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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 36-47) in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 48-55 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/05/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 42 lacks punctuation at the end of the claim. 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.
Claim 39 is 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 39 recites the limitation "the two pipette chambers" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 39 is being treated as though it depends from Claim 38. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 36-37, 40-41 and 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yong (PGPub 2016/0054202).
Re Claim 36, Yong teaches a system for collecting a sample of a liquid (Yong Figs. 1B-1C, 2E-2H), the system comprising: a liquid storage vessel (110) comprising an opening (112); and a capping element (120) configured to seal the opening (112) of the storage vessel (110) (Yong ¶ 0017-0018); wherein the capping element (120) comprises: a pipette element (170) configured to store a sample of the liquid separate to the liquid storage vessel (110) (Yong ¶ 0032-0034); and a capping part (140) connectable between the opening (112) and the pipette element (170) (Yong Figs. 2E-2H); wherein the pipette element (170) is separable from the capping part (140) (as seen in Yong Figs. 2E-2H); wherein the capping part (140) comprises a first liquid conveying connector (150) (Yong ¶ 0023); wherein the pipette element (170) comprises a second liquid-conveying connector configured to mate with the first liquid-conveying connector (as described at Yong ¶ 0023); and wherein the first liquid conveying connector (150) is uncovered when the pipette element (170) is separated from the capping part (140) (as seen in Yong Figs. 2E-2H).
Re Claim 37, Yong teaches all of the limitations of Claim 36. Yong further teaches wherein the pipette element (170) comprises a flat base portion configured to support the pipette element (170) in an upright standing position (as seen in Yong Fig. 2H, distal end of pipette is flat).
Re Claim 40, Yong teaches all of the limitations of Claim 36. Yong further teaches wherein the first liquid-conveying connector comprises an ENFit connector (Examiner is interpreting an ENFit connector to be a standard Luer connector, taught at Yong ¶ 0023).
Re Claim 41, Yong teaches all of the limitations of Claim 36. Yong further teaches wherein the second liquid-conveying connector comprises an ENFit connector (Examiner is interpreting an ENFit connector to be a standard Luer connector, taught at Yong ¶ 0023).
Re Claim 43, Yong teaches all of the limitations of Claim 36. Yong further teaches wherein the opening (112) of the liquid storage vessel (110) comprises a threaded interface (113) (Yong ¶ 0019).
Re Claim 44, Yong teaches all of the limitations of Claim 36. Yong further teaches wherein the opening (112) of the storage vessel (110) is effectively sealed by the capping element (120) (Yong ¶ 0003, 0024).
Re Claim 45, Yong teaches all of the limitations of Claim 36. Yong further teaches wherein the second liquid-conveying connector comprises a screw fitting (Yong ¶ 0023 - teaching a Luer connector).
Re Claim 46, Yong teaches all of the limitations of Claim 36. Yong further teaches wherein the liquid storage vessel (110) comprises a pouch or a bottle (as seen in Yong Fig. 1B).
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.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (PGPub 2016/0054202) in view of Shimizu (USPGPub 2006/0257290).
Re Claims 38 and 39, Yong teaches all of the limitations of Claim 36. Yong fails to teach wherein the capping element comprises a dual pipette element defining two pipette chambers, wherein each pipette chamber is configured to store some of the sample of liquid taken from the storage vessel; and wherein the two pipette chambers are separable from one another. Shimizu teaches a dual pipette element (226) (Shimizu Fig. 15) defining two pipette chambers (224A, 224B), wherein each pipette chamber (224A, 224B) is configured to store some of a sample of liquid taken from a storage vessel (240) (Shimizu ¶ 0157); and wherein the two pipette chambers (224A, 224B) are separable from one another (Shimizu ¶ 0154), the configuration for permitting sample liquid dispensation at different times. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the capping element of Yong to comprise a dual pipette element defining two pipette chambers, wherein each pipette chamber is configured to store some of the sample of liquid taken from the storage vessel; and wherein the two pipette chambers are separable from one another as disclosed by Shimizu for permitting sample liquid dispensation at different times (Shimizu ¶ 0154, 0157).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (PGPub 2016/0054202) in view of Marchiarullo et al. (USPGPub 2018/0049686).
Re Claim 42, Yong teaches all of the limitations of Claim 36. Yong fails to teach the system further comprising a plug; wherein the plug comprises two ends: a first end configured to seal a first liquid conveying connector of a capping part, and a second end configured to seal the second liquid conveying connector of the pipette element after the pipette element is separated from the capping part. Marchiarullo teaches a fluid conveyance system (Marchiarullo Fig. 7) comprising a plug (86) (Marchiarullo Figs. 8-9; ¶ 0048); wherein the plug (86) comprises two ends: a first end (94) configured to seal a first liquid conveying connector (42) of a capping part (24), and a second end (92) configured to seal a second liquid conveying connector (38) of the fluid conveyance system after the fluid conveyance system is separated from the capping part (24), thus mitigating unnecessary exposure to the fluid (Marchiarullo ¶ 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the system of Yong to further comprise a plug; wherein the plug comprises two ends: a first end configured to seal a first liquid conveying connector of a capping part, and a second end configured to seal the second liquid conveying connector of the pipette element after the pipette element is separated from the capping part, a similar embodiment as disclosed by Marchiarullo for mitigating unnecessary exposure to the fluid (Marchiarullo ¶ 0053).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (PGPub 2016/0054202) in view of Cohen (USPGPub 2017/0297013).
Re Claim 47, Yong teaches all of the limitations of Claim 36. Yong fails to teach the pipette element is at least partially transparent. Cohen teaches a pipette (100) (Cohen Fig. 1) wherein the pipette is manufactured from a transparent material, thus permitting the viewing of fluid entering the pipette during use (Cohen ¶ 0094). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the pipette element of Yong be at least partially transparent as disclosed by Cohen wherein Cohen teaches pipettes manufactured from transparent material, thus permitting the viewing of fluid entering the pipette during use (Cohen ¶ 0094).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R FREHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8225. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM-7:30PM.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/WILLIAM R FREHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights