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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments filed 03/02/2026 have been entered. Applicant amendments overcomes the previous claim objection and 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 12/01/20205, the previous claim objection and 112(b) rejection are withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-20 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-7, 10 being examined and claims 12-20 being withdrawn pursuant to the election filed 07/24/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the device comprises a fibrous filler that is made of melamine fibers. Claim 2 recites that the fibers comprise a melamine porous material or a melamine porous water-absorbing material.
In the PG publication 2023/0381771-A1, [0013] and [0019] do describe where there are melamine fibers. Further, [0078] does describe that the melamine material may be a material with or without pores, where each of the fibers does not have a pore structure but when gathered together there are gaps or pores between the fibers.
It is not seen in the instant specification where there is support for the fibers comprising a melamine porous material or melamine porous water-absorbing material. Rather, there is support for multiple fibers forming gaps or pores, but not for the individual fibers comprising a melamine porous material or melamine porous water-absorbing material.
Claims 3-5 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US-2017/0143314-A1) in view of translated Yamaguchi (JP-2004/117205-A).
Regarding claim 1, Green teaches a device (wand 180 and sampling sponge 192) for collecting a liquid sample, comprising ([0029], [0030], Figure 2):
While Green does teach that the sponge can be made of various types of absorbent foam materials including melamine foam (Green; [0065], [0069]), Green does not teach that the melamine foam is fibrous.
In the same problem solving area of retaining water, Yamaguchi teaches a water-retaining material (Yamaguchi; [0020]).
Specifically, Yamaguchi teaches a porous material made of ultra-fine fibers of melamine foam (Yamaguchi; [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the melamine foam of Green to be the fibrous melamine foam as taught by Yamaguchi because Yamaguchi teaches that the fibrous melamine foam has excellent water-retaining and water-releasing properties, which is an improvement over the material of Green (Yamaguchi; [0020]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., sponge) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., melamine foam) with other component(s) (i.e., fibrous melamine foam), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., melamine foam for fibrous melamine foam), and the results of the substitution (i.e., absorption of sample, and compression of material to express sample) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the melamine foam of reference Green with fibrous melamine foam of reference Yamaguchi, since the result would have been predictable.
The limitations “a fibrous filler, deposited in an electrostatic field in a certain direction to form a brush- shaped layer” is a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process and is therefore taught by modified Green (MPEP § 2113). The burden is on applicants to show product differences in product-by-process claims.
The sampling sponge 192 seen in Figure 2 of Green is a brush-shaped layer.
The limitation “wherein the melamine fibers are configured to sequentially absorb and release a part of the liquid sample” and “tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is in the part of the liquid sample that is configured to be detected” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Green and the apparatus of modified Green is capable of sequentially absorbing and releasing a part of the liquid sample. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Green (see MPEP §2114).
Please note that the liquid sample has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Green teaches the device according to claim 1. Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the melamine fibers comprise a melamine porous material or a melamine porous water-absorbing material (Yamaguchi; [0020] where the porous material is made of ultra-fine fibers of melamine foam).
Regarding claim 3, modified Green teaches the device according to claim 2. Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the melamine porous material comprises a melamine foam (Yamaguchi; [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Green teaches the device according to claim 3. The sponge material of Green has been modified to be the ultra-fine fibers of melamine foam, where as seen in Figure 2 of Green the sponge (now ultra-fine fibers of melamine foam) has a three-dimensional block structure (Green; [0032] see sponge 192 has a cylindrical shape).
Regarding claim 5, modified Green teaches the device according to claim 4. Green further teaches wherein the block structure is a cylinder (Green; [0032], Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Green teaches the device according to claim 1. Green further teaches wherein the sample is any one of a body fluid (Green; [0035] see obtain a urine sample by urinating on sponge 192).
Please note that the limitations of claim 6 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Green and the apparatus of modified Green is capable of absorbing body fluid. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Green (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the liquid sample has not been positively recited in the claim and is thus not part of the device.
Regarding claim 7, modified Green teaches the device according to claim 6. Green further teaches wherein the body fluid is any one of urine (Green; [0035]).
Please note that the limitations of claim 7 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Green and the apparatus of modified Green is capable of absorbing saliva, urine, blood, sputum, lymph, plasma, semen, lung aspirates, and cerebrospinal fluid. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Green (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the liquid sample has not been positively recited in the claim and is thus not part of the device.
Regarding claim 10, modified Green teaches the device according to claim 9.
The limitations of claim 10 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Green and the apparatus of modified Green is capable of absorbing a liquid sample wherein the tetrahydrocannabinol comprises Δ9-THC or Δ9-THC-COOH. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Green (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the liquid sample has not been positively recited in the claim and is thus not part of the device.
Additionally, these limitations are directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Green and the apparatus of modified Green is capable of working on Δ9-THC or Δ9-THC-COOH. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Green (see MPEP §2115).
Other References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hang et al. “Preparation of melamine microfibers by reaction electrospinning” teaches a novel method for producing melamine fibers by reaction electrospinning (Hang; abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, see page 5 of 7, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 10 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Green (US-2017/0143314-A1) in view of translated Yamaguchi (JP-2004/117205-A).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed device being a flocked swab with perpendicularly oriented fibers that absorbs liquid through capillary action between the fibers, fibers standing upright) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, as noted above on page 7 that the limitation regarding depositing in an electrostatic field is a product-by-process limitation, where the burden is on the applicants to show product differences.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights