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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2026 and 06/30/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 18-25, 27 and 29-35 remain pending in the application. Claims 30-35 are withdrawn. Claims 18-25, 27 and 29 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections of claims 26 and 28 are obviated by Applicant’s cancellation.
The rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s argument.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, lines 2-11, “…comprising: … - in addition to the identification markings, an authentication device is provided that …” contains an syntax error. It is suggested that the limitation to read “…comprising: … - in addition to the identification markings, an authentication device
Claim 23, line 4, “Bluetooth” should read “short-range wireless technology” because Bluetooth is a trademark.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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
in addition to the identification markings, an authentication device is provided that includes an electronically readable data carrier (RFID chip, para. 0051)(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
the authentication device (RFID chip) is provided separately from the identification markings (80)(RFID transponder and the markings are separate).
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 detecting, and thus have 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)(in order to monitor and detect the completeness of the kit, information/data of what components are required a complete kit must be present).
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 its entirety, comprising an overall configuration of the sample collection kit as a connection of its components) in order to improve the safety of correct use with a reasonable expectation of success (Zimmermann, para. 0051)(MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of modified Zimmermann teaches the authentication data that represents a state of the sample collection kit in its entirety (data of completeness of the kit), comprising an overall configuration of the sample collection kit (the data of completeness of the kit contains information on the types of components and the number of each component that are meant to be the kit, which is the overall configuration of the kit) as a connection of its components (interpreted as an intended use. The data of completeness of the kit meets the structural limitation of the intended use. the data can be used as a connection of its components) and are provided for a proof of authenticity and usability of the sample collection kit (interpreted as an intended use. The data of completeness of the kit meets the structural limitation of the intended use. When an appropriately programmed reader is available, the data can be used for providing proof of authenticity and usability of the sample collection kit).
In addition, Zimmermann 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, Zimmermann 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 (paras. 0051, 0056 and Fig. 2-3) with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of modified Zimmermann would yield wherein 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 teaches 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 29, modified Zimmermann 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 Zimmermann 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7-8, filed 06/14/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 3/18/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-, filed 06/14/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the cited references fails to disclose or suggest the amended features of amended claim 18. the Applicant argues that the OA of 03/18/2026 relies on a) real- time completeness monitoring, (b) RFID-based access control, and (c) generalized assertions of modification, none of which corresponds to the claimed authentication architecture,” and they are technically and functionally distinct from the instant with the following arguments:
The Applicant argues, on p. 9, 2nd para., that Zimmerman’s identification markers is not suitable for representing a state of the sample collection kit in its entirety.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Zimmerman’s identification markers are not relied up for the teaching of the limitation relating the authentication device. Therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant further argues, on p. 9, 3rd para. to p. 10, 1st para., the lack of motivation for a POTISA to modify Zimmermann’s sample collection to include that the amended features, also listed as (i) – (iii) on p. 8. The Applicant states that the teachings of Zimmermann “does not address, nor recognize, the problem of securely verifying the state, authenticity, and usability of a sample collection kit as a whole” and the motivation of safety of correct use does not provide sufficient motivation to modify Zimmermann’s kit with the authentication architecture that is required by the amended claim. The Applicant also argues that the proposed modification of Zimmermann is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It first noted that “authentication” in “authentication device” and “authentication data” are intended use. The parts of the limitation relating the authentication data that recites “as a connection of its components” and “are provided for a proof of authenticity and usability of the sample collection kit” are also interpreted as intended use.
MPEP 2114(II) states that ‘A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.’
With the motivation disclosed by Zimmermann for safety of correct use, a POTISA would be motivated to modify the Zimmermann’s kit to include a RFID transponder with data of completeness of the kit to improve the safety of correct use (para. 0051) as explained above the in 35 U.S.C. 103 section. The resulting modification is an authentication device (RFID transponder) comprising authentication data at represent a state of the sample collection kit in its entirety, comprising an overall configuration of the sample collection kit (data of completeness of the kit).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant further argues, on p. 10, 2nd para., the ‘“completeness” monitoring in Zimmermann is insufficient to meet feature (i)’ because Zimmermann's sensors detect the presence or absence of components in real time and do not store authentication data representing a predetermined or reference state of the kit; and “the claimed authentication data are fundamentally different in nature, as they enable verification of authenticity and usability by comparison with reference information.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The teachings of Zimmermann provides motivation of detecting completeness of the kit. In order to detect completeness of the kit, information or data of what constitute a complete kit must be present. It is this information/data that is relied upon in modified Zimmermann to teach the authentication data. This data must include what components are required in a complete kit, and thus it represents a state of the sample collection kit in its entirety and comprises the overall configuration of the sample collection kit. When an appropriately programmed reader is available, the data of completeness of the kit can be used for providing proof of authenticity and usability of the sample collection kit. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant argues, on p. 10, 3rd para., that amended claimed 18 requires authentication device is provided separately from the identification markings, and the Office Action does not identify any disclosure or suggestion in the cited art of separating these functions into distinct data carriers, nor does it explain why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, a POSITA is motived to include a RFID transponder with data of completeness of the kit with the motivation of improving the safety of correct use as taught by Zimmermann in para. 0051. In addition, Zimmermann teaches identification markings 80, which is a separate entity from the transponder. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant argues, on p. 10, 4th para., the RFID device, if present, is used solely to enable or restrict access (e.g., unlocking a container), and is not disclosed as storing authentication data representing the state of the kit as a whole. Access control functionality does not equate to authentication of kit configuration or usability, and the cited references do not bridge this gap.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Instead of the data in the RFID device taught by Zimmermann, it is the RFID transponder modified with the data of completeness of the kit that the OA is relied upon to teach the authentication device with authentication data representing the state of the kit as a whole as discussed above. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 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
Prosecution Insights