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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A and B are patently distinct (i.e., not obvious variants of one another) and that the Examiner has failed to establish a serious search/examination burden exists. This is not found persuasive because, of other differences, Species B requires that the automation decapping cap is sized and shaped for automatic repeatable engagement with an automatic decapping machine, and that “each interface” between the automatic decapping cap and the automatic decapping machine effecting decapping automatically is disposed within an outermost perimeter of the manual cap, which would require a search of automatic decapping machines that is not required for Species A, that creates a serious search/examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant has withdrawn claims 18-29 that were directed to Species B.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1 the recitation “so that opening closure is commonly effected by both the first cap and the second cap” or some similar language” is unclear as to if the recitation is it is referring to opening or closing or both.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “CAP2” (AZENTA LIFE SCIENCES) (cited by applicant).
CAP2 discloses a closable tube assembly that includes first cap that is configured to engage an edge of the opening in the tube vessel and a second cap that is configured to inserted into the first cap. The second cap is illustrated as having an interface for automatic repeatable engagement with an automatic machine cap opener. See Figures and “Product Details.”
I.) As noted above, CAP2 teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 1.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above CAP2 anticipates claim 1 from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the interface for automatic repeatable engagement with the automatic machine cap opener has a configuration wherein fit up and engagement between the second cap and the automatic machine cap opener is effected via the interface and exclusive of the first cap.
The Figures in CAP2 show that the interface for automatic repeatable engagement with the automatic machine cap opener has a configuration wherein fit up and engagement between the second cap and the automatic machine cap opener is effected via the interface and exclusive of the first cap.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 3.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above CAP2 anticipates claim 1 from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that the second cap is received within the first cap with the second cap in the closed position.
The Figures of CAP2 show that the second cap is received within the first cap with the second cap in the closed position.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 4.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above CAP2 anticipates claim 1, from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the closable tube assembly is a PCR tube assembly with at least a 0.2 mL tube vessel.
CAP2 teaches that the closable tube assembly is a PCR tube assembly with at least a 0.2 mL tube vessel.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 5.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above CAP2 anticipates claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the first cap is hinged to the tube vessel with a hinge member joining the first tube cap to the tube vessel.
The Figures of CAP2 show that the first cap is hinged to the tube vessel with a hinge member joining the first tube cap to the tube vessel.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 6.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above CAP2 anticipates claim 6 from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the hinge member hinges both the first cap and the second cap, assembled with each other so as to form a cap in cap assembly, to the tube vessel.
In CAP2 when the second cap is inserted into and attached to the first cap, the hinge member hinges both the first cap and the second cap, assembled with each other so as to form a cap in cap assembly, to the tube vessel.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 7.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above CAP2 anticipates claim 1 from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites more than one tube vessel disposed in an array, each tube vessel having a respective first cap and a respective second cap removably coupled thereto.
In the Figures, CAP2 shows more than one tube vessel disposed in an array, each tube vessel having a respective first cap and a respective second cap removably coupled thereto.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 9.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above CAP2 anticipates claim 9 from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the more than one tube vessel are disposed in the array within in a tube vessel tray or tube vessel storage.
Positioning the array of tubes before they are used is interpreted as the array being in a tube vessel storage.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 10.
2. Claims 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “CAP2” (AZENTA LIFE SCIENCES) (cited by applicant).
As noted above, CAP2 discloses a closable tube assembly that includes first cap that is configured to engage an edge of the opening in the tube vessel and a second cap that is configured to inserted into the first cap. The second cap is illustrated as having an interface for automatic repeatable engagement with an automatic machine cap opener. See Figures and “Product Details.”
I. As noted, CAP2 teaches all the elements of claim 11.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 11.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above, CAP2 anticipates claim 11 from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the interface for automatic repeatable engagement with the automatic machine cap opener has a configuration wherein fit up and engagement between the second cap and the automatic machine cap opener is effected via the interface and exclusive of the first cap.
The Figures in CAP2 show that the interface for automatic repeatable engagement with the automatic machine cap opener has a configuration wherein fit up and engagement between the second cap and the automatic machine cap opener is effected via the interface and exclusive of the first cap.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 13.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above, CAP2 anticipates claim 11 from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the second cap is received within the first cap with the second cap in the closed position.
The Figures of CAP2 show that the second cap is received within the first cap with the second cap in the closed position.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 14.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above, CAP2 anticipates claim 11 from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the first cap is configured to removably connect to the tube vessel having a PCR tube vessel configuration with at least a 0.2 mL tube vessel.
CAP2 teaches that the closable tube assembly is a PCR tube assembly with at least a 0.2 mL tube vessel.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 15.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above, CAP2 anticipates claim 11 from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the first cap is hinged to the tube vessel with a hinge member joining the first tube cap to the tube vessel.
The Figures of CAP2 show that the first cap is hinged to the tube vessel with a hinge member joining the first tube cap to the tube vessel.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 16.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above, CAP2 anticipates claim 16 from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites that the hinge member hinges both the first cap and the second cap, assembled with each other so as to form a cap in cap assembly, to the tube vessel.
In CAP2 when the second cap is inserted into and attached to the first cap, the hinge member hinges both the first cap and the second cap, assembled with each other so as to form a cap in cap assembly, to the tube vessel.
Therefore, CAP2 anticipates claim 17.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claims 2, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over CAP2.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above CAP2 anticipates claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the first cap has a threaded plug closure configuration with respect to the opening, with interior threads disposed so as to engage the second cap inserted into the first cap in a closed position on the first cap.
It is unclear in the Figures of CAP2 if the first cap has a threaded plug closure configuration with respect to the opening.
If not, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify the first cap to have threaded plug closure configuration with respect to the opening as an obvious manner or attaching a cap to a vessel.
The Figure of CAP2 show that first cap has interior threads disposed so as to engage the second cap inserted into the first cap in a closed position on the first cap.
Therefore, CAP2 renders claim 2 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above CAP2 anticipates claim 1 from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites more than one tube vessel coupled to each other in a strip of tube vessels, each tube vessel having a respective first cap and a respective second cap removably coupled thereto.
In the Figures CAP2 shows a 6 x 8 array of tubes
It would have been obvious to provide a single row of tubes as desired which would read on a strip of tubes.
Therefore, CAP2 renders claim 8 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above CAP2 anticipates claim 11 from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that the first cap has a threaded plug closure configuration with respect to the opening, with interior threads disposed so as to engage the second cap inserted into the first cap in a closed position on the first cap.
It is unclear in the Figures of CAP2 if the first cap has a threaded plug closure configuration with respect to the opening.
If not, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify the first cap to have threaded plug closure configuration with respect to the opening as an obvious manner or attaching a cap to a vessel.
The Figure of CAP2 show that first cap has interior threads disposed so as to engage the second cap inserted into the first cap in a closed position on the first cap.
Therefore, CAP2 renders claim 12 obvious.
Note: Applicant can overcome CAP2 as a prior art reference by establishing that CPA2 is an inventor-oriented disclosure as set forth in MPEP 2153.01
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. International Patent Application Publication No. WO2018/203993 to Griffis discloses a two-piece cap 620B, which includes an over-cap 690A and a cap base 690B, which attaches to each other as shown in Fig. 8B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights