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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/14/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a semicolon missing after the term “distal end portion” in line 2. Appropriate correction is 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.
Claims 1-4, 15, 16, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "frame-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-4, 9-16, and 18 are ultimately dependent upon claim 1, and thus, inherit the same deficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest cited prior art of reference is to Taniguchi et al (US 2009/0306300 A1) which teaches a liquid housing container (cell 40) comprising a distal end portion (portion of the cell above the boundary 119); a tubular portion (portion of the cell at and below boundary 119) comprising first through fourth sidewalls (walls 401 and 402) and being connected to the distal end portion on a bottom side of the distal end portion; and a base portion (bottom wall 410) sealing a bottom side of the tubular portion (See Figs. 1 and 7 and Paras. 0083 and 0099). However, the closest cited prior art of reference fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a cut level difference is a difference between a cut level at a load length ratio of 25% in a roughness curve and a cut level at a load length ratio of 75% in the roughness curve, and a cut level difference Rδc1 in a roughness curve of an inner wall surface of the first sidewall and an inner wall surface of the second sidewall is larger than a cut level difference Rδc3 in a roughness curve of an inner wall surface of the third sidewall and an inner wall surface of the fourth sidewall.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 1-4, 15, 16, and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest cited prior art of reference is to Taniguchi et al (US 2009/0306300 A1) which teaches a liquid housing container (cell 40) comprising a distal end portion (portion of the cell above the boundary 119) that is in the shape of a frame; a tubular portion (portion of the cell at and below boundary 119) comprising first through fourth sidewalls (walls 401 and 402) and being connected to the distal end portion on a bottom side of the distal end portion; and a base portion (bottom wall 410) sealing a bottom side of the tubular portion (See Figs. 1 and 7 and Paras. 0083 and 0099). However, the closest cited prior art of reference fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a cut level difference is a difference between a cut level at a load length ratio of 25% in a roughness curve and a cut level at a load length ratio of 75% in the roughness curve, and a cut level difference Rδc1 in a roughness curve of an inner wall surface of the first sidewall and an inner wall surface of the second sidewall is larger than a cut level difference Rδc2 in a roughness curve of an inner wall surface of a sidewall of the distal end portion.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iskra (US 2002/0011492 A1) discloses a container assembly that includes an inner tube formed from a plastic that is substantially inert to bodily fluids and an outer tube that is formed from a different plastic. Collectively, the container assembly is useful for providing an effective barrier against gas and water permeability in the assembly and for extending the shelf-life of the container assembly, especially when used for blood collection. The inner container is spaced from the outer container at most locations. However, the inner container includes an enlarged top configured to engage the outer container. The enlarged top has a roughened outer surface to permit an escape of air from the space between the containers (See abstract and Figs. 1-4). However, there is no disclosure or teaching of the tubular body having multiple sidewalls, or a cut level difference Rδc1 in a roughness curve of an inner wall surface of the first sidewall and an inner wall surface of the second sidewall is larger than a cut level difference of a) Rδc2 in a roughness curve of an inner wall surface of a sidewall of the distal end portion, or b) a cut level difference Rδc3 in a roughness curve of an inner wall surface of the third sidewall and an inner wall surface of the fourth sidewall; and
The attached “Geometrical Product Specifications” is to be regarded as a General GPS standard (see TR B 0007). It influences chain link 2 of the chains of standards on surface texture. In this Standard, ten-point mean roughness which is used in Japan even at present and center line average roughness which had been specified in the former standard are described in Annex 1 and Annex 2, respectively for information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY I FISHER whose telephone number is (469)295-9182. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRITTANY I FISHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1796 April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights