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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/4/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the product cannot be made by a materially different process. This is not found persuasive because the product can be made using over molding, welding or co-extrusion processes. Furthermore the different inventions require searching in different areas, different search techniques and different search queries that would place un undue burned on the examiner
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kemeny et al. (US-20220017255-A1).
Kemeny discloses:
1. A multilayered container (30) comprising: a storage region configured to contain one or more substances (par. 0001); and one or more walls (20) defining the storage region, each wall comprising: a first layer (21) configured to provide a liquid barrier to the storage region, wherein the first layer comprises a high-density polyethylene material (pars. 0120, 0050); a second layer (22) configured to provide a gaseous barrier to the storage region, wherein the second layer comprises an ethyl vinyl alcohol material (par. 0121); and a third layer (23) configured to provide rigidity to the one or more walls, wherein the first layer is an innermost layer of each wall, the third layer is an outermost layer of each wall, and the second layer is between the first layer and the third layer (Fig. 3), wherein the one or more walls do not comprise a fluorinated polyethylene material.
3. The multilayered container of claim 1 wherein the first layer constitutes 5% to 60% of a thickness of each wall, wherein the second layer constitutes 5% to 50% of the thickness of each wall, and wherein the third layer constitutes 5% to 50% of the thickness of each wall (par. 0051).
4. The multilayered container of claim 3, wherein each wall further comprises: a fourth layer between the first layer and the third layer (par. 0053), wherein the fourth layer constitutes 5% to 30% of the thickness of the multilayered container (par. 0054).
5. The multilayered container of claim 4, wherein the fourth layer does not comprise an adhesive material (par. 0123).
6. The multilayered container of claim 1, wherein the third layer comprises at least one of a high-density polyethylene material or a low-density polyethylene material (pars. 0120, 0049, 0050).
7. The multilayered container of claim 6, wherein the first layer and the third layer prevent degradation of the second layer (Fig. 3).
8. The multilayered container of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise at least one of a polar solvent or a non-polar solvent (par. 0001).
9. A multilayered container (30) comprising: a storage region configured to contain one or more substances (par. 0001); and one or more walls (20) defining the storage region, each wall comprising: a first layer (21) configured to provide a liquid barrier to the storage region; a second layer (22) configured to provide a gaseous barrier to the storage region; and a third layer (23) configured to provide rigidity to the one or more walls, wherein the first layer is an innermost layer of each wall, the third layer is an outermost layer of each wall, and the second layer is between the first layer and the third layer (Fig. 3), wherein the one or more walls do not comprise a fluorinated polyethylene material.
10. The multilayered container of claim 9,f wherein the first layer constitutes 5% to 60% of a thickness of the multilayered container, wherein the second layer constitutes 5% to 50% of the thickness of the multilayered container, and wherein the third layer constitutes 5% to 50% of the thickness of the multilayered container (par. 0051).
11. The multilayered container of claim 10, further comprising: a fourth layer between the first layer and the third layer (par. 0053), wherein the fourth layer constitutes 5% to 30% of the thickness of the multilayered container (par. 0054).
12. The multilayered container of claim 11, wherein the thickness of the multilayered container is up to 10 millimeters (par. 0051).
13. The multilayered container of claim 9, wherein the first layer and the third layer comprise a polyethylene material (pars. 0120, 0050).
15. The multilayered container of claim 9, wherein the one or more substances comprise one or more pathology reagents (par. 0001).
16. The multilayered container of claim 15, wherein the one or more pathology reagents comprise at least one of aldehydes, hematoxylin, alcohols, xylenes, or oxidizing agents (par. 0001).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny et al. (US-20220017255-A1) in view of Slat et al. (US-6524672-B1).
Kemeny discloses all the claimed limitations a shown above wherein each wall further comprises a fourth layer, wherein the fourth layer is between the first layer and the third layer (par. 0123).
Kemeny fails to teach the fourth layer comprising a nylon material.
Slat teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture additional layers in wall structure with nylon (col. 5, lines 27-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container with nylon, in order to provide additional characteristics to the container.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny et al. (US-20220017255-A1) in view of Swift et al. (US-20080318182-A1).
Kemeny discloses all the claimed limitations a shown above but fails to teach wherein the storage region has a volume within a range of 1 liter to 5.5 liters.
Swift teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a container with a volume within a range of 1 liter to 5.5 liters (par. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container the claimed volume, in order to adjust for situations in hic more material is needed and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights