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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unglert et al. (2007/0176410) in view of Maszkiewicz et al. (5,135,510).
Unglert discloses a system, comprising a multi-part syringe (100, 102, Fig. 1) having a syringe body (100, Fig. 1) and a closure (102, Fig. 1) which is coupled to the syringe body (100, Fig. 1), and an adhesive label (1, 2, 3, Fig. 2a) applied to the syringe such that a first label portion (2, Fig. 2a) of the adhesive label is attached to the closure (102, Fig. 2a) and a second label portion (1, Fig. 2a) of the adhesive label is attached to the syringe body (100, Fig. 2a), so that the adhesive label couples the closure (102, Fig. 2a) to the syringe body (100, Fig. 2a) and counteracts a movement of the closure (102, Fig. 2a) relative to the syringe body (100, Fig. 2a).
However, Unglert does not disclose a threaded element. Maszkiewicz teaches providing a threaded element as part of a syringe closure (38, Fig. 1), wherein the threaded element, being part of the closure, is a separate component from the syringe body (10, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a threaded element on the syringe closure disclosed by Unglert, as taught by Maszkiewicz, in order to secure the closure to the syringe body.
Regarding claim 4, all manufactured items are formed in a predetermined manner.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, all labels intended to be attached to a specific item are formed in coordination with that item and have a predetermined length.
Regarding claim 8, see paragraph 0014 of Unglert.
Regarding claim 9, see paragraph 0041 of Unglert.
Regarding claim 10, it is inherent that the adhesive would be chosen with regard to the material of the syringe body and the closure in order to ensure that the adhesive would adhere to those parts.
Regarding claims 18-20, the closure disclosed by Unglert will be formed from a predetermined material, which will inherently have a predetermined surface energy, and a smoothness or roughness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an appropriate adhesive that provides a desired adhesion between the label and the syringe, as a matter of design choice.
Claims 3, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unglert et al. (2007/0176410) in view of Maszkiewicz et al. (5,135,510), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Bauss et al. (2015/0090625).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Unglert discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Unglert does not disclose an opening detection element. Bauss teaches providing an opening detection element in the form of a tear strip (20, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the syringe label disclosed by Unglert with an opening detection element, as taught by Bauss, in order to indicate a removal of the closure form the syringe body.
Regarding claim 12, the tear strip (20, Fig. 2) disclosed by Bauss constitutes a severing element.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Unglert discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the syringe body and the closure are not circumferentially identical. The syringe body is wider than the closure. Bauss teaches making both the syringe body and the closure circumferentially identical. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the syringe body and closure disclosed by Unglert circumferentially identical, as taught by Bauss, as a matter of design choice.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unglert et al. (2007/0176410) in view of Maszkiewicz et al. (5,135,510), as applied to claim 6, above, and further in view of Kessler (7,141,286).
Unglert discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Unglert does not disclose a punch-out in the first label portion. Kessler teaches providing punch-outs (27, Fig. 8) to facilitate separating the closure from the syringe body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first label portion disclosed by Unglert, as taught by Kessler, in order to facilitate separating the closure from the syringe body.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unglert et al. (2007/0176410) in view of Maszkiewicz et al. (5,135,510), as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Mahler et al. (2013/0277824).
Unglert discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, it is not known whether the adhesive disclosed by Unglert has a high flowability. Mahler teaches that a high flowability adhesive lessens the requirement on the coverage during deposition. See 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 use a high flowability adhesive on the label disclosed by Unglert, as taught by Mahler, in order to lessen the requirement on the coverage during deposition.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unglert et al. (2007/0176410) in view of Maszkiewicz et al. (5,135,510) and Bauss et al. (2015/0090625), as applied to claim 12, above, and further in view of Laurash et al. (6,276,725).
Unglert discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, it is not known whether there is an adhesive-free surface in a region of the severing element. Laurash teaches providing an adhesive-free surface in a region of a severing element. See column 6, lines 12-15. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the label disclosed by Unglert with an adhesive-free surface in the region of the severing element, as taught by Laurash, in order to make it easier to sever the label.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Une 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is fully explained above how Unglert and Maszkiewicz can still be interpreted to read on amended claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/GARY C HOGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights