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 .
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 it exceeds 150 words and includes the improper “said” in lines 3, 7, 11 (twice), 12, 13, 14, 15 (twice), 16 and 17. 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).
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 1, lines 3 and 8, “said container” should be --the container-- to properly indicate its imaginary relationship to the claimed stopper per se. In line 13, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be –at least part of at least one of a bottom wall and a lateral wall--. In line 13 “said tank” and line 17, the tank” is inconsistent with line 5 or lacks antecedent basis for one particular tank. See also claim 2, lines 2,7, 8 and 10, claim 3, lines 2, 22 and 24, claim 4, line 9, claim 7, lines 13-14, claim 15, lines 3 and 10, claim 19, line 12, and claim 20, lines 13 and 14 for the same issue. In claim 1, lines 17-18, “said first open configuration” lacks antecedent basis or is inconsistent with line 17. In line 18, “the first relative position” is inconsistent with line 14 or lacks antecedent basis for “the first relative position”, and in line 20, “the second relative position” is inconsistent with lines 14-15 or lacks antecedent basis for “the second relative position”.
In claim 2, line 7, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and is indefinite as to what preceding and subsequent limitations are being modified thereby. The phrasing should be --determines at least one of a variation of volume of the at least one tank, or wherein the at least one tank…--. In lines 13-14 and 16, “said axial translation” is inconsistent with line 12 or lacks antecedent basis for one particular “axial translation”. In line 14, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be --said first volume is at least one of a maximum volume and said second volume is a minimum volume--.
In claim 3, lines 6, 10, 13 (twice), 14, 16, 17 and 18, “said discharge hole” is inconsistent with line 5 or lacks antecedent basis for one particular “discharge hole”. In lines 11, 13 and 17, “said (or the) closing element” is inconsistent with lines 6-7 or lacks antecedent basis for one particular “closing element”.
In claim 4, line 8, “said at least one discharge hole” lacks antecedent basis from claims 4 or 1.
In claim 5, lines 1, 3, 5, 8 and 9, “said cavity” is inconsistent with claim 4, line 5 or lacks antecedent basis for one particular “said cavity”.
In claim 6, line 3, “the first relative position” is inconsistent with claim 1 or lacks antecedent basis for “the first relative position”, and “the second relative position” is inconsistent with claim 1 or lacks antecedent basis for “the second relative position”.
In line 9, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and is indefinite as to what preceding and subsequent limitations are being modified thereby.
In claim 7, line 2, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be --and-- therefor. In line 6, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be --at least one of at least partially arranged in an orthogonal direction with respect to the main development axis and arranged in an orthogonal direction with respect to the translation axis of the second body with respect to the first body--. In line 9, “the first relative position” is inconsistent with claim 1 or lacks antecedent basis for “the first relative position”, and “the second relative position” is inconsistent with claim 1 or lacks antecedent basis for “the second relative position”.
In claim 9, line 5, “said recess” is inconsistent with line 2 or lacks antecedent basis for one particular “said recess”. In line 6, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be --at least one of a recess substantially identifying a curved profile and housing the at least one discharge hole--.
In claim 10, lines 2 and 5, “the first relative position” and “the second relative position” is inconsistent with claim 1, lines 14 and 15 and each lacks antecedent basis for one particular “relative position”. See also claim 11, line 4. In claim 10, line 4, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be --at least one of an initial snap and through an initial imposition of force …--. See also claim 11, line 3.
In claim 12, lines 1-2, “said at least one first recess” lacks antecedent basis from claim 8. In line 2, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be --has at least one of a substantially elongated shape and at least one main development direction--. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “the relative movement” in line 3, and the claim also recites “the relative rotation” in lines 3-4 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 13, line 4 recites the broad recitation “a movement”, and the claim also recites “a backward movement” in lines 4-5 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In line 6, “said safety or engagement element” is inconsistent with line 2 or lacks antecedent basis for one particular “safety or engagement element”.
In claim 15, line 6 recites the broad recitation “deformable”, and the claim also recites “elastically deformable” in line 6 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In line 11, the “optionally” recitation renders the claim indefinite whether such is being claimed or not. Line 13 recites the broad recitation “friction”, and the claim also recites “sliding friction” in line 13 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In line 14, “the first and the second position” is indefinite how many positions are being defined and should be --the first position and the second position--.
In claim 16, line 4, “the contact” lacks antecedent basis. Also in line 4, “said substance” lacks definition as a limitation and should be --the substance--. In lines 8-9, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be --at least one between a gluing process and a welding process--.
In claim 18, line 7, “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be --at least one of the collection and storage of a sample…--. In line 11, “samples;” should be followed by --and--. In line 15, “said at least one auxiliary device” is inconsistent with lines 14-15 or lacks antecedent basis for more than one particular “auxiliary device”. In line 16, “a cartridge” should be preceded by --and--.
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 1-3, 6-8, 16-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seelhofer (7,896,155). ach discloses a stopper for releasing a substance into a container, comprising a first body (3) configured to be removably engaged on a container, a second body (2) coupled and movable with respect to the first body, at least one tank (8) configured to contain the substance and defined in the first body or between the first body and the second body, wherein the first body comprises at least a first portion (2 and 4 including 14) configured to be directly coupled on a container and comprising a coupling element (14) configured to allow the removable fastening of the stopper in correspondence of an opening of the container defining a first mounting configuration of the stopper on the container wherein the stopper closes the container, a second portion (8, 22) movably connected with the first portion, the second portion realizing at least part of at least one (9 or 18) of a bottom wall and a lateral wall of the at least one tank, the second portion being capable to lie in at least one first relative position (Figure 12) with respect to the first portion and in at least one second relative position (Figure 11) with respect to the first portion, the second portion being directly coupled to the second body, the at least one tank having a first open configuration (Figure 12) and one second closed configuration (Figure 11), the first open configuration being determined by the at least one first relative position (Figure 12) between the first portion and the second portion, the second closed configuration being determined by the at least one second relative position (Figure 11) between the first portion and the second portion.
As to claim 2, Seelhofer discloses the at least one tank (8) has a variable volume to reduce the volume of the at least one tank (see Figure 12), in an axial direction of the stopper and associated container.
As to claims 3 and 8, Seelhofer discloses at least one discharge hole (defined by 10 at 11) and at least one closing element (29).
As to claim 6, Seelhofer discloses the first and second portions being rotatable relative to each other, and a main development axis of the stopper being coincident with the rotation axis of the first and second portions.
As to claim 7, Seelhofer discloses a dividing wall (9) which is deformable and is orthogonal to axes of the stopper and wherein movement of the stopper portions results in deformation of the dividing wall.
As to claim 16, Seelhofer discloses a peelable element (9).
As to claims 17 and 21, Seelhofer discloses the second portion (8, 22) has an engagement portion (21) with the first portion (2 and 4 including 14) to provide constrained movement of the stopper and maintain a centering of the second portion.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darrigrand et al. (2009/0024060)(Figures 6A and 6B) in view of Seelhofer. Seelhofer does not disclose a rod of a device for collecting samples. However, Darrigrand et al. disclose a similar construction device for collecting samples (610) including a rod (650) including a stopper construction (between 631 and 651). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sample collector of Darrigrand et al. with a similar substance exchanging structure in the manner of Seelhofer as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide an improved movement of substance through the sample collector as suggested by Seelhofer.
Claims 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18 and 19 would each be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Dependent claim 20 would also then be allowable.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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 Aviles-Bosques, can be reached on (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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG
