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 claims 18-29 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 30-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/19/2023, 07/19/2023 and 10/30/2024 and are being considered by the examiner.
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 27 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 27 recites the limitation " the authentication device is coupled with an interface …" in line 2. It is unclear whether the interface is part of the invention, and if it is part of the invention whether the interface is part of the sample collection kit or part of the authentication device. The specification indicates it is part of the invention, but it could be either part of the authentication device or the sample collection kit, as it states p. 2, line 28-30, “… the data carrier is coupled to an interface to read out the authentication data. The interface may be part of the authentication device or a different component of the sample collection kit.” Clarification is requested. For the purpose of examination, the interface is interpreted as being positively recited and a part of the sample collection kit.
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.
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.
Claim 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann (US 20190184399 A1)(provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 07/19/2023).
Regarding claim 18, Zimmermann teaches a sample collection kit (100) adapted for collecting plant samples (para. 0003), comprising:
at least one sample container (10) adapted to receive the plant samples (para. 0060);
a sensor arrangement having multiple sensors (21 and 22) and configured to capture sample data (para. 0060);
a data recording device (30) adapted to record the sample data (para. 0060);
a tool arrangement having collection tools (collection nets 41 and harvesting knives 42), which are adapted for harvesting the plant samples, and having processing tools (utensils), which are adapted for processing the plant samples (para. 0057);
a container device (71) adapted to receive the tool arrangement and the device arrangement in a state that is isolated from the surroundings (Fig. 1);
identification markings (80) that include identification data and are attached to the at least one sample container, the collection tools and the processing tools (para. 0054, work equipment in the kit is provided with identification markings 80); and
an authentication device that includes an electronically readable data carrier (RFID chip)(interprets the RFID chip is a RFID transponder because RFID chip is the means to release the lock, and thus has an interface to transmit signal. If it is determined that RFID chip comprises only the data carrier, then the following obvious rejection is put forth. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the RFID chip with the data carrier taught by Zimmermann to also include an antenna interface to transmit data in order to be for the RFID chip to be a means to wirelessly release the lock with a reasonable expectation of success (para. 0051) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G)) with authentication data (RFID chip has data in order to release the lock), wherein
Zimmermann does not teach what authentication data is included in the RFID chip for access control in order to improve safety of correct use, and thus fails to the authentication data is data that represents a state of the sample collection kit.
However, Zimmermann teaches monitoring, and thus having data of, the completeness of the kit with space sensors at individual receiving elements in the container modules also improve the safety of correct use (Zimmermann para. 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the authentication data of the RFID chip taught by Zimmermann to include data of completeness of the kit (data that represents a state of the sample collection kit) in order to improve the safety of correct use with a reasonable expectation of success (Zimmermann, para. 0051)(MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
In addition, Zimmerman teaches the sample collection kit 100 is provided with a lock that can be wireless released by means of RFID chip but does not disclose where the lock and RFID chip is located in the sample collection kit 100, and thus fails to teach the authentication device (RFID chip) is attached to at least one of the container device , the at least one sample container, the collection tools and the processing tools.
However, Zimmerman teaches sample collection kit 100 comprises container devices 71, 72, 73 (Fig. 2 and para. 0052). Zimmermann teaches the container devices to be opened to access the content within (para. 0056 and Figs. 2- 3), and thus can be locked for control access in order to improve the safety of correct use (para. 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container devices 71, 72, 73 taught by Zimmermann to each with a lock with a RFID chip attached for control access in order to improve the safety of correct use with a reasonable expectation of success () (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of modified Zimmermann would yield the authentication device (RFID transponder) is attached to at least one of the container device (71)
Regarding claim 19, modified Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18.
Modified Zimmermann wherein the authentication data of the electronically readable data carrier of the authentication device represent at least one of an original configuration of the sample collection kit (the data of completeness of the kit).
Regarding claim 22, modified Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18.
Zimmermann teaches wherein the authentication device (RFID chip) is adapted for a wireless read-out of the authentication data (Zimmerman, para. 0051; and RFID, aka. Radio-frequency identification, uses radio waves thus adapted for a wireless readout).
Regarding claim 23, modified Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18. Zimmermann wherein the authentication device comprises at least one of at least one RFID beacon (RFID chip, see above).
Regarding claim 26, modified Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18. Zimmermann further teaches wherein the authentication device (RFID chip) is provided additionally to the identification markings (80)(see above).
Regarding claim 28, modified Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18 wherein the authentication data represent an overall configuration of the sample collection kit (data of the completeness of the kit) as a connection of its components (interpreted as an intended use. The data of the completeness of the kit meets the structure limitation of the intended use as the data provides a connection check point to determine if all components are included).
Regarding claim 29, modified Zimmerman teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18.
Zimmermann further teaches wherein the sample collection kit is adapted for collecting algae samples for biomedical applications (abstract).
Claims 20, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann (US 20190184399 A1) in view of Whelan et al. (US 20050009122 A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18.
Zimmermann teaches the sample collection kit 100 according to the invention includes a RFID chip for access control in order to improve safety of correct use. (para. 0051).
Zimmermann does not teach the authentication device (RFID chip) is adapted for storing encrypted authentication data.
However, Whelan teaches the use of authentication data in a RFID device for access control in order to improve safety of correct use (paras. 0025 and 0038, limit access to authorized users and to determine if test shall proceed or not). Whelan further teaches the RFID device may use data encryption to securely limit access to information programmed or stored on the RFID device to limit use to only authorized users and to provide a mechanism to ensure that the test has not been adulterated prior to testing (para. 0037)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the RFID chip taught by modified Zimmermann to be adapted for storing encrypted authentication data as taught by Whelan in order to securely limit access to information programmed or stored on the RFID device to limit use to only authorized users and to provide a mechanism to ensure that the test has not been adulterated prior to testing with a reasonable expectation of success (Whelan, para. 0037) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Regarding claim 24, modified Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18.
Zimmermann teaches the sample collection kit 100 according to the invention includes a RFID chip for access control in order to improve safety of correct use. (para. 0051).
Zimmermann does not teach the authentication device (RFID chip) is arranged in a hidden manner and is not visible when using the sample collection kit.
However, Whelan teaches a test cartridge for receiving a test sample for analytical (para. 0010). Whelan teaches the use of authentication data in a RFID device in the test cartridge for access control in order to improve safety of correct use (paras. 0025 and 0038, limit access to authorized users and to determine if test shall proceed or not). Whelan further teaches the RFID device is arranged in a hidden manner and is not visible when using the test cartridge (Fig. 2, paras. 0013 , 0027 and 0029, embedded in within the housing of the test cartridge not visible) in order to protectively enclose the RFID device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container devices 71, 72 and 73 taught by modified Zimmerman to have a housing that allows for embedding of the RFID device in a hidden manner and is not visible as taught by Whelan in order to protectively enclose the RFID device with a reasonable expectation of success (Whelan, para. Fig. 2, paras. 0013 , 0027 and 0029) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Regarding claim 27, modified Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18.
modified Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18.
Zimmermann teaches the sample collection kit 100 according to the invention includes a RFID chip for access control including release of a lock, in order to improve safety of correct use. (para. 0051).
Zimmermann does not explicitly teach the mechanism by with the authentication data of the RFID chip is read out and subsequently actuate the release of the lock based on the data, and thus fails to teach wherein the authentication device (RFID chip) is coupled with an interface for reading out the authentication data.
However, Whelan teaches a test cartridge that receive a sample for analytical testing para. 0010). Whelan teaches the use of authentication data in a RFID device in the cartridge for access control in order to improve safety of correct use (paras. 0025 and 0038, limit access to authorized users and to determine if test shall proceed or not). Whelan further wherein the authentication device (RFID chip) is coupled with an interface (RFID reader) for reading out the authentication data (para. 0020 and Fig. 1, RFID device is wireless coupled to the RFID reader) to determine subsequent action to the cartridge (paras. 0020 and 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sample collection kit taught by modified Zimmermann to include a RFID reader (interface) taught by Whelan for reading out the authentication data in order to determine subsequent action to the lock based on the data (Whelan paras. 0020, 0038 and Zimmerman, para. 0051) with a reasonable expectation of success. (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of modified Zimmermann would yield wherein the authentication device (RFID chip) is coupled with an interface (RFID reader taught by Whelan)(coupled wirelessly) for reading out the authentication data.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann (US 20190184399 A1) in view of Ohshima (US 20120223147 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18.
Zimmermann teaches the sample collection kit 100 according to the invention includes a RFID transponder (authentication device) for access control in order to improve safety of correct use. (para. 0051).
Zimmermann does not teach wherein the authentication device is adapted for a wired access to the authentication data.
However, Ohshima teaches a RFID tag that is adapted for both wired and wireless communication. Ohshima teaches the RFID tag comprises RFID chip 10 that store data, antennas 11 and 12 for wireless communication, and terminals 15, 16, and 17 for wired communication. Ohshima teaches the RFID tag (authentication device) is adapted for both a wired and a wireless access to the stored data/information (para. 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the authentication device (RFID chip) taught by Zimmermann with the RFID tag taught by Ohshima in order for the authentication device to be adapted for both wired and wireless access to the authentication data with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teaching of modified Zimmermann as modified with Ohshima would yield wherein the authentication device is adapted for a wired access to the authentication data.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann (US 20190184399 A1) in view of Sample (US 20170124790 A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Zimmermann teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18.
Zimmermann teaches the RFID chip (authentication device) is adapted to control a lock (mechanical blocking device) depending on an authentication based on the authentication data (para. 0051).
Zimmermann fails to teach the mechanism by which the RFID chip controls the lock, thus fails to teach sample collection fit further comprising: a control device connected with the authentication device (RFID device) and adapted to control the lock (mechanical blocking device) depending on an authentication based on the authentication data.
However, Sample teaches a lock that is actuated by RFID system. Sample further teaches the system comprise a RFID reader (a control device) connected with the authentication device (RFID tag)(connected wirelessly) and adapted to control a mechanical blocking device (actuate the lock) depending on an authentication based on the authentication data (Sample, para. 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sample collection kit taught by Zimmermann to include a RFID reader (a control device) connected with the authentication device (RFID transponder) and adapted to control a mechanical blocking device (lock) depending on an authentication based on the authentication data as taught by Sample in order to have a mechanism for controlling the lock with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 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, 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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758