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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 23, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 44, the claim is labeled as “new” but has underlined amendments. Furthermore, the claimed, “body” lacks antecedent basis in the claim, as it depends from claim 17 which recites both a “test container body” and a “collection container body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 37–44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ealovega et al. (US Pub. # 20150157300), hereinafter referred to as Ealovega, in view of Casterlin (US Pub. # 20040099628).
Regarding claim 17, Ealovega teaches, “An apparatus for testing a liquid specimen, in which the apparatus comprises: a test container (Fig. 3A–3E) comprising: a body (12); a linear acting mover means (14) movable to and fro in the body; and a does not necessarily teach, “a plurality of response portions”. However, Casterlin teaches the deficiencies of Ealovega (see at least Fig. 1, ref. # 12; para. [0004], describing plural test response areas. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ealovega’s invention to include a plurality of response portions.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ealovega’s invention for at least the purpose of testing plural sample components/drugs/compounds/ingredients within the liquid specimen at the same time, thus leading to increased efficiency.
Notably, “response portions” are claimed throughout the Office action and are taught by the combination of Ealovega and Casterlin, as shown in the rejection above. Further discussion regarding the response portion 16 of Ealovega being modified with Casterlin to include plural response portions will be omitted.
Regarding claim 37, Ealovega teaches, “in which the response portions move into and out of the collection container through a valve means (16 moves into and out of 1 through valve means 3).”
Regarding claim 38, Ealovega teaches, “in which the valve means comprises a valve orifice, and in which the test container opens the valve orifice such that the response portions do not touch the valve means (see Fig. 3B–3E; 12 moving into valve means 3 opens orifice 4/5, where 16 does not touch 3).”
Regarding claims 39–42, Ealovega does not appear to teach, “including remover means for removing unwanted liquid specimen from the response portions after the contact of the response portions with the liquid specimen; in which the remover means is a scraping remover means which operates to scrape the unwanted liquid specimen from the response portions after the contact of the response portions with the liquid specimen; in which the scraping remover means comprises a slot for receiving the response portions, and in which at least a part of the slot is defined by a wall which scrapes against at least a part of the response portions; the remover means is a sponge remover means.” However, Casterlin teaches the deficiencies of Ealovega (see abstract; see para. [0015, 0041, 0042, 0044, 0046, 0047, 0052]).” It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ealovega’s invention to include remover means for removing unwanted liquid specimen from the response portions after the contact of the response portions with the liquid specimen; in which the remover means is a scraping remover means which operates to scrape the unwanted liquid specimen from the response portions after the contact of the response portions with the liquid specimen; in which the scraping remover means comprises a slot for receiving the response portions, and in which at least a part of the slot is defined by a wall which scrapes against at least a part of the response portions; the remover means is a sponge remover means.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ealovega’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring the proper/desired amount of liquid is applied to the test/response portions ensuring excess remains in the collection container, ultimately avoiding residual dripping or spilling.
Regarding claim 43, Ealovega teaches, “in which the response portions are carried on or by the linear acting mover means (16 connected with 15 to 14).”
Regarding claim 44, Ealovega teaches, “wherein the linear acting mover means comprises a plunger directly abutting the sides of the body (Fig. 3A–3D, ref. # 14 is interpreted as a plunger linear acting mover means, as it plunges into and out of 1 with 16 attached).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notably, without providing any specific reasons, the arguments (see applicant’s remarks pages 6 and 7) merely repeat the claim language recited in claim 17 above. Amended claim 17 includes limitations (from claims 19–20, and 32, rejected in the 10/17/2025 Office action) previously rejected by Ealovega in combination with Casterlin. New claims 37–44 are merely substantial duplicates of previous claims 21–23, 25, and 28–31. Therefore, the claims stand rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights