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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 September 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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) 1-6, 9-11, 13, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Widt et al. US 6,595,040.
Regarding claim 1, Widt discloses as seen in fig. 2:
A microcapillary holder 3 for holding a microcapillary 15 during positive control physical container closure integrity testing of a packaging (abstract), comprising:
a body 3 with an elongated portion 19 having a longitudinal axis (vertical axis in fig. 2),
wherein the body has a lateral circumference (the body is threaded, column 2 lines 50-54), a duct (interior of elongated portion 19) and a pass-through channel 27,
wherein the duct of the body extends along the longitudinal axis through the elongated portion (seen in fig. 2),
wherein the duct of the body is dimensioned to receive the microcapillary (microcapillary 15 is inserted into the duct as seen in fig. 2), and
wherein the pass-through channel of the body extends between the lateral circumference and the duct (channel 27 extends from the lateral circumference, in to the duct, (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, as seen in fig. 2, the duct of the elongated portion of the capillary is dimensioned to hold the microcapillary 15 when the microcapillary is received by the duct.
Regarding claim 3, as seen in fig. 2, the pass-through channel 27 of Widt opens at the lateral circumference and at the duct 19.
Regarding claim 4, the body 3 of Widt comprises a head portion 8 from which the elongated portion extends.
Regarding claim 5, the head portion 8 of Widt has a cavity (interior at approximately 21) to which the duct opens as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the cavity of Widt tapers into the duct as seen in fig. 2.
Regarding claim 9, Widt teaches, as seen in fig. 2, the testing system including a microcapillary 15 and the microcapillary holder of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Widt teaches an adapter with a first coupling structure 17 configured to be connected to the microcapillary holder, a second coupling structure 4 configured to be connected to a packaging member 2 and a through hole 21 connecting the first coupling structure to the second coupling structure.
Regarding claim 11, the adapter of Widt has a sealing arrangement 18 configured to seal the connection between the first coupling structure 3 and the microcapillary holder as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Widt discloses a packaging dummy 2 having a receiving structure (neck 6) configured to receive the microcapillary holder.
Regarding claim 16, the pass-through channel of Widt is essential orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the elongated portion as seen in fig. 2.
Regarding claim 18, Widt discloses a sealing arrangement between the second coupling structure and the packaging member (abstract, “when the reservoir is closed, a test gas-impermeable seal is developed between the closing part and the reservoir”).
Regarding claim 19, Widt teaches the adapter as having a sealing arrangement 18 configured to seal the connection between the first coupling structure 17 and the microcapillary holder and the connection between the second coupling structure and the packaging member since when the system is fully assembled it is sealed entirely to the outside.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widt.
Regarding claim 7, Widt teaches a microcapillary holder as claimed which includes a threaded section for connection with the head portion 8 of the mounting structure with a container 2 via the threads. Additionally, the microcapillary comprises a threaded portion 17 which connects to the head portion 8 in a similar manner. Widt does not explicitly disclose the nut as claimed, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used a nut in place of the existing threaded features to allow for tightening with a wrench or similar tool and since
since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Widt discloses a gasket 11 to seal between the packaging dummy 20 and the microcapillary holder 3, however does not explicitly disclose the gasket as being part of the receiving structure (neck 6 of package) as claimed, but rather as part of the holder 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have located the gasket 11 on the rim of the bottle neck in order to prevent wear from reuse of the microcapillary holder 3 on multiple bottles which could lead to leakage and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 8, 12, 14, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuse US 5,013,006.
Regarding claim 8, Widt teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the filter unit arranged in the cavity of the head portion of the body such that the duct is covered. Furuse discloses a microcapillary holder as seen in fig. 4 including a microcapillary 15, and a filter 17b arranged in a cavity of a head portion 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Furuse with those of Widt in order to provide a similar filter in the device of Widt in order to prevent contamination from dust or other foreign materials from entering the microchannel and clogging it.
Regarding claim 12, Widt teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the adhesive configured to be delivered into the pass-through channel of the body of the microcapillary holder as claimed. Furuse teaches a microcapillary holder including a microcapillary 15 and an adhesive 6A, 6B is provided for sealing the microcapillary in the holder (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Furuse with those of Widt in order to provide an adhesive sealant rather than the ring 18 for more firmly and permanently attaching the microcapillary to the holder. In combination, the adhesive would be configured to be delivered in any manner desired such as through the through-hole as claimed since it would be a flowable adhesive.
Regarding claim 14, Widt teaches a method comprising obtaining a microcapillary and a microcapillary holder according to claim 1 (since the elements are disclosed, they would be “obtained” as claimed) and arranging the microcapillary into the duct of the body of the microcapillary holder (fig. 2 shows the assembly process). Widt does not explicitly disclose the step of delivering an adhesive into the pass-through channel of the body of the microcapillary holder as claimed. Furuse teaches a microcapillary holder including a microcapillary 15 and an adhesive 6A, 6B is provided for sealing the microcapillary in the holder (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Furuse with those of Widt in order to provide an adhesive sealant rather than the ring 18 for more firmly and permanently attaching the microcapillary to the holder. In combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have delivered the adhesive in any manner necessary to apply it to the desired area such as through the through-hole since it would provide direct access to the area in which the sealing is required.
Regarding claim 15, the method of Widt uses a packaging member 2 which would therefore require “obtaining” it and the microcapillary holder is connected to the packaging member as claimed (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, in combination, the device of Widt and Furuse would seal the filter in the body by the head portion 8 which would comprise the nut when replaced as in detailed in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Wang reference is provided as it discloses a generally similar system including a capillary tube and mounting therefore.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855