Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/262,572

REAGENT VESSEL AND REAGENT VESSEL ASSEMBLY COMPRISING SAME

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 30, 2024
Examiner
ZADEH, BOB
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Joongkyeom Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
601 granted / 783 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
809
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 783 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Objections The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities: There is a lack of antecedent basis for: “the end“ in claim 4, line 2. “the inside“ in claim 4, line 2. “the end“ in claim 5, line 2. Appropriate corrections are required. 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. Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the through hole" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 101601461 B1) in view of Grevin (US 2010/0145287). Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a reagent vessel (fig.1-10) comprising: a bottle (302, see fig.5b) in which a reagent (see attached translation of Choi, page 4, ll. 21-24) is contained; and a magnetic mold (300, 301, 312) which is coupled to the bottle. Choi is silent in disclosing a Pasteur pipette which is inserted into an open end of the bottle and has a nozzle through which the reagent is discharged; and a cap which closes the Pasteur pipette and is fastened to the bottle. However, Grevin teaches the commonality of having a bottle (4) that includes a Pasteur pipette (6) which is inserted into an open end of the bottle (see fig.2) and has a nozzle (6) through which the reagent is discharged; and a cap (8) which closes the Pasteur pipette and is fastened to the bottle (via 38 and 22, see fig.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the discharge cap of Choi to a Pasteur pipette as taught by Grevin, in order to rapidly and precisely controlling the dropping bottle. Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses a magnet (312) accommodating groove (119) is formed inside the magnetic mold, and a magnet is accommodated in the magnet accommodating groove (see fig.5b). Regarding claim 3, Choi is silent in disclosing a pair of flanges surrounding the bottle are formed in the magnetic mold. Instead, Choi teaches magnet (312) surrounds the entire base of the container (see fig.5b, 302 and 312). At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change the cylindrical shape of the magnetic flange to a protruding pair, since Applicant has neither placed criticality on use of such a design nor has disclosed that such a pair provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than supporting the container in which the flange of Choi provides such an end result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Choi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious alteration to the flange of the container of Choi which fails to be patentably distinguished. Regarding claims 4-5, Choi is silent in disclosing the nozzle of the Pasteur pipette is formed to have a cross-sectional area to be decreased toward the end, and the nozzle extends to the inside of the Pasteur pipette to form a protruding extension end; and the through hole of the nozzle is formed across from the end to the extension end. However, Grevin teaches the commonality of having a bottle (4) that includes the nozzle of the Pasteur pipette (6) is formed to have a cross-sectional area to be decreased toward the end, and the nozzle extends to the inside of the Pasteur pipette to form a protruding extension end (see area 18 and 6); and a through hole of the nozzle is formed across from the end to the extension end (see fig.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the discharge cap of Choi to a Pasteur pipette as taught by Grevin, in order to rapidly and precisely controlling the dropping bottle. Regarding claim 6, Choi discloses a reagent vessel assembly comprising: a holder made of steel (110, see attached translation, page 4, ll. 19-22); and the reagent vessel of claim 1 held on the holder (see fig.5a-b), wherein the reagent vessel is struck to the steel holder by magnetic force to be maintained in an upright state (see fig.5b-b). Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses the holder is formed to be bent in a ‘ㄱ’ shape (see fig.5a-b). State of the Prior Arts Regarding claim 1, the following prior arts to Choi (KR 101601461 B1), HE (CN 203473405 U), Faurie (US 2004/0074925), Li (CN 210700169 U), Chao (CN 106038311 A), Sun (CN 201418685 Y), Nunotani (JP 2014015260 A), Quetua (US 2013/0217134), Marra (US 2023/0083963) and Kelly (US 7,845,845) as cited in PTO-892 are also citing significant pertinent structures or features to the applicant’s claimed invention with regard to a bottle containing a reagent includes a Pasteur pipette which is inserted into an open end of the bottle and has a nozzle through which the reagent is discharged; a cap which closes the Pasteur pipette and is fastened to the bottle; and a magnetic mold which is coupled to the bottle. It appears that claim 1 does not provide any inventive concept over the cited prior arts. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob Zadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-5201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm E. 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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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. /BOB ZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600534
Spout Connector Reinforcement Ring Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600614
PRESSURE REGULATOR AND SPARKLING WATER MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600535
Dual Lid Canister Assembly with a Pour Spout
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600557
METERING VALVE HAVING AN IMPROVED METERING CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588776
A DISPENSING ARRANGEMENT FOR DISPENING DRY OR SEMI-DRY PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.1%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 783 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month