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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 08/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-17 and 19-24 remain pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/26/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “dispensing device configured to dispense an inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the
laboratory sample container” in claim 14,
• “sterilizing device configured to sterilize the laboratory sample container” in claim 19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this instant case, the corresponding structure for:
the “dispensing device” is being interpreted as a device that is designed to release a specific amount of a fluid (paragraph 0058) comprises a roller pump 142 (Fig. 3 and paragraph 0114) and equivalents thereof;
the “sterilizing device” is being interpreted as a device that can perform sterilization through heat, chemicals, irradiation, high pressure, and filtration (paragraphs 0061) or an UV light source (paragraph 0116) and the equivalents thereof.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 13 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111808736A)(provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 06/26/2026) in view of Naccarato et al. (US 6617146 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a preanalytic system, comprising
a cap gripper (clamping airbag 9) and a cutting device (scissors 13).
Wang teaches a swab sampling system that comprises a capping and cutting system for swab. Wang teaches the system comprises clamping airbag 9 (cap gripper) is pressurized and depressurized to clamp and release the cap of sample tube 10-1 (paras. 0040 and 0045), respectively, but Wang does not teach the cap gripper comprising two or more gripper fingers.
However, Naccarato teaches a swab processing apparatus. Naccarato teaches a cap gripper (manipulator 11) for clamping and releasing a sample container cap. Naccarato further teaches the cap gripper comprise clamp with two gripper fingers (Fig 4A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the clamping air bag 9 taught by Wang with the clamp with two gripper fingers as taught by Naccarato (Fig. 4, manipulator 11) because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized a clamp with two gripper finger would result in the predictable result of providing releasable clamping of the cap of a sample container, and simple substitution of one known element (clamping airbag) for another element (clamp with two gripper fingers) is likely to be obvious when predictable results (clamping the cap of a sample container) are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The teachings of Wang in view of Naccarato teaches the cap gripper (Naccarato, clamp with two gripper fingers) comprising two gripper fingers configured to grip a cap of a laboratory sample container (Wang, para. 0040 and Naccarato, Fig. 4A), wherein the cap is connected to a rod of a swab located within the laboratory sample container (the laboratory sample container and cap are not positively recited. since this limitation is directed to the cap, the limitation does not further structurally limit the invention), wherein the cap gripper is further configured to release the cap from the laboratory sample container while the cap is gripped by the gripper fingers (interpreted as an functional limitation. Wang, para. 0040 and Naccarato, Fig. 4A, the cap gripper is structurally capable of gripping a cap).
Wang further teaches the cutting device (scissors 13) configured to cut the rod of the swab when the cap is in a position released from the laboratory sample container while the cap is gripped by the gripper fingers (interpreted as functional limitation. para. 0042, scissors 13 is capable of cutting a swab rod when the cap is released from the sample container and the cap is gripped by the gripper fingers), wherein the cutting device (scissors 13) is rotatable, pivotable, or linearly moveable relative to the cap gripper (para. 0041-0042, cutting assembly is rotated to cut swab sample), and wherein the cutting device is selected from the group consisting of a laser, a cutting wire, and a cutting knife (scissors 13, which is interpreted as two cutting knives),
wherein the gripper fingers are configured to grip the cap at an outer circumferential surface thereof (i) when the cap is released from the laboratory sample container and (ii) when the rod of the swab is cut (interpreted as a functional limitation. Wang, para. 0040 and Naccarato, Fig. 4A, the gripper fingers are structurally capable of gripping the cap at an outer circumferential surface under both (i) and (ii) conditions),
wherein the cutting device is moveable relative to the cap gripper between a first position (the position as shown in Fig. 1 of Wang), in which the cutting device is retracted away from the rod of the swab (Wang, Fig. 1), and a second position (working position when the blades of scissors13 are separate between cutting; working position is above tube 10-1) (Wang, para. 0041-42; the blades of scissors13 are movable relative the cap gripper as the blades separate and come together to cut the swab), in which the cutting device is located adjacent the cap gripped by the gripper fingers (“adjacent” is a broad, scissors 13 is located adjacent to the cap gripper) such that the swab together with the cut rod remains located within the laboratory sample container (Wang, para. 0042, the swab falls completely into the sample tube).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Wang further teaches wherein the cap gripper (Wang’s clamping airbag 9 modified to clamp with two gripper fingers as taught by Naccarato, Fig 4A, manipulator 11) is further configured to release the cap from the laboratory sample container with the swab remaining located within the laboratory sample container (interpreted as a functional limitation. Wang, paras. 0040-0042 and Naccarato, Figs. 2, 4A-4B, the cap gripper is structurally capable performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Wang further teaches wherein the laboratory sample container extends along a longitudinal direction, wherein the cap gripper (Wang’s clamping airbag 9 modified to clamp with two gripper fingers as taught by Naccarato, Fig 4A, manipulator 11) is moveable in a direction parallel to the longitudinal direction (Wang, Fig. 1 and paras. 40, Naccarato, Fig 4A, manipulator 11).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 4, wherein the cap gripper (Wang’s clamping airbag 9 modified to clamp with two gripper fingers as taught by Naccarato, Fig 4A, manipulator 11) is moveable in the direction parallel to the longitudinal direction with the cap gripped so as to lift the cap from the laboratory sample container (Wang, Fig. 1 and paras. 40, after loosening the cap from the sample tube, the cap gripper “rises”, Naccarato, Fig 4A, manipulator 11).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1, wherein the cutting knife is a heated cutting knife (interpret heated as an intended use. Scissors 13 meet all the structural limitation of a cutting knife. See MPEP § 2114 II).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Wang further comprising a container holder configured to hold the laboratory sample container.
Regarding claim 22, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Wang further teaches wherein the cutting device is moveable between the first position (position of scissors13 as shown in Wang, Fig. 1) and the second position (working position when the blades of scissors13 are separate between cutting) in a plane perpendicular (horizontal) to a movement direction (vertical, up and down)(Wang, para. 40) of the cap gripper (Wang, para. 0041, scissors 13 moves from the position shown in Fig. 1 to the working position along a horizontal plane as frame 1 rotates).
Regarding claim 23, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 22. Modified Wang further teaches wherein the cutting device is linearly moveable between the first position (position of scissors 13 as shown in Wang, Fig. 1) and the second position (working position when the blades of scissors 13 are separate between cutting) in the plane perpendicular (horizontal) to the movement direction (vertical, up and down) of the cap gripper (Wang, para. 0041, scissors 13 move from the position shown in Fig. 1 to the working position along a horizontal plane as frame 1 rotates and the blades of the scissor 13 separate, which involves some amount of linear movement).
Regarding claim 24, modified Wang teach, wherein the cutting device is pivotable between the first position (position of scissors 13 as shown in Wang, Fig. 1) and the second position (working position when the blades of scissors 13 are separate between cutting)in the plane perpendicular (horizontal) to the movement direction (vertical, up and down) of the cap gripper (Wang, para. 0041, scissors 13 moves from the position shown in Fig. 1 to the working position along a horizontal plane as frame 1 rotates, which involves pivotal movement from central axis of frame 1).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111808736A) (provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 06/26/2026) in view of Naccarato et al. (US 6617146 B1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Strzempek et al. (US 20190039869 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 10.
Modified Wang fails to explicitly teach the heated cutting knife is configured to be heated to 60 degrees Celsius or above. Modified Wang also did not disclose the material of the heated cutting knife. (The examiner interprets heated as an intended use as stated above.)
However, Strzempek teaches a decapper for removing a cap from a laboratory sample container comprises a heated cutting knife (paragraph 0016, blade). Strzempek further discloses the heated cutting knife may completely consist of a metal (paragraph 0016). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the heated cutting knife consisting of a metal is capable of being heated to 60 degrees Celsius.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the cutter material of Wang with a metal as taught by Strzempek to yield a heated cutting knife configured to be heated to 60 degrees Celsius or above because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Consequently, as evidenced by Strzempek, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the suitability of selecting a metal as the material for the heated cutting knife (Strzempek, paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 10.
Modified Wang fails to explicitly teach the heated cutting knife is configured to be heated between 60 and 70 degrees Celsius, or between 65 and 85 degrees Celsius. Modified Wang also did not disclose the material of the heated cutting knife. (The examiner interprets heated as an intended use as stated above.)
However, Strzempek teaches a decapper for removing a cap from a laboratory sample container comprises a heated cutting knife (paragraph 0016, blade). Strzempek further discloses the heated cutting knife may completely consist of a metal (paragraph 0016). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the heated cutting knife consists completely of metal is capable of being heated to between 60 and 70 degrees Celsius, or between 65 and 85 degrees Celsius.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the cutter material of Wang with a metal as taught by Strzempek to yield a heated cutting knife configured to be heated to between 60 and 70 degrees Celsius, or between 65 and 85 degrees Celsius because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Consequently, as evidenced by Strzempek, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the suitability of selecting a metal as the material for the heated cutting knife (Strzempek, paragraph 0016).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111808736A)(provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 06/26/2026) in view of Naccarato et al. (US 6617146 B1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yamada (WO2021193427A1) (References herein made with respect to English equivalent found at US 20230083943 A1), and further in view of Lapham et al. (US 20170045542 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Wang teaches a system for storing and preserving swab samples, but does teach further processing the swab. Therefore, modified fails to teach a dispensing device configured to dispense an inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the laboratory sample container.
However, Yamada teaches a system for storing medical swab samples. Yamada further the stored medical swab would further undergo analysis (paras. 0002-0003 and 0007). In addition Lapham teaches a dispensing device (Lapham, paras. 0016 and 0088, liquid dispensing module that connects to a pumping system comprises a peristaltic pump) configured to dispense an inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid (paragraph 0064) into the laboratory sample container (paragraph 0016). The dispensing device is a part of an integrated modular liquid handling system that can be integrated with other systems to perform multiple steps of an assay or other workflow for sample processing in a very compact integrated device, including multiple functionalities in less space, and in a way that is faster, more cost-efficient, and produces less waste (paragraphs 0003-0005 and 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Wang to include capacity to process the stored and preserved swab as taught by Yamada (Yamada, paras. 0002-0003 and 0007), wherein the capacity includes incorporating an integrated modular liquid handling system comprises the dispensing device as taught by Lapham in order to have a space-, time- and cost-efficient as well as waste-reducing way of processing medical swab samples with a reasonable expectation of success (Lapham, paragraphs 0003-0005 and 0059, Yamada, paras. 0002-0003 and 0007) (MPEP 2143(I)(G)).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 14.
