If 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 with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1-4 and 6-8 (instead of just 1, 3 and 4) are all generic to both Species A and B. This argument is not persuasive.
The restriction requirement is maintained because Species A and B are two distinct inventions as explained in the restriction requirement of 07/08/2026, and the Applicant did not provide any supposed errors of the examiner’s action in regards to Species A and B being two distinct inventions. Claims 1-8 are generic and it is noted that claim 5 is directed to Species A and B. Claims 1-8 will be examined with respect to the limitation of Species A (the protrusion provided in a rib shape)\ . Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/08/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/142023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
lines 13-14, “… the septum wherein [line break] the tubular portion has ...” appears to have a typo. The limitation should read “… [line break] wherein the tubular portion has …” to correct the typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective bottom portions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “portion” appears to convey a structure instead of a general bottom of a tubular portion, and thus it is not clear what structure the “bottom portions” comprise. For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted as a part of the bottom face of the tubular structure (Fig. 6, 34).
Claims 2-8 are indefinite because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “… provided in a shape in which both outer sides in the radial direction of a bottomed cylindrical shape are diagonally cut away so as to have a V-shape in side view” in lines 3-5. It is unclear what are the “both outer sides in the radial direction of a bottomed cylindrical shape” because a cylindrical shape has only a single continuous curved surface in the radial direction, not two as necessitated by “both.” It is also unclear what are considered to be “outer sides”. Clarification is requested. For the purpose of examination, it being interpreted as a shape in which portions of a bottom cylindrical shape are being diagonally cut away so as to have a V-shape in side view.
Claim 3 further recites the limitation " the bottom portion of the lower tubular portion" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the bottom portion” in the claim for the same reason as explained in the claim 1. For the purpose of examination, it be in interpreted as the bottom face of the lower tubular structure (claim 3, the bottom portion of the tubular portion is the bottom portion of the lower tubular portion).
The examiner notes that in the case if the “bottom portion” not the bottom face of the tubular or lower tubular portion, then claim 4 has an indefinite limitation that recites “a slit is formed… having a rectangular shape in bottom view of the tubular portion so as to be parallel to the longitudinal direction of the bottom portion of the lower tubular portion …” in lines 2-4. The longitudinal direction of a tubular shape is a top-to-bottom direction, and thus in the bottom view, a rectangular shape (2-D shape) would be on a plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction. Therefore, it is unclear how the rectangular shape can be parallel to the longitudinal direction of the bottom portion of the lower tubular portion.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohura et al. (US 20120024707) in view of Ooura et al. (US 20080296160 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ohura teaches a septum (220) comprising: a plurality of tubular portions (222)(Fig. 2A) that are fittable to the inner sides of the opening portions of a plurality of arrayed containers (interpreted as an intended use. the plurality of arrayed containers are not positively recited. Evaporation-preventing membrane 220 meets the structural limitation of the intended use. Moreover, Fig. 2A-2B, tubular portions are fittable in openings of arrayed containers); and
Ohura teaches the septum is for a capillary electrophoresis apparatus, wherein capillaries can be inserted into or withdrawn from the containers of the apparatus through the through-holes (para. 0010, Fig. 2A). Ohura further teaches that the through-holes (end bores 2223) are circular (para.0049, end bores 2223 has a diameter) and thus fails the septum comprising slits, which are a long and narrow openings, that are formed in the respective bottom portions of the tubular portions.
However, Ooura teaches a septum for a capillary electrophoresis apparatus. Ooura teaches the septum comprises a plurality of tubular portions (321), each with a bottom portion comprises through-holes (321c), and the tubular portions are fittable to a plurality of arrayed containers of the capillary electrophoresis apparatus. Ooura further teaches the through-holes in the respective bottom portions of the tubular portions. Ooura further teaches the through-hole (321C, Fig. 4B) is slit (para. 0036, through-hole is a cut in straight line). Ooura further teaches capillaries can be inserted into or withdrawn from the containers through the respective through-holes (para. 0011, Fig. Fig. 4B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the circular through-holes taught by Ohura with slits as taught by Ooura because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the slits would result in the predictable result of providing through holes for insertion of capillaries, and simple substitution of one known element (circular bore) for another (slit) is likely to be obvious when predictable results (through-hole for capillary penetration) are achieved (Fig. 4B, para. 0036). See MPEP 2143)(I)(B).
Modified Ohura teaches wherein the septum adopts an insertion state where in a state where each of the tubular portions is fitted in the opening portion, a thin tube that aspirates or discharges a liquid from within or into the container is inserted through the tubular portion into the container (interpreted as an intended use. The opening portion and the thin tube are not positively recited. The tubular portion meets the structural limitation of the intended use. Furthermore, Ohura, Fig. 2C, para. 0053, tubular portion fitted in opening portions of a container; and Ooura, Fig. 4B and para. 0037) and a pulling out state where the thin tube is pulled out from within the container to the outside with respect to the tubular portion (interpreted as an intended use. The opening portion and the thin tube are not positively recited. Evaporation-preventing membrane 220 meets the structural limitation of the intended use. Moreover, Ohura, Fig. 2C and paras. 0053-0055, capillary 117 can be inserted and withdrawn from the 220; Ooura, para. 0038),
wherein when the pulling out state is shifted to the insertion state, the slit (Ooura, through-hole) is opened by the elastic deformation of the tubular portion by pressing from the thin tube to allow the insertion of the thin tube (interpreted an intended use. The slit in modified Ohura meets the structural limitation of the intended use. Moreover, Ohura, para. 0054 and Fig. 2C, bore 2223 is opened by capillary 117; and Ooura, para. para. 0040), and
wherein when the insertion state is shifted to the pulling out state, the slit is closed by the elastic force of the tubular portion to seal the container (interpreted as an intended use. The slit in modified Ohura meets the structural limitation of the intended use. Moreover, Ohura, paras. 0003 and 0050, when 117 is not inserted, end bore 2223; and Ooura, para. 0040), the septum wherein
the tubular portion has a protrusion (Ohura, 2224, Figs. 3B, 4A and 4B) that protrudes from the side surface of the tubular portion to the outside in the radial direction (Ohura, Figs. 3B, 4A and 4B), and
wherein in a state where the tubular portion is removed from the opening portion, the slit is provided in an opened shape in which the inner walls of the slit are not abutted onto each other (interpreted as an intended use. The slit in modified Ohura meets the structural limitation of the intend use. For example, the slit is provided in an opened shape in which the inner walls of the slit are not abutted onto each other when a tube is inserted into the slit in a state where the tubular portion is removed from the open portion), and in a state where the tubular portion is fitted to the inner side of the opening portion, the protrusion receives pressing from the inner wall of the container, and the slit is closed by the elastic deformation of the tubular portion by the pressing to seal the container (interpreted as an intended use. The slit in modified Ohura meets the structural limitation of the intended use. Furthermore, Ohura, para. 0050, bore 2223 has a closed state due to elastic force; and Ooura, para. 0040).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ohura teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Ohura further teaches wherein the slit is provided so as to be opened in a rectangular shape, elliptic shape, oval shape, rhombic shape, mouth shape, or spear shape (with a tubing inserted, the slit opens into a elliptic/ oval/ mouth shape).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ohura teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Ohura further teaches wherein the tubular portion (222) has an upper tubular portion (the portion of 222 that is above 2224) provided in a cylindrical shape (Fig. 3A), and a lower tubular portion that is provided in a shape in which both outer sides in the radial direction of a bottomed cylindrical shape are diagonally cut away so as to have a V-shape in side view (Fig 3A, 220 has a tapered bottom which gives a V-shape in side view), and wherein the bottom portion of the tubular portion is the bottom portion of the lower tubular portion having a rectangular shape in bottom view of the tubular portion (Fig. 4A, 2224 gives a rectangular shape in bottom view of the tubular portion)(see annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ohura teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 3. Modified Ohura further teaches wherein the slit is formed in the bottom portion of the lower tubular portion having a rectangular shape in bottom view of the tubular portion (Ooura, a straight line, interpreting the line has thickness, and thus it is a rectangular shape).
Modified Ohura does not teach the orientation of the slit and thus fails to teach the slit is parallel to the longitudinal direction of the bottom portion of the lower tubular portion, and wherein the protrusion is arranged so as to sandwich the center portion of the slit from both outer sides in the lateral direction of the slit.
However, Ooura teaches the slits in the septum 320 are lined up parallel to the right side and the left side of the septum 320, with the center of the slit being the at center of the opening of the tubular portion (Fig. 4A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the orientation of the slits taught by modified Ohura with the orientation that is parallel to the left and right sides of the septum, and with the center of the slit being the at center of the opening of the tubular portion as taught by Ooura (Fig. 4A) because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the orientation taught by Ooura would result in the predictable result of providing an orientation for the slits that allows the slits to be penetrated by capillaries (Ooura, Fig. 4B) and provide a straight forward orientation for manufacturing and simple substitution of one known element (orientation of Ohura) for another (orientation taught by Ooura) is likely to be obvious when predictable results (orientation for slits, such that slits can be penetrated by capillary) are achieved. See MPEP 2143)(I)(B).
The teachings of modified Ohura would yield the slit is formed in the bottom portion of the lower tubular portion having a rectangular shape in bottom view of the tubular portion (see above) so as to be parallel to the longitudinal direction of the bottom portion of the lower tubular portion (the longitudinal direction of the rectangular shape, thus the longitudinal direction is up-and-down direction in annotated Fig. A)(slit is oriented in the up-and-down direction in annotated Fig. A), and wherein the protrusion is arranged so as to sandwich the center portion of the slit from both outer sides in the lateral direction of the slit (see annotated Fig. A).
PNG
media_image1.png
689
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Annotated Fig. 4A and 5B of Ohura.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ohura teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 4. Modified Ohura further wherein the protrusion is provided in a rib shape that protrudes from the side surface of the lower tubular portion to the outside (Ohura, Fig. 4A, annotated Fig. A),
Regarding claim 6, modified Ohura teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. With regards to the limitation “the container is a well provided on a microplate, and wherein the septum is for the microplate,” the container is not positively recited, and thus not a part of the invention. Since the limitation is directed to the container, the limitation does not further limit the invention.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ohura teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Ohura further teaches wherein the septum is for a multiple consecutive microtube (interpreted as a function al limitation. Fig. 2A, the septum is structurally capable of being used for multiple consecutive microtubes) in which the plurality of microtubes are coupled to each other.
With regards to the limitation “wherein the container includes a plurality of microtubes that are coupled to each other,” the container is not positively recited, and thus not a part of the invention. Since the limitation is directed to the container, the limitation does not further limit the invention.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ohura teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. With regards to the limitation “wherein the thin tube is a capillary, needle, or nozzle included in an automatic analyzer,” the thin tube is not positively recited, and thus not a part of the invention. Since the limitation is directed to the thin tube, the limitation does not further limit the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm.
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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights