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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“a liquid extraction mechanism...configured to provide a pressure”, as in Claim 1.
“a sealing element configured to provide a seal”, as in Claim 8.
“a seal compromising element configured to compromise the sealing element”, as in Claim 10.
“a resiliently deformable element configured to bias the piston”, as in Claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“a piston” as in para. [0012] of Applicant’s instant pre-grant publication US 2024/0216907 A1...and equivalents thereof.
“an O-ring” as in para. [0079] of Applicant’s instant pre-grant publication US 2024/0216907 A1...and equivalents thereof.
“an aperture” as in para. [0121] of Applicant’s instant pre-grant publication US 2024/0216907 A1...and equivalents thereof.
“a spring” as in para. [0141] of Applicant’s instant pre-grant publication US 2024/0216907 A1...and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montagu (US 2010/0093551 A1), hereinafter “Montagu”.
Regarding Claim 1, Montagu teaches a liquid extraction device 8 (Fig. 1) for extracting liquid from a pierceable liquid storage container 10 (See Figs. 6A-F and [0013]: “The device enables simple and rapid extraction of blood serum or plasma in milliliter quantities from a collected blood sample.”), the liquid extraction device 8 comprising:
a liquid storage container interface 20 configured to provide a fluidic connection to a volume of liquid within the liquid storage container 10 (See Fig. 1 showing hypodermic needle 20, and Figs. 6A-C showing the hypodermic needle piercing the seal 10a of the collection tube 10 so as to provide a fluidic interface therethrough.), the liquid storage container interface comprising a liquid extraction outlet configured to allow liquid to be extracted from the liquid storage container (See para. [0058] discussing blood flowing through the needle, thereby necessarily comprising a liquid extraction outlet configured to allow liquid to be extracted from the liquid storage container to enable such flow from the storage container.); and
a liquid extraction mechanism 16 actuatable from a first configuration (Fig. 6A) to a second configuration (Fig. 6C) ([0058]: “The downward stroke of the poppet 16 causes air below to be compressed. In a first equilibrating action, some of this compressed air passes from beneath poppet 16 through hypodermic needle tube 20 and bubbles to the top of the space within the collection tube 10, raising the air pressure within tube 10. (b) Then release the collection tube 10, while holding body 12 of device 8.” -- See also para. [0042]: “poppet/piston”.);
wherein the liquid extraction mechanism is configured to provide a pressure difference between a volume of gas in the liquid storage container and the liquid extraction outlet, when the liquid extraction mechanism is actuated from the first configuration to the second configuration ([0058]: “raising the air pressure within tube 10...the higher air pressure in the collection tube 10 forces flow of blood out of the collection tube 10, downwardly through the hypodermic needle 20, into the space below the poppet 16, above the filter material 24.”),
as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 1, 7-8, 11-13, and 15, these claims provide conditional recitations (“when” the piston is actuated/in first/second position) which are not positively necessitated by the claims, and wherein such actuation is drawn to process-type recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight when the prior art device is capable of performing the claimed process. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). Thus, those recitations predicated on the conditionals discussed above are not afforded patentable weight herein.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the liquid storage container interface is configured to permit removal of the liquid storage container from the liquid storage container interface after extraction of liquid from the liquid storage container (See paras. [0102-103]. Further, as the liquid storage container interface in Montagu is merely a hypodermic needle piercing a septum, it is configured to be removed from the storage container merely by withdrawing the needle through the septum.), as in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the liquid storage container interface comprises at least one needle configured to provide the fluidic connection to the volume of liquid within the liquid storage container (See the above discussions regarding Claims 1-2 showing the liquid storage container interface as comprising a needle configured to provide fluidic connection to the collection tube so as to withdraw blood from the collection tube.), as in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the liquid extraction mechanism 16 comprises a piston 16 moveable within a receptacle 12 (See Figs. 6A-C and [0042, 0053].), wherein the piston is actuatable from the first configuration to the second configuration (See Figs. 6A and C showing the piston 16 as being vertically actuated.), as in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the liquid storage container interface 20 is attached to the piston 16 (See Fig. 1 showing the needle 20 as being connected to the piston/poppet 16.), as in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the liquid extraction outlet is in fluidic communication with a chamber defined by the piston 16 and the receptacle 12, wherein the chamber is in fluidic communication with the liquid extraction outlet (See Fig. 1 showing the chamber between the piston 16 and the filter 22a (in the main body 12) as being in fluid communication with the liquid extraction outlet of the needle via the length of the needle and its connection to the chamber.), as in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the piston 16 is configured to increase the pressure of air within the chamber when the piston 16 is actuated from the first configuration to the second configuration ([0058]: “The downward stroke of the poppet 16 causes air below to be compressed.”), as in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above further comprising a sealing element 18a/b configured to provide a seal between the piston 16 and the receptacle 12 when the piston 16 is in the first configuration (See Fig. 1 showing the o-rings 18a and 18b, also seen through Fig. 4B, for providing a seal between the piston 16 and the body 12.), as in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the liquid extraction mechanism is configured to provide the pressure difference between the volume of gas in the liquid storage container and the liquid extraction outlet once the liquid extraction mechanism is in the second configuration ([0058]: “raising the air pressure within tube 10...the higher air pressure in the collection tube 10 forces flow of blood out of the collection tube 10, downwardly through the hypodermic needle 20, into the space below the poppet 16, above the filter material 24.” Thus, the increased pressure in the chamber is provided to the collection tube via the needle outlet.), as in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 9 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above further comprising a seal compromising element configured to compromise the sealing element once the piston is in the second configuration ([0036]: “In certain implementations the closed space is vented by partially unscrewing a bottom collection chamber one or two turns, the threads being coarse to permit air to escape as a cooperating seal formed by an O ring is freed...”), as in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the seal compromising element comprises an aperture (The aperture joined by the screw threads discussed in para. [0036].) configured to compromise the sealing element when the piston is in the second configuration, such that air within the chamber is released via the aperture (When the threads are loosened, air escapes through the aperture and the loosened threads, such as seen through Fig. 6G.), as in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the seal compromising element is a first seal compromising element, and wherein the liquid extraction device further comprises a second seal compromising element configured to compromise the sealing element when the piston is actuated to a position in between the first configuration and the second configuration (The second seal compromising element is the mating threads of the body 12 which cooperate with the compromising threads of the collection chamber and are commensurately configured to compromise the sealing element when the piston is actuated to a position in between the first configuration and the second configuration as a user may merely rotate either the collection chamber or the body (first/second seal compromising elements) when the piston is actuated to a position in between the first configuration and the second configuration.), as in Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the liquid extraction mechanism is configured to provide the pressure difference between the volume of gas in the liquid storage container and the liquid extraction outlet during actuation of the liquid extraction mechanism from the first configuration to the second configuration ([0058]: “raising the air pressure within tube 10...the higher air pressure in the collection tube 10 forces flow of blood out of the collection tube 10, downwardly through the hypodermic needle 20, into the space below the poppet 16, above the filter material 24.” – Further note that the rise in pressure occurs on actuating the piston from the first configuration to the second configuration so as to compress the air in the body 12.), as in Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above wherein the piston is configured to reduce the pressure within the chamber below the pressure of the volume of gas within the liquid storage container, when the piston is actuated from the first configuration to the second configuration (As the piston may be actuated several times from the first to the second position to further pump air into the collection tube ([0036]: “optionally repeating the pressing down step at least once, each cycle causing more air to enter and raise the pressure within the collection tube, then more blood to be forced downwardly, out of the collection tube”), the pressure within the collection tube is raised to be higher than that of the chamber. Further, as the blood specimen travels from the tube to the chamber under the force of pressure, the pressure in the collection tube must necessarily be greater than that of the chamber so as to cause such a flow.), as in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Montagu teaches the device discussed above further comprising a porous medium membrane in fluidic communication with the liquid extraction outlet (Fig. 1 and [0089]: “A micro-porous plug of annular form such as Porex filter material 40 compressed between the lower end of the main body 12 and mating structure of the collection chamber 14 guaranties that no liquid can escape while air can pass through the material.”), as in Claim 19.
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.
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.
Claims 16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montagu in view of Golias (EP 0348116 A2), hereinafter “Golias”. Montagu has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above. Further, Montagu does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the liquid storage container interface comprises at least two needles; wherein a first one of the at least two needles is configured to provide the fluidic connection to the volume of liquid within the liquid storage container, wherein the first one of the at least two needles is in fluidic communication with the liquid extraction outlet; wherein a second one of the at least two needles is configured to provide a fluidic connection to the liquid storage container; and wherein the liquid extraction mechanism is configured to supply air through the second one of the at least two needles, as in Claim 16.
However, Golias teaches a respective needle arrangement where a first needle 32 and a second needle 38 simultaneously pierce a pierceable stopper 18 of a collection tube 10 (Figs. 1-3). Therein, the first needle 32 is configured to supply air to raise the pressure within the tube 10 via a bulb pump 68 ([0017]: “the bulbous pump 68 is flexed or squeezed to force air from the bulbous pump 68 through the first fluid flow path or first needle 32 into the interior of the sealed test tube”), and the second needle 38 is configured to supply a flow path for the fluid to flow out of the tube 10 when the pressure is increased ([0014]). Such an arrangement represents a mere obvious alternative to that of Montagu achieving the identical result of increasing a pressure in a container so as to remove a sample therefrom. Further, one skilled in the art would realize that this arrangement in Golias allows pressure to be increased and sample to be removed simultaneously, thereby improving throughput, and further allowing a sterile air or gas source to be used.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Montagu wherein the liquid storage container interface comprises at least two needles; wherein a first one of the at least two needles is configured to provide the fluidic connection to the volume of liquid within the liquid storage container, wherein the first one of the at least two needles is in fluidic communication with the liquid extraction outlet; wherein a second one of the at least two needles is configured to provide a fluidic connection to the liquid storage container; and wherein the liquid extraction mechanism is configured to supply air through the second one of the at least two needles, such as suggested by Golias, so as to provide a mere obvious alternative arrangement achieving the identical result as in Montagu, or so as to enable simultaneous addition of pressure and withdrawal of fluid so as to improve throughput.
Regarding Claim 20, Montagu teaches a liquid extraction device 8 for extracting liquid from a pierceable liquid storage container 10 (Fig. 1), the liquid extraction device 8 comprising:
a chamber comprising an outlet configured to vent the chamber (See Fig. 1 showing the chamber in body 12 being formed between the piston 16 and the filter 22a. Further note the chamber is ventable by an outlet connecting to the filtrate collection chamber 14 via unscrewing of the threads such as seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 6G.);
a first liquid storage container interface 20 configured to provide a fluidic connection to a volume of liquid within the liquid storage container 10 (See Fig. 1 showing the hypodermic needle 20 configured to provide fluid connection with the collection tube, such as further seen through Figs. 6A-F.), the first liquid storage container interface comprising a liquid extraction outlet in fluidic communication with the chamber (The outlet of the needle 20 terminating at the bottom of the piston 16 for delivering fluid to the chamber.),
as in Claim 20.
Further regarding Claim 20, Montagu does not specifically teach the device discussed above further comprising a second liquid storage container interface configured to provide a fluidic connection to a volume of gas within the liquid storage container, wherein the second liquid storage container interface is configured to vent the volume of gas, as in Claim 20.
However, Golias teaches a respective needle arrangement where a first needle 32 and a second needle 38 simultaneously pierce a pierceable stopper 18 of a collection tube 10 (Figs. 1-3). Therein, the first needle 32 is configured to supply air to raise the pressure within the tube 10 via a bulb pump 68 ([0017]: “the bulbous pump 68 is flexed or squeezed to force air from the bulbous pump 68 through the first fluid flow path or first needle 32 into the interior of the sealed test tube”), and the second needle 38 is configured to supply a flow path for the fluid to flow out of the tube 10 when the pressure is increased ([0014]). Such an arrangement represents a mere obvious alternative to that of Montagu achieving the identical result of increasing a pressure in a container so as to remove a sample therefrom. Further, one skilled in the art would realize that this arrangement in Golias allows pressure to be increased and sample to be removed simultaneously, thereby improving throughput, and further allowing a sterile air or gas source to be used.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Montagu further comprising a second liquid storage container interface configured to provide a fluidic connection to a volume of gas within the liquid storage container, wherein the second liquid storage container interface is configured to vent the volume of gas, such as suggested by Golias, so as to provide a mere obvious alternative arrangement achieving the identical result as in Montagu, or so as to enable simultaneous addition of pressure and withdrawal of fluid so as to improve throughput.
Regarding Claim 21, Montagu teaches the liquid extraction device according to Claim 1. However, Montagu does not specifically teach a liquid handling device comprising one or more conduits wherein the liquid extraction device is in fluidic communication with at least one of the one or more conduits; and wherein the liquid extraction device is integrated within, or attachable to, the liquid handling device, as in Claim 21.
However, Golias teaches a respective device for removing a liquid sample such as whole blood from a collection tube 10, wherein the liquid extraction device (specifically the needles 32 and 38) are in fluidic communication with a conduit/tube 70 for handling the liquid, and the liquid handling conduit is integrated within (the second needle 38 of) the liquid extraction device. Therein, such an arrangement allows the liquid sample to be transported for further analysis, and remain sterile within the sterile tubing while it is transported elsewhere.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the device of Claim 1 further incorporating a liquid handling device comprising one or more conduits wherein the liquid extraction device is in fluidic communication with at least one of the one or more conduits; and wherein the liquid extraction device is integrated within, or attachable to, the liquid handling device, such as suggested by Golias, so as to allow the liquid sample to be transported for further analysis, and remain sterile within the sterile tubing while it is transported elsewhere.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montagu in view of Tan (US 2017/0354361 A1), hereinafter “Tan”. Montagu has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Montagu does not specifically teach the device discussed above further comprising a resiliently deformable element configured to bias the piston away from the first configuration towards the second configuration, as in Claim 17.
However, Tan teaches a respective device for actuating and filtering a blood sample wherein the device is biased to the second configuration (where pressure is increased to push blood through the filter) via a spring-loaded mechanism (the deformable element) so as to enable substantially constant force on the plunger/piston (See Fig. 3 and [0023] “manually compressed or elongated springs that are released to deliver a substantially constant force on a sample collection receptacle (e.g. via a plunger)”.) thereby reducing errors due to excessive or insufficient pressure being provided to the liquid sample.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Montagu further comprising a resiliently deformable element configured to bias the piston away from the first configuration towards the second configuration, such as suggested by Tan, so as to enable substantially identical pressures to be delivered during a run and across runs, thereby reducing errors and variability in results due to excessive or insufficient pressure being provided to the liquid sample.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 17 as discussed above. Further, as discussed above regarding Claim 17, Montagu is modified in view of Tan so as to provide a spring supplying the force/pressure for actuating the blood sample. Therein, Tan further teaches “Optionally cylindrical body (300) may include a mechanical catch (not shown) to reversibly hold compression spring (302) in a compressed state until it is manually released...” ([0070]). Therein, such arrangement prevents premature actuation of the spring, thereby preventing errors drawn thereto.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when modifying Montagu in view of Tan, to further provide the clip/catch configured to hold the deformable element (spring and thereby piston piston) in the first (compressed/stretched) configuration, in which the resiliently deformable element is in a deformed state, as provided by Tan, so as to prevent premature actuation of the spring, thereby preventing errors drawn thereto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights