Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges applicant’s remarks filed 03/12/2026. Claims 1-22 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 15-22 are withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
1. Claims 1-3 and 6-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,527,181 to Kleeberg et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0021356 to Konrad.
Kleeberg et al. teaches a system for detecting visual identifying information on a lid of a container 1 that, as shown in Fig. 1, includes an annular skirt structure having an upper portion and a side portion, with the upper portion of the annular skirt having at least first and second portions having visual identifiers having portions of a bar code 2 and a quite zone 4. (column 6, lines 44-53)
Kleeberg et al. teaches that the visual identifiers enable automatic detection, recognition and identification of objects, like e.g. sample bottles for spectroscopic analysis, and allow for supplying containers to an NMR spectrometer via a transport system. (Abstract; column2, lines 44-46).
Kleeberg et al. does not teach that annular skirt depends from the top surface of the closure and extends away from the top surface in a direction substantially perpendicular to the top surface as newly recited in claim 1, wherein the annular skirt includes a first portion having a first visual identifier and a second portion having a second visual identifier.
Konrad teaches in Fig. 6 a container 2 having a cap 27 with a skirt stricture that extends away from the top surface of the cap in a direction substantially perpendicular to the top surface. A data medium 16 is provided on the skirt structure. [0087] The data medium can be an optically detectable hand written or machine-printed identification of the device. [0030]
Konrad teaches that providing the data medium on the skirt of the cap is an alternative arrangement to providing the data medium on the container as shown in Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kleeberg et al. to provide the first and second portions of the bar code 2 that provide visual identifiers and a quite zone on the sides of the lid that extend away from the top surface of the lid in a direction substantially perpendicular to the top surface as taught by Konrad as an alternative arrangement of the visual identifiers that allow for optical detection from the side of the lid.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders all the elements of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Kleeberg et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the first visual identifier and second visual identifier form a visually distinct pattern relative to each other.
In Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad the first visual identifier and second visual identifier form a visually distinct pattern relative to each other.
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad render claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the first visual identifier is a first color, and the second visual identifier is a second color, the second color being different from the first color.
In Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad the first visual identifier and second visual identifier of the bar code include different colors, including black and white.
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites a stopper at least partially disposed within the annular skirt, wherein at least one of the annular skirt and the stopper are configured for closing a container.
Konrad teaches a stopper 28 disposed within the annular skirt structure as shown in Fig. 6.
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad render claim 6 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the top surface and the first portion of the annular skirt have the same visual identifier.
Kleeberg et al. teaches visual identifiers on the top of the lid.
In Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the visual identifiers of Kleeberg et al. on the top of the lid to allow for optical identifying of the visual identifiers from either or both of the top and sides of the lid.
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 7 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvous from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the second portion is printed over at least a portion of the first portion.
In Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad the annular skirt structure can arbitrarily be construed as having any portions interpreted as being first and second portions, therefore allowing printing of the visual identifiers on portions of the annular skirt that are first and second portions.
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad render claim 8 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recite that the first portion is the base material of the closure.
As noted above, in Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad the annular skirt structure can arbitrarily be construed as having any portions interpreted as being first and second portions, including a first portion that is the base material of the lid.
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad render claim 9 obvious.
VIII) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the first portion and the second portion are co-formed.
In Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad the annular skirt is formed as one piece and therefore the first and second portions of the annular skirt are co-formed
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 10 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that the first portion includes a first region adjacent the top surface and a second region adjacent the bottom surface of the annular skirt, and the second portion is disposed between the first region of the first portion and the second region of the first portion.
As noted above, in Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad the annular skirt structure can arbitrarily be construed as having any portions interpreted as being first and second portions, including a first portion that includes a first region adjacent the top surface and a second region adjacent the bottom surface of the annular skirt, and the second portion disposed between the first region of the first portion and the second region of the first portion.
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 11 obvious.
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that the first portion includes a first region adjacent a first depending sidewall and a second region adjacent a second depending sidewall, and the second portion is disposed between the first region of the first portion and the second region of the first portion.
In Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad the annular skirt structure can arbitrarily be construed as having any portions interpreted as being first and second depending sidewall portions, including a first depending sidewall and a second region adjacent a second depending sidewall, and the second portion is disposed between the first region of the first portion and the second region of the first portion. Note, applicant’s first and second depending sidewalls are not identified in applicant’s drawings.
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad render claim 12 obvious.
2. Claims 4, 5 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kleeberg et al. in view Konrad as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0003521 to O’Connor et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that either the first visual identifier or the second visual identifier comprises one or more fluorescent compounds having a characteristic fluorescent spectra.
Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad does not teach that either the first visual identifier or the second visual identifier comprises one or more fluorescent compounds having a characteristic fluorescent spectra.
O’Connor teaches that identification markers may be optical markers, such as optical bar codes or fluorescent markers. [0051]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kleeberg in view of Konrad to substitute the bar codes with fluorescent markers as taught by O’Connor et al. and include a fluorescence excitation light source and a detector to image the fluorescent bar codes as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (MPEP 2143(I)(B))
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad and O’Connor renders claim 4 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the first visual identifier comprises a first fluorescent compound having a characteristic fluorescent spectra and the second visual identifier comprises a second fluorescent compound having a characteristic fluorescent spectra, the second fluorescent compound being different from the first fluorescent compound.
Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad does not teach that the first visual identifier comprises a first fluorescent compound having a characteristic fluorescent spectra and the second visual identifier comprises a second fluorescent compound having a characteristic fluorescent spectra, the second fluorescent compound being different from the first fluorescent compound.
As noted above, O’Connor teaches that identification markers may be optical markers, such as optical bar codes or fluorescent markers. [0051]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kleeberg in view of Konrad to substitute the bar codes with fluorescent markers as taught by O’Connor et al. including different fluorescent compounds having different characteristic fluorescent spectra and include a fluorescence excitation light source and a detector to image the fluorescent bar codes as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (MPEP 2143(I)(B))
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad and O’Connor renders claim 5 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites a fluorescence excitation light source and a detector.
Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad does not teach a fluorescence excitation light source and a detector.
As noted above, O’Connor teaches that identification markers may be optical markers, such as optical bar codes or fluorescent markers. [0051]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad to substitute the bar codes with fluorescent markers as taught by O’Connor et al. and include a fluorescence excitation light source and a detector to image the fluorescent bar codes as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (MPEP 2143(I)(B))
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad and O’Connor renders claim 13 obvious.
3. Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of International Patent Application Publication No. WO2009117032 to Agrawal et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the system includes an automatic decapper.
Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad does not teach an automatic decapper.
Agrawal et al. teaches that for handling large numbers of samples it is also preferred to use cappers and decappers to easily tighten the caps and remove them from a multitude of bottles or vials used to process the samples. [0023]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kleeberg in view of Konrad to include a decapper as taught by Agrawal et al. for purposes of accessing the contents of containers used in the system.
Therefore, Kleeberg et al. in view of Konrad and Agrawal et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies upon Konard as teaching a cap with an annular skirt structure having a data medium that can be an optically detectable hand written or machine-printed identification of the device.
Applicant’s arguments are based on Kleeberg et al. not having visual identifiers on an annular skirt that Konrad teaches.
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 MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights