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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/29/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 6-13 and 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims start with “A liquid storage cavity,” however, since they are dependent claims, they should start with “The liquid storage cavity.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2021/0031195, hereinafter Kersaudy.
Regarding claim 1, Kersaudy teaches a liquid storage cavity (figure 6), comprising: a base (item 322); one or more walls (the walls of item 321) extending from the base (figure 6), wherein the liquid storage cavity has a volume defined by the base and the one or more walls (figure 6); and a periphery (the chamfered part of item 321) at which the one or more walls are joined to the base (figure 6), wherein at least a portion of the periphery includes a peripheral recess (the chamfered part of item 321) defined by the base and at least one of the one or more walls (figure 6), wherein the peripheral recess is configured to house a volume of liquid (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in figure 6).
Regarding claim 2, Kersaudy teaches the at least one of the one or more walls extends outwardly from an interior of the liquid storage cavity to define the peripheral recess (figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, Kersaudy teaches the at least one of the one or more walls comprises: a first wall portion (the vertical and horizontal portions of the wall of item 321) and a second wall portion (the angled portion of the wall of item 321), wherein the first wall portion extends between the base and the second wall portion around the portion of the periphery (figure 6); wherein the second wall portion extends from the first wall portion in a direction away from the base (figure 6).
Regarding claim 13, Kersaudy teaches the liquid storage cavity is a capsule, wherein the height of the liquid storage cavity is less than or equal to 5 mm (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, Kersaudy teaches wherein the height of the liquid storage cavity is less than or equal to 3.5 mm (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Kersaudy teaches wherein the second wall portion extends away from the base in a direction substantially perpendicular to the base (figure 6).
Regarding claim 17, Kersaudy teaches wherein the peripheral recess extends around the entire periphery of the liquid storage cavity (figure 6).
Regarding claim 18, Kersaudy teaches further comprising an outlet in the base (item 314).
Regarding claim 19, Kersaudy teaches herein the outlet is coincident with the portion of the periphery (figure 6).
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2008/0283439, hereinafter Sullivan.
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan teaches a liquid storage cavity (item 801, figure 35), comprising: a base (item 803); one or more walls extending from the base (the walls of item 801, not including item 803), wherein the liquid storage cavity has a volume defined by the base and the one or more walls (figure 36); and a periphery (item 804) at which the one or more walls are joined to the base (figure 39), wherein at least a portion of the periphery includes a peripheral recess defined by the base and at least one of the one or more walls (items 808, 809 and 810), wherein the peripheral recess is configured to house a volume of liquid figure 40).
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan teaches the at least one of the one or more walls extends outwardly from an interior of the liquid storage cavity to define the peripheral recess (figure 36).
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more walls comprises: a first wall portion (the flat and angled portions of the wall of item 801) and a second wall portion (the vertical portion of the wall of item 801), wherein the first wall portion extends between the base and the second wall portion around the portion of the periphery (figure 36); wherein the second wall portion extends from the first wall portion in a direction away from the base (figure 36).
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan teaches the first wall portion extends at an acute angle between the base and the second wall portion (figure 36), such that the peripheral recess has a triangular cross-section (figure 36).
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan teaches the first wall portion comprises a first part (the horizontal part of the wall of item 801) and a second part (the angled portion of the wall of item 801); wherein the first part of the first wall portion is joined to the second wall portion and extends outwardly from an interior of the liquid storage cavity in a direction substantially parallel to the base (figure 40); and the second part of the first wall portion extends between the first part and the base (figure 40), such that the elongate recess has a quadrilateral cross-section (figure 40).
Regarding claim 16, Sullivan teaches wherein the second wall portion extends away from the base in a direction substantially perpendicular to the base (figure 36).
Regarding claim 17, Sullivan teaches wherein the peripheral recess extends around the entire periphery of the liquid storage cavity (figure 35).
Regarding claim 18, Sullivan teaches further comprising an outlet in the base (paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 19, Sullivan teaches the outlet is coincident with the portion of the periphery (figure 35).
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) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kersaudy.
Regarding claim 4, Kersaudy teaches the first wall portion defines a fillet between the second wall portion and the base (the rounded part between the first wall part and the second wall part).
Kersaudy discloses the claimed invention except for the radius of the fillet defined by the first wall portion is between 0.15 mm and 1 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to select the radius of the fillet defined by the first wall portion to be between 0.15 mm and 1 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Kersaudy teaches all limitations of claim 4; however, Kersaudy does not teach the radius of the fillet defined by the first wall portion is between 0.15 mm and 1 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to select the radius of the fillet defined by the first wall portion to be between 0.15 mm and 1 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan.
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan teaches all limitations of claim 7; however, Sullivan does not teach the acute angle being less than or equal to 45 degrees. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to select the acute angle to be less than or equal to 45 degrees, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan teaches all limitations of claim 7; however, Sullivan does not teach the amount the first wall portion extends beyond a join between the first wall portion and the second wall portion. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to select the first wall portion to extend laterally beyond a join between the first wall portion and the second wall portion by a distance of less than or equal to 0.5 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan teaches all limitations of claim 10; however, Sullivan does not teach the first part of the first wall portion has a width of less than or equal to 0.5 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to select the first part of the first wall portion to have a width of less than or equal to 0.5 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Sullivan teaches all limitations of claim 10; however, Sullivan does not teach the second part of the second wall portion has a height of less than or equal to 0.5 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to select the second part of the second wall portion to have a height of less than or equal to 0.5 mm., since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights