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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search directed the groups would be duplicative . This is not found persuasive because there is a search burden at least because the inventions have acquired separate status in the art in view of their different classifications and have different non-art considerations under 112(a), as described in the requirement for restriction/election dated 10/14/2025. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 . Status of Claims Applicant’s amendment filed 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application and claims 1-7 and 11-20 are the subject of this non-final office action. Specification The use of the terms including “ Pingpingjia ”, “Triton”, “Tween”, “Span”, and “NP-40” ( Nonidet P-40) , and associated trademarks (e.g., “Triton X-100”), each which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Such term s should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore such term s should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term s. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Objections Claim s 2 and 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2: The claim recites “0.1 %w/v” . The space should instead be between the “%” and “w/v”. Claim 4: The claim recites “10 %w/v” . The space should instead be between the “%” and “w/v”. Claim 5: The terms “triton X 100” and “tween 20” lack appropriate capitalization and “triton X 100” has inconsistent formatting with the representation in claim 2 . See the 112(b) regarding trademarked terms, however. The claim also has two commas before the “and” on the second to last line. The claim recites “0.1 %w/v” ; the space should instead be between the “% and “w/v”. The claim recites “is chaotrope ”; it should be “a chaotrope ”. Claim 6: The “about 1 .M” of the magnesium chelating agent concentration appears to have been meant to be “about 1 mM”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation – 35 USC § 112 (f) 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 limitation(s) is/are: Claim 12: “collection device configured to permit thermal cycling of contents of the reservoir” Claim 15: “a collection and amplification reservoir ... configured to receive a sample collection device” and “a liquid handing device configured to transfer liquid from the reagent reservoir to the collection and amplification reservoir”. 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. 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 § 112 (a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, have been described by the court in In re Wands , 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Wands states, on page 1404: Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation have been summarized by the board in Ex part Forman . They include (1 ) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of these in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. Regarding claims 1-7 and 11-20 , claim 1 recites a composition comprising: a surfactant in a first effective amount; an enzyme inhibitor in a second effective amount; and a stabilizer in a third effective amount, wherein the first ... the second ... and the third effective amount[s] provide release of the nucleic acid in less than about 10 minute but do not inhibit a polymerase chain reaction. First, these claims are broad. They encompass all compositions comprising any surfactant (limited only in claims 2-4 and 5-7) , an inhibitor of any enzyme (limited only in claims 3 and 6), and any agent that may broadly be considered to stabilize through any means (limited only in claims 4 and 7) in amounts that are “effective” to perform the listed functions, provide release of the nucleic acid from a biological sample in less than about 10 minutes, i.e., 11 minutes (“about” defined in para [0028]), and do not inhibit a polymerase chain reaction. Where the identities of the surfactant, enzyme inhibitor, and stabilizer are limit ed , the effective amount remains broad and the identity typically likewise (excluding claim 2, which specifically names three surfactants). For example, the enzyme inhibitors are only named as broad classes in claims 3 and 6. Accordingly, even considering only the specifically named species (although the claim is not limited to these) of stabilizers and magnesium chelating agents of the disclosure for the narrowest composition claim 3, with three (3) surfactants in claim 2, six (6) named suitable chelating agents in para [0034], and nine (9) albumins, five (5) gelatins, eight (8) proanthocyanidins, and four (4) salicylates in para [0035], there are 3*6*26 = 468 combinations, for example. The breadth expands with the spectrum of concentrations claimed, recited in the disclosure as suitable for each, or otherwise possibly suitable. The composition claims stemming from claim 5 with its combination of specific surfactants and classes of surfactants encompasses an even greater breadth. And claim 1 is even greater still. Second, the guidance provided is limited and contradictory , particularly regarding compositions that do not inhibit PCR . Two embodiments that recite amounts “ that release of the nucleic acid from the biological sample in less than about 10 minutes and that do not inhibit a polymerase chain reaction ” state that “ for example, when present at greater than 10% by volume of the final amplification mixture ” (para [0009-10]). This is interpreted to mean that when the surfactant, enzyme inhibitor, and/or stabilizer are present at greater than 10% by volume in the embodiment, they inhibit PCR. Immediately after this statement in para [0010], it is recited that “ by include [sic] acid salt, an alkyl ether, and/or a fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether at a concentration of about 0.1 %w/v to about 20% w/v ”. This appears to be referenced, in part, in claims 5-7 and otherwise mirrors the placement of the sentence of “Suitable surfactants include ...” in [0009] so this is interpreted to be a disclosure of suitable surfactants and their amounts. The exemplary guidance that >10% inhibits PCR but a suitable amount is about 20% w/v is contradictory. Similarly, it is recited at least in para [0009-10] that suitable enzyme inhibitors are magnesium chelating agents. Para [0034] recites that suitable chelating agents include EDTA and EGTA and the same suitable concentration ranges . However, the art teaches that EDTA and EGTA have vastly different abilities to chelate Mg2+. Namely, BioNet ( EGTA [Internet]. bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts@googlegroups.com; 1999 [cited 2026 Mar 31]. Available from: https://groups.google.com/g/bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts/c/KFIl767ICp0 ) teaches the disassociation constants for EDTA and EGTA for Mg2+ are 8.7 and 5.4, respectively (J. Martinez- Irujo ), and that EGTA will leave a small but larger concentration than an equimolar concentration of EDTA (Mark Downton) . The disclosure integrates by reference 63/420,169 , which recites exemplary compositions of a surfactant, an inorganic salt, and gelatin ( ‘169 para [0008]) . Its guidance conflicts with the instant specification as guanidine salts are provided as exemplary surfactants (‘169 para [0018]) rather than chaotropic enzyme inhibitors (instant para [0038]: “ guanidinium isothiocyanate ”). Likewise, the class of “inorganic salt” includes both examples of instant enzyme inhibitors (e.g., chaotropic salts and EDTA) and the instant-described “surfactant” SLS [i.e., SDS] (para [0019]). What the “stabilizer” is intended to stabilize is not explicitly disclosed. Only the reference is made to stability of the released nucleic acids in para [0036] . No data or further descriptions of the intended use of the stabilizers were identified to guide the artisan. Third, the instant application provides no working examples in which the composition was disclosed. While data is offered in Table 2, the disclosure recites only that the data results from a “releasing composition of the inventive concept” (para [0043]). No further guidance was identified on which species of surfactant, enzyme inhibitor, and stabilizer, what amounts, or what other components (e.g., solvent) were used to acquire the data. Fourth , in contrast to the breadth of the claims and lack of guidance, the state of the prior art teaches a high degree of unpredictability for at least the ability of the classes and specific agents of the claims to “not inhibit a polymerase chain reaction” at the claimed “effective concentrations” . Namely, multiple of the “effective” concentrations disclosed are known inhibit PCR, that the level of inhibition varies across experiments [i.e., leads to a greater deal of required experimentation to overcome], and that the stabilizers have unpredictability among and within classes. Qiagen ( Have you tested the effect of inhibitors on PCR performance? [Internet]. Qiagen; 2026 [cited 2026 Mar 31]. Available from: https://www.qiagen.com/us/resources/faq/818 ) teaches that the following inhibit PCR at the following concentrations in “a number of PCR systems” : SDS at >0.005% w/v (see at least claims 2 and 5, which explicitly recite surfactant SDS at about 0.01% w/v to 5% w/v [claim 2] or 20% w/v [claim 5]); EDTA at > 0.5 mM (see at least claims 3 and 6, which recite magnesium chelating agents from about 0.5 mM to about 10 mM [claim 3] or 45 mM [claim 6] ; para [0034] ); and urea at >20 mM (see at least claim 6, which recite a chaotrope from about 0.5 M to about 6 M; para [0038]. Thus, Qiagen identifies PCR inhibition at claimed and disclosed “effective” concentrations of a surfactant, a chaotrope , and a magnesium chelating agent. Hugget ( Huggett JF , et al. Differential susceptibility of PCR reactions to inhibitors: an important and unrecognised phenomenon. BMC Res Notes. 2008 Aug 28;1:70 ) teaches that t he effect of reaction specific inhibition can be relatively subtle although statistically significant but may have more dramatic effects at higher concentrations, and that one PCR reaction may be unaffected by a potential inhibitor whilst another is completely suppressed (Fig. 1-3; Discussion, para 1; see also Abstract : “urine and EDTA” and pg. 3, Inhibition by ... EDTA, spanning pg. 4 ). Hugget teaches that no obvious explanation was identified for susceptibility of one PCR reaction over another, and hypothesizes it may be associated with the amplicon nucleic acid composition (Abstract) but states that the trend was not consistent (pg. 4, Amplicon characteristics and susceptibility to inhibition) . Hugget attributes inhibition to depletion of free Mg2+ (pg. 6, col 1, para 1). Thus, Hugget identifies that the degree of inhibition of PCR by inhibitors such as Mg2+ chelating agent , including EDTA , and, the artisan would conclude likely the chaotrope urea, was highly unpredictable. Daum ( US 2017/0349936 A1 ; published 12/07/2017) teaches clear inhibition of PCR by 0.01-1% w/v porcine and bovine gelatin and low levels of inhibition by fish gelatin performed in the gelatin solution, wherein further experiments demonstrate this is due to direct inhibition of the molecular process of PCR (Fig. 3; para [0058-60]). It is noted that Daum teaches increasing inhibition at increasing concentrations of gelatin (Fig. 3) and the instant claims and guidance teach about 0.01 w/v to about 10% w/v (instant claims 4 and 7; para [0035]). Daum teaches that this inhibition did not depend on Bloom values (i.e., gelatin strength) (para [0063-65]). Thus, Daum identifies that the “stabilizer” gelatin is inhibitory to PCR at claimed” and disclosed “effective” concentrations and there is further unpredictability within types of gelatins. Leppa ( Leppä MM, et al . Distribution of Protein Precipitation Capacity within Variable Proanthocyanidin Fingerprints. Molecules. 2020 Oct 28;25(21):5002 ) teaches one of the most characteristic features of p roanthocyanidin s (PAs) is the ability to precipitate proteins and that the protein precipitations capacity (PPC) amongst eleven plant species varied significantly (Abstract). Leppa teaches that structural features of the PAs contributed to the PPC in different ways in different plant species, such that their studied characteristics were only able to explain 64% of the variance in the PPC (Abstract). Thus, Leppa identifies unpredictability within the class of the “stabilizer” p roanthocyanidins for a primary known function of p roanthocyanidins , wherein the artisan would also recognize uncertainty regarding the inhibition of PCR, which relies on the functionality of polymerase proteins. Corburn ( Coburn AF, Kapp EM. The Effect of Salicylates on the Precipitation of Antigen with antibody . J Exp Med. 1943 Feb 1;77(2):173-83 ) teaches that salicylate s modifies or prevents precipitation of proteins including antibodies, where the dose and concentration of the protein impact the level of precipitation (Summary). Thus, Coburn identifies the contrasting function of the “stabilizers” of salicylates and p roanthocyanidin s, wherein the artisan would recognize the unpredictability in the guidance that teaches the same range for opposing functions. Therefore, given the breadth of the claims discussed herein, limited and contradictory guidance in the disclosure, the lack of a specifically disclosed working example linked to data, the state of the prior art that teaches 1) unpredictability of “effective” concentrations for disclosed and claimed surfactants and enzyme inhibitors for inhibition of PCR; 2) that the level of inhibition of at least Mg2+ inhibitors and likely chaotropes varies by PCR experiment; and 3) that the species of stabilizes represent disparate functions and have unpredictability within classes that renders the concentrations highly unpredictable, and balanced only against the high level of skill in the art, the amount of experimentation required to make the claimed invention it held to be undue. For this reason, the claims do not comply with the 112(a) enablement requirements. Claim 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In analyzing the claims for compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, the written description guidelines note that with regard to genus/species situations, a “Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number'' depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features of the elements possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed.” Regarding claims 1-7 and 11-20 , claim 1 recites a composition comprising: a surfactant in a first effective amount; an enzyme inhibitor in a second effective amount; and a stabilizer in a third effective amount, wherein the first ... the second ... and the third effective amount[s] provide release of the nucleic acid in less than about 10 minute but do not inhibit a polymerase chain reaction. These claims are broad. They encompass all compositions comprising any surfactant (limited only in claims 2-4 and 5-7), an inhibitor of any enzyme (limited only in claims 3 and 6), and any agent that may broadly be considered to stabilize through any means (limited only in claims 4 and 7) in amounts that are “effective” to perform the listed functions, provide release of the nucleic acid from a biological sample in less than about 10 minutes, i.e., 11 minutes (“about” defined in para [0028]), and do not inhibit a polymerase chain reaction. Where the identities of the surfactant, enzyme inhibitor, and stabilizer are limited, the effective amount remains broad , and claims 3-7 encompass classes of agents. Regarding the surfactants, the described surfactants of the claims encompass both non-ionic (e.g., NP-40, alkyl ether) and ionic (e.g., SDS and the acid salts) detergents . See claims 2 and 5 and, e.g., para [0037] and [0010] . The detergents represent chemically and structurally diverse species, and as detailed above in the enablement rejection above, Qiagen (Qiagen, 2026) teaches at least ionic SDS inhibits PCR at the claimed and described “effective” amounts. The ranges of concentrations provide are generic and no data has been provided to demonstrate that they can provide nucleic acid release within about 10 minutes without inhibiting PCR. Accordingly, a representative number of species has not been described for a combination of surfactants and effective amounts. Regarding the enzyme inhibitor, the claim s (excluding claims 3 and 6) encompass any inhibitor of any enzyme. Broadly interpreted, the genus includes protease inhibitor drugs, acid (e.g., low pH levels inhibit certain enzymes), ATP (allosterically regulates at least PFK1), other proteins (TIMPs for MMPs), etc. In contrast, t he specification describes only contemplates compounds that inhibit DNAse and/or RNAse , such as chelating agents (para [0034]) and chaotropes (para [0038]), and species of each. No structures, figures, diagrams, or formulas have been provided to sufficiently describe the diverse category of “enzyme inhibitor”. While concentration ranges are provide d for chelating agents separately from chaotropes (para [0034] and [0038]), as taught by Qiagen above (Qiagen, 2026), both classes encompass values known to inhibit PCR for at least one species . No data has been provided to demonstrate that any of the named species of the identified classes of enzyme inhibitor can provide nucleic acid release within about 10 minutes without inhibiting PCR as part of such a composition. Accordingly, a representative number of species has not been provided to either sufficiently describe the genus of “enzyme inhibitor” or the genus of the combination of “ chaotrope ” or “magnesium chelating agent” with effective amounts. Regarding the stabilizers, the claims encompass any agent that stabilizes some aspect of the composition through any means. Broadly interpreted, stabilizers encompasses chemical stabilizers, buffers, detergents, chaotropes , ribonuclease inhibitors, etc. See, for example Augello ( US 6 , 602 , 718 B1 ; granted 08/05/2003), which teaches such interpretations. In contrast, the specification contemplates only albumins, gelatins, proanthocyanidins, and salicylates, and species thereof (para [0035]). As discussed and cited in the 112(a) enablement rejection above: Daum ( Daum , 2017) teaches diverse levels of inhibition by gelatin species within the claimed and disclosed “effective” amounts; Leppa ( Leppä , 2020), teaches that proanthocyanidins precipitate proteins and that the precipitation capacity varies amounts those of plant species; and Coburn (Coburn, 1943) teaches salicylates modify or prevent precipitation of proteins. No data has been provided to demonstrate that any of the named species of the identified classes of stabilizer can provide nucleic acid release within about 10 minutes without inhibiting PCR as part of such a composition. Accordingly, a representative number of species has not been provided to either sufficiently describe the genus of “stabilizer”. Additionally, as at least two classes described are taught in the art to be variable, including one with known inhibition within the described range and at least two have contrasting functions, the disclosure has not provided sufficient species for genus of the combinations of “albumins”, “gelatins”, “proanthocyanidins”, or, “salicylates” with effective amounts. Therefore, the skilled artisan would not have concluded that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Thus, the claims fail to comply with the 112(a) written description requirement. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2-7 and 17 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. Regarding claim 2 , claim 2 recites “NP-40”. The trademarked term “NP-40” (see below) is commonly used to refer to two different chemicals: octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol or nonylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol . It is unclear which is being claimed. Claims 3-4 are indefinite for depending from claim 2 and not rectifying the deficiency. Regarding claims 2 and 5 , claim 2 recites “NP-40, Triton X100” and claim 5 recites “triton X 100 ... tween 20 ... Peregal ”. Claims 2 and 5 contains the trademark/trade names “ Nonidet ” (i.e., Nonidet P-40), “Triton”, “Tween”, and/or “ Peregal ”, as described above. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe surfactants and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claims 3-4 are indefinite for depending from claim 2 and not rectifying the deficiency. Claims 6-7 are indefinite for depending from claim 5 and not rectifying the deficiency. Regarding claim s 4 and 7 , the claim s recite “the stabilizer is selected from the group consisting of an albumin, a gelatin, a proanthocyanidin, and a salicylate ”. These claims are rejected on the basis that they contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch , 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi , 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117. The Markush grouping of the stabilizers is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: Albumins, gelatins, proanthocyanidins, and salicylates do not all share a physical or chemical structure, and, as has been discussed further in the 112(a) above, do not share functions such that the art would recognize them as members of a single class. While the specification describes them as functionally equivalent, this alone is not sufficient for inclusion in a Markush group as both conditions must be met. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use. Regarding claim 5 , the claim recites “the surfactant is selected from the group comprising ... and a fatty ...” , which is open language. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claims 6-7 are indefinite for depending from claim 5 and not rectifying the deficiency. Regarding claim 17 , claim 17 recites “the collection and amplification primer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites “a collection and amplification reservoir; claim 16 recites “a second reagent reservoir comprising a ... primer”. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Emma R Hoppe whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5550 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 11:00 am - 7:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anne Gussow can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6047 . 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. /EMMA R HOPPE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1683 /NANCY J LEITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1636 ait