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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/26/2021 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FILLIN "Enter foreign application number." JP2021-054326 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 8 and 11-1 3 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 8, claim 8 recites “wherein in a case where the enclosing body includes a plurality of sealing portions…” in line 2. The phrase "in a case" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention . It is unclear if “in a case” is interpreted as optional or required. For examination purposes, the limitations are interpreted as required. Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 8. Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “wherein in a case where the enclosing body includes a plurality of sealing portions…” in line 6. The phrase "in a case" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is unclear if “in a case” is interpreted as optional or required. For examination purposes, the limitations are interpreted as required. Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “wherein in a case where the enclosing body includes a plurality of sealing portions…” in line 6. The phrase "in a case" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is unclear if “in a case” is interpreted as optional or required. For examination purposes, the limitations are interpreted as required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1- 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wada et al. (US 20170307603 A1 ; cited in the IDS filed 12/21/2023 ). Regarding claim 1, Wada teaches a n assay cartridge (Figs. 1-10) used for immunochromatographic assay (abstract; paragraphs [0013]-[0015]) , comprising: a carrier (Fig. 1, insoluble carrier 2) to which a sample and a reagent are supplied (interpreted as an intended use of the carrier, see MPEP 2114; paragraphs [0116]-[0118] teaches a specimen liquid and amplification liquid are supplied to the carrier 2) ; an enclosing body (Fig. 1, second pot 50) in which the reagent to be supplied to the carrier is enclosed (paragraph [0087] teaches second pot encloses second amplification liquid 51) , and which has a sealing portion (Figs. 4-5 , interpreted as the portion of the breakable sheet member 53 of second pot 50) that opens earlier than other portions in a case where an internal pressure is increased due to an application of a pressing force (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Figs. 4-5 and paragraph [0106] teaches the sealing member opens earlier than other portions, e.g. the upper end of second pot 50, when pressure on the sheet member 53 is increased due to an application of a pressing force from movable member 24) ; and a case (Fig. 1, case 9 ) accommodating the carrier (Fig. 1) and the enclosing body (Fig. 1) and having a pressing operation part (Figs. 1 and 4-5 , movable member 24) for applying the pressing force to the enclosing body (Figs. 4-5 ; paragraph [0106]) . Regarding claim 2, Wada further teaches the assay cartridge according to claim 1, further comprising: a pressing part (Figs. 4-5, columnar portion 24a) that applies the pressing force ( interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; paragraphs [0106]-[0107]; Figs. 4-5 ) by being pressed against the enclosing body in a case where the pressing operation part is operated (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; paragraphs [0106]-[0107] and Figs. 4-5 teach columnar portion 24a presses against second pot 50 when operated) , and in which an abutting surface abutting on the enclosing body is a flat surface (Figs. 4-5 shows the bottom of the columnar portion 24a is a flat surface, i.e. abutting surface, that abuts on second pot 50) . Regarding claim 3, Wada further teaches wherein in the case, an accommodating part that accommodates the enclosing body (Figs. 1, 4-5, pot accommodation portion 32) and in which a supply port (Figs. 4-5 and 7, an amplification liquid-filling hole 34 ) for supplying the reagent discharged from the enclosing body to the carrier is formed, is provided, and in the accommodating part (Figs. 4-5 and 7 and paragraph [0061]) , the sealing portion (Figs. 4-5, the portion of the breakable sheet member 53 of second pot 50) is disposed at the supply port (Figs. 4-5 shows the bottom portion of the breakable sheet member 53 is disposed at the supply port of the pot accommodation portion 32) . Regarding claim 4, Wada further teaches wherein a position of the sealing portion disposed at the supply port is fixed (Figs. 4-5 shows the bottom portion of the breakable sheet member 53 disposed at the supply port of the pot accommodation portion 32 is fixed or secured due to element 24 ) . 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. Claim s 5 -6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weber et al. (US 20100308051 A1). Regarding claim 5, Wada further teaches wherein in the case, an accommodating part that accommodates the enclosing body (Figs. 1, 4-5, pot accommodation portion 32) and in which a supply port (Figs. 4-5 and 7, an amplification liquid-filling hole 34 ) for supplying the reagent discharged from the enclosing body to the carrier is formed, is provided, and in the accommodating part (Figs. 4-5 and 7 and paragraph [0061]). Wada fails to teach: the sealing portion (Figs. 4-5, the portion of the breakable sheet member 53 of second pot 50) is connected to the supply port through a connecting portion. Weber teaches a microfluidic storage device having a supply chamber formed by bulging a film (abstract; Figs. 1-4). Weber teaches an enclosing body (Fig. 1, fluid supply chamber 5) that is sealed at a sealing portion (10) and a supply port (26). Weber teaches the sealing portion is connected to the supply port through a connecting portion (9). Weber teaches the connection potion (transport path 9) allows for no air bubbles to form in the fluid flow which could impair the processing and functioning of the fluid in the flow cell (paragraph [0038]). Weber teaches the device makes it possible to obtain a very precise metering of individual partial quantities of the fluid stored in the supply chamber (paragraph [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing portion of Wada to incorporate the teachings of a sealed fluid supply chamber connected to a supply port via a connecting portion of Weber (Figs. 1-6; paragraphs [0038]-[0039]) to provide: the sealing portion is connected to the supply port through a connecting portion. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving direction and metering of the reagent from the enclosing body to the supply port without air bubbles as taught by Weber. Regarding claim 6, modified Wada fails to teach: wherein the connecting portion is a portion of the enclosing body and is a portion extended from the sealing portion toward the supply port. Weber teaches a microfluidic storage device having a supply chamber formed by bulging a film (abstract; Figs. 1-4). Weber teaches an enclosing body (Fig. 1, fluid supply chamber 5) that is sealed at a sealing portion (10) and a supply port (26). Weber teaches the sealing portion is connected to the supply port through a connecting portion (9). Weber teaches the connecting portion (Fig. 4, transport path 9) is a portion of the enclosing body (5) and is a portion extended from the sealing portion (Fig. 1, element 10) towards the supply port (26). Weber teaches the connection potion (transport path 9) allows for no air bubbles to form in the fluid flow which could impair the processing and functioning of the fluid in the flow cell (paragraph [0038]). Weber teaches the device makes it possible to obtain a very precise metering of individual partial quantities of the fluid stored in the supply chamber (paragraph [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing portion of Wada to incorporate the teachings of a sealed fluid supply chamber connected to a supply port via a connecting portion of the enclosing body that extends to the supply port of Weber (Figs. 1-6; paragraphs [0038]-[0039]) to provide: wherein the connecting portion is a portion of the enclosing body and is a portion extended from the sealing portion toward the supply port. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving direction and metering of the reagent from the enclosing body to the supply port without air bubbles as taught by Weber. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Weber as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Gollob et al. (US 20210291182 A1; effectively filed 11/17/2016). Regarding claim 7, modified Wada fails to teach: wherein the connecting portion is a tubular body separated from the enclosing body. Gollob teaches a point-of-care system for analyte detection in a fluid (abstract). Goll o b teaches fluid flows to lateral flow strips (paragraph [0011]). Gollob teaches flow regulation tubes are utilized to connect the components of the pressure driven component of the device, e.g., from the inlet chamber to first fluid flow pathway (paragraph [0031]). Gollob teaches the diameter of the flow regulation tubes are selected based upon the viscosity of fluid and the desired flow rate (paragraphs [0011],[0031]). Goll o b teaches a channel is a passage directing flow of fluid; and the channel may be an enclosed hollow tube (paragraph [0053]). Gollob teaches flow regulation tubes refer to tubes that permit the flow of liquid from one chamber to another within a given fluid flow pathway and thereby control the rate of flow and reaction time (paragraph [0082]). Gollob teaches flow regulation tubes control volume and flow rate of liquids between chambers and delivery arrays (paragraph [0129]). Gollob teaches flow regulation tubes (Fig. 4, element 450) as separate components that connect various ports of chambers (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connecting portion of modified Wada to incorporate the teachings of fluidic systems that incorporate hollow tubes as channels for flow regulation between chambers and arrays of Gollob to provide: wherein the connecting portion is a tubular body separated from the enclosing body. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control of volume and flow rate between the enclosing body and the supply port. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Samsoondar (US 20220091148 A1; effectively filed 09/18/2020 ) . Regarding claim 8, Wada fails to teach: wherein in a case where the enclosing body includes a plurality of sealing portions, one of the plurality of the sealing portions is a weak sealing portion having a weaker sealing force than the other sealing portions, and the weak sealing portion is disposed at the supply port or is connected to the supply port through the connecting portion. Samsoondar teaches a point-of-care testing system comprising an analyzer (abstract). Samsoondar teaches a cartridge includes a preassembled calibration liquid blister and a spike for rupturing the blister to release the calibration liquid (paragraph [0014]), and pressure pushing the released liquid into a sensor chamber (paragraph [0016]). Samsoondar teaches i n various embodiments, the means for releasing calibration liquid comprise: (a) at least one spike for rupturing the at least one sealed blister; or (b) a weakened portion of each of the at least one sealed blister for rupturing the at least one sealed blister, wherein when the calibration cartridge is installed with an associated analyzer, a force on the at least one sealed blister is provided by the associated analyzer (paragraph [0036]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosing body of Wada to incorporate the teachings of means for releasing liquid in a preassembled blister that includes a weakened portion of a sealed blister of Samsoondar (paragraph [0036]) to provide: wherein in a case where the enclosing body includes a plurality of sealing portions, one of the plurality of the sealing portions is a weak sealing portion having a weaker sealing force than the other sealing portions, and the weak sealing portion is disposed at the supply port or is connected to the supply port through the connecting portion. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving and ensuring proper direction of reagent from the desired sealing portion of the enclosing portion when opened. Claim s 9-1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skerratt (EP 0504772 A2). Regarding claim 9, Wada fails to teach: wherein the sealing portion is welded. Skerratt teaches a microprocessor-based control unit for analysis of a fluid sample, the unit including a compartmentalized pouch containing chemicals and roller to break the rupturable seals of the compartment (abstract). Skerratt teaches an essential feature of the invention is a pouch that includes sealed walls by use of welding and in part of heat seals by use of conventional heat sealing; wherein the invention includes rupturable walls but no rupture of permanently sealed walls (column 5, line 49- column 6, line 8). Skerratt teaches a pressure-compressible compartment is defined by a wall portion suitably formed by welding, and by a relatively weaker or rupturable, wall portion, suitably formed by heat sealing (column 6, lines 38-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing portion of Wada to incorporate the teachings of rupturable pouches containing chemicals for fluid analysis, and the pouch includes portions that are heat sealed or welded of Skerratt (abstract; column 5, line 49- column 6, line 8 ; column 6, lines 38-51 ) to provide: wherein the sealing portion is welded. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving sealing of the enclosing body and ensuring opening of the enclosing body at desired portions. Regarding claim 10, Wada fails to teach: wherein the sealing portion is heat-welded. Skerratt teaches a microprocessor-based control unit for analysis of a fluid sample, the unit including a compartmentalized pouch containing chemicals and roller to break the rupturable seals of the compartment (abstract). Skerratt teaches an essential feature of the invention is a pouch that includes sealed walls by use of welding and in part of heat seals by use of conventional heat sealing; wherein the invention includes rupturable walls but no rupture of permanently sealed walls (column 5, line 49- column 6, line 8). Skerratt teaches a pressure-compressible compartment is defined by a wall portion suitably formed by welding, and by a relatively weaker or rupturable, wall portion, suitably formed by heat sealing (column 6, lines 38-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing portion of Wada to incorporate the teachings of rupturable pouches containing chemicals for fluid analysis, and the pouch includes portions that are heat sealed or welded of Skerratt (abstract; column 5, line 49- column 6, line 8; column 6, lines 38-51) to provide: wherein the sealing portion is heat-welded. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving sealing of the enclosing body and ensuring opening of the enclosing body at desired portions. Regarding claim 11 , Wada further teaches wherein in the case, an accommodating part that accommodates the enclosing body (Figs. 1, 4-5, pot accommodation portion 32) and in which a supply port (Figs. 4-5 and 7, an amplification liquid-filling hole 34 ) for supplying the reagent discharged from the enclosing body to the carrier is formed, is provided (Figs. 4-5 and 7 and paragraph [0061]), and in the accommodating part, the sealing portion (Figs. 4-5, the portion of the breakable sheet member 53 of second pot 50) is disposed at the supply port (Figs. 4-5 shows the bottom portion of the breakable sheet member 53 is disposed at the supply port of the pot accommodation portion 32). Wada fails to teach: wherein in a case where the enclosing body includes a plurality of sealing portions, one of the plurality of the sealing portions is a weak sealing portion having a weaker sealing force than the other sealing portions, and the weak sealing portion is disposed at the supply port or is connected to the supply port through the connecting portion, wherein sealing forces of the weak sealing portion and the other sealing portions are adjusted by controlling an applied thermal energy. Skerratt teaches a microprocessor-based control unit for analysis of a fluid sample, the unit including a compartmentalized pouch containing chemicals and roller to break the rupturable seals of the compartment (abstract). Skerratt teaches an essential feature of the invention is a pouch that includes sealed walls by use of welding and in part of heat seals by use of conventional heat sealing; wherein the invention includes rupturable walls but no rupture of permanently sealed walls (column 5, line 49- column 6, line 8). Skerratt teaches a pressure-compressible compartment is defined by a wall portion suitably formed by welding, and by a relatively weaker or rupturable, wall portion, suitably formed by heat sealing (column 6, lines 38-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing portion of Wada to incorporate the teachings of rupturable pouches containing chemicals for fluid analysis, and the pouch includes portions that are heat sealed or welded to be permanently sealed or rupturable of Skerratt (abstract; column 5, line 49- column 6, line 8; column 6, lines 38-51) to provide: wherein in a case where the enclosing body includes a plurality of sealing portions, one of the plurality of the sealing portions is a weak sealing portion having a weaker sealing force than the other sealing portions, and the weak sealing portion is disposed at the supply port or is connected to the supply port through the connecting portion, wherein sealing forces of the weak sealing portion and the other sealing portions are adjusted by controlling an applied thermal energy. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving sealing of the enclosing body and ensuring rupturable opening of the enclosing body at desired portions and no rupturing of the other portions of the enclosing body via heat sealing. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Skerratt as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20120214254 A1). Regarding claim 12, Wada further teaches wherein in the case, an accommodating part that accommodates the enclosing body (Figs. 1, 4-5, pot accommodation portion 32) and in which a supply port (Figs. 4-5 and 7, an amplification liquid-filling hole 34 ) for supplying the reagent discharged from the enclosing body to the carrier is formed, is provided (Figs. 4-5 and 7 and paragraph [0061]), and in the accommodating part, the sealing portion (Figs. 4-5, the portion of the breakable sheet member 53 of second pot 50) is disposed at the supply port (Figs. 4-5 shows the bottom portion of the breakable sheet member 53 is disposed at the supply port of the pot accommodation portion 32). Modified Wada fails to teach: wherein in a case where the enclosing body includes a plurality of sealing portions, one of the plurality of the sealing portions is a weak sealing portion having a weaker sealing force than the other sealing portions, and the weak sealing portion is disposed at the supply port or is connected to the supply port through the connecting portion, wherein the weak sealing portion has a smaller welding area than the other sealing portions. Skerratt teaches a microprocessor-based control unit for analysis of a fluid sample, the unit including a compartmentalized pouch containing chemicals and roller to break the rupturable seals of the compartment (abstract). Skerratt teaches an essential feature of the invention is a pouch that includes sealed walls by use of welding and in part of heat seals by use of conventional heat sealing; wherein the invention includes rupturable walls but no rupture of permanently sealed walls (column 5, line 49- column 6, line 8). Skerratt teaches a pressure-compressible compartment is defined by a wall portion suitably formed by welding, and by a relatively weaker or rupturable, wall portion, suitably formed by heat sealing (column 6, lines 38-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing portion of Wada to incorporate the teachings of rupturable pouches containing chemicals for fluid analysis, and the pouch includes portions that are heat sealed or welded to be permanently sealed or rupturable of Skerratt (abstract; column 5, line 49- column 6, line 8; column 6, lines 38-51) to provide: wherein in a case where the enclosing body includes a plurality of sealing portions, one of the plurality of the sealing portions is a weak sealing portion having a weaker sealing force than the other sealing portions, and the weak sealing portion is disposed at the supply port or is connected to the supply port through the connecting portion. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving sealing of the enclosing body and ensuring rupturable opening of the enclosing body at desired portions and no rupturing of the other portions of the enclosing body . Modified Wada fails to teach: wherein the weak sealing portion has a smaller welding area than the other sealing portions. Schmidt teaches a microfluidic system for fluidic applications (abstract). Schmidt teaches a substrate containing a recess for holding reagents and separated by a predetermined breaking point (paragraph [0006]), which breaks if a critical pressure is exceeded, which can be achieved by means of film welding by using specific welding parameters or by specific geometries of the joint seam or joint zone (paragraph [0007]). Schmidt teaches a predetermined breaking point can be obtained by applying weaker joining parameters than during the permanent joining of the membrane, e.g. a thinner weld seam, or by a shape of the weld seam bringing about the concentration of mechanical stresses at a point (paragraph [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weak sealing portions of modified Wada to incorporate the teachings of releasing reagents via a breakable point formed of a thinner welded seam of Schmidt (paragraphs [0006]-[0007],[0039]) to provide: wherein the weak sealing portion has a smaller welding area than the other sealing portions. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving opening of the enclosing body at a desired sealing portion due to the geometry of the sealing portion s . Claim 1 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Samsoondar as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Briman (US 20140138260 A1). Regarding claim 13, modified Wada fails to teach: wherein the enclosing body is formed of one sheet rolled into a cylindrical shape, the enclosing body includes two sealing portions that is formed along a direction intersecting a cylinder axis direction of the sheet and that is used for defining an enclosing body in which the reagent is to be enclosed, and one of the two sealing portions is the weak sealing portion. Samsoondar teaches i n various embodiments, the means for releasing calibration liquid comprise: (a) at least one spike for rupturing the at least one sealed blister; or (b) a weakened portion of each of the at least one sealed blister for rupturing the at least one sealed blister, wherein when the calibration cartridge is installed with an associated analyzer, a force on the at least one sealed blister is provided by the associated analyzer (paragraph [0036]) . Briman teaches a cartridge for diagnostic assays (abstract) including at least one blister pack for on-board liquid storage (paragraph [0007]). Briman teaches t he blister pack may be cylindrical in shape and may contain a deformable top layer that provides a cavity for liquid storage and a bottom layer that seals the liquid in (paragraph [0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosing body of modified Wada to incorporate Briman’s teachings of cylindrical shaped blister packs (paragraph [0012]) and Samsoondar’s teachings of means for releasing liquid in a preassembled blister that includes a weakened portion of a sealed blister (paragraph [0036]) to provide: wherein the enclosing body is formed of one sheet rolled into a cylindrical shape, the enclosing body includes two sealing portions that is formed along a direction intersecting a cylinder axis direction of the sheet and that is used for defining an enclosing body in which the reagent is to be enclosed, and one of the two sealing portions is the weak sealing portion. Doing so would have utilized known shapes for an enclosing body, e.g. blister pack, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving and ensuring proper direction of reagent from the enclosing portion when opened. Note that the limitation of “ formed of one sheet rolled into a cylindrical shape ” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). E ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. As discussed above, Wada in view of Samsoondar and Briman provides the claimed enclosing body having a cylindrical shape and the claimed sealing portions, therefore, the claimed product is the same. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1 and 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/471,397 (reference application) (herein, “App ‘397”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. Regarding claim 1, App ‘397 recites a n assay cartridge used for immunochromatographic assay (claim 1) , comprising: a carrier to which a sample and a reagent are supplied (claim 1) ; an enclosing body (claim 1, “reagent container”) in which the reagent to be supplied to the carrier is enclosed (claim 1) , and which has a sealing portion that opens earlier than other portions in a case where an internal pressure is increased due to an application of a pressing force (claim 1 recites the carrier is sealed and discharged to the outside from being crushed, therefore includes a sealing portion that opens earlier than other portions due to pressing force, i.e. being crushed) ; and a case accommodating the carrier and the enclosing body (claim 1) and having a pressing operation part for applying the pressing force to the enclosing body (claim 1) . Regarding claim 9, App ‘397 recites wherein the sealing portion is welded (claim 10) . Regarding claim 10, App ‘397 recites wherein the sealing portion is heat-welded (claim 10 recites sealed by welding; “heat-welded” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation, MPEP 2113, wherein if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process ). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Agnew et al. ( US 3689224 A ) teaches a chemical contaminant detection sampler (Figs. 1-3) comprising manually rupturable sacks (46, 48). Yavets-Chen et al. ( US 20230051725 A1 ; effectively filed 01/16/2020) teaches a blister pack, wherein a width of the lid at the weakening pattern is thinner that a width of the lid elsewhere, and wherein the lid is configured to burst at the weakening pattern when the blister pack is subjected to pressure, so as to allow liquid content inside the containing body to be discharged out of the blister pack through the burst weakening pattern (abstract). Breidenthal et al. (US 20090137029 A1) teaches receptacles having interconnected chambers to permit multiple process steps, including receptacles to separate liquid from dry reagents (abstract). Breidenthal teaches materials and boundaries of chambers may be defined by sealing means, including heat sealing or welding (paragraph [0013]), wherein the seal may be a burstable seal (paragraph [0013]). Breidenthal teaches flexible or semi-rigid receptacles, or pouches--including features of the receptacles, such as chambers, passages, permanent and semi-permanent (e.g., ruptureable, burstable, peelable, frangible, etc.) seals--can be formed by welding two films together using heated filaments, a heat sealing die, impulse welder, or ultrasonic welder or other known techniques (paragraph [0257]). Breidenthal teaches burstable seals and the permanent seals are formed under different conditions, such that the burstable seals are weaker than the permanent seals (claim 29). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2338 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30A-5:00P . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maris Kessel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7698 . 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. /HENRY H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758