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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 17 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach the newly added limitations. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gonzalez (US 8172832).
Examiner notes Applicant has noted claim 8 as being amended but is not reflected in the submitted claims. Examiner has updated the interpretation of claim 8 to be in line what would be intended and asks Applicant to amend claim 8 upon submission of the next set of claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the first axis” in line 4 appears to be a typographical error. 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 8 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.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “said upper surface of the pedestal does not lie in a plane” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how an object would not have a plane since all objects that have dimensions should have theoretical planes that run through the device in different directions. In an effort to compact prosecution the limitation is interpreted to read -- said upper surface of the pedestal is not a planar surface.—
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 1-6, 10-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzalez (US 8172832).
Regarding claim 1, Gonzalez discloses an article comprising
a canister (20) having a body (body of canister, figure 1) and configured for use in autologous fat transfer (col 4, lines 17-22) and having a first central axis (central axis of the container), the body comprising:
a side wall (22);
a bottom (50, col 3, lines 47-57) having an inner surface inclined with respect (56 is inclined) to the first central axis and a drain (54) formed therein at the first central axis (figure 1-2),
wherein the side wall and the bottom define a volume of the canister (figure 1, interior volume of canister),
wherein the volume of the canister includes a lower volume limited by the inner surface and a plane that is substantially normal to the first central axis and that passes through an upper-most point of the inner surface (volume encompassed by 56),
wherein the volume of the canister includes an upper volume limited by said plane and an upper edge of the side wall (volume extending from top of canister to the funnel);
an outlet port (30), figure 1) attached to the body; and
a tubular body (58) having a second axis and configured to connect the drain and an outlet port, wherein the second axis is tilted with respect to the first central axis (figure 1, col 3, lines 50-60);
wherein the article is devoid of a component configured to stir contents of the canister (figure 1, no mixing component).
Regarding claim 2, Gonzalez discloses the article is devoid of a filter configured to filter out a portion of the contents of the canister upon removal from the outlet port (there is no filter, figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Gonzalez discloses wherein a third axis of the outlet port (the outlet port has multiple axis including one that would intersect and go through the page and through the outlet port walls) is inclined with respect to the first axis (into the page axis inclined with respect to the first axis.
Regarding claim 4, Gonzalez discloses the inner surface is a first substantially conical surface (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Gonzalez discloses wherein an outer surface of the side wall is a second substantially conical surface (figure 1, outer wall tapers to form a conical shape), and wherein the first substantially conical surface is substantially centered at the central axis (figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Gonzalez discloses wherein the body further comprises a base (bottom of the container) that is circumferential to the first axis (figures 1-2) and that engages the side wall below the bottom (figure 1), wherein the outlet port is attached to the base at a level that is farther away from the upper edge than a level of the drain (figure 1), the drain located at a center of the bottom (figure 1).
Regarding claim 10 and 18, Gonzalez discloses the article is substantially optically transparent (figure 2, notches on the sidewall to measure volume means the device is optically transparent, fluid readily seen in the figure).
Regarding claim 11, Gonzalez discloses an article of manufacture comprising:
a canister (20) having a body (body of canister, figure 1) and configured for use in autologous fat transfer (col 4, lines 17-22) and having a first central axis (central axis of the container), the body comprising:
a side wall (22);
a bottom (50, col 3, lines 47-57) having an inner surface inclined with respect (56 is inclined) to the first central axis;
wherein the side wall and the bottom define a volume of the canister (figure 1, interior volume of canister),
a top (70) removably engaged with the side wall to create a first seal with the side wall (figure 1-2, col 3, lines 60-65);
a base (25 and bottom of 22) having a base wall (28) with a base height (wall extending up to the funnel), the base wall being circumferential to the first central axis and engaging the side wall below the bottom (figure 2);
an outlet port (30) attached directly to the base in fluid communication with the volume (figure 2); and
a tubular body (58) configured below the bottom to fluidly connect the inner surface and the outlet port, the tubular body having a second axis that is tilted with respect to the first central axis (figure 1, col 3, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 12, Gonzalez discloses wherein a lower edge of the base wall defines a base aperture (figure 1) leading to a base volume limited by an outer surface of the bottom and the base wall (area between the outer surface of the bottom and the base wall), and wherein the tubular body is substantially completely disposed within the base volume (figure 1, the tubular body is in the base volume).
Regarding claim 13, Gonzalez discloses wherein the first and second axes intersect (figure 1, central axis intersects with the second axis).
Regarding claim 14, Gonzalez discloses wherein the volume of the canister includes a lower volume limited by the inner surface and a plane that is substantially normal to the first axis and that passes through an upper-most point of the inner surface (volume above the bottom of the canister while also below the normal plane passing through the upper most point of the inner surface), wherein the volume of the canister includes an upper volume limited by said plane and an upper edge of the side wall (volume above the bottom of the canister and below the top of the canister).
Regarding claim 15, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the outlet port is attached to the base at a level that is farther away from the upper edge than a level of the drain (figure 1, the outlet port is lower than the drain).
Regarding claim 16, Gonzalez further discloses the article is devoid of a component configured to stir contents of the canister (figure 1).
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 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.
Claims 7-9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez in view of Hamstrom (US 20200182757).
Regarding claim 7-8, Gonzalez does not disclose wherein: the base includes an upper base portion merging with the side wall and a pedestal portion that merges with the upper base portion and that has a diameter exceeding a diameter of the upper base portion, and/or a first thickness of a wall of the base and a second thickness of the side wall are substantially equal to one another and remain substantially the same at any location at the article of manufacture, wherein an upper surface of the pedestal is dimensioned substantially as an annulus.
Hamstrom further teaches includes a base (130, figure 2, [0025]) an upper base portion (tapering upper portion that meets with the side wall 110) merging with the side wall and a pedestal portion (most bottom portion of the base) that merges with the upper base portion and that has a diameter exceeding a diameter of the upper base portion (figure 2), the upper surface of the pedestal is an annulus (figure 2).
Hamstrom provides a base to enhance stability ([0025]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify/substitute the base of Gonzalez with the base of Hamstrom in order to enhance stability ([0025]). Further, both bases appear to be functionally equivalent and would perform normally with the substituted base.
Regarding claim 9, Gonzalez does not disclose wherein an outer surface of the base contains an opening therethrough or a notch dimensioned to substantially fully accommodate the outlet port therein to prevent the outlet port from protruding outside the outer surface while not obstructing the outlet port from being accessed and/or cooperated with the tubular body.
Hamstrom teaches wherein an outer surface of the base contains an opening therethrough or a notch dimensioned to substantially fully accommodate the outlet port (figures 1-3, the base has opening to accommodate the port that outlets) therein to prevent the outlet port from protruding outside the outer surface while not obstructing the outlet port from being accessed and/or cooperated with the tubular body (the port does not protrude from the outer surface and is accessed without issue, [0044]).
Hamstrom provides a tubular body through a base of the container in order to prevent leakage of material. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify Gonzalez with the location of the port through the base wall of Hamstrom in order to prevent leakage of material ([0044]).
Regarding claim 17, Gonzalez does not disclose wherein an outer surface of the base contains an opening therethrough or a notch dimensioned to substantially fully accommodate the outlet port therein to prevent the outlet port from protruding outside the outer surface while, at the same time, not obstructing the outlet port from being accessed and/or cooperated with the tubular body.
Hamstrom teaches wherein an outer surface of the base contains an opening therethrough or a notch dimensioned to substantially fully accommodate the outlet port (figures 1-3, the base has opening to accommodate the port that outlets) therein to prevent the outlet port from protruding outside the outer surface while not obstructing the outlet port from being accessed and/or cooperated with the tubular body (the port does not protrude from the outer surface and is accessed without issue, [0044]).
Hamstrom provides a tubular body through a base of the container in order to prevent leakage of material. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify Gonzalez with the location of the port through the base wall of Hamstrom in order to prevent leakage of material ([0044]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez in view of Satish (US 2017/0184442).
Regarding claim 19, Gonzalez teach the limitations of claim 11, and Gonzalez further discloses:
the thicknesses of the side wall and the base wall be substantially equal to one another and unchanged across the side all and the base wall (figure 1, the thickness is the same), respectively
maintain a lipoaspirate matter contained within the volume of the canister without agitation to have said lipoaspirate matter separate into an unwanted fluid component in contact with the inner surface of the bottom and a fat component on top of the unwanted fluid component (figures 1-3, col 4, lines 43-51)
extracting the unwanted fluid component through the outlet port along the second axis (col 4, lines 50-57, figure 4);
detecting a remainder of debris or foreign material in the volume through walls of the article substantially in every orientation of the article (the walls of the canister are transparent so the detecting is naturally occurring); and
if detected, removing said remainder of the debris or foreign material from the volume before continued use of the article (use can decide to remove and adjust the contents using the syringe or pathway 108, col 4, lines 50-60).
Gonzalez and Hamstrom does not teach molded as a single-piece article.
Satish discloses a canister for fluid relatively pertinent to problem posed by Applicant of storing fluid. Satish teaches the canister and along with the aspects of the canister is made unitary molded polymer material ([0023]).
Satish teaches a suitable method of manufacturing that allows of the device to operate ([0023]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify the cited prior art to properly manufacture the device since it has been held that making integral one piece construction is a matter of obvious engineering choice MPEP 2144.04 VB).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI H WENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5852. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
KAI H. WENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/KAI H WENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781