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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The Applicant's submission filed on 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-9 and 11-20, drawn to a finger lancing device or a body for a finger lancing device.
Group II, claims 20-22, drawn to a method of obtaining blood from a finger.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features. In particular, Groups I and II lack unity of invention because, even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “A body for a finger lancing device comprising a chamber for receiving a finger,…wherein the body is flexible and cylindrical in shape and is formed from an elastomeric material having an internal surface configured to contact the finger and an external surface configured to be massaged to express blood from the finger”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335276 (Chase). See the 102 rejection of claim 12 below, which details how Chase teaches these features.
Newly submitted claim 20-22 (Group II) are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed (Group I) because of these claims of Group II lack unity with the prior examined claims 1-9 and 11-18.
Since the applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 20-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
No claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 8-9 are 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.
Claim 8 recites “a blood sample” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “blood” of claim 1, line 5. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear.
Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335276 (Chase).
With respect to claim 12, the combination teaches or suggests a body (the finger attachment unit 20 of Chase) for a finger lancing device comprising a chamber for receiving a finger, wherein the body comprises a hole (the hole 22 of Chase) for receiving a lancing device, wherein the body is flexible and cylindrical in shape and is formed from an elastomeric material (the elastomeric material of Chase; paragraphs 0009 and 0023 of Chase) having an internal surface configured to contact the finger and an external surface configured to be massaged to express blood from the finger (see the arrangement on the finger in FIG. 4 of Chase).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335276 (Chase), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0305823 (Gelfand).
Chase teaches a finger attachment unit 20 (FIG. 1 of Chase) and a lancing instrument (paragraph 0026 of Chase). Gelfand teaches a lancing device 24 (FIG. 9 of Gelfand). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lancing device 24 of Gelfand as the lancing instrument of Chase since (1) a lancing instrument is required and Gelfand teaches one such instrument and/or (2) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 1, the combination teaches or suggests a finger lancing device comprising:
a body (the finger attachment unit 20 of Chase) having a chamber for receiving a finger, wherein the body is flexible and cylindrical in shape (see FIG. 1 of Chase) and is formed from an elastomeric material having an internal surface configured to contact the finger and an external surface configured to be massaged to express blood from the finger (the elastomeric material of Chase; paragraphs 0009 and 0023 of Chase); and
a lancing device (the lancing device 24 of Gelfand) comprising a lancing member actuator (the drive spring 160 of Gelfand) for actuating a lancing member (the puncturing element 106 of Chase) to lance the finger received in the chamber.
With respect to claim 2, the combination teaches or suggests the lancing member (the puncturing element 106 of Chase), wherein the lancing member actuator is configured to actuate the lancing member (the drive spring 160 of Gelfand) to lance the finger inserted into the chamber (FIGS. 9 and 13; paragraphs 0061-0062 of Gelfand).
With respect to claim 18, the combination teaches or suggests a kit comprising the body according to claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12) and at least one of the lancing device (the lancing device 24 of Gelfand) and a capillary collection device.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335276 (Chase), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0305823 (Gelfand), and further in view of WO 2018/090027 (Olson)(cited by Applicant).
Chase teaches a finger attachment unit 20 (FIG. 1 of Chase). Olson teaches an absorbent material 60 integrated into a finger housing configured to absorb fluids emanating from the tissue after the lancet 50 pierces the tissue (paragraph 0016 and FIGS. 1-3 of Olson). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the absorbent material 60 into the finger attachment unit 20 of Chase at just within the first end 21a of Chase, as suggested by Olson so as to absorb fluids emanating from the tissue after the lancet pierces the tissue.
With respect to claim 3, the combination teaches or suggests a wipe (the absorbent material 60 of Olson) provided within the chamber (the chamber of the finger attachment unit 20 of Chase) for wiping the finger before lancing (the absorbent material would wipe the finger before and after lancing due to its placement just within the first end 21a of Chase).
With respect to claim 4, the combination teaches or suggests that the wipe is provided on a wall of the chamber, the wipe being disposed between an end of the chamber for receiving the finger and the lancing member (the absorbent material 60 of Olson is disposed just within the first end 21a of Chase).
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches or suggests an absorbent wipe (the absorbent material 60 of Olson) provided on a wall of the chamber (the absorbent material 60 of Olson is disposed just within the first end 21a of Chase) for wiping away a first drop of blood (the absorbent material 60 of Olson is designed absorb fluids emanating from the tissue after the lancet pierces the tissue including drops of blood).
Claims 3-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335276 (Chase), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0305823 (Gelfand), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0319347 (Keren)(previously cited).
Chase teaches a finger attachment unit 20 (FIG. 1 of Chase) with an opening 22 (paragraph 0020 and FIG. 2 of Chase). Keren teaches an arrangement in which the opening is covered on the inner side of the wall of the chamber by an elastomeric self-sealing liquid-impermeable membrane so that the hole formed by the lancet will immediately close on itself after the lancet is withdrawn, thus preventing blood from escaping through opening (paragraph 0026 of Keren). Also, a test strip 50 is located downstream of the opening in direct contact with the wall of the chamber in which a detection zone of the strip is placed over a transparent window 26 (paragraph 0026 of Keren). A wick member 19, having one end in contact with the inner surface of membrane 17 and a second end in contact with the sample receiving zone of the test strip serves as a bridging element between the two (paragraph 0026 of Keren). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the test strip 50, the transparent window 26, and the wick member 19 of Keren in the finger attachment unit 20 of Chase since it allows the blood to transfer to a test trip automatically. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elastomeric self-sealing liquid-impermeable membrane 17 over the hole 22 of Chase since it prevents blood from escaping.
With respect to claim 3, the combination teaches or suggests a wipe (the wick member 19 of Keren) provided within the chamber for wiping the finger before lancing.
With respect to claim 4, the combination teaches or suggests that the wipe (the wick member 19 of Keren) is provided on a wall of the chamber, the wipe being disposed between an end of the chamber for receiving the finger and the lancing member (FIG. 4 of Keren suggests such a placement).
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches or suggests an absorbent wipe (the wick member 19 of Keren) provided on a wall of the chamber (the absorbent material 60 of Olson is disposed just within the first end 21a of Chase) for wiping away a first drop of blood (paragraph 0026 of Keren).
With respect to claim 6, the combination teaches or suggests an openable seal (the membrane 17 of Keren), the openable seal being at an end of the chamber for receiving the finger.
With respect to claim 7, the combination teaches or suggests that the wipe (the wick member 19 of Keren) is provided on an openable seal (the membrane 17 of Keren) disposed at an end of the chamber for receiving the finger, on an inner side of the openable seal (FIG. 4 of Keren suggests this placement).
With respect to claim 8, the combination teaches or suggests a capillary collection device (the strip 50 of Keren) for collecting a blood sample from the finger received in the chamber.
With respect to claim 9, the combination teaches or suggests that the capillary collection device (the strip 50 of Keren) has a fill line (the line demarked as region T of Keren) to indicate a volume of blood required.
With respect to claim 11, the combination teaches or suggests that the body is transparent (the window 26 of Keren is transparent; paragraph 0025 of Keren).
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335276 (Chase), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0319347 (Keren)(previously cited).
Chase teaches a finger attachment unit 20 (FIG. 1 of Chase) with an opening 22 (paragraph 0020 and FIG. 2 of Chase). Keren teaches an arrangement in which the opening is covered on the inner side of the wall of the chamber by an elastomeric self-sealing liquid-impermeable membrane so that the hole formed by the lancet will immediately close on itself after the lancet is withdrawn, thus preventing blood from escaping through opening (paragraph 0026 of Keren). Also, a test strip 50 is located downstream of the opening in direct contact with the wall of the chamber in which a detection zone of the strip is placed over a transparent window 26 (paragraph 0026 of Keren). A wick member 19, having one end in contact with the inner surface of membrane 17 and a second end in contact with the sample receiving zone of the test strip, serves as a bridging element between the two (paragraph 0026 of Keren). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the test strip 50, the transparent window 26, and the wick member 19 in the finger attachment unit 20 of Chase since it allows the blood to transfer to a test trip automatically. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elastomeric self-sealing liquid-impermeable membrane 17 over the hole 22 of Chase since it prevents blood from escaping.
With respect to claim 13, the combination teaches or suggests a first openable seal (the membrane 17 of Keren) configured to cover the hole (the small opening 22 of Chase) for receiving the lancing device.
With respect to claim 14, the combination teaches or suggests that the body further comprises a hole (the hole at the first end 21a of Chase) for receiving a capillary collection device (the strip 50 of Keren).
With respect to claim 16, the combination teaches or suggests a third openable seal (the membrane 17 of Keren), the third openable seal being configured to cover an end of the chamber for receiving the finger.
With respect to claim 17, the combination teaches or suggests that a wipe (the wick member 19 of Keren) for wiping the finger before lancing is provided on the third openable seal (the membrane 17 of Keren), on an inner side of the third openable seal (FIGS. 3-4 of Keren suggests this placement).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335276 (Chase), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0319347 (Keren)(previously cited)), and further in view of WO 2018/090027 (Olson)(cited by Applicant).
Chase teaches a finger attachment unit 20 (FIG. 1 of Chase). Olson teaches an absorbent material 60 integrated into a finger housing configured to absorb fluids emanating from the tissue after the lancet 50 pierces the tissue (paragraph 0016 and FIGS. 1-3 of Olson). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the absorbent material 60 into the finger attachment unit 20 of Chase at just within the first end 21a of Chase, as suggested by Olson, so as to absorb fluids emanating from the tissue after the lancet pierces the tissue.
With respect to claim 15, the combination teaches or suggests a second openable seal (the absorbent material 60 of Olson) configured to cover the hole for receiving the capillary collection device (the absorbent material 60 of Olson covers the periphery of the hole at the first end 21a of Chase).
With respect to claim 16, the combination teaches or suggests a third openable seal (the absorbent material 60 of Olson), the third openable seal being configured to cover an end of the chamber for receiving the finger (the absorbent material 60 of Olson covers the periphery of the hole at the first end 21a of Chase).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335276 (Chase), in view of WO 2018/090027 (Olson)(cited by Applicant).
Chase teaches a finger attachment unit 20 (FIG. 1 of Chase). Olson teaches an absorbent material 60 integrated into a finger housing configured to absorb fluids emanating from the tissue after the lancet 50 pierces the tissue (paragraph 0016 and FIGS. 1-3 of Olson). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the absorbent material 60 into the finger attachment unit 20 of Chase at just within the first end 21a of Chase, as suggested by Olson, so as to absorb fluids emanating from the tissue after the lancet pierces the tissue.
With respect to claim 19, the combination teaches or suggests an absorbent wipe (the absorbent material 60 of Olson) positioned on the internal surface (the absorbent material 60 of Olson is on the internal surface of the finger attachment unit 20 of Chase).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over .S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335276 (Chase), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0305823 (Gelfand), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0351676 (Faurie)(previously cited).
Chase teaches a finger attachment unit 20 (FIG. 1 of Chase). Faurie teaches a strip 259 of Faurie for removing a first drop of blood (paragraph 0033 of Faurie), which is categorized as containing contaminated materials (claim 18 of Faurie). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the strip 259 contact the area of the finger to be punctured and removed as disclosed by Faurie so as to remove the first drop of blood from the area so as to remove contaminated materials from the blood sample.
With respect to claim 3, the combination teaches or suggests a wipe (the strip 259 of Faurie1) provided within the chamber for wiping the finger before lancing.
With respect to claim 4, the combination teaches or suggests that the wipe (the strip 259 of Faurie) is provided on a wall of the chamber, the wipe being disposed between an end of the chamber for receiving the finger and the lancing member (the wipe would cover the area of puncture which would necessarily be located between an end of the chamber and the lancing member; FIGS. 6-6A of Faurie and FIG. 4 of Chase).
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches or suggests an absorbent wipe (the strip 259 of Faurie) provided on a wall of the chamber for wiping away a first drop of blood.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over .S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335276 (Chase), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0351676 (Faurie)(previously cited).
Chase teaches a finger attachment unit 20 (FIG. 1 of Chase). Faurie teaches a strip 259 of Faurie for removing a first drop of blood (paragraph 0033 of Faurie), which is categorized as containing contaminated materials (claim 18 of Faurie). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the strip 259 contact the area of the finger to be punctured and removed as disclosed by Faurie so as to remove the first drop of blood from the area so as to remove contaminated materials from the blood sample.
With respect to claim 19, the combination teaches or suggests an absorbent wipe (the strip 259 of Faurie) positioned on the internal surface.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
There are new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Prior art rejections based on Keren
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claim 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. That is, there are new grounds of claim rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 Though the strip 259 of Faurie is disclosed for removing the first drop of blood after lancing, it is capable of wiping the finger before lancing when the finger is first inserted in the body of Keren.
Prosecution Insights