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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification recites “a first principle stress” throughout the disclosure meant to read “a first principal stress” as correctly recited in the drawings, see FIGS. 3b, 4b, 6a -6d and 7a – 7d. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Regrading claim 2, this claim objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “…wherein the at least one stress parameter is at least one of a first principle stress…” and “a first principle stress” has a typographical error meant to read “a first principal stress”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3 – 4 inherit this objection by virtue of their dependency.
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 – 20 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, this claim recites “a marking element” twice, in line 8 and 12, and is not clear whether one is meant to refer to the other or two marking elements are claimed, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 2 – 20 inherit this rejections by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter.
Claims 1 – 20 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 prior arts of record Logunov et al. (US 2017/0340518 A1) and Leyvraz (US 2005/0218126 A1), both recited in the IDS filed on 07/12/2023, discuss a method of laser marking a container for holding a pharmaceutical composition like glass ampoules, syringes, glass bottles and vials. Logonov further discusses identifying an area of the body of the container for the markings by choosing a location that is less sensitive to various stress parameters based on a target stress, or stress threshold value. However, none of the references teach or fairly suggest that the identifying of the location for laser marking which has a value less than or equal to a threshold involves the steps of: running a simulation based on a finite element method of the at least one stress parameter for at least one of a surface area or a volume area of the body, obtaining a mean value by the simulation for the at least one stress parameter for at least a part of at least one of the surface area or the volume area of the body, obtaining the threshold value by adding the mean value and 1000 % or less of an absolute value of the mean value as recited in claim 1. This specific steps of determining a threshold stress value to locate an area in the container that has a stress value less than or equal to the threshold value for laser marking are not taught or suggested by the prior arts and it would be improper to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive to the claimed steps from the teachings of Logunov and Leyvraz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights