DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 9 June 2026. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected Invention. Thus, only claims 1-18 are further examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claims 19-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention (I) originally claimed and examined. There would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
I. Claims 1-18.
II. Claims 19-20.
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility without requiring an end plug fixed to an end of the outer tube and a spacer disposed between the end plug and the capsule. Subcombination II has separate utility without requiring a first width is 0.65 to 0.85 times greater than a second width, and apertures having a diameter that is two to six times the first width. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented Invention I, it has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, Applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, then Applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The phrase “the rodlet defines an annular space disposed between the wall of the capsule and the material along the axial length of the material” is unclear and appears to be inaccurate. From the specification (and claim 19) it appears that it is the “capsule” which defines said annular space. Thus, it is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “the capsule defines an annular space disposed between the wall of the capsule and the material along the axial length of the material”.
The phrase “the first width is 0.65 to 0.85 times greater than the second width” is uncertain. Said phrase is being interpreted to mean that “the first width is 65-85% larger than the second width”.
The phrase “each of the plurality of apertures has a diameter that is two to six times the first width” is uncertain. Said phrase is being interpreted to mean that “each of the plurality of apertures has a diameter that is two to six times larger the first width”.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The specification and drawings (e.g., Figure 5) imply that: the first width (FAW) is the width between the capsule (420) and the outer tube (410); and the second width (SAW) is the width between the outer tube (410) and the thimble guide tube (210).
Thus, the following recited features are not shown:
first width is 0.65 to 0.85 times greater than second width (claim 1).
each of the plurality of apertures has a diameter that is two to six times the first width (claim 1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and (if necessary) include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. 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 will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims and/or the specification.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights