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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Komarek et al. (US 9,182,382 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Komarek et a. discloses a sample container for use in determining a dietary fiber content of a food sample, the sample container comprising: a chamber (vessel, 4) having a first end, an opposing second end, and a side-wall connecting the first end to the opposing second end, the side-wall including a rigid, non-porous material; a porous filter (lower section, 3) at the opposing second end of the chamber; and an integral stirrer (stirring paddle, 11) within the chamber (see Abstract; figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-39), since Komarek et al. that flexible reaction/filtration containers that can be divided into one or more sections; each container is fashioned as a bag that can be temporarily sealed in multiple locations to create multiple sections and is made of non-porous and porous material (see Abstract); the apparatus includes a removable IDF bag (1) consisting of an upper section (2) made of a polymer film and a lower section (3) made of a porous filter media; the IDF bag is placed into the digestion vessel (4) with the top of the bag remaining open and folded over the vessel lip; and a stirring paddle (11) (see figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-39).
Regarding claim 2, Komarek et al. discloses a sample container wherein the integral stirrer (11) comprises a plurality of blades configured to rotate around an axis that is parallel to the side-wall, the axis passing centrally through the first end and the opposing second end (see figure 1).
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komarek et al. (US 9,182,382 B2) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Guirguis et al. (US 6,296,764 B1).
Regarding claims 3-5, Komarek et al. disclose a sample container wherein the integral stirrer (11) comprises a rotatable shaft extending within the chamber in a direction between the first end and the opposing second end, whereas the plurality of blades are mechanically connected to the rotatable shaft; and further comprising: a lid (10), the lid (10) configured to engage an outer periphery of the side-wall at the first end of the chamber (4) (see figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-39).
Komarek et al. fails to disclose a sample container wherein one end of the rotatable shaft is exposed to an exterior of the chamber; wherein the integral stirrer comprises a deflection surface at an end of the rotatable shaft that is closer to the first end of the chamber than to the opposing second end of the chamber, the deflection surface configured to deflect incident material that is received into the chamber from the exterior of the chamber in a direction towards the side-wall of the chamber; and further comprising: the lid configured to rotate in relation to the chamber and in a plane parallel to the first end, wherein the plurality of blades are mechanically connected to the lid, such that the plurality of blades are configured to rotate around the axis based on rotation of the lid in relation to the chamber.
Guirguis et al. discloses an apparatus for simultaneously processing a plural number of samples, each of the samples including a fluid containing particulate matter (see Abstract); the apparatus comprising a device (10) that includes a specimen container (20) holding a fluid specimen (23), a particulate matter separation chamber (30) having a porous filter arrangement, a pump (40), and a hollow tube (50) (see figure 1 an column 10, lines 35-40); the device (10) also includes a cap (31) that may include a downwardly extending member (51); also includes portion (52) having an opening adapted to receive the lower portion (32) of the particulate matter separation chamber (30); a snap fit engagement between the lower (32) and the projection (54) permitting lower portion (32) to rotate relative to cap portion (52); cap (31) includes structures and means for allowing an outer cap (71) to move in relation to an inner cap (72); outer cap (71) is preferably fixed to and/or in fluid communication with tube (50); in a preferred embodiment of the invention, the outer cap (71) and tube (50) are relatively rotatable with respect to inner cap (72), when inner cap (72) is tightened on container )23); and such relative motion between outer cap (71) and inner cap (72) moves sample in the container (23) in relation to agitator (58A) (see figure 1 and column 10, line 43 through column 11, line 39) such that Guirguis et al. discloses a sample container wherein one end of the rotatable shaft is exposed to an exterior of the chamber, since the outer cap (71) and tube (50) are relatively rotatable with respect to inner cap (72), when inner cap (72) is tightened on container )23); and such relative motion between outer cap (71) and inner cap (72) moves sample in the container (23) in relation to agitator 58A; Guirguis et al. discloses a sample container wherein the integral stirrer comprises a deflection surface at an end of the rotatable shaft that is closer to the first end of the chamber than to the opposing second end of the chamber, the deflection surface configured to deflect incident material that is received into the chamber from the exterior of the chamber in a direction towards the side-wall of the chamber, since the surface of the agitator (58A) has a deflector surface that deflects liquid/fluid downward; and Guirguis et al. discloses a sample container further comprising: the lid configured to rotate in relation to the chamber and in a plane parallel to the first end, wherein the plurality of blades are mechanically connected to the lid, such that the plurality of blades are configured to rotate around the axis based on rotation of the lid in relation to the chamber, since the device (10) also includes a cap (31) that may include a downwardly extending member (51); also includes portion (52) having an opening adapted to receive the lower portion (32) of the particulate matter separation chamber (30); a snap fit engagement between the lower (32) and the projection (54) permitting lower portion (32) to rotate relative to cap portion (52); cap (31) includes structures and means for allowing an outer cap (71) to move in relation to an inner cap (72); outer cap (71) is preferably fixed to and/or in fluid communication with tube (50); in a preferred embodiment of the invention, the outer cap (71) and tube (50) are relatively rotatable with respect to inner cap (72), when inner cap (72) is tightened on container )23); and such relative motion between outer cap (71) and inner cap (72) moves sample in the container (23) in relation to agitator (58A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art references fail to disclose or suggest a sample container wherein the lid includes cog teeth extending around an outer periphery of the lid.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7-10 are allowed.
Regarding claim 7, Komarek et al. discloses a method for determining a dietary fiber content of a food sample, the method comprising: providing the sample container of claim 1 (see Abstract; figure 1; column 4, lines 16-39; and claims 1 and 16); placing the food sample into the sample container and determining a first combined weight of the sample container and at least the food sample that is within the sample container (see claims 2-4); performing an enzymatic digestion of the food sample in the sample container to establish a liquid digestate and a solid residue within the sample container subsequently to determining the first combined weight (see column 3, lines 16-46);
Komarek et al. fails to discloses a method for determining a dietary fiber content of a food sample, the method comprising: separating the solid residue from liquid in the sample container based on filtration through a filter of the sample container such that the solid residue remains within the sample container, since Komarek et al. discloses that after the digestions are complete, the pinch mechanism is released and the entire mixture flows into the SDF bag without filtering the ODF fraction (see column 3, lines 16-46); drying the sample container and the solid residue while the solid residue remains within the sample container; determining a second combined weight of the sample container and at least the solid residue while the solid residue remains within the sample container; calculating a difference between the first combined weight and the second combined weight; and determining the dietary fiber content of the food sample based on the calculated difference.
Claims 8-9 depend on claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Komarek et al. discloses a system for determining a dietary fiber content of a food sample (see Abstract), the system comprising: a plurality of sample containers, the use of more than one IDF and more than one SDF bag at once to allow for the concurrent analysis of multiple sample (see column 6, line 15 through column 7, line 12), each sample container of the plurality of sample containers including a chamber (vessel, 4) having a first end, an opposing second end, and a side-wall connecting the first end to the opposing second end, the side-wall including a rigid, non-porous material, a porous filter (lower section, 3) at the opposing second end of the chamber, and an integral stirrer (stirring paddle, 11) within the chamber (4) (see Abstract; figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-39), since Komarek et al. that flexible reaction/filtration containers that can be divided into one or more sections; each container is fashioned as a bag that can be temporarily sealed in multiple locations to create multiple sections and is made of non-porous and porous material (see Abstract); the apparatus includes a removable IDF bag (1) consisting of an upper section (2) made of a polymer film and a lower section (3) made of a porous filter media; the IDF bag is placed into the digestion vessel (4) with the top of the bag remaining open and folded over the vessel lip; and a stirring paddle (11) (see figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-39); a plurality of liquid reservoirs configured to be selectively fluidly connectable with the plurality of sample containers to deliver liquid thereto, since Komarek et al. discloses that buffers and enzymes are introduced into the bag through port (8) which would inherently be connected to respective reservoirs (see figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-39); and accurate control of conditions and care ful quantitative transfers are required by the technician to produce accurate and precise results (see column 2, lines 25-40).
Komarek et al. fails to disclose or suggest a controller operably connected to at least the plurality of liquid reservoirs, the controller configured to control the system to perform the method according to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA E YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 6:00 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, Wang Claire can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
NATASHA E. YOUNG
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/NATASHA E YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774