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 .
Remarks
This office action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 01/09/2026. In view of the new grounds of rejection provided under 35 USC 103 herein below, this office action is NON-FINAL.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 3-18, and 24-30 are pending
Claims 2 and 19-23 are canceled.
Claims 24-30 are withdrawn.
No new claims are added.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are amended.
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 1 and 3-18 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 1 recites the limitation "the outside". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend both instances of “outside” to instead recite “outside of confines of the tube”, and remove the “the”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terbrueggen (US 2016/0045187 A1), hereinafter “Terbrueggen”.
Regarding Claim 1, Terbrueggen discloses a liquid collector (device 100 for collecting and stabilizing biological samples; ¶ [0196]; Figs. 1A-1D) comprising:
an absorber (absorbent member 118; ¶ [0196]; Figs. 1D and 2A-2B) including an elastic material (absorbent member 118 is made of sponge like wicking material comprising cellulosic, polyester, polyvinyl alcohol, foam, porous media, all of which elastically deform when pressed against a surface and are therefore interpreted as an elastic material; ¶¶ [0181] and [0200]) and capable of absorbing liquid in contact with the absorber (see ¶¶ [0177], [0181], and [0200]-[0201]);
a support (collector 106; ¶ [0196]; Figs. 1A-1D) having a tube that extends in a longitudinal direction (see ¶¶ [0203]-[0204]; Fig. 1C – The tubular cavity 212 formed by the segment 208 being the tube.), supporting the absorber at one end thereof such that a portion of the absorber is fixed to the tube at an inner wall of the tube, another portion of the absorber is exposed to the outside (absorbent member 118 is supported by the inner partition wall 214 of second segment 208 (the tube) which is at one end of collector 106 such that absorbent member 118 is exposed to the outside; ¶¶ [0202] and [0207]; Figs. 1D and 2D) and is expandable outward from the support when the absorber absorbs liquid (wherein absorbent member 118 is made of sponge like wicking material comprising cellulosic, polyester, polyvinyl alcohol, foam, porous media, which are capable of expanding outward from collector 106 when absorbent member 118 absorbs the sample; ¶¶ [0181], [0200], [0202], and [0207]; Figs. 1D and 2D), and having a tank in the support (reservoir 210, which is interpreted as the tank, is within collector 106; ¶ [0206]; Fig. 2D) to receive the liquid discharged from the absorber when the absorber is compressed from outside (see ¶¶ [0206]-[0207] and [0220]).
Regarding Claim 3, Terbrueggen discloses the liquid collector according to Claim 2 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further discloses wherein the support includes a stopper (partition 214; ¶ [0207]; Fig. 2D) that positions the absorber with respect to the support (see ¶ [0207]), the stopper having a flow hole (partition 214 has a plurality of holes or slots 216; ¶ [0207]; Fig. 2D) that provides fluid communication between a side adjacent to the absorber and a side opposite to the side adjacent to the absorber in the longitudinal direction (plurality of holes or slots 216 provides fluid communication between a side adjacent to absorbent member 118 and a side opposite to the side adjacent to absorbent member 118 in the longitudinal direction; ¶ [0207]; Fig. 2D).
Regarding Claim 4, Terbrueggen discloses the liquid collector according to Claim 1 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further discloses a compressing member (housing 102; ¶¶ [0196] and [0220]; Figs. 1C-1D) configured to move back and forth relative to the absorber in the longitudinal direction (housing 102 is removably engageable with collector 106 and therefore configured to move back and forth relative to absorbent member 118; ¶¶ [0197]-[0198] and [0220]) and to compress and deform the absorber so that the liquid is discharged from the absorber (see ¶¶ [0198] and [0220]).
Regarding Claim 5, Terbrueggen discloses the liquid collector according to claim 4 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further discloses wherein the compressing member is configured to maintain the absorber in a compressed state (see ¶ [0197]).
Regarding Claim 6, Terbrueggen discloses the liquid collector according to claim 4 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further discloses wherein the compressing member (housing 102; ¶¶ [0196] and [0220]; Figs. 1C-1D) includes:
a pressing plate (central portion 308; ¶ [0220]; Figs. 3B, 3D, and 5A-5B) disposed to face the absorber and configured to press the absorber (see ¶ [0220]; Figs. 1D and 5A-5B), and
an outer wall having a tubular shape that extends in the longitudinal direction (wherein housing 102 has an outer wall having a cylindrical, i.e., tubular, shape that extends in the longitudinal direction;¶¶ [0085] and [0226]; Figs. 1B-1C), and
wherein the support is insertable into a space inside the outer wall with the absorber facing the pressing plate (see ¶ [0220]; Figs. 1D and 5A-5B).
Regarding Claim 7, Terbrueggen discloses the liquid collector according to Claim 6 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further discloses wherein the supporter and the compressing member are configured to be fitted to each other while the absorber is compressed (wherein collector 106 is inserted into housing 102 to compress the absorbent member 118 and squeeze the biological sample out of the absorbent member 118, and therefore collector 106 and housing 102 are configured to be fitted to each other; ¶ [0220]; Figs. 1D and 5A-5B).
Regarding Claim 9, Terbrueggen discloses the liquid collector according to Claim 1 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further discloses wherein the support has an opening at an end opposite to an end at which the absorber is fixed in the longitudinal direction (wherein collector 106 has septum 218, which provides an opening and is therefore interpreted as the opening, at an end opposite to an end at which absorbent member 118 is fixed in the longitudinal direction; ¶ [0209]; Fig. 2D), and includes a closing body that is removably attachable to the opening or capable of covering and uncovering the opening (wherein collector 106 includes septum 218, which is penetrable or pierceable and self-resealing, and therefore capable of covering and uncovering the opening created by septum 218; ¶ [0209]; Fig. 2D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terbrueggen in view of Bishop et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0036205; hereinafter “Bishop”).
Regarding Claim 8, Terbrueggen discloses the liquid collector according to Claim 1 as discussed above. However, Terbrueggen does not explicitly disclose wherein the tank includes a scale mark that indicates an amount of liquid received in the tank.
Bishop, in the analogous art of fluid collection devices, teaches a collection tube having a scale mark to enable a user to quantify the volume of fluid (see ¶ [0105]). 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 tank of Terbrueggen to incorporate a scale mark as taught by Bishop for the benefit of enabling a user to quantify the volume of fluid (Bishop, ¶ [0105]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0320347; hereinafter “Piacentini”).
Regarding Claim 10, Terbrueggen discloses the liquid collector according to Claim 1 as discussed above. However, Terbrueggen does not explicitly disclose wherein the absorber comprises a plurality of absorbers that are stacked together.
Piacentini, in the analogous art of sample collection devices, teaches a collection strip (collection strip 300; ¶ [0040]; Figs. 3-4) comprising a plurality of absorbers that are stacked together (first pad 102 and second pad 307 that are stacked together; ¶¶ [0040] and [0048]; Figs. 3-4).
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 absorber of Terbrueggen to incorporate stacked absorbers as taught by Piacentini for the benefit of allowing the separation of one or more components into separate absorber pads (Piacentini, ¶ [0043]).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 10 as discussed above. Piacentini further teaches wherein the plurality of absorbers differ in at least one of color, shape, and material (pads 307, 102 may have differing dimensions and shapes and materials; ¶¶ [0039] and [0048]). 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 absorbers (of Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini) so that the plurality of absorbers differ in material as taught by Piacentini for the benefit of performing a differing functions (Piacentini, ¶ [0039]).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 10 as discussed above. Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini further teaches wherein the plurality of absorbers are connected to each other (wherein the plurality of absorbers would be connected to each other via a coupling with Terbrueggen’s collector 106; Terbrueggen, ¶ [0207]). Additionally, Piacentini teaches a plurality of absorbers connected to each other (wherein pads 307, 102 are connected to each other via a coupling with backer 101; ¶¶ [0037] and [0040]; Figs. 3-4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Armitage et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0087323; hereinafter “Armitage”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 12 as discussed above. Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini teaches the plurality of absorbers are connected to the support by a connecting member (wherein an adhesive, which is interpreted as the connecting member, would be used to hold the plurality of absorbers of Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini; Terbrueggen, ¶ [0207]). However, Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini does not explicitly teach that the connecting member is a line-shaped connecting member.
Armitage, in the analogous art of biological sample collection devices, teaches two members (a base sheet and a cover sheet; ¶ [0039]) that are connected by a line-shaped connecting member (an adhesive applied along a line and therefore it is interpreted as being line-shaped; ¶ [0039]) for the benefit of providing an adhesive securement along an entire length (Armitage, ¶ [0039]).
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 connecting member of Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini to be applied in a line shape as taught by Armitage for the benefit of providing an adhesive securement along an entire length (Armitage, ¶ [0039]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Bishop.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 12 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further teaches wherein an inside of the support serves as the tank (wherein an inside of collector 106, e.g., reservoir 210, serves as the tank; ¶ [0206]; Fig. 2D), wherein the liquid collector further comprises a compressing member (central portion 308 of housing 102; ¶¶ [0196] and [0220]; Figs. 1C-1D and 5A-5B) to compress and deform the absorber so that the liquid is discharged from the absorber into the tank (see ¶¶ [0198], [0206]-[0207], and [0220]). However, Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid absorbed in the absorber is discharged into the tank due to compression of air from an end of the support at which the absorber is disposed.
Bishop, in the analogous art of fluid collection devices, teaches wherein liquid absorbed in an absorber is discharged due to compression of air (wherein as absorbent head 12 is pushed down into collection tube 20, displaced air, which would also be compressed by absorbent head 12, pushes up through the absorbent head 12 and fluid is released from absorbent head 12; ¶¶ [0062] and [0123]-[0124]).
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 liquid collector of Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini to incorporate compressed air as taught by Bishop for the benefit of flushing out a higher proportion of sample fluid contained in the absorber than if one were simply to compress the absorber by squeezing it (Bishop, ¶ [0124]). The combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini as modified by Bishop teaches wherein the liquid absorbed in the absorber is discharged into the tank due to compression of air from an end of the support at which the absorber is disposed (wherein liquid absorbed in the absorber of Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini would be discharged into Terbrueggen’s tank due to use of a compression of air as taught by Bishop at an end of Terbrueggen’s support).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Karkouche (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0159533).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 12 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further teaches wherein an inside of the support serves as the tank (wherein an inside of collector 106, e.g., reservoir 210, serves as the tank; ¶ [0206]; Fig. 2D), wherein the liquid collector further comprises a compressing member (central portion 308 of housing 102; ¶¶ [0196] and [0220]; Figs. 1C-1D and 5A-5B) configured to move back and forth relative to the absorber in the support (housing 102 is removably engageable with collector 106 and therefore configured to move back and forth relative to absorbent member 118 that is within collector 106; ¶¶ [0197]-[0198] and [0220]) and to compress and deform the absorber so that the liquid is discharged from the absorber into the tank (see ¶¶ [0198], [0206]-[0207], and [0220]). However, Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini does not explicitly teach a piston that is movable back and forth relative to the absorber in the support, and wherein the piston includes a compressing member that compresses and deforms the absorber so that the liquid is discharged from the absorber into the tank.
Karkouche, in the analogous art of capture devices, teaches a piston (piston 104) that is movable back and forth relative to an absorber (block 103 of absorbent material) in a support (¶¶ [0022], [0069], and [0076]; Fig. 3), and wherein the piston includes a compressing member (bearing element 108) that compresses and deforms the absorber so that the liquid is discharged from the absorber (see [0022], [0069], and [0076]; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the compressing member of Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini with a piston as taught by Karkouche for the benefit of applying a substantially uniform force onto the absorber (Karkouche, ¶ [0096]). The combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini as modified by Karkouche teaches wherein the compressing member compresses and deforms the absorber so that the liquid would be discharged from the absorber into the tank (wherein Karkouche’s piston would compress the absorber of Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini to discharge the liquid into Terbrueggen’s tank).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Terbrueggen, Piacentini, Karkouche teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 15 as discussed above. Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini and Karkouche further teaches wherein the piston has a communication hole (Karkouche’s piston has one or more slots 112 disposed on bearing element/pusher means 108; Karkouche, ¶ [0106]) that provides communication between a side adjacent to the absorber and a side opposite to the side adjacent to the absorber (wherein Karkouche’s one or more slots 112 are capable of providing communication between a side adjacent to the absorber of Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini and a side opposite the side adjacent the absorber of Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini; Karkouche, ¶ [0106]; Figs. 7-8).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini and Armitage, as applied to Claim 13 above, and in further view of Liang (US 2006/0147348 A1), hereinafter “Liang”
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above. Further, Terbrueggen/Piacentini/Armitage teaches the device discussed above, wherein the tank is capable of receiving the liquid discharged from the absorber when the absorber is compressed (Terbrueggen [0017, 0206]), as in Claim 17.
Further as in Claim 17, Terbrueggen/Piacentini/Armitage does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the tank is attachable to an end of the support at which the absorber is disposed, as in Claim 17.
However, Liang teaches a respective sampling device wherein a reservoir into which the sample flows to be held in the reservoir is removably attached from a handle body portion of the device so as to be storable for future use/testing ([0011]: “the reservoir is removably attached to the handle” – [0023]: “Having a removable connection allows for convenient sample treatment and analyte extraction, as well as convenient sample transportation and storage.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Terbrueggen/Piacentini/Armitage wherein the tank is attachable to an end of the support at which the absorber is disposed, such as suggested by Liang, to provide for more convenient sample transportation and storage, the absorbing and working elements of the device not being needed after sample collection is completed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini, Armitage, and Liang as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Karkouche.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Terbrueggen, Piacentini, and Armitage teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 17 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further teaches a compressing member (central portion 308 of housing 102; ¶¶ [0196] and [0220]; Figs. 1C-1D and 5A-5B) configured to move back and forth in a longitudinal direction relative to the absorber the support (housing 102 is removably engageable with collector 106 and therefore configured to move back and forth relative to absorbent member 118 that is within collector 106; ¶¶ [0197]-[0198] and [0220]) and to compress and deform the absorber so that the liquid is discharged from the absorber (see ¶¶ [0198], [0206]-[0207], and [0220]). However, Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini and Armitage does not explicitly teach a piston that is movable back and forth in the longitudinal direction in the tube of the support, wherein the piston compresses and deforms the absorber in the tube so that the liquid is discharged from the absorber.
Karkouche, in the analogous art of capture devices, teaches a piston (piston 104) that is movable back and forth in the longitudinal direction in the tube (tube 101) of the support (¶¶ [0022], [0069], and [0076]; Fig. 3), wherein the piston compresses and deforms the absorber (block 103 of absorbent material) in the tube so that the liquid is discharged from the absorber (see [0022], [0069], and [0076]; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the compressing member of Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini and Armitage with a piston as taught by Karkouche for the benefit of applying a substantially uniform force onto the absorber (Karkouche, ¶ [0096]).
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments sufficiently overcome those rejections set forth under 35 USC 112(b) for indefiniteness. As such, those rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn herein. Note the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above in the body of the action.
35 USC 102
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that the absorber of Claim 1 is exposed to an exterior of the end of the tube, whereas the absorber of Terbrueggen is inwardly recessed inside the tube, and that modifying Terbrueggen with a protruding absorber would render the device inoperable by interfering with a seal-breaking tooth.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the claim does not require a protruding absorber as Applicant appears to intend such as seen through the instant drawings Fig. 1 showing the absorber 130 protruding from the recess 1222 into which the absorber 130 is inserted. Amended Claim 1 recites in relevant part, “another portion of the absorber is exposed to the outside”, merely requiring that part of the absorber be directly accessible from the outside. As the absorber 118 of Terbrueggen lacks any cover or partition separating the absorber 118 from the outside of the device, the absorber 118 is interpreted as being “exposed to the outside” commensurately as claimed. Applicant may wish to amend the claim to provide that a portion of the absorber protrudes from a region encompassed by the walls of the tube so as to be outside the confines of the tube.
Further, Applicant’s argument that a protruding absorber would interfere with the tooth is not persuasive because the absorber is flexible and thereby would not rigidly block the path of the tooth. And further because a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.), and said skilled artisan would find it obvious to make reasonable modifications to incorporate such a protruding structure, such as by merely extending the length of the tooth to maintain its relative positioning with respect to the exposed end of the absorber.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 1, 3-7, and 9 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Terbrueggen.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that Bishop does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Terbrueggen discussed above. However, as discussed above, Terbrueggen accounts for each and every limitation of Claim 1; Bishop is not relied on for curing any deficiency therein. As such, Applicant’s argument against Bishop regarding Claim 1 is moot.
Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that Piacentini does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Terbrueggen discussed above. However, as discussed above, Terbrueggen accounts for each and every limitation of Claim 1; Piacentini is not relied on for curing any deficiency therein. As such, Applicant’s argument against Piacentini regarding Claim 1 is moot.
Thus, Examiner further maintains the rejection of Claims 1, 3-7, and 9 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Terbrueggen.
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant’s argument is on the alleged grounds that the instant Application specification requires a non-adhesive “line-shaped connecting member” whereas Armitage merely provides a line of adhesive.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because limitations from the specification cannot be imported into the claims – see MPEP 2111.01(II): “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”. Further, the claims herein are given their broadest reasonable interpretation wherein the “line-shaped connecting member” is interpreted as being any line-shaped element suitable for connecting the absorber structure to the support – See MPEP 2111: “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification...Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. ".
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 13 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini and Armitage.
Regarding Claim 17, Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini does not teach wherein the tank is attachable to the end of the support at which the absorber is disposed, Terbrueggen instead teaching a penetrable septum on the reservoir for removing the sample without removing the reservoir, and that Piacentini does not cure this deficiency, Piacentini providing no mention of a reservoir which is removable from a base and providing no structures suggesting such a capability.
Applicant’s argument is persuasive. The rejection of Claim 17 under 35 USC 103 over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini and Armitage is withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini, Armitage, and Liang is set forth above in the body of the action. Because of this new grounds of rejection not being necessitated by an Applicant amendment, the instant office action is non-final.
Regarding Claim 14, Applicant’s argument is on the alleged grounds that the compression action in Bishop depends on the absorbent head being pushed into a receiving part of the collection tube, and that displaced air travels through the collection tube to behind the absorber, rather than the compression of air from an end of the support as in Claim 14.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Claim 14 merely requires a compression of air from an end of the support, Claim 14 does not exclude such compression of air as occurring as a result of being inserted into a collection tube. The airflow in Bishop commensurately moves behind the absorber to discharge the sample fluid into the tank, the confines of such an airflow being immaterial within the instant claim.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 14 as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini and Bishop.
Regarding Claims 15-16, Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that a piston as in Karkouche cannot function inside the absorber-holding cavity of Terbrueggen because the piston of Karkouche transmits a vertical force. However, Applicant’s argument is unclear as to a particular reason why the vertical force piston could not function in the cavity of Terbrueggen. As discussed in the body of the action, Karkouche teaches the piston compressing the absorber commensurately as claimed and providing the benefit of actively ejecting patient sample from the absorber by compressing the absorber, thereby improving the yield of collected sample. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make reasonable modifications to incorporate the beneficial arrangement of Karkouche, absent evidence as to why such a combination would render the structure inoperable for its intended purpose.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 15-16 as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini and Karkouche.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that Armitage does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Karkouche discussed above regarding the piston arrangement of Claim 18 similarly as in Claims 15-16 discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because, as discussed above regarding Claims 15-16, Karkouche does not display the reported deficiency in its implementation with Terbrueggen. As such, Applicant’s argument against Karkouche regarding Claim 18 is moot in view of the discussion above regarding Claims 15-16.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 18 as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini, Armitage, and Karkouche.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
