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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference number 11 is used to identify the extraction part in paragraph [45] and the cotton part in paragraph [46].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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 1 recites “the front end” in line 2, “the fingers” in line 4, and “the protrusion length” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the culture medium” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the outer surface of the light entrance part of light exit part” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the inner diameter surface” in line 4 and “the outer diameter surface” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the inner diameter direction” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites that “the separation device may include at least one of…” and fails to limit claim 14 from which it depends absent any of the listed separation device structures.
Claim 18 recite “the front end” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
1. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Patent No. KR102007498 to Kim. (cited by applicant)
Kim teaches a sample transport container that includes a sample collection part 200 having an extraction part 250 formed at the front end thereof, a handle part formed in the middle thereof (upper portion of tube 300 can function as a handle) and a push button 110 that can be pressed with one’s fingers. (Fig. 1; English translation, page 2, 4th paragraph from bottom and page 3, 4th full paragraph)
Kim further teaches a medium accommodation tube 300 in which a medium accommodation space capable of accommodating the medium is formed, and which is formed in a shape that encompasses the extraction part so that the extraction part of the sample collection part can be protected. (Fig. 4)
Kim further teaches a one-touch-type elastic push device in the form of a bellows tube portion of tube 300 which is provided at the handle part so that the protrusion length of the extraction part from the handle part can be extended to a first length or contracted to a second length when a collector presses the push button once or twice.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Kim teaches structure that reads on all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Kim anticipates claim 1.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Kim anticipates claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the extraction part comprises a cotton swab consisting of a cotton part and a rod part.
Kim teaches cotton swab 250 on the end of rod 230 as shown in Fig. 1. (English translation, page 3, 1st full paragraph)
Therefore, Kim anticipates claim 2.
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.
2. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Kim anticipates claim 1 from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the sample transport medium vial further comprises a control medium accommodation tube which is located near, and isolated from, the medium accommodation tube, and in which a control medium accommodation space capable of accommodating a control culture medium is formed.
Kim does not teach a control medium accommodation tube which is located near, and isolated from, the medium accommodation tube, and in which a control medium accommodation space capable of accommodating a control culture medium is formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide a control medium accommodation tube to use with the medium accommodation tube for purposes of providing a control medium for calibration and/or comparison purposes.
Providing the control medium tube in the same area where the medium accommodation tube is located, such as in a laboratory, reads on the control medium tube being “near and isolated” from the medium accommodation tube.
Therefore, Kim renders claim 16 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above Kim renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites that the control medium accommodation tube has a light entrance part formed of a light-transmitting material on one side thereof through which laser light generated from a laser source is input and a light exit part formed of a light-transmitting material on the other side thereof to allow a camera to photograph a speckle pattern of the control culture medium generated due to multiple scattering of the laser light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide a control medium accommodation tube has a light entrance part formed of a light-transmitting material on one side thereof through which laser light generated from a laser source is input and a light exit part formed of a light-transmitting material on the other side thereof to allow a camera to photograph a speckle pattern of the control culture medium generated due to multiple scattering of the laser light, so as to provide a reference comparison to performing speckle or light scattering analysis on test samples.
Therefore, Kim renders claim 17 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, claim 18 recites a sample transport medium vial comprising: a sample collection part having an extraction part formed at the front end thereof; a medium accommodation tube in which a medium accommodation space capable of accommodating the medium is formed, and which is formed in a shape that encompasses the extraction part so that the extraction part of the sample collection part can be protected; and a control medium accommodation tube which is located near, and isolated from, the medium accommodation tube, and in which a control medium accommodation space capable of accommodating a control culture medium is formed.
As noted above, Kim teaches a sample transport container that includes a sample collection part 200 having an extraction part 250 formed at the front end thereof, a handle part formed in the middle thereof (upper portion of tube 300 can function as a handle) and a push button 110 that can be pressed with one’s fingers.
Kim further teaches a medium accommodation tube 300 in which a medium accommodation space capable of accommodating the medium is formed, and which is formed in a shape that encompasses the extraction part so that the extraction part of the sample collection part can be protected.
Kim does not teach a control medium accommodation tube which is located near, and isolated from, the medium accommodation tube, and in which a control medium accommodation space capable of accommodating a control culture medium is formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide a control medium accommodation tube to use with the medium accommodation tube for purposes of providing a control medium for comparison purposes.
Providing the control medium tube in the same area where the medium accommodation tube is located, such as in a laboratory, reads on the control medium tube being “near and isolated” from the medium accommodation tube.
Therefore, Kim renders claim 18 obvious.
3. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2011133235 to Koga et al. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding claim 3, as noted above Kim anticipates claim 1 from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that medium accommodation tube comprises a body part detachably installed at the sample collection part; and a medium accommodation part formed below the body part and configured to accommodate therein the culture medium.
Kim does not teach that medium accommodation tube comprises a body part detachably installed at the sample collection part; and a medium accommodation part formed below the body part and configured to accommodate therein the culture medium.
Koga et al. teaches a storage device for liquid to be tested. In Fig. 1 Koga et al, shows a detachable storage component 14 at the bottom of the storage device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Kim to configure the medium accommodation tube to have a body part detachably installed at the sample collection part; and a medium accommodation part formed below the body part and configured to accommodate therein the culture medium, as taught by Koga et al. as a matter of design choice.
Therefore, Kim in view of Koga et al. renders claim 3 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Kim in view of Koga et al. renders claim 3 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that the medium accommodation part has a light entrance part formed of a light-transmitting material on one side thereof through which laser light generated from a laser source is input such that contamination caused by bacteria or microorganisms cultured in the culture medium can be detected in a non-contact manner, and a light exit part formed of a light-transmitting material on the other side thereof to allow a camera to photograph a speckle pattern of the culture medium generated due to multiple scattering of the laser light.
The process limitations of claim 4, other than the medium accommodation part formed of a light-transmitting material, do not structurally limit the sample transport medium vial and are not afforded patentable weight.
Kim teaches that the tube portion can be a transparent tube. (English translation, page 2, 5th full paragraph)
Therefore, Kim in view of Koga et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Kim in view of Koga et al. renders claim 4 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the extraction part, when measuring the speckle pattern, is raised up to a height that deviates from a primary optical axis connecting the light entrance part and the light exit part.
Claim 5 only recites a process of using the sample transport medium vial, and does not incorporate any structural limitations to claim 4.
Therefore, Kim in view of Koga et al. renders claim 5 obvious via rending claim 4 obvious above.
4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Koga et al. as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of European Patent Application Publication No. EP3263156 to Roche Diabetes Care (Applicant, hereafter “Roche”)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Kim in view of Koga et al. renders claim 4 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites at least one scattering protrusion is formed on the light entrance part or the light exit part to promote multiple scattering.
Kim in view of Koga et al. does not teach at least one scattering protrusion is formed on the light entrance part or the light exit part to promote multiple scattering.
Roche teaches providing a light scattering structure of a wall structure surface of a waveguide to cause light scattering. (English translation, page 3, 1st full paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim in view of Koga et al. to include light scattering structure in the in or on the wall of the tube as taught by Roche for purposes of detecting targets by light scattering.
Therefore, Kim in view of Koga et al. and Roche renders claim 6 obvious.
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Koga et al. as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7682565 to Linton et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Kim in view of Koga et al. renders claim 4 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 1 recites an optical coating layer capable of preventing fogging or growth of microorganisms is formed on the outer surface of the light entrance part or light exit part.
Kim in view of Koga et al. does not teach an optical coating layer capable of preventing fogging or growth of microorganisms is formed on the outer surface of the light entrance part or light exit part.
Linton et al. teaches a hydrophilic layer to prevent fogging can be applied to a light transmissive layer. [0022]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Kim in view of Koga et al. to provide optical coating layer capable of preventing fogging on the outer surface of the light entrance part or light exit part as taught by Linton et al. to prevent fogging.
Therefore, Kim in view of Koga et al. and Linton et al. renders claim 7 obvious.
6. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Korean Patent Application Publication No. 20110036365 to Kim et al. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Kim anticipates claim 1 from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the one-touch-type elastic push device comprises a generally short pipe-shaped cylinder body which is installed inside the handle part and in which a slide groove part including long grooves and short grooves formed alternately on the inner diameter surface thereof is formed; an overall rod-shaped button shaft part which is installed, at least in part, inside the cylinder part, is moved up and down by being connected to the push button, and has inclined projections formed along the outer diameter surface thereof; and an elevating rotary shaft part on which sliding projections that move up and down alternately along the long grooves and along the short grooves are formed.
Kim does not teach a one-touch-type elastic push device comprises a generally short pipe-shaped cylinder body which is installed inside the handle part and in which a slide groove part including long grooves and short grooves formed alternately on the inner diameter surface thereof is formed; an overall rod-shaped button shaft part which is installed, at least in part, inside the cylinder part, is moved up and down by being connected to the push button, and has inclined projections formed along the outer diameter surface thereof; and an elevating rotary shaft part on which sliding projections that move up and down alternately along the long grooves and along the short grooves are formed.
Kim et al. teaches a mechanism in a portable liquid container 100 that includes a button 130 which is provided to be movable up and down within a housing 110 by being pressed by a user, and includes a press part 131 and a pressurizing part 133 in which the pressurizing part 133 is formed at the lower end of the press part 131 and has a plurality of teeth 137 radially formed at the bottom surface thereof. The mechanism includes a body part 143 has teeth 147 formed on the upper surface thereof so as to be engaged with the teeth 137 formed on the pressurizing part 133. Grooves between the teeth 137 and 147 allow the teeth to slide past one another. (Figs 2. and 3; English translation, page 3, paragraphs 2-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Kim to include the mechanism of Kim et al. as a simple substitution of one known mechanism for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, Kim in view of Kim et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Kim in view of Kim et al. renders claim 8 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that the one-touch-type elastic push device further comprises an elevating non-rotary shaft part which has one end supporting the elevating rotary shaft part freely in rotation and the other end at which the collection part is installed; and an elastic spring which is installed between the elevating non-rotary shaft part and the handle part and has a restoring force that presses the elevating non-rotary shaft part toward the push button.
Kim et al. teaches that the mechanism include a non-rotary shaft part 150 and a spring 149 that presses the body part 143 towards the push button. (English translation, page 3, 4th paragraph)
However, Kim in view of Kim et al. does not teach that the spring presses the non-rotary shaft part towards the push button.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim in view of Kim et al. to configure the mechanism with the spring pushing the non-rotary shaft towards the push button as a simple manner or rearranging the elements to achieve the same result.
Therefore, Kim in view of Kim et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Kim in view of Kim et al. renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the one-touch-type elastic push device further comprises a sealing member which is installed between the elevating non-rotary shaft part and the handle part such that the medium accommodation space is decompressed when the elevating non-rotary shaft part moves up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Kim in view of Kim et al. to include a sealing member by taking into consideration the prevention of light samples from leaking into the mechanism incorporated from Kim et al.
Therefore, Kim in view of Kim et al. render claim 10 obvious.
7. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Koga et al. as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Korean Patent No. KR100494571 to Yum. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Kim in view of Koga et al. renders claim 3 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that the medium accommodating tube further comprises a separation wall part which is formed to protrude in the inner diameter direction between the body part and the medium accommodation part and has an extraction part passage along which the extraction part moves up and down.
Kim in view of Koga et al. does not teach that the medium accommodating tube further comprises a separation wall part which is formed to protrude in the inner diameter direction between the body part and the medium accommodation part and has an extraction part passage along which the extraction part moves up and down.
Yum teaches an adaptor 50 shown in Figs. 7 and 8 that is interpreted as a separation wall that protrudes in the inner diameter direction between the body part and the medium accommodation part and has an extraction part passage along which the extraction part moves up and down. Yum teaches that the adaptor prevents the liquid medium in the tube to flow back over the adapter. (English translation, page 5, 3rd paragraph from bottom)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Kim in view of Koga et al. to include an adaptor as taught by Yum to prevent liquid medium in the tube to flow back over the adapter so as to contain liquid in the lower portion of the collection tube.
Therefore, Kim in view of Koga et al. and Yum renders claim 11 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Kim in view of Koga et al. and Yum renders claim 11 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that the medium accommodation tube further comprises a blocking device installed in the extraction part passage and configured to seal the medium accommodation part.
The adaptor 50 of Yum seals the medium accommodation part and prevents the liquid medium in the tube to flow back over the adaptor. (English translation, page 5, 3rd paragraph from bottom)
Therefore, Kim in view of Koga et al. and Yum renders claim 12 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Kim in view of Koga et al. and Yum renders claim 12 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the blocking device comprises at least one of an aperture type, a valve type, a one-way stopper type, a thin film type, a sliding type, or combinations thereof.
The adaptor of Yum in interpreted as an aperture type device inasmuch as it has a central aperture though which the shaft of the swab passes.
Therefore, Kim in view of Koga et al. and Yum renders claim 13 obvious.
8. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Koga et al. and Kim et al. as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Korean Patent Application Publication No. 20090084566 to Yum et al. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Kim in view of Koga et al. and Yum renders claim 11 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the medium accommodation tube further comprises a separation device installed on the body part or the medium accommodation part to separate the body part and the medium accommodation part from each other.
Kim in view of Koga et al. and Yum does not teach that the medium accommodation tube further comprises a separation device installed on the body part or the medium accommodation part to separate the body part and the medium accommodation part from each other.
Yum et al. teaches a transport medium vessel that includes a separation device that comprises stepped protrusion 35 that is formed at the boundary between a storage part 31 and a slide part 32 so as to make contact with the lower end of a connection tube 20 when a medium tube 30 is slide-inserted as shown in Fig. 1. (English translation, page 3, paragraphs 2-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim in view of Koga et al. and Yum to include the separation device of Yum et al. for purposes of removing the storage part to empty the same after use.
Therefore, Kim in view of Koga et al. Yum and Yum et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above Kim in view of Koga et al. Yum and Yum et al. renders claim 14 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the separation device may include at least one of a forced engagement type, a twist cap type, a magnetic engagement type, a hook assembly type, or combinations thereof.
The separation device of Yum et al. is interpreted as being a forced engagement separation device.
Therefore, Kim in view of Koga et al. Yum and Yum et al. render claim 15 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798