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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 19, 20, and 22-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has argued that reference to Guadagno does not meet the limitations of claim 1. After reviewing the reference, the Examiner has found Applicant’s arguments to be persuasive. However, the claims now stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Rosenthal et al., (US 5,516,487) in view of Dai et al., (US 2006/0246598) who in combination teach all the limitations of the instant claims. Because reference to Rosenthal et al., is newly cited, the Examiner will not argue the merits of its teachings here, but will instead rely on the rejection detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
For claim 1, the Examiner notes that the punch is not a structural element of the support as it is not claimed a part of the support. As such, the punch will be given the approriate patentable weight. The Examiner also notes that the phrases "suitable for," "aimed at," and "destined to," denotes functional limitations that only describes how the support is intended to be utilized, and does not impart structure to the claimed support.
For claim 1, the phrase "when absorbed on said first part" is a conditional limitation that is not required to occur. As such, the conditional limitation will not be given patentable weight.
For claims 4, 5, 24, and 25, the phrase "in operating conditions" is interpreted as a conditional limitation as it only describes the configuration of the support when the support is being utilized.
For claims 19 and 20, the second part being "aimed at" collecting a sample does not provide a further structural limitation of the device. Additionally, it is unclear if "aimed at collecting a sample" indicates an intended use limitation, or a process limitation in a claim directed to a device.
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) 1, 3-7, 19, 20, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenthal et al., (US 5,516,487) in view of Dai et al., (US 2006/0246598).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 19, and 20 Rosenthal et al., teach an absorbent paper for collecting samples comprising an absorbent paper (column 2 lines 28-30, column 4 lines 31-32) comprising plurality of sample zones (first and second parts, column 4 lines 31-36, figure 1, circles shown at #11), and a third part between the first and second parts (area between circles, figure 1 #20) wherein the third part is provided with a slit (column 4 lines 37-38, 46-47). Rosenthal et al., do not teach a sample zone comprising a preservative chemical.
Dai et al., teach a device for sample collection and analysis comprising an absorbent transfer material having a preservative (paragraphs 0008, 0009, 0015). Dai et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide an absorbent comprising a preservative as a means of protecting against decay, discoloration, or spoilage of a sample (paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Guadagno wherein the absorbent paper comprises a preservative in order to protect against decay, discoloration, or spoilage as taught by Dai et al.
Regarding claims 3, 22, and 23, Rosenthal et al., teach a continuous absorbent made of paper (column 2 lines 28-30, column 4 lines 31-32, figure 1 #10).
Regarding claim 6, Rosenthal et al., teach a plurality of slits (column 4 lines 37-38, 46-47, figure 1 #11).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 24, and 25, Rosenthal et al., do not teach an external containing body. The Examiner notes that the limitations regarding operating conditions are conditional and not required to occur.
Dai et al., teach a device for sample collection comprising a housing having top and bottom portions (paragraph 0047, figure 1 #’s 122, 124). Dai et al., also teach the top portion of the housing having an opening (figure 1 #128). The Examiner is reading this combination as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a housing as a means of protecting the absorbent paper after a sample is applied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rosenthal et al., in view of Dai et al., wherein the absorbent paper is placed inside a housing as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797