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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/17/25.
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.
Claim 14 and 15 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. The subject mater is already recited in claim 13 and therefore does not further limit the parent claim.
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.
Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonecker (US 9,804,095) in view of Curry et al. (US 2011/0212002).
Regarding claim 13, Bonecker discloses a container system for receiving a liquid sample comprising a receptacle including:
a substantially tubular part adapted to receive a predefined volume of the sample, the substantially tubular part having an open first end and an at least partly openable second end (tube 8 having open top end and a partially closed bottom end, structure 26 is being interpreted as part of the tubular part);
a chamber at least partly surrounding the substantially tubular part, the chamber having an at least partly open upper part and a closed bottom (chamber 17 surrounds the tubular part area 26, chamber 17 is open at top end of 18 and closed at bottom area of 18);
the substantially tubular part (26) passing through the closed bottom (bottom area 18) of the chamber so that the first end of the substantially tubular part rises to a distance from the closed bottom of the chamber (top of 26 is higher than bottom of chamber bottom 18),
wherein the upper part of the chamber rises beyond the first end of the substantially tubular part (the top part of chamber 18 is higher than the highest part of the tubular part 26, see fig. 1).
Bonecker does not teach wherein the receptacle comprises a connection chute which connects in a substantially radial manner at least part of the open upper part of the chamber to the first end of the substantially tubular part.
Curry teaches a sample receiving device for releasably storing a substance which comprises a lid having a reservoir for retaining the substance and a pierceable barrier sealing the substance within the reservoir; a funnel for receiving a sample and configured for closure by the lid. The funnel is configured for releasable attachment to a sample receptacle such that a sample can be provided to the funnel and travel through the channel in the funnel into the sample receptacle. The funnel is provided with a chamber that surrounds a tubular part (fig. 23 tubular part below 820). The chamber is provided with a chute see fig 23. Area to the right of 820 which feeds to tubular part). It would having been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bonecker to employ the chute of Curry in order to allow the reagent to be funneled into the tubular section prior to capping with the plug. This would allow loading the reservoir 8 of Bonecker with a reagent without spilling due to the larger chamber area opening relative to the tubular opening 8.
Regarding claim 14, The modified Bonecker teaches the container system according to claim 13, in which the upper part of the chamber rises beyond the first end of the substantially tubular part (this is a duplicate claim limitation that is already in claim 13. See claim interpretation above).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Bonecker teaches the container system according to claim 14, in which the receptacle comprises a connection chute which connects at least part of the open upper part of the chamber to the first end of the substantially tubular part (this is a duplicate claim limitation that is already in claim 13. See claim interpretation above).
Regarding claim 16, The modified Bonecker teaches the container system according to claim 13, in which the chamber is connected to the substantially tubular part in a separable manner (see fig. 1, further there is no structure related to make the chamber releasably connected to the tubular part).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Bonecker teaches the container system according to claim 13, in which the at least partly openable second end of the substantially tubular part comprises a unidirectional valve (closure membrane 10 is a unidirectional valve).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Bonecker teaches the container system according to claim 13, including a sample tube (fig. 1, ref. 2) having an open or openable first end adapted to be connected in separable manner to the receptacle and a second end comprising a sample storage chamber (See fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Bonecker teaches the container system according to claim 18, in which the second end of the substantially tubular part of the receptacle is adapted to be connected to the open or openable first end of the sample tube (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Bonecker teaches the container system according to claim 18, in which the sample storage chamber of the sample tube is configured to be at least partly prefilled with a liquid, in particular an inactivation liquid (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim. Further an inactivation liquid is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Bonecker teaches the container system according to claim 18, including at least one stopper adapted to provide substantially hermetically sealed closure of the sample tube (stopper 19).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Bonecker teaches the container system according to claim 21, in which the stopper can be inserted at least partly in the open first end of the substantially tubular part of the receptacle (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Bonecker teaches the container system according to claim 22, in which the stopper is adapted, upon insertion of the stopper in the open first end of the substantially tubular part of the receptacle, to cause the predefined volume of the liquid sample received via the at least partly openable second end of the substantially tubular part of the receptacle to flow (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim because the stopper does not further recite a structure that increases pressure within the tubular part such as a plunger. Bonecker provides a plunger that is attached to the stopper that increases the pressure within the tubular part and breaks the membrane 10 which allows the reagent to enter the receptacle to mix with the sample).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL P SIEFKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1262. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, 8-6.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/SAMUEL P SIEFKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758