Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/255,721

MEANS AND METHODS FOR SAMPLING SURFACES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Examiner
MUTREJA, JYOTI NAGPAUL
Art Unit
1798
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dsm Austria GMBH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
740 granted / 913 resolved
+16.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
945
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§102
50.6%
+10.6% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 913 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
CTNF 18/255,721 CTNF 80323 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dryden (US 3058139) . Regarding claim 1, Dryden teaches a sponge implement comprising a handle (28G), a support means (24G), and a fixation means (3), wherein the support means (2) and the fixation means (33) are provided at a common end (20G) of the handle (28G); wherein the support means (24G) is adapted to receive the collecting means (27E) covering an exposed end (21G) of the support means (24G) distal from the handle (28G); wherein the fixation means (33) is adapted to provide at least a first clamp structure (refer to figure 12) adapted to fixate the collecting means (27E) to the support means (24G); characterized in that the fixation means (24G) is substantially rigidly connected to the end (20G) of the handle (28G); and the fixation means (33) comprises at least a first section (refer to figure 12) distal to the end of the handle (28G), and at least a second section (refer to figure 12) more proximal to the common end of the handle (28G) than the at least first section (refer to figure 12); wherein the first section (refer to figure 12) is provided laterally distal to the longitudinal axis of the handle (28G); wherein the second section (refer to figure 12) is provided laterally proximal to the longitudinal axis of the handle (28G); and wherein the second section (refer to figure 12) is adapted to fixate the collecting means (27E). (Refer to Figure 12) Regarding claim 3, the fixation means (33) comprises at least a third section (refer to figure 12) more proximal to the common end of the handle (28G) than the at least second section (refer to figure 12), wherein the at least one third section is provided laterally distal to the longitudinal axis of the handle (28G). (Refer to figure 12) Regarding claim 4, the exposed end (21G) of the support means (24G) and/or the first section (refer to figure 12) of the fixation means (33) is/are provided with rounded and/or bulged edges. (Refer to Figures 11 and 12) Regarding claim 5, the support means (24G) protrudes beyond the fixation means (33). (Refer to figure 12) Regarding claim 8, the device is provided as a single piece. (Refer to Figure 12) Regarding claim 9, the device is made of a material selected from polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride, polystyrene, polyester, polycarbonate, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) or ABS-like material, or a composite material comprising at least two of said materials, preferably the device is made of polypropylene. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 46-50) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dryden in view of Lafond (US 9925647) . Refer above for the teachings of Dryden. Dryden fails to teach the fixation means comprises at least a second clamp structure provided opposite to the first clamp structure, and wherein the support means is provided intermediately between the at least first clamp structure and the at least second clamp structure. Lafond teaches a device for holding a sampling sponge comprising fixation means comprises at least a second clamp (46) structure provided opposite to the first clamp structure (46), and wherein the support means (50) is provided intermediately between the at least first clamp structure and the at least second clamp structure to ensure the sponge is securely held in place during sampling. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Dryden with a second clamp structure opposite the first clamp structure as disclosed in Lafond to ensure the sponge is securely held in place during sampling. Dryden fails to teach the collecting means (27E) is suitable for collecting biological material, preferably microorganisms, and a sterile container, preferably a bag, suitable for receiving the collecting means. Dryden does teach a sponge for cleaning and it is definitely capable of collecting microorganisms during cleaning. Notwithstanding, Lafond teaches a collecting means/sponge (12) used for sampling a variety of things including microorganisms and a bag (B) for receiving the collecting means/sponge (12). (Refer to Figure 5B) Lafond teaches the device and the collecting means (12) are provided sterilely, and wherein the collecting means (12) is wetted; b) collecting a sample from a surface with the collecting means (12) fixated to the device, e.g. by swabbing the surface with the collecting means (12) fixated to the device; c) inserting the collecting means (12) fixated to the device into a container/bag (B), preferably a bag, suitable for receiving the collecting means (12), wherein the container (B) is preferably sterile on the inside; d) gripping the collecting means (12) inserted into the container (B) with fingers (46) from outside the container (B); e) separating the collecting means (12) from the device by pulling the collecting means (12) from the support means (44) of the device; f) pulling the device out of the container (B); g) closing the container (32) containing the collecting means (12); h) analyzing the sample enclosed in the container(B). (Refer to Col. 5, Lines 18-55) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the device of Dryden as disclosed in Lafond and provide a container/bag for receiving the sponge in order to further diversify the use of the device such as testing of samples collected on the sponge. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 7 are 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. Prior art fails to teach the support means comprises at least one recess from the exposed end to form at least two protrusions and the handle further comprises a stop indicator element. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, EST. 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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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. /JYOTI NAGPAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/255,721 Page 2 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/255,721 Page 3 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/255,721 Page 4 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/255,721 Page 5 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/255,721 Page 6 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/255,721 Page 7 Art Unit: 1798
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 19, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596059
Automated Tissue Sectioning and Storage System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584827
FULL-AUTOMATIC PREPARATION METHOD OF CAST-OFF CELL SMEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578325
A staining method for live-cell imaging
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569595
BIOPROSTHETIC TISSUE PREPARATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570949
SYSTEMS AND DEVICES FOR WOUND THERAPY AND RELATED METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+6.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 913 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month