Modified Wang further teaches the dispensing device is configured to dispense a predetermined amount of the inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the laboratory sample container (Lapham, paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 15.
Modified Wang further teaches the dispensing device comprises a pump, configured to pump the predetermined amount of the inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the laboratory sample container (Lapham, paragraphs 0016 and 0088, pumping system).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 16.
Modified Wang further teaches the pump is a roller pump (Lapham, paragraph 0088, peristaltic pump).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111808736A) (provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 06/26/2026) in view of Naccarato et al. (US 6617146 B1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Robinson et al. (US 20100291669 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Wang teaches a sample container (sample tube 10-1), but modified Wang does not disclose a sterilizing device configured to sterilize the laboratory sample container.
However, Robinson teaches a sterilizing device (paragraph 0405, UV light source) configured to sterilize the laboratory sample container (paragraph 0405). Robinson also teaches there is a chance that the sample may contain hazardous material. Robinson discloses often a small drop of the specimen sample, such as blood, may be left on the surface of the stopper, and it is desirable to sterilize this surface before sampling and processing to avoid contamination of specimen container 500 with airborne or surface microbes (paragraph 0403).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the preanalytic system disclosed by modified Wang to have a sterilizing device of Robinson in order to avoid contamination of the sample container with airborne or surface microbes with a reasonable expectation of success (paragraph 0403) (MPEP 2143(I)(G)).
Regarding claim 20, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 19.
Modified Wang further teaches the sterilizing device comprises an UV light source (Robinson, paragraph 0405).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111808736A)(provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 06/26/2026) in view of Naccarato et al. (US 6617146 B1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Batista et al. (WO2018/127887) and further in view of Karl et al. (US 5891396 A).
Regarding claim 21, modified Wang teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Wang teaches an automated system for processing biological sample swab that involves cutting a swab (para. 0002). Wang teaches the system comprises a cutting assembly mounted on frame 1 that as shown in Fig. 1 and a sample tube 10-1 positioned below a working position at the right side of the frame 1 (Fig. 1). Wang teaches the cutting assembly includes a servo electric gripper 15 and scissor 13 that is linked by connector 4 (para. 0011 and Fig. 1). Wang teaches after sample tube is being uncapped, a sample swab is partly inserted into the sample tube 10-1 with the part of swab rod still outside tube, and subsequently, driven by motor 13 (drive means) frame 1 rotates such that the cutting assembly is moved to the working position and scissors 13 is actuated by servo electric gripper 15 to cut the rod of sample swab so that the swab falls complete into tub 10-1 (paras. 0040-0042). Wang teaches scissors 13 as the cutting means for cutting the swab (para. 0055) and thus fails to teaches wherein the cutting device comprises a laser and/or a cutting wire.
However, Batista teaches cutting swab containing biological materials using an electrical cutting wire made of nichrome. Batista further teaches electrical cutting wire made of nichrome allows for a swab to be cut in a sterile way (p. 2, lns. 25-30). In addition, Karl teaching a device comprises a cutting assembly for cutting test tubes using a hot cutting wire 506 (col. 3, lns. 2-3 ). Karl further teaches the cutting assembly comprises a hot cutting wire attached to support plate 504 and drive mechanism 502 (col .7, lns. 50-54), wherein drive means 502 vertically positions hot cutting wire 506 relative to said test tube a cutting position, and the drive means and hot cutting wire cooperating with movement from a positioning system where the tube is held to cut said tube (col. 7, lns. 50-52 and claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified servo electric gripper 15 and scissor 13 linked by connector 4 of the cutting assembly taught by Wang with an cutting wire made of nichrome (Karl, Bastista) attached to support 504 of Karl and drive mechanism of Karl to cut the rod of the sample swab as motor 13 (Wang) rotates frame 1 (Wang) and drive the cutting assembly into the work position in cooperation with the vertical positioning of drive mechanism 502 of Karl as taught Batista and Karl (Karl, col. 7, lns. 50-52 and claim 2; Batista, p. 2, lns. 25-30; see also Wang, para. 0040-0042) because such modification allow for the sample swab to be cut in a sterile way (Batista, p. 2 lns. 25-30) with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 08/18/2026, with respect to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant does not acquiesce to any assertion made by the Office Action in support of the interpretation of the aforementioned claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Since the argument does not provide any supposed errors in any previous Office Actions of the instant , "dispensing device configured to dispense an inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the laboratory sample container" in claim 14; and "sterilizing device configured to sterilize the laboratory sample container" in claim 19 are still interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as states above.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 08/18/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-14, filed 08/18/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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 MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
