31Notice 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites “along the along the”. This seems to be an erroneous error.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites “for cutting disc for a food processor”. This seems to be an erroneous error and examiner gives no weight to this portion 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.
Claims 12-13, and 16 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 term “generally” in claims 12-13, and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 12, 14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1)) as being anticipated by Sangha (US 6840911).
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, 12, 14, 18, and 20, Sangha discloses:
1. An oral testing assembly (10) comprising:
a head portion (16) (col. 4, lines 20-44);
an elongated handle (14) attached to the head portion (16) (col. 4, lines 20-44);
a testing strip (12) configured to be positioned on a scraping surface of the head portion (16); and
a cover member (22) including a detection window (20) wherein the cover member is configured to be attached to the head portion (16) to support the testing strip (12) to the head portion (16) such that portions of the testing strip are exposed (via 17) through a sample inlet and the detection window (20) (col. 5, lines 20-35, lines 53-60);
wherein the head portion (16) and testing strip (12) are arranged to collect a sample from the mouth or tongue of a patient (cols. 4-7 discuss the detailed method of collecting the sample from the mouth of tongue of the patient).
2. The oral testing assembly of claim 1, wherein the head portion includes a scraping wall protruding from the scraping surface of the head portion (head portion 16 with outer surface having two walls 18 protruding upward therefore, Fig 1a, 1b; “shield sidewalls 18 extend upwardly”).
3. The oral testing assembly of claim 2, wherein the head portion includes a reservoir positioned along the scraping surface wherein the reservoir is defined within the scraping surface of the head portion and is adjacent the scraping wall (reservoir as interior space within walls 18 and base wall of head portion 16, Fig 1a, 1b; “shield sidewalls 18 extend upwardly”, col. 6, lines 61-62).
4. The oral testing assembly of claim 3, wherein the sample inlet is positioned in the reservoir (sample inlet as portion of strip 12 extending outside of handle 14 and within reservoir defined by sidewalls 18 of head portion 16, Fig 1a, 1b).
5. The oral testing assembly of claim 2, wherein the sample inlet is positioned between the scraping wall and the cover member such that the sample inlet is spaced from the detection window (sample inlet as portion of testing strip 12 placed outside handle 14 being positioned between scraping wall surfaces of head 16 and cover 22 and being positioned from detection window 20, Fig 1a, 1b, see exploded view Fig 6).
6. The oral testing assembly of claim 1, wherein a sample is configured to be received at the sample inlet to contact the testing strip and a test line and a control liner are configured to be viewed through the detection window (col. 5, lines 53-59; col. 9, lines 62-col. 10, lines 3).
8. The oral testing assembly of claim 1, wherein the scraping surface of the head portion includes a recessed area configured to receive and support the testing strip (top surface of head portion 16 supporting test strip 12 defining recessed area as being lower than that of side walls 18 extending along entire length of head portion 16, Fig 1a, 4).
12. The oral testing assembly of claim 1, wherein the cover member includes a body having a generally elongated and rectangular shape with a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end defines a portion of the sample inlet (cover 22 being generally elongated and rectangular in shape having proximal end proximal protrusion 40 and sample inlet of test strip 12 and distal end opposite thereof proximate protrusion 38, Fig 1a, 1b, 6).
14. The oral testing assembly of claim 12, wherein the proximal end of the cover member includes an arcuate edge to define a portion of the sample inlet (see rounded edge of proximal edge of cover 22 defining edge of sample inlet of test strip 12, Fig 1a).
18. A method for testing a liquid sample (abstract) for cutting disc for a food processor comprising:
providing an oral testing assembly head portion (16) having a scraping surface (shield 16 with outer surface for contact within mouth, Fig 1a, 1b, 6) and extending from an elongated handle (14) (col. 4, lines 20-21),
a testing strip (12) configured to be positioned on the scraping surface of the head portion (16) (col. 4, lines 21-22, Fig 1a, 1b), and
a cover member (22) including a detection window (20) wherein the cover member is configured to be attached to the head portion to support the testing strip to the head portion (col. 5, lines 20-35, lines 53-60);
scraping a surface of a mouth of a patient with the scraping surface of the head portion (head portion 16 with outer surface having two walls 18 protruding upward therefore, Fig 1a, 1b; “shield sidewalls 18 extend upwardly”);
directing a sample to the sample inlet to be received by testing strip (col. 5, lines 53-59; col. 9, lines 62-col. 10, lines 3); and
reading results on the test strip through the detection window of the cover member (col. 5, lines 29-32).
20. The method of claim 18 wherein the head portion includes a scraping wall protruding from the scraping surface of the head portion and a reservoir in the scraping surface (base wall of head portion 16 and side walls 18 making contact with user’s mouth and reservoir denied within walls of head portion 16, Fig 1a, 1b).
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 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.
Claim(s) 7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangha in view of Fleming (US 20050277202).
Regarding claim 7, Sangha discloses test strip having an elongated and rectangular shape. Sangha discloses all of the limitations of the claim except wherein the testing strip is a lateral flow assay test strip having an elongated and rectangular shape. Fleming teaches wherein the testing strip is a lateral flow assay test strip having an elongated and rectangular shape (Fig 4, paragraph 0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shangha’s test strip by Fleming’s test strip to be a lateral flow assay to provide for proper testing of the fluid sample as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 10, Sangha discloses all of the limitations of the claim except The oral testing assembly of claim 1, wherein the oral testing assembly is disposable. Fleming teaches wherein the oral testing assembly is disposable (paragraph 0013, 0070). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sangha’s oral testing assembly to be disposable as taught by Fleming for the purpose of providing quick, rapid testing with ease of disposability after use.
Regarding claim 11, Sangha discloses all of the limitations of the claim except wherein the oral testing assembly is re-usable. Fleming teaches wherein the oral testing assembly is re-usable (paragraph 0013, 0070). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sangha’s oral testing assembly to be disposable as taught by Fleming for the purpose of providing quick, rapid testing without the need to acquire a new assembly.
Claim(s) 9, 15, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangha in view of Slowey (US 8273305)
Regarding claim 9, Sangha discloses all of the limitations of the claim except The oral testing assembly of claim 8, wherein the cover member is configured to snap fit within the recessed area to support the testing strip in the recessed area. Slowey teaches wherein the cover member is configured to snap fit within the recessed area to support the testing strip in the recessed area (col. 15, lines 15-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sangha’s oral assembly to include of a well-known snap fit mechanism as taught by Slowey to hold the testing strip securely and easily.
Regarding claim 15, Sangha discloses all of the limitations of the claim except a second testing strip wherein the cover member includes a second detection window such that portions of the second testing strip are exposed through a second sample inlet and the second detection window. Slowey teaches a second testing strip wherein the cover member includes a second detection window such that portions of the second testing strip are exposed through a second sample inlet and the second detection window (col. 17, lines 30-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sangha’s oral assembly device to include a plurality of testing strips and plurality of detection windows as taught by Slowey for the purpose of utilizing one device to test for multiple drugs at once.
Regarding claim 17, Sangha discloses a surface protrusion positioned along at least one of the elongated handle and the cover member (unlabeled thumb ridges on cover 22, Fig 1a; thumb ridges 48 as seen labeled in Fig 7).
Regarding claim 19, Sangha discloses all of the limitations of the claim except the method of claim 18, wherein the oral testing assembly includes a plurality of aligned testing strips and detection windows such that a plurality of results may be read through the plurality of detection windows. Slowey teaches wherein the oral testing assembly includes a plurality of aligned testing strips and plurality of detection window (col. 17, lines 30-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sangha’s oral assembly device to include a plurality of testing strips and plurality of detection windows as taught by Slowey for the purpose of utilizing one device to test for multiple drugs at once.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangha in view of Mink (US 20020155029)
Regarding claim 13, Sangha discloses all of the limitations of the claim except wherein the body of the cover member includes a generally tapered thickness having a smaller thickness towards the proximal end and a larger thickness towards the distal end. Mink teaches wherein the body of the cover member includes a generally tapered thickness having a smaller thickness towards the proximal end and a larger thickness towards the distal end (Fig 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sangha’s oral assembly by Mink’s oral assembly which shows a tapered configuration as a matter of design choice since it has been held that changing the size or shape of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of shape, size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASMEEN S WARSI whose telephone number is (571)272-9942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/YASMEEN S WARSI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791