The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart retention slots configured to lockingly engage the retention protrusions” in claim 3 and "a pushable cap configured for engagement by a plunger device insertable into the internal cavity of the tubular body and operable to move and disengage the locking tabs of the retention protrusions from the retention slots of the tubular body" in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claims 3-12, 14-15 and 18-19 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. In claim 3, “the retention protrusions” does not have antecedent basis in claim 1 but would if it were dependent from claim 2. Additionally, it is not clear what if any structural relationship exists between the circumferentially spaced apart retention slots and the top or bottom ends of the elongated tubular body or how the retention slots affect the ability of the second cap to slidably move in opposing directions between the top and bottom ends of the elongated tubular body. With respect to claims 10-11, it is not clear what if any structural relationship exists between the at least one circumferential grooves or the pair of spaced apart circumferential grooves and the top or bottom ends of the elongated tubular body. Are the circumferential grooves located proximate to one or more of the ends? Is there a defined spacing between the grooves? With respect to claims 10-12, are the external grooves functional (i.e. serve as the groove required by instant claim 13) or aesthetic? With respect to claim 14, it is not clear which element of claim 1 is prevented from rotation by the anti-rotation feature.
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.
Claims 1-2, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spencer (US 2,661,126). With respect to claim 1, Spencer discloses (figures 1, 2; column 2, line 10 - column 3, line 34) a sample container comprising: an elongated tubular body (10) defining a longitudinal axis, a top end (neck 14), a bottom end, and an internal cavity extending between the ends configured for holding the sample; a first cap (17) detachably coupled to the top end; and a second cap (19) slideably disposed in the cavity, the second cap being movable in opposing directions between the top and bottom ends. With respect to claim 2, Spencer teaches that the second cap comprises a base and a plurality of longitudinally-extending retention protrusions extending downwards from the base in a circumferentially spaced apart arrangement (see figures 1 and 3; column 2 line 39 to column 3, line 15; the fingers 23 are retention protrusions). With respect to claim 16, figures 1 and 3 and column 2, lines 18-24 teach that the tubular body is cylindrical with a circular cross-sectional shape. With respect to claim 17, figure 1 of Spencer shows the second cap spaced inwards within the internal cavity from the bottom end of the tubular body. With respect to claim 20, the slits 22 and fingers 23 give the second cap a castellated configuration.
Claims 1, 10, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horvath (US 4,298,036). With respect to claim 1, figures 3-4 and their associated discussion in Horvath show and teach a sample container (110) comprising: an elongated tubular body (120) defining a longitudinal axis, a top end (upper portion 121), a bottom end (base 125 with opening 125a), and an internal cavity extending between the ends configured for holding the sample; a first cap (170) detachably coupled to the top end; and a second cap (plunger 130) slideably disposed in the cavity, the second cap being movable in opposing directions between the top and bottom ends. With respect to claims 10 and 13, at least figures 3-4 and column 6, lines 14-39 of Horvath teach a snap on cap that requires at least one circumferential groove (124) formed in an exterior surface of the tubular body engageable with a an inwardly projecting annular snap protrusion (annular rib 174) on the first cap. With respect to claim 16, figures 3-4 of Horvath show that the tubular body is cylindrical with a circular cross-sectional shape. With respect to claim 17, at least figure 4 of Horvath shows the second cap spaced inwards within the internal cavity from the bottom end of the tubular body.
Claims 1 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shapiro (US 6,054,157). With respect to claim 1, figures 1-3 and their associated discussion in Shapiro show and teach a sample container (1) comprising: an elongated tubular body (10) defining a longitudinal axis, a top end (near cap 14), a bottom end (the opposing end), and an internal cavity (chamber18 and 20) extending between the ends configured for holding the sample; a first cap (14) detachably coupled to the top end; and a second cap (plunger 16) slideably disposed in the cavity, the second cap being movable in opposing directions between the top and bottom ends. With respect to claim 16, figures 1-3 of Shapiro show that the tubular body is cylindrical with a circular cross-sectional shape. With respect to claim 17, at least figure 1 of Shapiro shows the second cap spaced inwards within the internal cavity from the bottom end of the tubular body.
Claims 1, 10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parker (US 2010/0081166). With respect to claim 1, paragraphs [0026]-[0031] and figures 1-5 of Parker teach and show a sample container (10) comprising: an elongated tubular body (12) defining a longitudinal axis, a top end (14), a bottom end (16), and an internal cavity (reservoir 26) extending between the ends configured for holding the sample; a first cap (18 and 20) detachably coupled to the top end; and a second cap (plunger head 22) slideably disposed in the cavity, the second cap being movable in opposing directions between the top and bottom ends. With respect to claim 10, figure 3 of Parker shows a neck region which constitutes at least one circumferential groove formed in an exterior surface of the tubular body. With respect to claim 16, figures 1 and 3 of Parker show that the tubular body is cylindrical with a circular cross-sectional shape. With respect to claim 17, at least figures 4-5 of Parker show the second cap spaced inwards within the internal cavity from the bottom end of the tubular body.
