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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “closing body” of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure does not provide support for the “corners of the at least one hooking element are rounded”. The originally filed disclosure describes the holding device as having rounded corners, but not the hooking elements. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 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 9 recites “wherein corners of the at least one hooking element are rounded”. The hooking element was not previously recited to comprise corners which renders the claim indefinite (i.e. lack of antecedent basis); additionally, it is unclear how said corners can now be rounded, which is contrary to the definition of “corner” (i.e. a point or angle where to edges meet). 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(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9 and 11-12 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wong (US 6474473). Wong discloses a holding device for containers including a filling tube or neck, said holding device including: a supporting surface (18, 29, 31) including a front face defining a front face of the holding device, wherein the front face of the supporting surface includes at least one gripping member (51 and/or 61) for holding at least one filling tube or neck of a container intended to be held by said device in a position parallel to said supporting surface (col. 3, lines 1-7), a temporary closing member (54 and/or 62, 24) configured for closing off the opening of the at least one filling tube or neck when the at least one filling tube or neck is held by the at least one gripping member, at least one hooking element (70, 71) for attaching said holding device to, or suspending said holding device from, another support.
In regards to claim 2, the closing member is formed by a wall extending substantially perpendicularly with respect to the front face of the supporting surface, said wall being disposed parallel with respect to the at least one gripping member (figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the wall forming the closing member corresponds to an upper face of the supporting surface when the supporting surface extends in a vertical direction (figure 9).
In regards to claim 4, the wall forming the closing member abuts the at least one gripping member (figure 9).
With regards to claim 6, the at least one gripping member comprises a plurality of gripping members, and said gripping members are formed by a longitudinal indentation on the front face of the supporting surface.
In regards to claim 7, the holding device includes a second indentation, parallel and substantially symmetrical with the first indentation (figure 9).
Regarding claim 9, the at least one hooking element comprises at least two hooking elements in the shape of eyelets, and wherein corners of the at least one hooking element are rounded (figure 9).
With regards to claim 11, Wong discloses at least one filling tube (B) and/or one or more vials including a filling neck (col. 3, lines 1-7).
In regards to claim 12, Wong discloses a container held by the holding device, wherein the holding device and the container are made of the same material (col. 2, lines 61-67).
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 6474473) in view of Jordan (US 5005721). Wong teaches the invention of claim 1 but does not teach a closing body. Jordan teaches a holding device comprising a closing member (12) which includes a closing body (14) which is configured to be at least partly introduced into the opening of the at least one filling tube or neck of the container intended to be held by the holding device. Wong and Jordan are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. bottle/tube holders. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to include the closing bodies with the invention to Wong. The motivation would have been to further secure the caps of the bottles from undesired opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Wong as specified in claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 6474473) in view of Faulkner (US 20080000783). Wong teaches the invention of claim 1 but does not teach male/female assembly elements. Faulkner teaches a device comprising a male assembly element (106) on one lateral side, and on the opposite lateral side, a female assembly element (104) complementary to said male assembly element. Wong and Faulkner are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. bottle/tube holders. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to include the male/female assembly elements of Faulkner with the invention to Wong. The motivation would have been to provide means to secure multiple sections together (e.g. in the instance of forming a display arrangement – Wong: col. 5, lines 18-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Wong as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 6474473). Regarding claim 10, Wong does not teach wherein the holding device is made of a material resistant to sterilization by irradiation. Primarily, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Nonetheless, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to make Wong’s holding device from polypropylene in order to prevent the spread of contamination to/from the items in the holding device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Wong as specified in claim 10.
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 JONATHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thurs, 6-6.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights