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 filed on 01/15/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are pending. Claim 4 was cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Resch in view of U.S. Design Patent No. D672395 to Chuang.
Resch teaches a container of a closed structure (cabinet 10), a first chamber (drawers 15) and an actuator (gang lock assembly shown in Fig. 1) that locks each drawer.
Resch does not teach a tray to receive at least one sample blade.
Chuang teaches a “Draw Tray” (Title).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Resch to include draw trays in the drawers as taught by Chuang to organize items in the drawers.
The recitation in claim 1 that “the first chamber is adapted for introducing at least one sample blade which comprises an adhesive layer and being adapted for capturing fungal spores” is intended use language that does not incorporate any structural limitations into claim 1.
I.) As noted above, Resch in view of Chuang renders all the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore Resch in view of Chuang renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Resch in view of Chuang renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that first chamber is connected to one inside end of the container, and the first actuator connected to the closed end of the first chamber.
As shown in Fig. 1 Resch’s drawers are connected to one inside end of the cabinet at least by the locking mechanism and the locking mechanism (actuator) is connected to the closed end of the chamber.
Therefore, Resch in view of Chuang renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Resch in view of Chuang renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the apparatus is “capable” of being connected to a flying means.
The apparatus of Resch is “capable” of being used in the galley of an airplane and therefore “capable” of being connected to a flying machine.
Therefore, Resch in view of Chuang renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Resch in view of Chuang renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the first chamber is connected to one inside end of the container, a second chamber is connected to one inside end of the container, a third chamber is connected to one inside end of the container, the first actuator connected to a closed end of the first chamber, a second actuator connected to a closed end of the second chamber, and a third actuator connected to a closed end of the third chamber.
Resch teaches multiple drawers (chambers) that are side-by-side with multiple actuators (locking assemblies) as shown in Figs. 1 and 6.
Therefore, Resch in view of Chuang renders claim 5 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Resch in view of Chuang renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the first chamber being configured to open and close at a predetermined altitude ranging from 100 m to 10,000 m above the ground level for predetermined interval of time at least of 1 minute.
In Resch in view of Chuang the first chamber (drawer) is “configured to open and close”. The recitations of the altitude and time interval do not incorporate any structural limitations into claim 6.
Therefore, Resch in view of Chuang renders claim 6 obvious via rendering claim 1 from which claim 6 depends obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that relies upon Chuang as teaching draw trays.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 are allowable.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method of collecting spores from the atmosphere as recited in claim 7 that includes the steps of proving the apparatus of claim 1, attaching the apparatus as to a flying means, allowing the flying means to reach a predetermined altitude from the ground level, opening the first chamber containing at least one sample blade by activating the first actuator using a control means when the flying means reaches a predetermined altitude, allowing the chamber to collect spores from the atmosphere, allowing the flying means to return to the ground level and removing, from the chamber, the at least one sample blade containing spores collected from the atmosphere.
The prior art does not teach or suggest a disease warning system as recited in claim 8 that includes the apparatus as defined in claim 1 and a control unit operatively coupled to said apparatus and configured to send and/or receive data pertaining to any collected fungal spores, data pertaining to metrological conditions and/or data pertaining to any agricultural field.
Claims 9-12 are allowable since they depend from claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0292512 to Erben er al, is directed to environmental sampling with and unmanned aerial vehicle having doors that are opened and closed by motors. [0023].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0168920 to Hooker et al, teaches drawers that are opened and closed by a motor. (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights