragraph 0064).
Claims 28, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Searle et al. (US 2002/0087180 A1) (“Searle”).
Regarding claim 28, Searle discloses (Figures 1-10) a safety lancet, comprising: a foundation (104); a base (72) extending upwardly from the foundation; a lancet fixedly secured to a top surface of the base via a lancet body (82), the lancet extending upwardly therefrom and having a puncture end (76) arranged opposite of the top surface of the base; a housing (80) extending from the base; a sheath (74) slidably connected to the housing and arranged to slidably surround an outside surface of the base, the sheath having an aperture arranged colinearly with the lancet on an upper surface; and, a first spring (94) and a second spring (94), wherein the first spring and the second spring are arranged on opposite sides of the lancet (Figure 10) and are configured to forcibly maintain the upper surface of the sheath in a position above the puncture end of the lancet (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 29, Searle discloses (Figure 10) that the lancet body includes at least one restriction means (84), and wherein the sheath (74) includes at least one limiting means (78) arranged to abut the at least one restriction means of the lancet body when the sheath is compressed, thereby limiting slidably translational movement of the sheath (paragraphs 0030-0031).
NOTE: the limitations "restriction means" and “limiting means” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. They been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structures described in the specification can be found in paragraph 00038, which discloses first limiting means 46a and second limiting means 46b are arranged to contact first and second restriction means 66a and 66b of lancet body 20 to prevent sheath 40 from traveling in a downward direction past first and second restriction means 66a and 66b of safety lancet 200.
Regarding claim 33, Searle discloses the lancet body (82) is buttressed by a first support (90) and a second support (98) extending from the top surface of the base on opposite sides of the lancet body.
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramel (US 5,366,470) in view of Booker et al. (US 2015/0209068 A1) (“Booker”).
Regarding claim 22, Ramel discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Ramel fails to disclose said foundation includes a gripping means arranged on a distal surface of said foundation.
In the same field of endeavor, Booker teaches a safety lancet with a plurality of grip features (34). Grip features (34) may be positioned in any desired arrangement along housing (8), such as, but not limited to, along the faces and/or one or more ends of front cover (12) and rear cover (28) and/or along trigger (76). Grip features 34 may be projections, protrusions, ribs, grooves, raised surfaces, or any other suitable features having tactile properties (paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foundation disclosed by Ramel to include a gripping means arranged on a distal surface of said foundation, as taught by Booker. This modification would provide tactile properties to the foundation (Booker, paragraph 0040).
NOTE: the limitation "gripping means" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure described in the specification can be found in paragraph 0009, which discloses a non-slip rubber, a plurality of protrusions, the plurality of protrusion comprising a non-slip rubber, or releasable gripping means such as hook and loop material that is arranged to engage a hook and loop material on a surface of an objection, or structure, or a suction-cup like structure to secure to a surface of an object, or structure.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramel (US 5,366,470) in view of Booker et al. (US 2015/0209068 A1) (“Booker”) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Cadio et al. (US 2022/0304763 A1) ("Cadio").
Regarding claim 23, Ramel as modified by Booker teaches the invention substantially as claimed. However, the combined teaching fails to teach that the gripping means comprises a non-slip rubber.
Cadio teaches (Figures 17A-17D) an exterior surface may be formed integrally with portions providing surface features or contours that provide a tactile grip when handled by a user's fingertips. Alternatively, a separate material, such as non- slip rubber, may be added to at least a portion of the exterior surface, such as a plurality of raised 'dots' or similar surface features that provide a natural tactile grip for users. Such enhanced gripping is conducive to providing a user better handling (paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gripping means to comprise a non-slip rubber material, as taught by Cadio. This modification would provide enhanced gripping which is conductive to providing a user better handling (Cadio, paragraph 0033).
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramel (US 5,366,470) in view of Kmecz (US 2018/0125402 A1)
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Ramel discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Ramel fails to disclose the foundation includes a suction cup arranged on a distal surface of the foundation.
In the same field of endeavor, Kmecz teaches (Figures 2-5) a lancet device with a foundation that includes a suction cup arranged on a distal surface of the foundation to secure the device to a flat, smooth surface, such as a kitchen counter top or glass table (paragraph 0105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foundation to include a suction cup arranged on a distal surface of the foundation, as taught by Kmecz. This modification would allow the foundation to be secured to a flat, smooth surface, such as a kitchen counter top or glass table (paragraph 0105) and allow for one handed operation of the lancet.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searle et al. (US 2002/0087180 A1) (“Searle”) in view of Booker et al. (US 2015/0209068 A1) (“Booker”).
Regarding claim 30, Searle discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Searle fails to disclose said foundation includes a gripping means arranged on a distal surface of said foundation.
In the same field of endeavor, Booker teaches a safety lancet with a plurality of grip features (34). Grip features (34) may be positioned in any desired arrangement along housing (8), such as, but not limited to, along the faces and/or one or more ends of front cover (12) and rear cover (28) and/or along trigger (76). Grip features 34 may be projections, protrusions, ribs, grooves, raised surfaces, or any other suitable features having tactile properties (paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foundation disclosed by Searle to include a gripping means arranged on a distal surface of said foundation, as taught by Booker. This modification would provide tactile properties to the foundation (Booker, paragraph 0040).
NOTE: the limitation "gripping means" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure described in the specification can be found in paragraph 0009, which discloses a non-slip rubber, a plurality of protrusions, the plurality of protrusion comprising a non-slip rubber, or releasable gripping means such as hook and loop material that is arranged to engage a hook and loop material on a surface of an objection, or structure, or a suction-cup like structure to secure to a surface of an object, or structure.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searle et al. (US 2002/0087180 A1) (“Searle”) in view of Booker et al. (US 2015/0209068 A1) (“Booker”) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Cadio et al. (US 2022/0304763 A1) ("Cadio").
Regarding claim 31, Searle as modified by Booker teaches the invention substantially as claimed. However, the combined teaching fails to teach that the gripping means comprises a non-slip rubber.
Cadio teaches (Figures 17A-17D) an exterior surface may be formed integrally with portions providing surface features or contours that provide a tactile grip when handled by a user's fingertips. Alternatively, a separate material, such as non- slip rubber, may be added to at least a portion of the exterior surface, such as a plurality of raised 'dots' or similar surface features that provide a natural tactile grip for users. Such enhanced gripping is conducive to providing a user better handling (paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gripping means to comprise a non-slip rubber material, as taught by Cadio. This modification would provide enhanced gripping which is conductive to providing a user better handling (Cadio, paragraph 0033).
Claims 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searle et al. (US 2002/0087180 A1) (“Searle”) in view of Kmecz (US 2018/0125402 A1)
Regarding claims 30 and 32, Searle discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Searle fails to disclose the foundation includes a suction cup arranged on a distal surface of the foundation.
In the same field of endeavor, Kmecz teaches (Figures 2-5) a lancet device with a foundation that includes a suction cup arranged on a distal surface of the foundation to secure the device to a flat, smooth surface, such as a kitchen counter top or glass table (paragraph 0105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foundation to include a suction cup arranged on a distal surface of the foundation, as taught by Kmecz. This modification would allow the foundation to be secured to a flat, smooth surface, such as a kitchen counter top or glass table (paragraph 0105) and allow for one handed operation of the lancet.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searle et al. (US 2002/0087180 A1) (“Searle”) in view of Dicesare et al. (US 2008/0188882 A1) (“Dicesare”).
Regarding claim 34, Searle discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Searle fails to disclose a removable cap arranged to cover the upper surface of the sheath.
Dicesare discloses (Figure 9) a removable cap (98) arranged to cover the upper surface of a sheath (paragraph 0064).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the safety lancet disclosed by Searle to include a removable cap arranged to cover the upper surface of the sheath, as taught by Dicesare. This modification would further ensure that the skin puncturing element will not extend outward from the shield after the puncturing device has been activated (Dicesare, paragraph 0064).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant has argued that both the Ramel and Dicesare references fail to disclose the specific combination of a constraint end having both a hook and a tapered tip that is engaged by a sloped release member. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Annotated Figures have been included in the rejections to show these features in the Ramel reference. Dicesare also discloses the claimed configuration. Figure 5 (see below) shows the constraint end of the arms (38) comprising a hook (77) and a tapered tip (78). Dicesare also discloses sloped release members (80) as claimed (see paragraph 0057).
PNG
media_image4.png
322
260
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, the Applicant has argued that Searle does not disclose, nor teach or suggest, two separate springs arranged on opposite sides of the lancet. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph 0032 discloses that the lancet has cantilever springs (94). Figure 10 shows the springs (94, 94) are arranged on opposite sides of the lancet, as claimed.
PNG
media_image5.png
596
460
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed toward one-hand use on page 12 of the response, the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The claims as currently written do not structurally distinguish over the prior art of record.
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 CHRISTIAN D KNAUSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:30-8:30.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/C.D.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights