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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-30 are pending for examination and are considered on the merits below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-23, drawn to a liquid collector comprising an absorber and a support, in the reply filed on September 18, 2025, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that restriction is improper because the Office has not prima facie established a serious search burden so as to authorize restriction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 121. This is not found persuasive because a serious search burden as argued by Applicant is not needed to conclude that restriction is proper in this national stage application submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 371.
Applicant cited MPEP §§ 803(I) and 808.02 in support of its argument that a serious search burden must be shown. However, those sections apply to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a). See MPEP § 801 (“This chapter is limited to a discussion of the subjects of restriction and double patenting under Title 35 of the United States Code and Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as it relates to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)”). In contrast, this pending application is filed as a national stage application submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 371 whereby a determination of whether restriction is proper is determined by a unity of invention analysis. See MPEP § 823 (“The analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis). See MPEP Chapter 1800, in particular MPEP § 1850, § 1875, and § 1893.03(d), for a detailed discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)”). Consequently, Applicant’s arguments that restriction is improper are not found persuasive.
Thus, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 24-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 18, 2025, July 23, 2025, August 1, 2024, and November 30, 2022, are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed September 18, 2025, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, a copy of EP 0520408 A2 was not provided with the information disclosure statement. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the informalities discussed below.
Regarding claim 5, there are two typographical errors in the claim. First, there is a period before the end of the claim between the words “wherein” and “compressing.” Second, the word “the” is missing before the limitation “compressing member.”
Regarding claim 7, it appears to contain a typographical error. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the compressing members.” However, there is no prior recitation of more than one compressing member. The Examiner suggests amending the limitation “the compressing members” to the compressing member, which is previously recited in claim 6.
Applicant is advised that should any one of claims 8 or 10-13 be found allowable, one or more of claims 19-23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4, 6-7, 9, and 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 2 recites the limitation "the tube" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the tube” is interpreted as a support having the tubular shape.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an outer wall having a tubular shape that extends in a direction crossing the pressing plate.” It is unclear in what direction the tubular shape extends so that it is crossing the pressing plate. For examination purposes, the limitation “an outer wall having a tubular shape that extends in a direction crossing the pressing plate” is interpreted as an outer wall having a tubular shape that extends in the longitudinal direction.
Dependent claim 7 is also rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the tube" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the tube” is interpreted as a support having the tubular shape.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Terbrueggen (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0045187, listed on an Information Disclosure Statement; 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 tubular shape (see ¶¶ [0203]-[0204]; Fig. 1C), supporting the absorber at one end thereof such that the absorber is visible (absorbent member 118 is supported within second segment 208 which is at one end of collector 106 such that absorbent member 118 is visible; ¶¶ [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 2, Terbrueggen discloses the liquid collector according to Claim 1 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further discloses wherein the support includes a fixing portion that fixes the absorber in the tube (wherein collector 106 includes an adhesive to fix absorbent member 118 or an area that fixes absorbent member 118 through a friction force; ¶ [0207]).
Regarding claim 3, Terbrueggen discloses the liquid collector according to Claim 1 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 a direction crossing the pressing plate (wherein housing 102 has an outer wall having a cylindrical, i.e., tubular, shape that extends in the longitudinal direction, which is interpreted as being in the direction crossing the pressing plate;¶¶ [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 members 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 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 8 and 23 are 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]).
Regarding claim 23, 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 and 19-21 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).
Regarding claim 19, 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 pads (Piacentini, ¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 19 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) such that the plurality of absorbers differ in material as taught by Piacentini for the benefit of performing a differing functions (Piacentini, ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 19 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).
Claims 13, 17, and 22 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 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]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 13 as discussed above. Terbrueggen further teaches wherein the tank is capable of receiving the liquid discharged from the absorber when the absorber is compressed (see ¶¶ [0198], [0206]-[0207], and [0220]), and wherein the tank is disposed on an end of the support at which the absorber is disposed (reservoir 210, which is interpreted as the tank, is disposed on stem portion 204, i.e., an end, of collector 106 at which absorbent member 118 is disposed; ¶¶ [0206]-[0207]; Fig. 2D). However, Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini does not explicitly teach wherein the tank is attachable to the end of the support at which the absorber is disposed.
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 in view of Piacentini to be separable, which is interpreted as attachable, for the benefit of transporting collected fluid from the absorber separately from the absorber to another platform for analysis. Furthermore, it would have been desirable to obtain access to an end of the tank to test liquid discharged from the absorber, and therefore it would have been obvious to make the tank removable, i.e., attachable, for that purpose. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C) regarding non-obviousness in making a modification to be separable; see also In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523(CCPA 1961) (“if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Terbrueggen and Piacentini teaches the liquid collector according to Claim 19 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terbrueggen in view of Piacentini and Armitage 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]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven R. Castaneda whose telephone number is (571)272-0998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10am - 6pm 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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/STEVEN RAY CASTANEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights