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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments filed 04/20/2026 have ben entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-13, 17 are directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 15-16, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 09/12/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, 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 Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable.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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-13, 15-17 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-2, 5, 7-13, and 15-17 being examined.
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.
Claims 10, 15-17 are 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 10 recites “the protrusion part includes a sealing protrusion part that protrudes outward from an outer surface of the protrusion part so as to be appressed to an inner surface of the liquid storage part.”
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the protrusion part has a shape such that at least a part of the protrusion part comes into contact with an inner surface of the liquid storage part when the liquid reception part is sealed,” on lines 18-19.
It is unclear if the shape of the protrusion part that comes into contact with an inner surface of the liquid storage part of claim 1 and the sealing protrusion part of claim 10 are describing the same part of the protrusion part or not.
Additionally, is the inner surface described in claim 1 the same or different from the one described in claim 10? If the shape that comes into contact of claim 1 is different from the sealing protrusion part of claim 10, are these different portions of the same inner surface?
Claim 15 recites “using an inspection chip according to claim 1” on lines 1-2, where it is unclear if the inspection chip is the same or different from claim 1.
For examination it will be interpreted that they are the same inspection chips.
Claim 15 should be amended to recite “using [[an]] the inspection chip according to claim 1” to make it clear that they are the same.
Claim 16 is rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 17 recites “An inspection chip according to claim 1,” on line 1, where it is unclear if the inspection chip of claim 17 is the same or different from the inspection chip of claim 1.
For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same.
It is suggested to amend claim 17 to recite “[[An]] The inspection chip according to claim 1,”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record is translated Sando (WO-2009/113487-A1) in view of Larsen (US-2018/0333530-A1) previously cited in the Office Action mailed 12/18/2025.
The lid of Sando (defined in the annotated Figure 4 on page 5 of the Office Action mailed 12/18/2025) was previously modified with Larsen such that the protrusion part 311 includes a retainer ring and flexible rubber seal, with the flexible rubber seal being the protrusion part.
Claim 1 has now been amended such that the lid part includes a protrusion part and lid body part.
Previously in the Office Action mailed 12/18/2025, now cancelled claim 4 recited the lid part includes the protrusion part and base part holding the protrusion part, where the base part was mapped to the protrusion part 311.
It would not be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the protrusion part 311 or any part of the lid of Sando indicated in the annotated Figure 4 referenced supra to have a through hole into which a cylindrical part of the protrusion part is inserted so that a locking part of the cylindrical part is engaged with an upper edge part of the through hole.
While Figure 6 of Larsen does show how the flexible seal 77 is put onto the retainer ring 74, the retainer ring is not a through hole.
Claims 2, 5, 7-9, 11-13 would be allowable by virtue of being dependent on an allowable claim. Further, please note the 112(b) rejection of claim 10 supra.
Claims 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 15, it requires the limitations of claim 1, and would be allowable for the same reasons as described above.
Claim 16 would be allowable by virtue of being dependent on an allowable claim so long as the 112(b) issue is resolved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, see page 5, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 USC 103 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 112(b), please see 112 section supra.
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 SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights