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 filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Inano/Odermatt does not teach the limitation of “wherein said fibres have a count between 60 dtex and 90 dtex.” Applicant argues that a swab having the claimed fiber count increases absorbency, and that property is an unexpected result, alleging that the conventional thinking is that a lower fiber count leads to a higher fiber density and thus a higher absorption and release capacity. However, this property is merely stated and not sufficiently demonstrated to be an unexpected result. On the contrary, one of ordinary skill would expect the higher fiber count taught by Odermatt to increase the absorption surface area resulting in an increase in absorption. Thus the rejection is maintained over Inano/Odermatt as set forth below.
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 1-7, 9-14, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inano (JP 2013224951 A) in view of Odermatt (US 20140052111 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Inano discloses A swab (Fig 1) for taking biological samples, the swab comprising a support rod (Fig 1, rod 4) comprising an end portion coated with a layer of fibres (Fig 1, short fibers 1), each fibre of the layer of fibres extending in length orthogonally to a surface of the support rod (Fig 1, claim 1, wherein the nap body is fixed to the rod so that the short fiber portion is substantially upright on the surface of the rod) with a respective free end portion (Fig 1, end of 1 opposite surface 2), wherein said layer of fibres (Fig 1, 1) has hydrophilic properties to allow absorption of the biological samples (¶[0004] swab for collecting a biological specimen, composed of a raised body including a short fiber that absorbs the biological specimen), and wherein each of said fibres is mechanically anchored at a respective bottom portion to a textile substrate fixed to a surface of the end portion of said support rod (Fig 1 ¶[0023], short fibers 1 are fixed to a substrate (velor fabric) 2 by a flock method to produce a raised body 3).
Inano is silent whether said fibres have a count between 60 dtex and 90 dtex.
However, Odermatt teaches a flocked medical tube, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein said fibres have a count between 60 dtex and 90 dtex (¶[0083] flock fibers may have a count of 80 dtex) to adapt the device in a targeted manner for the specific need of the patient (¶[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inano so that said fibres have a count between 60 dtex and 90 dtex as taught by Odermatt to adapt the device in a targeted manner for the specific need of the patient (as motivated by Odermatt ¶[0043]).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Inano/Odermatt discloses wherein each of said fibres crosses said textile substrate in such a way that the respective free end portion extends orthogonally from an outer face of said textile substrate (Fig 1 ¶[0015] short fibers are arranged radially in a perpendicular direction to the base material), and the respective bottom portion extends from an inner face of said textile substrate, opposite said outer face, and is positioned between said inner face and the surface of the end portion of said support rod, wherein said fibres are joined together in pairs at respective bottom portions to form a single body (Fig 1 ¶[0018] the production methods described in ¶[0018] for velvet and velor produces the same structure described in claims 2 and 3, where two overlapping fabrics are woven to create a pile yarn between the two fabrics, and cutting said pile yarn between the overlapping fabrics.).
Regarding Claim 4, Inano/Odermatt discloses that said textile substrate and said fibres are joined to said end portion of said support rod as a pre-assembled body (Fig 1 ¶[0013-0016] fibers 1 and substrate comprise preassembled napped body 3, which is joined to rod 4 as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Inano/Odermatt discloses that said pre-assembled body consists of a velvet ribbon (¶[0008][0018] napped body may comprise velvet).
Regarding Claim 6, Inano/Odermatt discloses that said fibres extend from said textile substrate outwards substantially with a same length (Fig 1 shows short fibers 1 extending outward from substrate 2 at substantially the same length).
Regarding Claim 7, Inano/Odermatt discloses that said fibres are evenly distributed over said textile substrate (Fig 1 shows short fibers 1 evenly distributed over substrate 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Inano/Odermatt discloses that said fibres are in synthetic material or natural material (¶[0010] short fibers may be made of natural materials or microfibers such as polyamide).
Regarding Claim 10, Inano/Odermatt disclose that said fibres are in polyamide (¶[0010] fibers may be polyamide).
Regarding Claim 11, Inano/Odermatt discloses that said textile substrate is attached directly to the surface of the end portion of said support rod (Fig 1 ¶[0013-0015] napped body 3 is fixed to the rod 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Inano/Odermatt discloses that said textile substrate is glued to the surface of the end portion of said support rod (Fig 1 ¶[0013-0015] planar napped body may be bonded to the tip of the rod using an adhesive).
Regarding Claim 13, Inano/Odermatt disclose that said textile substrate is made of threads in synthetic material or threads in natural material (¶[0008] substrate may be natural or synthetic material).
Regarding Claim 14, Inano/Odermatt discloses that said textile substrate consists of polyamide threads (¶[0007][0008][0010] substrate may include polyamide threads because the short fibers may comprise polyamide threads, and the substrate and short fibers may be integrally formed of the same material).
Regarding Claim 26, Inano/Odermatt discloses that said length ranges between 0.5mm and 3mm (Fig 1 ¶[0011] short fibers may have a length from 0.5mm to 3 mm).
Regarding Claim 27, Inano/Odermatt discloses that said length ranges between 1.0mm and 1.30mm (Fig 1 ¶[0011] short fibers may have a length from 0.5mm to 3 mm).
Regarding Claim 28, Inano/Odermatt discloses that the fibres are distributed over the textile substrate with a surface density ranging between 80 and 130 fibres/mm2 (Fig 1 ¶[0011] density of short fibers may range from 5000 or more fibers/cm2 to 10,000 or more fibers/cm2).
Regarding Claim 29, Inano/Odermatt discloses that the synthetic material is selected from the group consisting of rayon, polyester, polyamide, polypropylene, and polyethylene (¶[0010] materials may include nylon, rayon, polyester, polyamide, etc), and the natural material is selected from the group consisting of cotton and silk, or blends thereof (¶[0010] materials may include cotton, silk, etc).
Regarding Claim 30, Inano/Odermatt discloses that the synthetic material is selected from the group consisting of rayon, polyester, polyamide, polypropylene, and polyethylene (¶[0007][0008][0010] substrate may include polyamide, rayon, polyester threads because the short fibers may comprise polyamide, rayon, polyester threads, and the substrate and short fibers may be integrally formed of the same material), and the natural material is selected from the group consisting of cotton and silk, or blends thereof (¶[0008] materials may include cotton, etc).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inano (JP 2013224951 A) in view of Odermatt (US 20140052111 A1), further in view of Ota (US 20150297424 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Inano/Odermatt is silent whether said textile substrate consists of threads having a count between 30 dtex and 120 dtex.
However, Ota teaches fibrous absorbent articles, thus reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention, wherein said textile substrate consists of threads having a count between 30 dtex and 120 dtex (¶[0152] synthetic fiber assembly may include fibers of 55 dtex) to increase diffusion of body fluid and improve the texture of the diffusion layer (¶[0152]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inano/Odermatt so that said textile substrate consists of threads having a count between 30 dtex and 120 dtex as taught by Ota to increase diffusion of body fluid and improve the texture of the diffusion layer (as motivated by Ota ¶[0152]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inano (JP 2013224951 A) in view of Odermatt (US 20140052111 A1), further in view of Joy (US 20210302446 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Inano/Odermatt is silent whether said textile substrate has a weight ranging between 20 g/m2 and 600 g/m2.
However, Joy teaches a textile substrate suitable for medical swabs (¶[0013-0015]) wherein said textile substrate has a weight ranging between 20 g/m2 and 600 g/m2 (¶[0027] substrate may have a weight from 25 g/m2 to 420 g/m2) to impart sufficient mechanical strength and good processability (¶[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inano/Odermatt so that said textile substrate has a weight ranging between 20 g/m2 and 600 g/m2, as taught by Joy to impart sufficient mechanical strength and good processability (as motivated by Joy ¶[0025]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY LEE FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5 ET.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
TIMOTHY LEE. FLYNN
Examiner
Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights