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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/28/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 7 says, “a purality of holes…” however in lines 10-11 the applicant says “the plurality of holes”. 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.
Claim 29 is 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 29 recites the limitation "the alignment features" in lines 2-3 of claim 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 29, 32-35, and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,394,086. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim an apparatus comprising: a top lid having a major opening, wherein the top lid includes a hinged end and a snap-fit end; and a bottom-cap hingedly attached to the top lid so as to move between an open configuration and closed configuration, the bottom-cap comprising an upper side and a lower side, wherein the upper side comprises: a purality of holes in the bottom-cap, each hole comprising a passage between a top opening and bottom opening in the bottom-cap and each hole being disposed adjacent a corresponding opening of the top lid, and at least one auxiliary port having an opening larger than each top opening of the plurality of holes to facilitate fluid-injection of a reagent therethrough when the top lid and bottom-cap are in the closed configuration; wherein the lower side of the bottom-cap comprises: a lower side main surface; and an outermost edge extending downward from the lower side main surface.
Claims 21, 29, 32-35, and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,273,062. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teach an apparatus comprising: a top lid having a major opening, wherein the top lid includes a hinged end and a snap-fit end; and a bottom-cap hingedly attached to the top lid so as to move between an open configuration and closed configuration, the bottom-cap comprising an upper side and a lower side, wherein the upper side comprises: a plurality of holes in the bottom-cap, each hole comprising a passage between a top opening and bottom opening in the bottom-cap and each hole being disposed adjacent a corresponding opening of the top lid, and at least one auxiliary port having an opening larger than each top opening of the plurality of holes to facilitate fluid-injection of a reagent therethrough when the top lid and bottom-cap are in the closed configuration; wherein the lower side of the bottom-cap comprises: a lower side main surface; and an outermost edge extending downward from the lower side main surface.
Claims 21 and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,053,053. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teach an apparatus comprising: a top lid having a major opening, wherein the top lid includes a hinged end and a snap-fit end; and a bottom-cap hingedly attached to the top lid so as to move between an open configuration and closed configuration, the bottom-cap comprising an upper side and a lower side, wherein the upper side comprises: a plurality of holes in the bottom-cap, each hole comprising a passage between a top opening and bottom opening in the bottom-cap and each hole being disposed adjacent a corresponding opening of the top lid, and at least one auxiliary port having an opening larger than each top opening of the plurality of holes to facilitate fluid-injection of a reagent therethrough when the top lid and bottom-cap are in the closed configuration; wherein the lower side of the bottom-cap comprises: a lower side main surface; and an outermost edge extending downward from the lower side main surface.
Claims 21, 32-35, and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-10, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teach an apparatus comprising: a top lid having a major opening, wherein the top lid includes a hinged end and a snap-fit end; and a bottom-cap hingedly attached to the top lid so as to move between an open configuration and closed configuration, the bottom-cap comprising an upper side and a lower side, wherein the upper side comprises: a plurality of holes in the bottom-cap, each hole comprising a passage between a top opening and bottom opening in the bottom-cap and each hole being disposed adjacent a corresponding opening of the top lid, and at least one auxiliary port having an opening larger than each top opening of the plurality of holes to facilitate fluid-injection of a reagent therethrough when the top lid and bottom-cap are in the closed configuration; wherein the lower side of the bottom-cap comprises: a lower side main surface; and an outermost edge extending downward from the lower side main surface.
Claims 21, 22, 24-27, 31-36, and 38-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,525. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teach an apparatus comprising: a top lid having a major opening, wherein the top lid includes a hinged end and a snap-fit end; and a bottom-cap hingedly attached to the top lid so as to move between an open configuration and closed configuration, the bottom-cap comprising an upper side and a lower side, wherein the upper side comprises: a plurality of holes in the bottom-cap, each hole comprising a passage between a top opening and bottom opening in the bottom-cap and each hole being disposed adjacent a corresponding opening of the top lid, and at least one auxiliary port having an opening larger than each top opening of the plurality of holes to facilitate fluid-injection of a reagent therethrough when the top lid and bottom-cap are in the closed configuration; wherein the lower side of the bottom-cap comprises: a lower side main surface; and an outermost edge extending downward from the lower side main surface.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,054,320. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teach an apparatus comprising: a top lid having a major opening, wherein the top lid includes a hinged end and a snap-fit end; and a bottom-cap hingedly attached to the top lid so as to move between an open configuration and closed configuration, the bottom-cap comprising an upper side and a lower side, wherein the upper side comprises: a plurality of holes in the bottom-cap, each hole comprising a passage between a top opening and bottom opening in the bottom-cap and each hole being disposed adjacent a corresponding opening of the top lid, and at least one auxiliary port having an opening larger than each top opening of the plurality of holes to facilitate fluid-injection of a reagent therethrough when the top lid and bottom-cap are in the closed configuration; wherein the lower side of the bottom-cap comprises: a lower side main surface; and an outermost edge extending downward from the lower side main surface.
Conclusion
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 5 February 2026