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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 13, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Esnault et al. (U.S. 2024/0416029).
Regarding claim 1, Esnault et al. teaches a nest 10 (figure 1) comprising a planar base at 19 forming a plurality of openings 18, and a plurality of tubular members 20 extending longitudinally from the planar base (figure 4), wherein each of the plurality of tubular members 20 has a side wall at 20 (figure 4) defining a well in communication with an opening of the plurality of openings (figure 4), each of the plurality of tubular members includes at least one bottom wall (radially inwardly extending portion at lead line 25; figure 4) extending laterally from a bottom portion of the side wall, an upper portion of the side wall of each of the plurality of tubular members has a counterbore at 24 extending from the opening at a first angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the tubular member at 27, the counterbore of each of the plurality of tubular members has an inner surface defining a continuous circumference or perimeter (continuous above 26 figure 4). The side wall of each of the plurality of tubular members continuously tapers between the counterbore at 24 and the bottom wall (continuous taper below 27 and bottom wall at lead line 25; figure 4) at a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tubular member, the second angle being less than the first angle (figure 4), and an entirety of an inner surface of the side wall of each of the plurality of tubular members is devoid of ribs between the opening and the at least one bottom wall (there are no ribs between opening and the bottom wall; figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, the side wall extends completely around the wells and defines a circular profile or perimeter extending from the opening to the at least one bottom wall (see figure 2A).
Regarding claim 9, Esnault et al. teaches a system comprising a plurality of containers (syringes) enclosing a medical or cosmetic substance, the nest 10 described above, receiving the plurality of containers (syringes) in the plurality of tubular members 20, and a tub (“tub”; paragraph [0007]) receiving the nest.
Regarding claim 21, the at least one bottom wall defines a circular central opening (defined by 28; figure 4).
Regarding claim 24, Esnault et al. teaches a nest 10 (figure 1) comprising a planar base 19 forming a plurality of openings 18, and a plurality of tubular members at 20 extending longitudinally from the planar base (figure 4), wherein each of the plurality of tubular members at 20 has a side wall at 20 defining a well in communication with an opening of the plurality of openings (figure 4), each of the plurality of tubular members includes at least one bottom wall (shown generally at lead line 25) extending laterally from a bottom portion of the side wall (bottom wall extends radially inwardly from inner surface of side wall), an upper portion at 24 of the side wall at 20 of each of the plurality of tubular members has a counterbore at 24 extending from the opening at a first angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the tubular member, the counterbore at 24 of each of the plurality of tubular members has an inner surface defining a continuous circumference or perimeter (continuous in the annular direction), and the side wall at 20 of each of the plurality of tubular members continuously tapers between the counterbore at 24 and the bottom wall (at lead line 25) at a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tubular member, the second angle being less than the first angle (figure 4).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esnault et al. (U.S. 2024/0416029).
Regarding claim 2, Esnault et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the angle of the counterbore being about 10° to about 20° relative to the longitudinal axis of the tubular member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the nest of Esnault et al. with the angle of the counterbore being about 10° to about 20° relative to the longitudinal axis of the tubular member, in order to conform with a syringe having a similar angle, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Esnault et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second angle being about 0.25° to about 2°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the nest of Esnault et al. with the second angle being about 0.25° to about 2°, in order to conform with a syringe having a similar angle, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esnault et al. (U.S. 2024/0416029) in view of Koman et al. (DE 102018111491A1).
Regarding claim 5, Esnault et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the cutouts of the bottom wall. Koman et al. teaches that it is known to provide a tubular member with a bottom wall having cutouts (see element 22; figure 1e). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the nest of Esnault et al. with the bottom wall of Koman et al., in order to secure the lower portion of the syringe in the well and in order to receive containers having different diameters.
Regarding claim 6, each of the extension cutouts (element 22 of Koman et al.) includes a curved lateral side that approximates a curvature of the inner surface of the side wall (figure 1b of Koman et al.).
Claims 10-13, 16-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narvekar et al. (WO 2018/020505A1) in view of Koman et al. (DE 102018111491A1).
Regarding claim 10, Narvekar et al. teaches a nest 1 comprising a planar base 10 forming a plurality of openings (figure 1e), and a plurality of tubular members at 32 extending longitudinally from the planar base 10, wherein each of the plurality tubular members 32 has a side wall at lead line 32 (figure 1e) defining a well in communication with an opening of the plurality of openings (figure 1e), and an inner surface of an upper portion of the side wall of each of the plurality of tubular members is a continuously curved surface extending from the opening (figure 1c) to a side wall of the plurality of tubular members, the continuously curved surface being defined by at least three radii of curvature (at lead lines 66, 67, 68).
Further regarding claim 10, Narvekar et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the bottom wall. Koman et al. teaches that it is known to provide a tubular member with a bottom wall (see element 22; figure 1e). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the nest of Narvekar et al. with the bottom wall of Koman et al., in order to secure the lower portion of the syringe in the well.
Regarding claim 11, the series of radii of curvature includes a first radius of curvature at 66, a second radius of curvature (between 66 and 67), and a third radius of curvature at 67.
Regarding claim 12, the first radius of curvature at 66 defines a convex first portion of an inner surface of the side wall (figure 1e), the second radius of curvature (between 66 and 67) defines a concave second portion of the inner surface of the side wall (figure 1e), and the third radius of curvature at 67 defines a convex third portion of the inner surface of the side wall (figure 1e).
Regarding claim 13, Narvekar et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the cylindrical portion extending downwardly from the upper portion at an angle of about 0.25° to about 2° relative to a longitudinal axis of the tubular member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the nest of Narvekar et al. with the cylindrical portion extending downwardly from the upper portion at an angle of about 0.25° to about 2° relative to a longitudinal axis of the tubular member, in order to conform with a syringe having a similar angle, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, the at least one bottom wall includes a plurality of bottom walls (22 of Koman et al.) formed by a circular central opening and a plurality of extension cutouts.
Regarding claim 17, each of the extension cutouts (22 of Koman et al.) includes a curved lateral side that approximates a curvature of the inner surface (figure 1b of Koman et al.).
Regarding claim 18, for each of the tubular members, an entirety of the inner surface of the side wall is devoid of ribs between the opening and the at least one bottom wall (figure 1e of Narvekar et al.).
Regarding claim 19, the side wall extends completely around the wells and defines a circular profile or perimeter extending from the opening to the at least one bottom wall (figure 1e of Narvekar et al.).
Regarding claim 20, Narvekar et al. teaches a system, shown in figure 2a, comprising a plurality of containers (medical vials) enclosing a medical or cosmetic substance, the nest of claim 10 (described above) receiving the plurality of containers in the plurality of tubular members, and a tub 3a receiving the nest (figure 2a).
Regarding claim 22, the at least one bottom wall defines a circular central opening (as modified by Koman et al.; figure 3g).
Regarding claim 23 the first portion is at lead line 66, the second portion is the concave portion between lead lines 66 and 67 and the third portion is at lead line 67.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that LeLoch et al. does not teach a tubular member that continuously tapers between the counterbore and the bottom wall at a second angle. The new primary reference of Esnault et al. (U.S. 2024/0416029) has been applied in the rejections of 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 21 and 24, above. Esnault et al. teaches a tubular member at 20 which continuously tapers between the counterbore at 24 and the bottom wall at lead line 25, as shown in figure 4.
Applicant argues that Narvekar et al. does not teach that the upper portion of the tubular members is continuously curved surface extending from the opening to a side wall of the plurality of tubular members. It is the examiner’s position that Narvekar meets this limitation of claim 10. Specifically, and in reference to the annotated figure 1c provided by applicant in the response filed July 24, 2026, Narvekar teaches a first radius at the “curved surface”, a second radius at the juncture between the upper “straight surface” and the “curved surface” and a third radius at the juncture between the lower “straight surface” and the “curved surface”. These surfaces are considered continuous in the annular direction and axial direction.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights