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. Information Disclosure Statement No IDS has been filed in this application. Applicant is reminded that each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability. 37 CFR 1.56. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/04/2026. Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “any of claim 4” should read “of claim 4”. 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. Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the plurality of rigid elements " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is first claimed in claims 7 and 8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hudak et al. (hereinafter Hudak) US 6,565,808. Regarding claim 1, Hudak discloses a lateral flow assay cassette ( test platform 2 ) comprising: a sample pad ( test strip 3 ) ; a sample port ( aperture 22 ) that allows access to the sample pad as shown in Fig. 2 ; and a vertical swab holder ( sample receiving chamber 1 ) that secures a swab having a stem ( swab 4 ) and a head ( swab head 5 ) in a vertical position with respect to the cassette by engaging the head of the swab as shown in Fig. 2 A reproduced below . See C ol 1, line 40-Col 2, line 16 and Col 8, line 23-48 . Also see whole document. Regarding claim 2, Hudak discloses wherein the vertical swab holder includes an outer portion (receiving chamber 1) and an inner portion (male insert 60) which contains the sample port ( distal end 21 and aperture 22 ) in an orifice of the inner portion as shown in Figs. 2, 6 A and 6F and discusse d in Col 1, line 59-Col 2, line 22; Col 3, lines 11-35 ; and Col 11, lines 3-32 . Regarding claim 3, the outer portion of Hudak appears to ha ve a height that is greater than a height of the inner portion as shown in Figs. 2 A , 6A and 6F . 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 . Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudak US 6,565,808 as applied to claims 1-3 above . Regarding claim 3 , assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the outer portion of Hudak to have a height that is greater than a height of the inner portion. Hudak discloses that The sample receiving chamber 1 can be of any geometric shape or dimension such as, but not limited to, triangular, spherical, oval, square, rectangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, or any polygon, or non-geometric shape such as kidney or bean shaped, but is preferably substantially cylindrical . Col 8, lines 30-35. Therefore, p roviding an outer portion height that is greater than a height of the inner portion would only require a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, a mere change in size or dimension of the device, i.e. height, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A). Regarding claim 4, Hudak discloses wherein the vertical swab holder comprises a plurality of elements that secure the swab in a vertical position ( one or more concentric or longitudinal ribs, ridges or edges 51 can be arranged along the interior of the sample receiving chamber 1 ) . See Figs. 5, 6A and 6B ; Col 9, lines 21-35 . Hudak however, does not expressly state that the plurality of elements are flexible. Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality flexible element , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07. Regarding claim 5, Hudak discloses wherein the plurality of flexible elements comprise a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the inner portion ( one or more concentric or longitudinal ribs, ridges or edges 51 can be arranged along the interior of the sample receiving chamber 1 ). See Figs. 5, 6A and 6B ; Col 9, lines 21-35. Hudak however, does not expressly state that the plurality of protrusions are flexible. Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality flexible protrusions, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07. Regarding claim 6, Hudak discloses wherein the plurality of elements comprise a plurality of ribs that protrude from the inner portion ( one or more concentric or longitudinal ribs, ridges or edges 51 can be arranged along the interior of the sample receiving chamber 1 ). See Figs. 5, 6A and 6B ; Col 9, lines 21-35 . Hudak however, does not expressly state that the plurality of ribs are flexible. Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality flexible ribs, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07. Regarding claim 7, Hudak discloses wherein the vertical swab holder comprises a plurality of elements that secure the swab in a vertical position ( one or more concentric or longitudinal ribs, ridges or edges 51 can be arranged along the interior of the sample receiving chamber 1 ). See Figs. 5, 6A and 6B ; Col 9, lines 21-35. Hudak however, does not expressly state that the plurality of elements are rigid. Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality rigid elements, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07. Regarding claim 8, Hudak discloses wherein the plurality of elements protrude from the inner portion ( one or more concentric or longitudinal ribs, ridges or edges 51 can be arranged along the interior of the sample receiving chamber 1 ). See Figs. 5, 6A and 6B ; Col 9, lines 21-35. Hudak however, does not expressly state that the plurality of elements are rigid. Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality rigid elements, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07. Regarding claim 9, the plurality of elements of Hudak appear to be sized to engage swab heads of varying dimensions. Alternatively, Hudak discloses that The sample receiving chamber 1 can be of any geometric shape or dimension such as, but not limited to, triangular, spherical, oval, square, rectangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, or any polygon, or non-geometric shape such as kidney or bean shaped, but is preferably substantially cylindrical . Col 8, lines 30-35. Hudak also discloses As shown in FIG. 9B through FIG. 9F, a variety of keys 71 can be used to encode a sample collection and dispensing device of the present invention for use to engage an appropriate engaging structure 80. The reagent in a sample receiving chamber 1 can be tailored to the test being performed on the test element, which can be coded by the key 71 and the engaging structure 80 . Col 4, lines 25-42. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of elements that are sized to engage swab heads of varying dimensions in order to provide a test device that can accommodate a greater number of sampl e collect ion tools (i.e., swabs) and tests e.g., etiological agents, pregnancy and drugs of abuse, etc . As to the plurality of elements being flexible or rigid. Hudak does not expressly state that the plurality of elements are flexible or rigid. Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality flexible and/or rigid elements, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LYDIA EDWARDS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3242 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Wednesday 08:00-18:00 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1234 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LYDIA EDWARDS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796