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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/29/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (Claims 1-12 and 15) in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 4 and 8 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 4 recites the limitation “the at least one section of the further end is adapted and arranged to rotate through an angle that is in the range from –90 ° to 90 °” and it is unclear as to how the angle is rotated where no reference point is provided. For the purpose of examination, the angle of rotation is relative to the sidewall of the receptacle. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the at least one protrusion extends a distance yDMIN into an interior volume of the respective receptacle, where DMIN is the minimum diameter of the respective receptacle, where y is in the range from 0.015 to 0.3” and it is unclear if y is a unit of measure or a representation of a ratio. For the purpose of examination, the values are assumed to be a representation of a ratio. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffmann et al. (Hoffmann EP 3,136,109).
1: Hoffmann teaches a structure (structure/rack 20) comprising: a plurality of receptacles (receptacles/inserts 3), wherein a. said receptacles are adapted and arranged for receiving a plurality of containers (capable of receiving unclaimed containers 10); b. each receptacle of the plurality of receptacles including a sidewall (sidewall of 3, comprising 8 and 4, Figure 9) defining an interior of a respective receptacle (interior of each insert 3, Figure 9), wherein i. at least one protrusion is arranged on the sidewall (protrusion 2, bottom of 4, Figure 9) and extends into the interior of the respective receptacle (extends into 3, see Figure 9), ii. the at least one protrusion has a first end (top of 2) and a further end (bottom end of 2), wherein A. the first end is arranged opposite the further end (the first and second ends of 2 are on opposite ends, Figure 9), B. the first end is attached to the sidewall (top of 2 is attached to wall 4, Figure 9); wherein at least one section of the further end (bottom most section of the bottom end of 2) of the at least one protrusion is adapted and arranged to be movable with respect to the sidewall on which the protrusion is arranged (since the bottom end of 2 is a free end, the end is capable of moving/flexing with respect to the sidewall 4).
2: Hoffmann teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Hoffmann further teaches that at least a segment of the at least one protrusion is adapted and arranged to be deformable (the element 2 can flex outwardly when a vessel is introduced into insert 3, paragraph 0050).
3: Hoffmann teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 2 and Hoffmann further teaches that the segment is elastically deformable (elastically flexible, paragraph 0025).
10: Hoffmann teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 2 and Hoffmann further teaches that the at least one protrusion includes at least two protrusions (protrusion indicated at 2 in Figure 2, and the bottom end of 2 protrude in the opposite direction relative to 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. (Hoffmann EP 3,136,109).
5-6: Hoffmann teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Hoffmann further teaches that a force such as restoring force of the compressible material, hook shape, straight shape, which the force required can be modified, according to the material and shape, paragraph 0071 except for the explicit teaching of a force required to remove a container from the respective receptacle is less than or equal to a weight of the structure or a force required to remove a container from the respective receptacle is 1 N or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffmann such that the teaching of a force required to remove a container from the respective receptacle is less than or equal to a weight of the structure or a force required to remove a container from the respective receptacle is 1 N or less were applied since the shape and force required can be modified, in this case to the weight of the structure or the flexibility of the material to require a 1 N or less force provided in order to accommodate an intended container for use with the receptacle and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
8: Hoffmann teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Hoffmann further teaches that the diameter of the protrusions extending into the interior volume can be less than half (see Figure 5) of the radius (r) or less than 25% of the diameter (Figure 6) except for the explicit teaching of the at least one protrusion extends a distance yDMIN into an interior volume of the respective receptacle, where DMIN is the minimum diameter of the respective receptacle, where y is in the range from 0.015 to 0.3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffmann such that the teaching of the at least one protrusion extends a distance yDMIN into an interior volume of the respective receptacle, where DMIN is the minimum diameter of the respective receptacle, where y is in the range from 0.015 to 0.3 were applied since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, MPEP 2144.05.
9: Hoffmann teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 except a maximum thickness of the at least one protrusion is in the range from 0.05 mm to 4 mm.
Hoffmann teaches that thickness rc of body 222 can be smaller than 2 mm, paragraph 0079.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffmann such that the teaching of a maximum thickness of the at least one protrusion is in the range from 0.05 mm to 4 mm were applied since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, MPEP 2144.05.
12, 15: Hoffmann teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 except a plurality of containers at least 20 % filled with a composition, with respect to an interior volume of the respective container and a plurality of container at least partially filled with the composition.
Hoffmann teaches that the containers are capable of receiving liquids or solids, paragraph 0012.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffmann such that the teaching of a plurality of containers at least 20 % filled with a composition and a plurality of container at least partially filled with the composition, with respect to an interior volume of the respective container were applied in order to fill the containers for intended use, e.g. 20% filled with composition.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. (Hoffmann EP 3,136,109) in view of Shermer et al. (Shermer US 10,835,681).
7: Hoffmann teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 except that the at least one protrusion has a modulus of elasticity in the range 0.80 to 3.50 GPa.
Shermer teaches that the stopper, which has a plurality of protrusions which is made of a material with elastic modulus between about 0.01 and 5 GPa, col. 9, ll. 1-13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffmann such that the teaching of the at least one protrusion has a modulus of elasticity in the range 0.80 to 3.50 GPa were applied in order to provide a lower coefficient of friction and contact area/pressure in order to permit containers received within the receptacles to be inserted and withdrawn when needed and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. (Hoffmann EP 3,136,109) in view of Weikart et al. (Weikart US 11,654,046).
11: Hoffmann teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Hoffmann teaches the containers are capable of receiving liquids or solids, paragraph 0012 except a plurality of containers containing less than 0.1 ml of a composition.
Weikart teaches that the volume of the liquid composition can be 0.1 ml, col. 24, ll. 40-43.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffmann such that the teaching of a plurality of containers containing less than 0.1 ml of a composition were applied since the containers of Hoffmann were capable of use with compositions such as liquid or solids.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KING M CHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272 - 4561. 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.
/King M Chu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights