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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. (JPH 10273161 A; see translation filed 01/12/2022) in view of Goncalves et al. (US 4386696 A; cited in the OA filed 01/12/2022) and Becker et al. (US 20130164738 A1; cited in the OA filed 05/15/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Oshima teaches a sample collection device (Fig. 7) for the collection of a bodily fluid (Fig. 7 shows the device comprising a container body 2, which is structurally capable of collecting a bodily fluid at a later time), comprising:
a cap (50), and
a tube (container body 2; paragraph [0011], “cylindrical container body 2”, i.e. tubular) having a mouth (threaded opening 6) and an engager (detent projections 6a, which are part of container body 2) therein,
wherein:
the cap comprises a closed end (top wall 50a) and an open end (bottom end of element 50 that is open to container 2) configured to threadedly couple to the tube so as to close the mouth of the tube (Fig. 7 shows the cap with female screw 50b to threadedly couple to threaded opening 6 of container 2 to close the mouth of the container), the cap comprising:
a first cap portion (51) defining at least a portion of a chamber for containing a reagent (Fig. 7a shows area where comprising E, i.e. a chamber, is capable of containing a reagent), and
a second cap portion (52) defining a closure for closing an aperture communicating with the chamber (Fig. 7a shows element 52, which is a closure and is capable of closing the region of element E, i.e. the chamber),
wherein the second cap portion (52) comprises:
a first portion comprising a closed end of the second cap portion (Fig. 7, interpreted as the central end portion of element 52 that is closed), the first portion being disposed between the closed end of the cap and the open end of the cap (Fig. 7 shows the central closed end portion of element 52 is between the top wall 50a, i.e. closed end of the cap 50, and the bottom end of element 50 that is open to container 2, i.e. open end of the cap 50),
the second cap portion is configured to threadedly couple to the first cap portion (Fig. 7a, element 52a is threadedly coupled to element 51a), wherein a threaded coupling between the first and second cap portions has a thread direction opposite to a threaded coupling between the cap and the tube (Figs. 7a-7b and paragraph [0036] teaches when the cap is screwed into the threaded opening 6 and moved downward, the screwing depth of the cap body 50 to the cylindrical portion 51 of the storage portion 52 gradually becomes shallower and the screwing is unwound, thus the threaded coupling between the first and second cap portions, i.e. 51 and 52, have an opposite thread direction from the threaded coupling between elements 50 and 2),
wherein fitting the cap onto the tube causes the second cap portion to engage with the engager, disengage from the first cap portion, and descend from the first cap portion fully into the tube as the cap is fitted onto the tube, thereby releasing the reagent into the tube (Fig. 7a-7b and paragraph [0036] teaches fitting the cap is capable of causing element 52 to engage with element 6a, disengage from element 51, and descend fully into tube 2 to be capable of releasing a reagent, e.g. element E), and
the tube defines at least a portion of a sample collection space for receiving the bodily fluid (Figs. 7 and 9 and paragraph [0011] teaches a cylindrical container body, which defines a sample collection space capable of receiving a bodily fluid at a later time).
Oshima fails to explicitly teach: the second cap portion comprises: a second portion, wherein the second portion projects from the first portion beyond the open end of the cap; and the tube is configured to prevent the second cap portion from dropping into the sample collection space when the reagent is released into the tube.
Oshima teaches the shape of a container body are appropriately set according to a desired purpose (paragraph [0024]; Figs. 9, 11, and 12 shows varying shaped containers). Oshima teaches an embodiment of a second cap portion (Fig. 4, elements 32, 33, 36, 37), which includes a first closed portion (37) that is between the closed and open ends of the cap (30) and a second portion that projects from the first closed portion beyond the open end of the cap (Fig. 4 shows elements 33,36 projecting from element 37 and beyond the open end of the cap 30).
Gonclaves teaches a container for storing solids or liquids (abstract; column 1, lines 10-15; Fig. 5). Gonclaves teaches a cap (Fig. 5, element 31) a closed end (32) and an open end (the bottom end of skirt 25 that is open and fitted to element 38), the cap comprising a first cap portion (35) and a second cap portion (38), wherein the second cap portion (38) is configured to be ejected and fall into the body of the container, leading to mixture of products of the container and the cap (column 8, lines 37-52). Gonclaves teaches the second cap portion (38) comprises: a first portion comprising a closed end of the second cap portion (Fig. 5, interpreted as the portion of element 38 that forms a closure to skirt 35 and is inside element 35), the first portion being disposed between the closed end of the cap and the open end of the cap (Fig. 5, the portion of element 38 that forms a closure to skirt 35 and is inside element 35, and therefore between the closed end and open end of the cap); a second portion (Fig. 5, the bottom portion of element 38 that includes element 39), wherein the second portion projects from the first portion beyond the open end of the cap (Fig. 5 shows the bottom portion of element 38 projects from the inner closed portion of element 38 to beyond the open end of the skirt 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second cap portion of Oshima to incorporate Gonclaves’s teachings of a second cap portion that includes a closed end portion between open and closed ends of a cap and a second portion that projects beyond the open end of the cap (Fig. 5) and Oshima’s teachings of the shape of a container body are appropriately set according to a desired purpose (paragraph [0024]; Figs. 9, 11, and 12 shows varying shaped containers) and embodiments of second cap portions (Fig. 4) to provide: the second cap portion comprises: a second portion, wherein the second portion projects from the first portion beyond the open end of the cap. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a chamber of a desired volume, e.g. via expanding the size of the cap portions relative to the open and closed ends of the cap. Further, doing so would have been an obvious change in size/proportion or shape of the cap in view of Gonclaves and Oshima (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust a portion of the second cap portion to project beyond the open end of the cap to optimize the volume of the chamber.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation of “a second portion, wherein the second portion projects from the first portion beyond the open end of the cap” is obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. a second portion projects from the first portion beyond the open end of the cap of Gonclaves and Oshima with Oshima’s cap in Fig. 7) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. contain a fluid), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. having a second portion projecting from the first portion beyond the open end of the cap would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of adjusting the positions and size of the portions of the second cap portion to accommodate a larger volume of fluid in the cap while maintaining sufficient contact with the surfaces of the first cap portion). See MPEP 2143(A).
Modified Oshima fails to teach: the tube is configured to prevent the second cap portion from dropping into the sample collection space when the reagent is released into the tube.
Becker teaches a sample collection kit (abstract; Figs. 1-3) comprising a cap (2) and a tube (receiving vessel 1 that comprises body 6), wherein screwing the cap onto the tube causes release of a liquid into the tube (paragraph [0063], Figs. 2-3). Becker teaches wherein at least a portion of the second cap portion (thin-film membrane or foil 13) projects beyond the open end of the cap in a direction away from the closed end of the cap (Fig. 1 shows element 13 projecting beyond the open end of the bottom of cap 2, i.e. beyond elements 11 and 14). Becker teaches the tube is configured to prevent a second cap portion from dropping into a sample collection space when a reagent is released into the tube (Fig. 1 teaches structural features, such as funnel portion 3 or ridge 18, which are capable of preventing a cap portion from dropping to sample collection space 5). Becker teaches the funnel element allows a sample to convey into an aperture of the tube (paragraph [0014]). Becker teaches ridge 18 allows for operation as a fill-line or fill-limit (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube of modified Oshima to incorporate the teachings of structural additions of tubes, e.g. a funnel shape, ridges, of Becker (paragraphs [0014],[0018]) to provide: the tube is configured to prevent the second cap portion from dropping into the sample collection space when the reagent is released into the tube. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for improved conveying of fluids to a location in a container as taught by Becker (paragraph [0014]) or for improving visual indication of a desired fill level as taught by Becker (paragraph [0061]).
Note that the reagent and bodily fluid are not positively recited structurally and are interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed apparatus. Note that the functional recitations that describe the cap, the chamber, the second cap portion, and the threaded coupling between the first and second cap portions are interpreted as functional limitations of the claimed apparatus and are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114. A recitation of the functional limitation 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. As discussed above the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations. In this case, modified Oshima’s tube structure that includes a funnel shape or ridges of Becker would be capable of preventing storage portion 52 of Becker (Fig. 7b) from dropping into a lower space at a later time.
Regarding claim 2, Oshima further teaches wherein the first and second cap portions are relatively movable with respect to each other (paragraph [0036]; Figs. 7-7b), the first and second cap portions being configured such that, responsive to coupling of the cap to the tube, one of the cap portions is caused to move relative to the other cap portion to open the chamber and permit fluid communication between the chamber and the sample collection space (Figs. 7a-7b), whereby the reagent in the chamber is permitted to mix with the bodily fluid in the sample collection space (paragraph [0036]; Figs. 7a-7b, shows element E is capable of being mixed to a fluid in container 2 at a later time).
Regarding claim 3, Oshima further teaches wherein the first and second cap portions are configured such that, responsive to coupling of the cap to the tube, one of the cap portions is caused to move integrally relative to the other cap portion (paragraph [0036]; Fig. 7 shows one of the cap portions moving integrally relative to the other cap portion in order for element 52 to drop).
Regarding claim 4, modified Oshima further teaches wherein the tube comprises a support for preventing the second cap portion from dropping into the sample collection space (see above claim 1; modified Oshima’s tube including funnel shape or ridges of Becker are interpreted as “a support” capable of preventing a second cap portion from dropping into a lower space at a later time).
Regarding claim 5, modified Oshima fails to teach wherein the tube has a sample collection portion having a smaller interior cross-sectional area than at the mouth for receiving the cap for closing the device.
Becker teaches the funnel element allows a sample to convey into an aperture of the tube (paragraph [0014]). Becker teaches ridge 18 allows for operation as a fill-line or fill-limit (paragraph [0061]). Becker teaches the tube has a sample collection portion having a smaller interior cross-sectional area than at the mouth for receiving the cap for closing the device (Fig. 1, shows sample collection portion, i.e. element 5, has a smaller cross-sectional area than the mouth part of tube, element 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube of Oshima to incorporate the teachings of structural additions of tubes, e.g. a funnel shape, ridges, of Becker (paragraphs [0014],[0061]; Fig. 1) to provide wherein the tube has a sample collection portion having a smaller interior cross-sectional area than at the mouth for receiving the cap for closing the device. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for improved conveying of fluids to a location in a container as taught by Becker (paragraph [0014]) or for improving visual indication of a desired fill level as taught by Becker (paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Oshima further teaches wherein the cross-section area of the sample collection space is configured to not accommodate the second cap portion, whereby the second cap portion is obstructed from dropping down into the sample collection space (see above claims 1 and 5; Becker, Fig. 1, teaches a sample collection portion, i.e. element 5, has a smaller cross-sectional area than the mouth part of tube, element 9; modified Oshima’s tube including the cross-sectional area of the sample collection space, funnel shape or ridges of Becker are capable of not accommodating a second cap portion at a later time, whereby the second cap portion is capable of being obstructed from dropping down into the sample collection space due to the structures of the cross-sectional area, funnel shape, or ridges).
Regarding claim 7, modified Oshima fails to explicitly teach wherein the sample collection portion bears at least one mark indicating sample volume and/or a fill level.
Oshima teaches an embodiment of a container with at least one mark indicating sample volume and/or a fill level (paragraph [0023] and Fig. 12 shows a container 64 comprising a scale M).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sample collection portion of Oshima to incorporate known structures for marking a sample volume as taught by Oshima (paragraph [0023]; Fig. 12) to provide wherein the sample collection portion bears at least one mark indicating sample volume and/or a fill level. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving ease of identifying or measuring a volume of liquid in a container.
Regarding claim 8, Oshima further teaches wherein the second cap portion (Fig. 7, element 52) comprises or is provided with a feature (interpreted as bottom notch, i.e. blind hole, of element 52) for permitting retrieval of the second cap portion from a dropped down position in the tube (Fig. 7, the notch/blind hole of element 52 is capable of being used at a later time for allowing retrieval of the tube at a later time).
Regarding claim 9, Oshima further teaches wherein the feature is a magnetic element or a blind hole (interpreted as bottom notch, i.e., blind hole, of element 52; note that the instant specification [0258] discusses a recess or hole is interpreted as a blind hole, thus the BRI of “blind hole” includes Oshima’s bottom notch or recess).
Regarding claim 10, Oshima further teaches wherein the device is configured to provide to a user a first signal indicative of the chamber having been opened, and a second signal indicative of the cap having reached a closed and/or locked position (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; the device of Fig. 7 is capable of providing first and second signals, such as visual signals, if the chamber is open or closed and if the cap is closed, i.e. a user can visually see if the chamber is open/closed and if the cap is open/closed).
Regarding claim 11, Oshima further teaches wherein at least one of the first and second signals comprises any one or a combination of two or more of: a visual signal, an audible signal, a tactile signal (the device of Fig. 7 is capable of providing first and second signals, such as visual signals, if the chamber is open or closed and if the cap is closed, i.e. a user can visually see if the chamber is open/closed and if the cap is open/closed).
Regarding claim 12, Oshima further teaches wherein the first signal is provided by the second cap portion descending from the first cap portion fully into the tube (the device is capable of providing the first signal when the second cap portion drops, i.e. it is possible for a user to visually see, hear, or feel when the second cap portion drops fully when fluid is released from the interior space of the cap into the tube at a later time, see Column 12, lines 40-43).
Regarding claim 13, Oshima further teaches wherein the cap further comprises a lock device (Fig. 7, interpreted as the bottom part of element 50b) engageable upon the cap reaching a fully closed position of the tube (Fig. 7b shows the bottom part of element 50b is capable of engaging with element 6 upon the cap reaching a fully closed position on the container 2), the lock device configured for locking the cap in the fully closed position (Fig. 7b shows the bottom part of element 50b is capable of locking, i.e. securing, the cap 50 in a fully closed position), and wherein the second signal is generated by operation of the lock device (Fig. 7b shows the fully closed position of the cap is a visual signal, i.e. second signal, i.e. a user can visually see if the cap is closed).
Regarding claim 14, Oshima further teaches wherein the second cap portion comprises at least a portion having a top-hat shape (Fig. 7, the lower side of element 52 is a top-hat shape; which has lower sides at the left and right bottom corners, and a raised middle portion, i.e. a top-hat shape; see below annotated Fig. 7), comprising a cup portion defining a cavity (Fig. 7, the lower side of element 52 has a raised portion, i.e. a cup portion, that defines a cavity, i.e. the space below the raised portion), and a flange encircling the cup portion (Fig. 7, the lower side of element 52, has a flange encircling the raised portion; Fig. 8 shows element 52 as circular).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7b: Claimed cup portion and flange annotated.
Regarding claim 16, Oshima further teaches wherein the cup portion is configured for entering an open end of the chamber for closing the chamber (Fig. 7a shows the bottom portion of element 52 is capable of entering a bottom end of the area comprising element E to close a chamber area).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima in view of Goncalves and Becker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biadillah et al. (WO 2012/177656; US 20140120531 A1 is used herein)
Regarding claim 15, modified Oshima fails to teach wherein the second cap portion carries a thread on a radially outwardly facing surface, for engaging a radially inwardly facing thread of the first cap portion.
Biadillah teaches devices for collecting and processing samples of bodily fluids (abstract; Figs. 2A and 6). Biadillah teaches a device comprising a cap (Fig. 2A, element 12) and a tube (14), wherein the cap comprises second cap portion (46) which carries a thread on a radially outwardly facing surface (Fig. 2A, element 44), for engaging a radially inwardly facing thread of a first cap portion (Fig. 2A, element 42). Biadillah teaches the threaded arrangement of element 46 allows aperture 22 to be released due to rotation (paragraph [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second cap portion and first cap portion of modified Oshima to incorporate the teachings of outwardly facing threads for a cap of Biadillah Fig. 2A) to provide wherein the second cap portion carries a thread on a radially outwardly facing surface, for engaging a radially inwardly facing thread of the first cap portion. Simple substitution of one known equivalent elements (Oshima’s second cap portion with inwardly facing threads and first cap portion with outwardly facing threads) for another (Biadillah’s second cap portion with outwardly facing threads and first cap portion with inwardly facing threads) would achieve the predicable result of allowing the second cap portion to be unscrewed and released while the cap is being fitted onto the tube (see MPEP 2144.05 (II), In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929), “…the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent”).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima in view of Goncalves and Becker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harper et al. (US 20150144665 A1; foreign priority of 05/18/2012).
Regarding claim 17, while Becker teaches that as a reservoir of the cap advances towards a knife, a thin film is pierced to release contents of the reservoir (paragraph [0063]), modified Oshima fails to explicitly teach wherein a first amount of rotation to fully secure the cap to the tube is not more than three turns, and wherein a second amount of rotation between the first and second cap portions to open the chamber is less than the first amount of rotation.
Harper teaches a closure arrangement for a container comprising a neck and a cap (abstract). Harper teaches that if the further amount required to remove the cap is too small, then the cap may not be securely held on the neck during pouring, if it is too great, then it may be difficult or impossible to remove, depending upon the form of the cap and the container to which it is attached; wherein an angle of rotation from a closed position of the cap to one where it is free to be removed may be around 350 degrees (paragraph [0080]). Harper teaches at least one of the threads of the cap or the neck may be arranged such that a half-turn, a three-quarter turn, or a full turn of the cap from its closed position opens a flow path through the apertures smaller than the flow path through the neck (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap of modified Oshima to incorporate the teachings of rotations of a cap to close a cap and rotations to allow for a flow path of Harper (paragraphs [0027],[0080]) to provide wherein a first amount of rotation to fully secure the cap to the tube is not more than three turns (e.g. almost a full turn, 350 degrees), and wherein a second amount of rotation between the first and second cap portions to open the chamber is less than the first amount of rotation. Doing so would optimize ease of securing/removing a cap and allowing for the cap to be properly secured as discussed by Harper (paragraph [0080]), while allowing for partial turns to allow for a flow path to open, e.g. the chamber, as discussed by Harper (paragraph [0027]) to have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for a solution to be released during fitting a cap as discussed by Becker (paragraph [0063]).
Note that the functional recitations that describe the first amount of rotation and the second amount of rotation are interpreted as functional limitations of the claimed apparatus and are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114. A recitation of the functional limitation 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 functional limitation, then it meets the claim. Note that there is no claimed structure (e.g. number of threads) associated with the functional limitations. The modified prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, modified Oshima further teaches wherein the first amount of rotation is selected from: not more than two and a half turns; not more than two turns; not more than one and a half turns; or not more than one turn (see above claim 17; modified Oshima incorporates Harper’s teaching of a turn of 350 degrees, i.e. not more than one turn).
Note that the functional recitations that describe the first amount of rotation and the second amount of rotation are interpreted as functional limitations of the claimed apparatus and are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114. A recitation of the functional limitation 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 functional limitation, then it meets the claim. Note that there is no claimed structure (e.g. number of threads) associated with the functional limitations. The modified prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, while Becker teaches that as a reservoir of the cap advances towards a knife, a thin film is pierced to release contents of the reservoir (paragraph [0063]), modified Oshima fails to teach wherein the second amount of rotation is selected from: not more than one turn; not more than three-quarters of a turn; not more than half a turn; or not more than a quarter of a turn.
Harper teaches at least one of the threads of the cap or the neck may be arranged such that a half-turn, a three-quarter turn, or a full turn of the cap from its closed position opens a flow path through the apertures smaller than the flow path through the neck (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap of modified Oshima to incorporate the teachings of rotations to allow for a flow path of Harper (paragraph [0027]) to provide wherein the second amount of rotation is selected from: not more than one turn; not more than three-quarters of a turn; not more than half a turn; or not more than a quarter of a turn. Doing so would optimize ease of securing/removing a cap and allowing for the cap to be properly secured as discussed by Harper (paragraph [0080]), while allowing for partial turns to allow for a flow path to open, e.g. the chamber, as discussed by Harper (paragraph [0027]) to have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for a solution to be released during fitting a cap as discussed by Becker (paragraph [0063]).
Note that the functional recitations that describe the first amount of rotation and the second amount of rotation are interpreted as functional limitations of the claimed apparatus and are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114. A recitation of the functional limitation 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 functional limitation, then it meets the claim. Note that there is no claimed structure (e.g. number of threads) associated with the functional limitations. The modified prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, Oshima further teaches wherein the second amount of rotation comprises a first angular segment for the engager of the tube to cooperate with the second cap portion to restrain the second cap portion against rotation with respect to the tube (Fig. 7 teaches the cap comprises multiple threads 50b, thus, a “second amount of rotation” would comprise an angular rotation or segment capable for the element 6a to perform the claimed limitation), and a second angular segment for the threaded coupling between the first and second cap portions to unscrew (Fig. 7 teaches the cap comprises multiple threads 50b, wherein engager, i.e. element 6a, is capable of unscrewing element 52 from element 51 during a portion of the rotation while fitting the cap onto the tube).
Note that the limitation of: “optionally further wherein: the first angular segment is selected from: not more than a quarter of a turn, or not more than half a turn; and the second angular segment is selected from: not more than a quarter of a turn, or nor more than half a turn” are interpreted as not required by the claim due to the “optionally” statement.
Note that the functional recitations that describe the second amount of rotation are interpreted as functional limitations of the claimed apparatus and are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114. A recitation of the functional limitation 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 functional limitation, then it meets the claim. The modified prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 07/09/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically regarding the amended claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oshima et al. (JPH 10273161 A; see translation filed 01/12/2022) in view of Goncalves et al. (US 4386696 A; cited in the OA filed 01/12/2022) and Becker et al. (US 20130164738 A1; cited in the OA filed 05/15/2024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (KR 2004096904 A) teaches a cap (Fig. 1, element 21 and 30) including a first portion (21) and second portion (30), wherein the second portion (30) is configured to drop into a container (Fig. 1). Lee teaches the second portion includes a portion that extends beyond an open end of the first portion (Fig. 1 shows element 31 that extends beyond the open end of element 21), where the second portion also includes a closed portion that is within and between the closed and open ends of the first portion (Fig. 1, the circled close up picture, shows the top of element 30 is closed and inside of element 21).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758