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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Two abstracts which are different from each other one being a prelimanry amendment and the other being a National Phase Pct which has the term “means” recited. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 3-8, and 10-12 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Suzuki 5666709.
Suzuki discloses the claimed invention as recited in the claims as shown below:
Claim 1 (Currently Amended): A holder for a single capillary tube,8 which at thereo4 at a distance from each other configured to receive one endthereof a handl(this is outside of housing 8) with an elongated planar areis-beingconnected to the elongated carriewherein_the elongated carriecomprisess a planar area diameter of tube the elongated carrier has an elongated sli 5 orming two opposite arms 4 wherein comprises a marking field(this is any available space to stick a label)configured for applying informationandwherein the marking field elongated carrie
Claim 2 (Currently Amended): The holderThe holderwherein_an inscribed label
Claim 3 (Currently Amended): The holderwherein the elongated carrierandwherein the slitSee Fig.1
Claim 4 (Currently Amended): The holderwhereinon their opposite inner sides thereof, the arms (12, 13) have grooves (20), and wherein a width of the grooves 5 a diameter of the capillary tube
Claim 5 (Currently Amended): The holderwherein_the slitandwherein 4-the slit tapers toward one endelongated carrieThe applicant does not show a true trapezoidal and therefore the taper shown by applicant is a taper shown in the prior art.
Claim 6 (Currently Amended): The holderan end thereoelongated carriethe sli1000 with a main ar
PNG
media_image1.png
726
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 (Currently Amended): The holderwherein the armselongated carrie2000 on thereo
PNG
media_image2.png
726
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 (Currently Amended): The holderwhereinof the holder are such that P-the holder is insertableThis is true of object because of dimension and size can be anything.
Claim 9 (Currently Amended): The holderwherein_the carriecomprises a plastic that is processable with 3D printing.
Claim 10 (Currently Amended): A collecting devicetheclaim 1. comprising:aving arranged therein a plurality of receiving slits(are going to be the sides around opening 6) re placeable in the through openings
Claim 11 (Currently Amended): he collecting devic02The two slits at the top of opening 6 are in two different rows
Claim 12 (Currently Amended): he collecting devics storable in a boxThe object of rejection is a 3D object and is storable in a box.
Claim 13 (Currently Amended): he collecting devicclaim 10comprises a plastic that processable with 3D printing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki 5666709 in view of Levine et al 6581973.
Suzuki discloses the claimed invention except a label.
Levine et al discloses device for marking such as a label (Col. 4, line 54-58) and It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Suzuki device by providing a label which marks the device to identifiy it how ever you want which would yield the predictable result of marking for identication. KSR
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki 5666709 .
Suzuki discloses the claimed invention except the process of making the device using a 3D printer.
This is a product by process claim which states if you have a device then a known process such as using a manufacture device would be known such as a 3-D printer and this is obvious based on product by process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The 892 form discloses prior art being made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
LEE D. WILSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
Ldw
/LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 March 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights