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
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 18, 21, 22, 50 and 53 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 18, 21, 50 and 53 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 50 recite the limitation, “an infusion chamber for containing flavouring materials, and infusing a liquid with flavouring substances from the flavouring materials. (see lines 2-3 of claim 1 and lines 4-5 of claim 50). For matters of form, either the comma before “and” should be deleted or the term “for” should be inserted after “and” and before “infusing.”
Claims 1, 11, 18, 21, 50 and 53 recite, “the exterior of the chamber.” For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the exterior of the infusion chamber.”
Claim 18 recites, “when the flow drive system is in operation, the flow drive system is arranged to drive, during infusion in the infusion chamber, the liquid flow from the exterior of the chamber, circulating in the infusion chamber, to the exterior.”
For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “when the flow drive system is in operation and during infusion in the infusion chamber, the flow drive system is arranged to drive the liquid flow from the exterior of the infusion chamber into the infusion chamber and circulate the liquid in the infusion chamber, drive the liquid to the exterior of the infusion chamber.”
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 18 and 21 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 18 recite the limitation, “the exterior.” (see lines 3-4) as does claim 21 on the last two lines. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not clear whether this is intending to refer to “the exterior of the chamber” or some other exterior.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the flow drive system” in claim 1; “a non-mechanical system” as recited in claim 2 and “a thermal convection system” as recited in claim 3.
The “flow drive system”, “non-mechanical system” and “thermal convection system” have been disclosed on page 8, line 32 to page 9 line 14 as comprising a mechanical pump to drive liquid flow or a non-mechanical system such as a thermal convection system, and which thermal convection system comprises a thermal element that is a thermal block that comprises a heat reservoir and a heat exchange surface. The thermal element can have any shape such as a hollow cylinder shape as described on page 11, lines 13-16. The heat reservoir and heat exchange surface is shown by example in figure 2, as item 21 and 23. See also page 10, lines 27-34. Therefore under 35 U.S.C. 112f, the flow drive system has been construed to include structure such as a mechanical pump to drive liquid flow, or a non-mechanical system that includes a confined space that has a heat reservoir and a heat exchange surface with a hollow cylinder shape, or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 1-6, 8-15, 18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 10517414) in view of Guerrero (US 20040182247).
Regarding claim 1, Hall discloses a cartridge for preparing a flavoured drink, the cartridge (figure 1, item 2, 4) comprising an infusion chamber for containing flavoring materials (see figure 1 and 3, item 14 and 28; column 1, lines 16-17 “tea leaves”). Since the claim is directed to the cartridge and not the method of using the cartridge, the limitation, “infusing a liquid with flavoring substances from the flavoring materials” is an intended use limitation that Hall would have been capable of performing. Nonetheless, as shown in figure 3 and on column 2, lines 6-7, the cartridge is also used for infusing a liquid with flavoring substances from the flavoring materials such as tea leaves.
Hall further discloses that the cartridge comprises a chamber wall which defines the infusion chamber (see figure 2, item 4) and a passage in the chamber wall between the infusion chamber and an exterior of the chamber, that is capable of exchanging liquid between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber (see figures 2-4 and the passage that connects to channel 6).
The cartridge also comprises a flow drive system that is arranged to, (i.e. capable of) driving during infusion in the chamber, a liquid flow between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber through the passage and the liquid flow having n at least a part of the infusion chamber a flow direction which can project from the chamber wall. That is, under 35 U.S.C. 112f, the flow drive system has been construed as being a non-mechanical thermal convection system that comprises a heat reservoir and a heat exchange surface that is capable of transferring thermal energy. In this regard, Hall’s cartridge (4) has a hollow cylindrical section (see figure 3, item 10) that is closed off such that it can be construed as a heat reservoir similar to that shown in figure 2 of Applicant’s drawings. Hall also teaches that the cartridge and therefore the hollow cylindrical section is made of metal (see column 2, lines 2-3) and therefore is teaching a heat reservoir with a heat exchange surface. Because Hall also teaches that there is a filter (16), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that liquid would have been able to flow past the filter and into the channel (6), thus teaching or suggesting the claimed structure that would have been capable of having a degree of liquid flow between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber through the passage. Further regarding the flow drive system, it is also noted that Guerrero teaches a diffuser 17, which also has a conical shape (see figure 2, item 17) and which diffuser can also be part of a cartridge used for infusion of flavouring materials (see figure 3) and which diffuser advantageously allows for circulation of the liquid to help with producing the flavoured drink with reducing preparation time (see paragraph 37). This provides further evidence that the similar shape as taught by Hall, would also have provided a flow drive system to drive during infusion a liquid flow.
Regarding claims 2-5, the hollow cylindrical section has been construed to be a non-mechanical system comprising a thermal convection system that would have been capable of thermally driving the liquid flow, and allow for differential heating or cooling as recited in claim 4 as well as being capable of inducing free convection flow in the infusion chamber, as recited in claim 5. That is, because Hall teaches a structure that is similar to that shown in Applicant’s figure 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Hall’s structure would also have been capable of the recited functionality.
Regarding claim 6, Hall teaches a heat reservoir (see figure 3, item 10) and a heat exchange surface, because Hall discloses that the surface can be made of metal and allows for heat to be transferred into the cartridge.
Regarding claim 8, Hall teaches that the heat reservoir is a heat sink, because the upper-most portion of the hollow cylindrical section 10 is closed and can therefore contain heat. Because Hall teaches that the material of the hollow cylinder can be metal, thermal energy would have been capable of being transferred from the liquid into the heat reservoir. That is, this is also an intended use of the recited structure.
Regarding claim 9, Hall teaches in figure 3, item 10, that the heat exchange surface projects from the chamber wall into the infusion chamber.
Regarding claim 10, Hall teaches that the heat reservoir comprises a volume defined by the heat exchange surface, which would have been capable of being filled with a fluid different from the liquid.
Regarding claim 11, Hall teaches in figure 3 that the fluid that is capable of being filled within the heat reservoir can be air. The volume also projects into the infusion chamber and is a cavity which has an opening to the exterior of the chamber for trapping air (see near item 26 of figure 3). Because Hall’s heat reservoir is closed at its top-most end, the cavity is sealed from the infusion chamber by the heat exchange surface.
Regarding claim 12, as shown in figure 3, Hall teaches that the cavity projects from the outside surface of the chamber wall into the infusion chamber, from the bottom of the infusion chamber upwards.
Regarding claims 13-15, Hall teaches that the infusion chamber has the shape of a hollow cylinder defined by forming an outer hollow cylinder (see the walls bound by item 4) and the thermal block forms a conical shape that tapers from a bottom of the infusion chamber upwards, as recited in claims 13-15.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that the claim is directed to the intended use of the cartridge and in this regard, if the prior art teaches the recited structure, it would have been capable of the recited intended use. In this regard, because Hall teaches that the infusing liquid would have passed through the filter 16 and into the channel 6 and since Hall teaches a conical inverted cylindrical shape into which air can be trapped, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the prior art would have been capable of the intended function of driving the liquid flow from the exterior of the chamber, circulating in the infusion chamber to the exterior.
Regarding claim 21, similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 18, it is noted that the claim is directed to an intended use of the cartridge and in this regard, because Hall teaches that the infusing liquid would have passed through the filter 16 and into the channel 6 and since Hall teaches a conical inverted cylindrical shape into which air can be trapped, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the prior art would have been capable of providing a liquid flow that comprises an inflow from the exterior of the chamber through the passage, a circulating flow in the infusion chamber that can pass through flavoring materials and an outflow through the passage from the flavoring materials to the exterior.
Regarding claim 22, Hall teaches that the passage comprises a region in the chamber wall with at least an upper and lower opening, because as shown in figure 3, the filter 16 has multiple openings therefore encompassing at least one upper and lower opening. As discussed above with respect to claims 18 and 21, Hall’s structure would have been capable of the intended use of an upper flow into the infusion chamber with the liquid flow through the lower opening being out of the infusion chamber, especially in light of the reference disclosing a similar structure as that shown in Applicant’s figure 2.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 18, 21, 22, 50 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dos Santos (WO 2020182529) in view of Bott (DE 366023) and Guerrero (US 20040182247).
Regarding claims 1 and 50, Santos teaches a cartridge for preparing a flavored drink comprising an infusion chamber capable of containing flavouring materials and capable of infusing a liquid with flavoring substances from the flavouring materials (see figure 4, item 40 and paragraph 47 of the machine translation, “filter basket”). There is a chamber wall which defines the infusion chamber (see figure 4, item 42 and paragraph 47 of the machine translation, “side wall 42 with openings 43”) and a passage in the chamber wall between the infusion chamber and an exterior of the chamber (see paragraph 47 which discloses a fine mesh sieve covering the openings 43 and figure 2 item 40, where the fine mesh sieve would provide a passage to an exterior of the chamber for exchanging liquid between the infusion chamber and the exterior).
The cartridge as taught by Dos Santos has also been construed to comprise a flow drive system that is arranged to, (i.e. capable of) driving during infusion in the chamber, a liquid flow between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber through the passage and the liquid flow having n at least a part of the infusion chamber a flow direction which can project from the chamber wall. That is, under 35 U.S.C. 112f, the flow drive system has been construed as being a non-mechanical thermal convection system that comprises a heat reservoir and a heat exchange surface that is exposed in the infusion chamber for transferring thermal energy. Dos Santos’ cartridge has a hollow cylindrical section (see figure 4, item 50) that is closed off such that it can be construed as a heat reservoir similar to that shown in figure 2 of Applicant’s drawings. As shown in figure 4, Dos Santos is teaching a heat reservoir because the uppermost end 48 of the hollow cylindrical section is closed. While Dos Santos does not specifically discuss any materials of construction, it would have been reasonable to expect that the materials of the hollow cylindrical section would have allowed for some degree of heat exchange (i.e. a heat exchange surface), especially since Dos Santos teaches that the cartridge is submerged during use. Furthermore, because Dos Santos also teaches that there is a filter (see paragraph 47), thus teaching or suggesting the claimed structure that would have been capable of having a degree of liquid flow between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber through the passage. Because the cartridge (40) can also rotate, the reference is also suggesting a mechanical system for driving liquid flow (see at least, the abstract).
If it could have been construed that Dos Santos did not specifically teach the recited heat exchange, then it is also noted that Bott teaches a cartridge that is similarly structured as that of Dos Santos in that it comprises a structure with mesh sieve covering (see figure 1 item 1 and 2 and page 2 of the machine translation, lines 12-16 which discloses a metal cartridge with a metal sieve covering). Bott also teaches a hollow section that can be construed as a heat reservoir and heat exchange surface (see the inwardly concave section of the bottom of Bott’s cartridge. To therefore modify Dos Santos, who does not limit the particular material of construction and to use materials such as metal would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design. Further regarding the flow drive system, it is also noted that Guerrero teaches a diffuser 17, which also has a conical shape (see figure 2, item 17) and which diffuser can also be part of a cartridge used for infusion of flavouring materials (see figure 3) and which diffuser advantageously allows for circulation of the liquid to help with producing the flavoured drink with reducing preparation time (see paragraph 37). This provides further evidence that the similar shape as taught by Dos Santos, would also have provided a flow drive system to drive during infusion a liquid flow.
Further regarding claim 50, Dos Santos also teaches that the cartridge is part of an assembly that also includes a disposable or non-disposable vessel for containing liquid (see figure 1, item 20) and which vessel comprises a rim on which the cartridge fits (see figure 4, item 70; or figure 4, item 30, which would have had a rim on which the cartridge fits). It is noted that the claim does not limit the particulars of “a top rim” of the vessel.
Regarding claims 2-5, Dos Santos can be construed as teaching a non-mechanical flow drive system as recited in claim 2 and regarding claims 3-5, the combination teaches as suggests a thermal convection system that can allow for thermally driven liquid flow as recited in claim 3 and which comprises a thermal element that can provide some degree of heating or cooling of the liquid and induce free convection flow as recited in claims 4-5
Further regarding claim 6, Dos Santos teaches a heat reservoir and a heat exchange surface that is exposed in the infusion chamber and would have been capable of transferring thermal energy from or to the liquid and to or from the heat reservoir. This is further supported by the combination teaching and suggesting materials such as metal which would also have been heat exchange materials. Further in this regard, it is noted that Applicant’s specification discloses metal, glass, plastic or cardboard as suitable materials of construction (see page 21, line 24-28). Even further, in view of Bott, the combination teaches materials such as metal, which would also have been heat exchange surfaces.
Regarding claim 8, Dos Santos teaches that the heat reservoir is a heat sink, because the upper-most portion of the hollow cylindrical section is closed (see paragraph 48 and figure 4 and figure 5, item 48). Because the combination teaches that the material of the hollow cylinder can be metal, thermal energy would have been capable of being transferred from the liquid into the heat reservoir. That is, this is also an intended use of the recited structure.
Regarding claim 9, Dos Santos teaches in figure 2 and 4, item 50, that the heat exchange surface projects from the chamber wall into the infusion chamber.
Regarding claim 10, Dos Santos teaches that the heat reservoir comprises a volume defined by the heat exchange surface, which would have been capable of being filled with a fluid different from the liquid.
Regarding claim 11, Dos Santos teaches in figure 2 and 4 that the fluid that is capable of being filled within the heat reservoir can be air. The volume also projects into the infusion chamber and is a cavity which has an opening to the exterior of the chamber for trapping air (see figure 4). Because Dos Santos’ heat reservoir is closed at its top-most end, the cavity is sealed from the infusion chamber by the heat exchange surface.
Regarding claim 12, as shown in figure 2 and 4, Dos Santos teaches that the cavity projects from the outside surface of the chamber wall into the infusion chamber, from the bottom of the infusion chamber upwards.
Regarding claims 13-15, Dos Santos teaches that the infusion chamber has the shape of a hollow cylinder defined by forming an outer hollow cylinder (see item 50 in figure 2 and 4) and the thermal block forms a conical shape that tapers from a bottom of the infusion chamber upwards, as recited in claims 13-15.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that the claim is directed to the intended use of the cartridge and in this regard, if the prior art teaches the recited structure, it would have been capable of the recited intended use. In this regard, because Dos Santos teaches that the infusing liquid would have passed through the fine mesh sieve and into the container 20 and since Dos Santos teaches a conical inverted cylindrical shape into which air or fluid can be trapped, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the prior art would have been capable of the intended function of driving the liquid flow from the exterior of the chamber, circulating in the infusion chamber to the exterior.
Regarding claim 21, similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 18, it is noted that the claim is directed to an intended use of the cartridge and in this regard, because Dos Santos teaches that the infusing liquid would have passed through the fine mesh sieve and into the container 20 and since Dos Santos teaches a conical inverted cylindrical shape into which air or fluid can be trapped, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the prior art would have been capable of providing a liquid flow that comprises an inflow from the exterior of the chamber through the passage, a circulating flow in the infusion chamber that can pass through flavoring materials and an outflow through the passage from the flavoring materials to the exterior.
Regarding claim 22, Dos Santos teaches that the passage comprises a region in the chamber wall with at least an upper and lower opening, because the reference teaches that there is a fine mesh with openings. As discussed above with respect to claims 18 and 21, Dos Santos’ structure would have been capable of the intended use of an upper flow into the infusion chamber with the liquid flow through the lower opening being out of the infusion chamber, especially in light of the reference disclosing a similar structure as that shown in Applicant’s figure 2.
Regarding claim 53, the claim repeats the structure of the cartridge as already presented above with respect to claim 1 and 50 and which is incorporated herein. Regarding the method steps of exchanging through the passage liquid, between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber, and flavoring the liquid in the infusion chamber with flavoring substances from the flavoring materials in the infusion chamber, since Dos Santos teaches a filter cartridge for flavoring liquids with coffee or tea, for example (see paragraph 3 of the machine translation), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the reference is teaching an exchange through the passage, liquid between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber so as to flavour the liquid in the infusion chamber with flavoring substances from the flavoring materials in the infusion chamber.
Regarding the limitation of, “during said flavouring, a flow drive system in the infusion chamber driving a liquid flow between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber through the passage, the liquid flow having in at least a part of the infusion chamber a flow direction which projects from the chamber wall, since Dos Santos teaches the claimed structure of a flow drive system and because Dos Santos also teaches a chamber wall with openings (see paragraph 48) that extend in the same direction as the hollow cylindrical flow drive structure, that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that liquid flow would have been driven between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber through the passage and the liquid flow having in at least a part of the infusion chamber a flow which products from the chamber wall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 0404707 discloses a cartridge with a central hollow section that is closed and a perforate chamber wall that allows for fluid to be exchanged between the cartridge and an exterior of the cartridge.
US 20130224343 discloses a cartridge with a hollow conical section (see figure 3, item 36) that is closed and a perforate chamber wall that allows for fluid to be exchanged between the cartridge and an exterior of the cartridge.
US 20100112166 discloses a cartridge with a central hollow conical section that is closed and a perforate chamber wall that allows for fluid to be exchanged between the cartridge and an exterior of the cartridge (see figure 3 and the central bottom section of cartridge 46)
US 20160157622 discloses a cartridge with a central hollow conical section that is closed and a perforate chamber wall that allows for fluid to be exchanged between the cartridge and an exterior of the cartridge (see figure 2 and the central bottom section of cartridge 20).
FR 1557460 discloses a cartridge with a central hollow section that is closed and a perforate chamber wall that allows for fluid to be exchanged between the cartridge and an exterior of the cartridge (see figure 1)
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 VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792