Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/022,302

Auto-Injector

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 15, 2025
Examiner
FREHE, WILLIAM R
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
229 granted / 382 resolved
-10.1% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+41.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
432
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
51.2%
+11.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 382 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 2-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Markussen (USPGPub 2010/0280460) in view of Bergens et al. (USPGPub 2001/0005781) and Larsen et al. (USPGPub 2002/0095120). Re Claim 2, Markussen teaches a method comprising: placing, by a user, a proximal end of an auto-injector (200) (Markussen Figs. 2a-7b) against an injection site on the user (Markussen ¶ 0066); while holding the proximal end of the auto-injector (200) against the injection site, depressing, by the user, a trigger button (218) to allow a plunger (214) to move in a proximal direction towards a stopper (206) within a syringe (204) while limiting a rotation of the plunger (214) using a non-cylindrical axially-extending rod (216) (Markussen ¶ 0055-0068), wherein the non-cylindrical axially-extending rod (216) limits the rotation of the plunger (214) during the entire proximal movement of the plunger (214) (Markussen ¶ 0063 - wherein continued proximal movement of plunger occurs along needle advancement groove part 244, as seen in Fig. 10b), such that (i) the plunger (214) pushes on the stopper (206) to drive the syringe (204) in the proximal direction to insert a needle (212) into the injection site (Markussen ¶ 0068-0070), then (ii) once an injection depth of the needle (212) has been reached, substantially all medicament within the syringe (204) is injected into the injection site by continued proximal movement of the plunger (214) within the syringe (204) (Markussen Figs. 6a-7b). Markussen further teaches wherein, (iii) once substantially all of the medicament has been injected into the injection site, the auto-injector (200) produces an audible indication to indicate that substantially all medicament has been injected into the injection site (Markussen ¶ 0004); and after the audible indication has been produced, removing the auto-injector (200) from the injection site, wherein the auto-injector (200) is configured such that after at least a portion of the medicament has been dispensed from the syringe (204) a torsion spring (208) rotates a part (234) within the auto-injector (200) to allow the needle (212) to become circumferentially covered within the auto-injector (200) to protect the user from accidental needle stick injuries after the auto-injector (200) has been removed from the injection site (Markussen ¶ 0019, 0073). Markussen fails to teach holding the proximal end of the auto-injector against the injection site for approximately 10 seconds. Markussen fails to provide any specific amount of time for holding the auto-injector against the skin of the user. Bergen teaches an auto-injector wherein the injection time is between 0.5 to 30 seconds (Bergen 1 0023). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. Perricone V. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 77 USPQ 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). In the present case, the prior art teaching of 0.5 to 30 seconds substantially overlaps and thus anticipates the claimed range of approximately 10 seconds. Markussen also fails to teach removing, by a user, a cap from a proximal end of an auto-injector to remove a protective needle shield from a needle of a syringe disposed within the auto-injector while the needle remains a safe distance from the proximal end of the auto injector. Larsen teaches an auto-injector (Larsen Fig. 1) comprising removing, by a user, a cap (8) from a proximal end of an auto-injector to remove a protective needle shield (23) from a needle (9) of a syringe disposed within the auto-injector while the needle (9) remains a safe distance from the proximal end of the auto-injector wherein both the for simultaneous removal of both the cap and protective shield while preventing needle sticks (Larsen Fig. 1; ¶ 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the method of Markussen to include removing, by a user, a cap from a proximal end of an auto-injector to remove a protective needle shield from a needle of a syringe disposed within the auto-injector while the needle remains a safe distance from the proximal end of the auto-injector as disclosed by Larsen for simultaneous removal of both the cap and protective shield while preventing needle sticks (Larsen Fig. 1; ¶ 0028). Re Claim 3, Markussen in view of Bergens and Larsen teach all of the limitations of Claim 2. Markussen further teaches wherein the auto-injector (200) is configured to allow the auto injector (200) to be removed from the injection site prior to injecting substantially all of the medicament from the syringe (wherein the auto-injector can be removed prior to an end of injection). Re Claim 4, Markussen in view of Bergens and Larsen teach all of the limitations of Claim 6. Markussen teaches wherein the auto-injector is configured for single-use (wherein the auto- injector can be disposed after a single use). Re Claims 5 and 6, Markussen in view of Bergens and Larsen teach all of the limitations of Claim 2. Markussen fails to teach wherein the non-cylindrical axially-extending rod has two or more flat surfaces that slidably engage an opening defined by two or more correspondingly shaped flat surfaces; and wherein the non-cylindrical axially-extending rod has a rectangularly-shaped cross-section. However, Markussen does teach wherein the housing has two or more flat surfaces (surfaces of protrusion 238) that slidably engage an opening defined by two or more correspondingly-shaped flat surfaces (walls of groove 236); and wherein the non-cylindrical axially-extending rod (216) has a rectangularly-shaped cross-section (wherein a cross-section of the groove 236 is rectangular) (Markussen Figs. 8 and 9a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have had the two or more flat surfaces on the non-cylindrical axially-extending rod and the opening defined by two or more correspondingly-shaped flat surfaces on the housing, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Re Claim 7, Markussen in view of Bergens and Larsen teach all of the limitations of Claim 2. Markussen teaches wherein the non-cylindrical axially-extending rod (216) is distinct from the plunger (214) (Markussen Figs. 9a-9e). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent Claim 2 to include language wherein "the non-cylindrical axially-extending rod limits rotation of the plunger during the entire proximal movement of the plunger" as opposed to "the non-cylindrical axially extending rod limits the rotation of the plunger during the continued proximal movement of the plunger." In the arguments, starting at the top of Page 11 of the response, applicant argues Markussen fails to disclose or suggest the limitation "wherein the non-cylindrical axially-extending rod limits the rotation of the plunger during the entire proximal movement of the plunger. In support of this argument, applicant states primary reference Markussen "requires rotational movement of the plunger 214 during phases of its operation." Examiner does not deny that the plunger of Markussen rotates at a phase of its operation. However, this rotation does not occur during proximal movement of the plunger, exemplified by Fig. 10b. Furthermore, applicant’s amendment limits rotation, it does not prevent it. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Markussen embodiment of Figs. 2a-7b does not prevent rotation, but rather, limits rotation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R FREHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8225. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM-7:30PM. 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. /WILLIAM R FREHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 15, 2025
Application Filed
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 03, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 03, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 03, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 31, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594378
PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE FOR DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12551667
CATHETER, INFLATABLE BALLOON FOR A CATHETER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551618
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MITIGATING RISK IN AUTOMATED MEDICAMENT DOSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551627
AUTO-INJECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12539123
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR BLOOD DISPLACEMENT-BASED LOCALIZED TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.4%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 382 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month