Claims 1 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laugharn (US 2013/0152710). With respect to claim 1, figures 1-3 and 5-8 of Laugharn with their associated discussion teach and show a sample container (1) comprising: an elongated tubular body (2) defining a longitudinal axis, a top end (21) with a top opening (21a), a bottom end (22) with a bottom opening (22a), and an internal cavity (interior space 23) extending between the ends configured for holding the sample; a first cap (3) detachably coupled to the top end; and a second cap (plunger 4) slideably disposed in the cavity, the second cap being movable in opposing directions between the top and bottom ends. With respect to claim 14, figures 5-6 and 8 along with paragraph [0034] of Laugharn show/teach that the bottom end of the tubular body comprises an anti-rotation feature (see at least the discussion of notches 28 in paragraph [0034]). With respect to claim 15, the shape of notches shown at least in figures 5-6 constitutes an undulating castellated configuration. With respect to claim 16, figures 1-3 and 5-8 of Laugharn show that the tubular body is cylindrical with a circular cross-sectional shape. With respect to claim 17, at least figures 3 and 8 of Laugharn show the second cap spaced inwards within the internal cavity from the bottom end of the tubular body.
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 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer, Shapiro or Laugharn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horvath (US 4,298,036).
Spencer teaches a cap 17 with threads 16 that mate with threads 15 on neck 14. Spencer does not teach an outer circumferential groove on the outer wall of the tubular body or an inwardly projecting annular snap protrusion engageable with a circumferentially-extending snap groove formed in the tubular body for a snape-fit of the first cap with the top end of the tubular body.
Shapiro teaches a cap 14. Column 3, lines 10-15 teach that end caps 12 and 14 are depicted as being held on outer wall 10 by means of a snap or interference fit. However, if desired, end caps 12 and 14 may be provided with a threaded connection with outer wall 10. Shapiro does not teach any specific snap fit structure.
Paragraph [0025] of Laugharn teaches threads 26 for engagement of cap 3 with vessel 2. Alternative arrangements such as interference or friction fit between the cap and vessel. Laugharn does not teach an outer circumferential groove on the outer wall of the tubular body or an inwardly projecting annular snap protrusion engageable with a circumferentially-extending snap groove formed in the tubular body for a snape-fit of the first cap with the top end of the tubular body.
In the figures 3-4 with their associated discussion Horvath as described above teaches a snap-fit cap for a dispenser for stick solids. Figures 1-2 with their associated discussion teach a threaded cap for a similar dispenser structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to replace the engagement mechanisms of Spencer or Laugharn with the snap-fit structure taught by Horvath because Horvath shows that the snap-fit cap is one of a limited number of known cap types and provides an expectation that it is fully capable of performing the same engagement function of at least a threaded cap structure used by Spencer or Laugharn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the Horvath snap-fit cap structure for the snap-fit cap taught by Shapiro because the Horvath cap is a snap-fit cap structure that clearly performs the intended function and Shapiro teaches a snap-fit cap as the preferred cap.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer, Horvath, Shapiro or Laugharn with or without the teachings of Horvath as applied to claims 1, 10 or 13 above, and further in view of Montgomery (US 3,974,929). As described above Spencer and Laugharn do not teach groves on either the cap or exterior surface of an elongated tubular sample container or a snap-fit cap on the top end. As described above Shapiro teaches a snap-fit cap but does not teach its structure. As described above Horvath teaches a snap-fit cap with a structure meeting claims 10 and 13 but does not teach a groove on the outer surface of the cap or two spaced apart grooves on an exterior surface of the elongated tubular sample container.
In the patent Montgomery teaches a substantially leak-proof and child-resistant combination closure comprising a container and a cap. Figures 1-5 and their associated discussion are directed toward a cap and container with a threaded engagement structure. Figure 6 illustrates a cap/container employing bayonet-type cap retaining means. Figures 7-10 illustrate cap/container structures employing retaining means of the snap-on type. Of particular relevance to the instant claims are figures 9-10 teaching a cap with an external circumference groove (frangible section 29) defining a removable skirt that indicates the container has been opened. Figure 9 in particular shows 2 grooves beneath rims 25c and 33 that engage with inwardly projecting annular snap projections (lip 18c and lip 32) to form the snap-fit structure (see at least column 4, lines 20-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to replace the engagement mechanisms of Spencer or Laugharn with the snap-fit structure taught by Montgomery because Montgomery shows that the snap-fit cap is one of a limited number of known cap types and provides an expectation that it is fully capable of performing the same engagement function of at least a threaded cap structure used by Spencer or Laugharn with the additional benefit that a container that has been opened can be detected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the Montgomery snap-fit cap structure for the snap-fit cap taught by Shapiro because the Montgomery cap is a snap-fit cap structure that clearly performs the intended function and Shapiro teaches a snap-fit cap as the preferred cap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to replace the Horvath snap-fit structure with the Montgomery snap-fit structure because the Montgomery cap is a snap-fit cap structure that clearly performs the intended function and the additional benefit that a container that has been opened can be detected.
Claims 3-9 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record fails to teach the limitation of claim 3 in combination with the limitations of claims 1-2.examiner notes that the Kuo patent (US 4,949,875) teaches grooves 56 on an interior surface of the tube that enhances the uni-directional movement of disc 58. Backward movement of disc 58 is further prevented when the tips of fingers 60 are mated in position with grooves 56 as shown at 62 of figure 3c (see at least figures 3b-3d and column 5, lines 21-38. However Kuo does not teach that the groves constitute a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart retention slots configured to lockingly engage the retention protrusions.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional art of record is directed toward containers of various types.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arlen Soderquist whose telephone number is (571)272-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 1st week Monday-Thursday, 2nd week Monday-Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571)272-1254. 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.
/ARLEN SODERQUIST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights