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 .
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 15, 19-21, 23-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Leary (US 2019/0391051) in view of Jaeger et al. (US 2018/0051312).
Regarding claim 15, O’Leary discloses a closable sample container (fig. 6, and 7; 210) with a closure device (220) and an opening closable (top opening on container 210) by the closure device (220), and having at least one further opening (para. 142; fig. 7, opening in closure device 220 where nonwoven fabric is placed in aperture) through a wall of the closable sample container and the closure device,
wherein at least one of the openings is closed or covered with a nonwoven fabric (the opening in closure device lid 220 has nonwoven fabric placed in the aperture therefore covering the aperture; par 126),
the nonwoven fabric is designed so as to form a barrier for a biological material, thereby preventing the biological material from entering an inside of the container,
to allow steam in the form of water vapor to pass from the inside to an outside, and to form a barrier for fluids, and thereby retains fluids inside of the container (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim because there are not structures associated with the functional limitations),
wherein the nonwoven fabric used is comprised, at least in part, of a suitable polymeric nonwoven fabric of synthetic fibers (para 126) having hydrophobic properties (para 39), has a void volume of more than 30 percent (para 121; allows the same liquids/ gas as the instant application; water vapor); wherein the nonwoven fabric is fused to the wall of the closable container or to the closure device by a welding process (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim because the limitation is drawn to a product by process. See fig. 7 which shows the nonwoven fabric attached to the wall of the closure device).
O’Leary does not teach the nonwoven material has a basis weight of between 20 and 500 g/m2.
Jaeger teaches a device for collecting cellular analytes that comprises a collection device fig. 1 having a nonwoven articles 106 disposed on the tip of the filter holder 102 for collecting the cellular analytes. Jaeger teaches the nonwoven article has is made of a polymer and has a basis weight in the range of 200-300 g/m2 (para 144). Jaeger states the in the nonwoven article, the concentration agent particles can be entrapped in the fibrous porous matrix through either chemical interactions (for example, chemical bonding) or physical interactions (for example, adsorption or mechanical entrapment), depending upon the nature of the fibers that are utilized. The concentration agent particles are often preferably distributed essentially uniformly throughout the fibrous porous matrix within the nonwoven article. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify O’ Leary to employ a nonwoven fiber of Jaeger in order to collect and trap agent particles of interest based upon the size of analyte one would like to collect (para 145-147).
Regarding claim 19, the closable sample container of claim 15, characterized in that the nonwoven fabric is situated on the outside of the closure device, on the inside of the closure device or on both sides (the nonwowen fabric 240 is placed in an aperture opening in the lid closure that is open to the inside of the container and also exposed to the outside air).
Regarding claim 20, the closable sample container of claim 15, characterized in that the nonwoven fabric has a void volume of more than 30 percent and is composed of hydrophobic organic polymers (para 122-134).
Regarding claim 21, the closable sample container of claim 15, characterized in that the nonwoven fabric to be used is comprised, at least in part, of one or more material selected from the group comprising polyester (PES), polyethylene (PE) (Tyvek, para 120), polypropylene (PP) (para 118), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidine fluoride (PVDF), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or polycarbonate.
Regarding claim 22, the closable sample container of claim 15, characterized in that the nonwoven fabric used is comprised, at least in part, of a suitable polymeric nonwoven fabric of synthetic fibers having hydrophobic properties (para 134).
Regarding claim 23, the closable sample container of claim 15, characterized in that the nonwoven fabric used has a basis weight according to ISO 9073-1 of between 50 and 300 g/m2 (para 120 discloses Tyvek which is also disclosed in the instant specification and states Tyvek is a HDPE).
Regarding claim 24, the closable sample container of claim 15, characterized in that the nonwoven fabric used has an air permeability according to ISO 9073-15 of between 30 and 4000 dm3/ s m2 (para 120-132).
Regarding claim 25, the closable sample container of claim 15, characterized in that the nonwoven fabric used has a thickness according to FNS 19-04-04 of between 0.05 and 1.0 mm (para 126).
Regarding claim 26, the closable sample container of claim 15, characterized in that the container has a length in a range of 1 to 30 cm and has a diameter of between 0.5 and 3 cm (see figs. 1-7, para 101-105).
Regarding claim 28, O’leary discloses method for processing a sample of biological material, the method comprising the following steps:
a) introducing a sample of biological material into a sample container of claim 1
b) drying (para 124) and possibly transporting the sample being in the sample container (this limitation is not positively recited and is optional and is not being treated herein); and
c) processing the sample being in the sample container (para 174, the instant claim does not state what processing of the sample involves so therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation is adding a buffer or reagent to the sample within the container, para. 135, 159, 164).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15, 19-21, 23-26 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights