CTFR 18/639,408 CTFR 94612 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The Amendment filed Feb. 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 19-28, 30 remain pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 19-20, 25-28, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey et al. (US 2019/0077067) in view of Cao et al. (US 5,571,583), further in view of Cadotte et al. (US 2018/0280966) . Regarding claims 19 , 20, 28 , Lindsey discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 5A, 5B. a system for fabricating a pipette (i.e., polymer tubes (ABSTRACT) for biomedical applications ([0006], lines 1-7)) comprising a tubular body arranged between a tip region and a mouthpiece region by a stretch blow molding process ([0018], line 3; it is noticed that, as shown in Fig. 5A, in another embodiment, oriented tube precursors are positioned in a nested manner as shown in step 20, and then subjected to additional annular expansion as shown in step 22 ([0092], lines 11-14); Here, the nested manner of the tube can be considered to include a tip region and a mouthpiece region), the system comprising: a preform stretching apparatus comprising a stretch rod positionable within an interior of the hollow preform and coupled with a stretch rod drive unit that is configured to move the stretch rod within the interior of the hollow preform to form an elongated preform (It is noticed that, in the injection-stretch blow molding process, the stretching rod is provided inside the hollow preform coupled with the stretch rod drive unit to form the elongated preform ([0005], [0006], [0077])); a second mold (for example, positioning the one or more polymeric precursors inside a mold ([0018], lines 5-7)) defining a blow molding cavity configured to contain at least a portion of the elongated preform while pressurized fluid is supplied to an interior of the elongated preform to cause the elongated preform to radially expand and contact a molding surface of the second mold (for example, a polymer film may be provided in unstretched form and can be stretched (and oriented) by air and/or liquid pressure against a cylindrical forming surface to form an oriented polymeric tube ([0084], lines 1-5 from bottom)). Lindsey discloses that, a polymer rod in a tubular structure ([0073], lines 1-3 from bottom) may be applied to obtain the polymer tube instead of a polymer film. However, Lindsey does not explicitly disclose a first mold defining a preform mold cavity configured to permit molding of a hollow preform therein. In the same field of endeavor, polymer hollow articles, Cao discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 8, a syringe barrel mold 10 (i.e., the first mold) has a core pin 12 therein. Mold 10 and core pin 12 define a mold cavity 14 which receives a molten polymer in the MD (arrow 16) through a gate in the conventional manner. After the mold is closed and the cavity is filled, the core pin is rotated in the TD, as shown by arrow 18 (col. 2, lines 54-60) (related to claim 20 ). Cao discloses that, the core pin may be rotated an any convenient rate. The rate will of course depend on the strength of the motor (i.e., the rotary drive unit) turning the core pin and, on the temperature, and viscosity of the molten polymer (col. 3, lines 40-44) (related to claim 28 ). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lindsey to incorporate the teachings of Cao to provide a first mold defining a preform mold cavity configured to permit molding of a hollow preform with a help of the rotating core pin. Doing so would be possible to make the polymer molecules in the core layer being oriented substantially in the direction of rotation of the core pin, as recognized by Cao (col. 1, lines 58-67). However, Lindsey does not explicitly disclose the hollow preform having a mouth- piece portion, a tubular body portion, and a tip portion. Cao discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, a syringe barrel 20 has an annular wall 22 which defines an open end 24 for receiving a syringe plunger. Wall 22 has a tapering portion 26 and a mounting portion 28 (col. 4, lines 17-20). Here, the open end can be considered as the mouth- piece portion, the annular wall 22 can be considered as the tubular body portion, and the tapering portion 26 and the mounting portion 28 can be considered as the tip portion. It is noticed that, at least the different portions have different diameters. It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Lindsey to have the polymer preform as Cao teaches that the hollow preforms having a mouth- piece portion, a tubular body portion, and a tip portion which have different dimensions. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). However , Lindsey does not explicitly disclose that, the second mold is configured to achieve a thickness of the tip region of the pipette that is greater than a thickness of the tubular body of the pipette and mouthpiece region of the pipette. In the same field pf endeavor, producing pipette, Cadotte disclosed that, the tip thickness 26 may be thicker than the body thickness 24 ([0089], lines 7-10). Cadotte disclosed that, for example, the tip thickness 26 may each be between 0.3 mm and 2.5 mm ([0089], lines 10-12). If the tip thickness is selected to be 2.5 mm and the mouth thickness is about between 0.4 mm and 1.5 mm ([0089], lines 5-6). Thus, at least Cadotte provides the possibility of a thickness of the tip region of the pipette that being greater than a thickness of the tubular body of the pipette and mouthpiece region of the pipette. It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Lindsey to have the polymer preform as Cadotte teaches that the thickness of the tip region of the pipette is greater than a thickness of the tubular body of the pipette and mouthpiece region of the pipette. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 25 , Lindsey does not explicitly disclose that, the second mold is configured to achieve a thickness of the tip region of the pipette that is greater than a thickness of the tubular body of the pipette and mouthpiece region of the pipette. In the same field pf endeavor, producing pipette, Cadotte disclosed that, the tip thickness 26 may be thicker than the body thickness 24 ([0089], lines 7-10). Cadotte disclosed that, for example, the tip thickness 26 may each be between 0.3 mm and 2.5 mm ([0089], lines 10-12). If the tip thickness is selected to be 2.5 mm and the mouth thickness is about between 0.4 mm and 1.5 mm ([0089], lines 5-6). Thus, at least Cadotte provides the possibility of a thickness of the tip region of the pipette that being greater than a thickness of the tubular body of the pipette and mouthpiece region of the pipette. It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Lindsey to have the polymer preform as Cadotte teaches that the thickness of the tip region of the pipette is greater than a thickness of the tubular body of the pipette and mouthpiece region of the pipette. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 26 , Lindsey discloses that, in some embodiments, the stent may have a strut thickness of from about 0.15 mm to 0.4 mm ([0114]) (overlapping the claimed range of 0.25 mm to 0.6 mm). For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lindsey overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 27 , Lindsey discloses that, the preform comprises a biaxially oriented thermoplastic material ([0008], lines 1-5). Regarding claim 30 , Lindsey does not explicitly disclose the hollow preform having a mouth- piece portion, a tubular body portion, and a tip portion. Cao discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, a syringe barrel 20 has an annular wall 22 which defines an open end 24 for receiving a syringe plunger. Wall 22 has a tapering portion 26 and a mounting portion 28 (col. 4, lines 17-20). Here, the open end can be considered as the mouth- piece portion, the annular wall 22 can be considered as the tubular body portion, and the tapering portion 26 and the mounting portion 28 can be considered as the tip portion. It is noticed that, at least the different portions have different diameters. It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Lindsey to have the polymer preform as Cao teaches that the hollow preforms having a mouth- piece portion, a tubular body portion, and a tip portion which have different dimensions. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lindsey et al. (US 2019/0077067), Cao et al. (US 5,571,583), and Cadotte et al. (US 2018/0280966) as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Valyi (US 4,242,300) . Regarding claims 21, 22, 23, 24 , the combination does not explicitly disclose that, the stretching rod is provided to stretch the preform outside the blow molding cavity (i.e., the second mold cavity). In the same field of endeavor, processing parisons, Valyi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 4, either the tempering mold/die 22 cooperating with its core 30 (as shown in Fig. 1 (col. 7, line 5)) or the tempering mold/die 122 cooperating with its core 130 (as shown in Fig. 4 (col. 11, line 54)) is provided to further adjust the preform/parison (including stretching) before the parison is moved into the blow mold die/cavity (item 23 in Fig. 1 (col. 9, line 5) or items 123/142/143 in Fig. 4). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the heating elements 22a (col. 8, lines 20-26) is applied to the tempering die 22. Valyi noticed that, infrared heaters may be applied during the process of tempering preforms (col. 2, lines 22-34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to have the infrared heating elements to heat the preform during the tempering/stretching process (related to claim 22 ). As illustrated in Fig. 2 or 4 in the teachings of Valyi, the second neck mold 37 (i.e., the clamping device to hold the neck of the preform) (col. 8, lines 33-34) or 137 is holding the preform/parson 16 during the movement of the stretching rod within the interior of the hollow preform to form the elongated preform (related to claim 23 ). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 4, at least the stretching rod 130 comprises a tapered region having a shape matching one of an interior taper of the tip region of the preform (related to claim 24 ). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Valyi to provide the stretching rod is provided to stretch the preform outside the blow molding cavity . Doing so would be possible to improve operating cycle and reduce waste of heat and non-uniform temperature distribution at the time of orientation for the benefit for transforming the prison into the final part, as recognized by Valyi (col. 3, lines 10-20) . Response to Arguments 07-37 Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 19 that neither Lindsey nor Cao disclose a unitary pipette which is a one-piece article formed from continuous material and the pipette having distinct precursor portions, it is not persuasive. In the teachings of the base reference Lindsey , a unitary polymeric tube with controlled orientation is fabricated (ABSTRACT). Examiner is relied on the teachings of Cao to disclose the detailed shape (e.g., the mouthpiece portion, the tubular body, and the tip portion) of the tube/pipette. Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 19 that neither Lindsey nor Cao disclose the pipette having a thickened tip region by stretch blow molding, it is not persuasive. Examiner is relied on the teachings of Cadotte et al. (US 2018/0280966) to address these features. Thus, Cadotte disclosed that, the tip thickness 26 may be thicker than the body thickness 24 ([0089], lines 7-10). Cadotte disclosed that, for example, the tip thickness 26 may each be between 0.3 mm and 2.5 mm ([0089], lines 10-12). If the tip thickness is selected to be 2.5 mm and the mouth thickness is about between 0.4 mm and 1.5 mm ([0089], lines 5-6). Thus, at least Cadotte provides the possibility of a thickness of the tip region of the pipette that being greater than a thickness of the tubular body of the pipette and mouthpiece region of the pipette. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 2 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 3 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 4 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 5 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 6 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 7 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 8 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 9 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 10 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 11 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/639,408 Page 12 Art Unit: 1741
Prosecution Insights