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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on May 15th 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 21 is allowable. Claims 28-30, non-elected as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between Species I-III, as set forth in the Office action mailed on March 19th 2026, is hereby withdrawn and claims 28-30 are hereby fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 27-30 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 18 of claim 21, “the end surfaces” should read --an end surface-- and “of two” should read --on opposing-- or --on different-- or --on separate-- in order to make clear that the push needle linkage assembly and retracting linkage assembly are not each connected to both sides of the wheel.
In line 2 of claims 27, 28, 29 and 30, “two” should read --separate-- or --opposing-- or --different--.
In line 6 of claim 34, “through” should be deleted.
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 24 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 24 recites the limitation "the connecting head" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 and 25-34 would be allowable if the above objections are corrected.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not disclose nor make obvious the ocular implant delivery device as recited in the allowed claims. For example, Vetter (US 2016/0089208) discloses a needle (584) within an outer needle (590) and a wheel (620/620) rotatable to cause relative axial movement between the needles. However the wheel rotates cam structures which push against a vertical wall of needle linkage assemblies to cause axial movement of each needle (¶[0119]). There is not a groove or link-shaft associated with the wheel or linkage assemblies that causes this movement. Dooley discloses a mechanism (Figures 1 and 2) representative of those commonly used to cause relative axial movement between coaxial sheaths or tubes where a linkage assembly (710 and 712) is provided on an end surface on each side of a wheel (702). However, such a mechanism does not use a link-shaft slidable on and/or within a groove to help cause this movement. There is no sliding contact used to translate the linkage assemblies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McEvoy whose telephone number is (571) 270-5034 and direct fax number is (571) 270-6034. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am – 6:00 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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston at (571) 272-7134. 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/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.
/THOMAS MCEVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights