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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/08/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ginzburg et al. (2012/0211459) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitation of “a liquid impermeable barrier covering the cup opening, wherein the liquid impermeable barrier envelopes the dry reagent cup” and then argued this feature is not taught by the prior art Ginzburg. See pages 5-6 of Applicant’s Remarks. The Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/08/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cauley et al. (US 2021/0008559) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitation of “a liquid impermeable barrier covering the cup opening, wherein the liquid impermeable barrier envelopes the dry reagent cup” and then argued this feature is not taught by the prior art Cauley. See pages 5-6 of Applicant’s Remarks. The Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Inventorship
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginzburg et al. (2012/0211459) in view of Spector et al. (US 2006/0137998). Ginzburg teaches a liquid container having a cap with a solid component that may be released into the liquid container. The embodiments of the device most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 1 and 5A-5D and described in Paragraphs 0033-0045 and in the claims.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4 - Ginzburg teaches a liquid reservoir (container 20) having a base (bottom of container), a side wall (neck 22) that extends from the base, and a distal opening (top opening of the indention); a dry reagent cup assembly (cap 60 and adapter 30) coupled to the liquid reservoir (container 20) and comprising: a dry reagent cup (cup 60) having a cup base (top of cap), a cup side wall (cap sidewall 32) that extends from the cup base, and a cup opening (open end 68), the distal opening of the liquid reservoir (container 20) facing the cup opening; and a liquid impermeable barrier (seal 66) covering the cup opening (open end 68) and separating the liquid reservoir (container 20) and the dry reagent cup, wherein the dry reagent cup (adapter 30 and cap 60) is movable between an initial position outside of the liquid reservoir and a rehydrating position where the dry reagent cup pierces and passes through an opening in the liquid impermeable barrier and is received within the liquid reservoir. See Figures 5A-5D and Paragraphs 0043-0045 where Ginzburg teaches moving the adapter (30) to force the spike element (50) of the adapter (30) into the container (20) and release the powder (P) in the cap (60) into the container (20). Ginzburg does not teach a liquid impermeable barrier enveloping the cap.
Spector teaches a universal bottle cap containing a dry reagent for delivery to a beverage container. The embodiments of the cap are best shown in Figures 1-12 and 23-24; and described in columns 0043-0057 and 0081-0089. In general, the device is comprised of a cap (2) having a portion (3) containing a material and a parseable membrane (8). As shown in Figure 6 and described in Paragraphs 0045 and 0077, Spector teaches a package (16) of a plurality of caps in a consumer saleable package having a seal over the cap (2) and membrane (8). The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date to add the additional liquid barrier to envelope the capsule from Spector with the device of Ginzburg. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the additional liquid barrier to Ginzburg in order to protect the cap during shipping, storage and display as taught by Spector.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 7 and 8 - Ginzburg shows cup side wall (extension 32) having an asymmetric protrusion (spike 50) that includes multiple flat portions (56, 58) and multiple protrusion members (52, 54, 58).
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 11 - Ginzburg discloses a plurality of protrusions (spike members 50) located at different locations in Figure 1 and claims 2-3.
Regarding claims 12, 13 and 14 - Ginzburg teaches a fiction fit between the adapter (30) and container (20) in the claims. The Examiner considers the space between the extension (32) and spik (50) to meet the limitation of the bore element.
Regarding claim 15 - Ginzburg teaches a seal (28) over the container (20) opening in Figures 1 and 5A-5D and Paragraphs 0034, 0043 and the claims.
Claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cauley et al. (US 2021/0008559) in view of Spector et al. (US 2006/0137998). Cauley teaches systems for preparing a dried reagent and methods for rehydrating and mixing the reagent. The embodiments of the device most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 2-6.
Regarding claims 19 and 25 - As shown in Figures 2 and 6, Cauley teaches a liquid reservoir (indention of microfluidic device 670 for receiving capsule 210/610) having a base (bottom of indention), a side wall that extends from the base (side walls of the indention), and a distal opening (top opening of the indention); a dry reagent cup assembly (capsule 610) coupled to the liquid reservoir and comprising: a dry reagent cup (200/600) having a cup base (bottom 230), a cup side wall (wall 235) that extends from the cup base (bottom 230), and a cup opening (opening 212), the distal opening of the liquid reservoir (top of opening of the indention of device 670) facing the cup opening (opening 212); and a liquid impermeable barrier covering the cup opening and separating the liquid reservoir and the dry reagent cup, wherein the dry reagent cup is movable between an initial position outside of the liquid reservoir (unattached to the device 670) and a rehydrating position (attached to the device 670) where the dry reagent cup pierces and passes through an opening in the liquid impermeable barrier and is received within the liquid reservoir. With respect to method claim 25, Cauley teaches puncturing the seal of the capsule (610) and then placing it in the indented portion of the microfluidic device (670) in Paragraphs 0153-0154. Cauley does not teach a liquid impermeable barrier enveloping the cup.
Spector teaches a universal bottle cap containing a dry reagent for delivery to a beverage container. The embodiments of the cap are best shown in Figures 1-12 and 23-24; and described in columns 0043-0057 and 0081-0089. In general, the device is comprised of a cap (2) having a portion (3) containing a material and a parseable membrane (8). As shown in Figure 6 and described in Paragraphs 0045 and 0077, Spector teaches a package (16) of a plurality of caps in a consumer saleable package having a seal over the cap (2) and membrane (8). The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date to add the additional liquid barrier to envelope the capsule from Spector with the device of Cauley. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the additional liquid barrier to Cauley in order to protect the capsule during shipping, storage and display as taught by Spector.
Regarding claim 20 - Cauley teaches a releasable attachment between the capsule (610) and microfluidic device (670) in Paragraph 0153 and further teaches connection tabs in Paragraph 0154.
Regarding claims 21, 22 and 23 - Figures 2 and 6 of Cauley show the capsule (210/610) having a
planar portion (planar layer 250) attached to a frustum portion (interior surface 211) having a liquid
impermeable barrier (see Paragraph 0115 of Cauley which teaches the barrier).
Regarding claim 24 - Cauley discloses a plurality of capsules in Paragraphs 0161-0165.
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 DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 August 26, 2026
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights