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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 202, 205, and 206. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
(1) “wherein the plurality of vent holes are configured to be shut by a valve on the reader device” of claim 1; and
(2) “a plurality of vent holes in the cartridge each align with individual valves in the reader” of claim 12.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
No claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 12, line 7: “the” should be inserted before “respective”.
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 1-12 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 “a subject’s saliva” in line 1 and “a diluted saliva sample” in line 7, but the relationship between these two recitations is not clear. Claim 1 does not link these two concepts together but they seem to have some relation. For example, claim 6 recites that “the subject’s saliva” is diluted in lines 2-3. Also, claim 9 recites that the subject’s saliva is mixed and diluted in line 5 and then refers to “the mixed and the diluted saliva sample” in line 6 when the actual words of “saliva sample” have not been directly linked to mixing. Are the subject’s saliva and the diluted saliva sample the same, different, or related in some way? This ambiguity renders claim 1 indefinite.
Also, if “the mixed and the diluted saliva sample” in claim 9, line 6 is different from the subject’s saliva that is mixed and diluted in claim 9, line 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the mixed and the diluted saliva sample” in claim 9.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “within a serpentine mixing channel in fluid communication with the serpentine mixing channel” in lines 26-27, but it is not clear what is meant by the channel being “in fluid communication” with itself. This unconventional use of the term “in fluid communication” creates confusion as to the meaning of the expression. This confusion renders claim 12 indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0118397 (Slowey)(previously cited), in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,942,771 (Kayyem)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0033412 (Tan)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0318774 (Larsen)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0175947 (Liu)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20018/0185842 (Drews).
Slowey discloses a saliva collection system comprising: the handle components 14a, 14b; the test strips 16a, 16b; and the view ports 60 (FIG. 10 of Slowey), wherein the handle components 14a, 14b are configured for insertion into an electro-optical reader (the electronic reading device; paragraphs 0031 and 0092-0099 of Slowey).
Slowey teaches that the handle components 14a, 14b are configured for insertion into a reader (the electronic reading device; paragraphs 0031 and 0092-0099 of Slowey). Kayyem discloses an alternative to test strips using a microfluidic system for the analysis of analytes in saliva (col. 6, lines 12-32 of Kayyem) using microchannels, storage modules for assay reagents, detection modules, reagent storage wells for elution buffers, reaction modules, valves, waste wells, and pumps (col. 1, line 45 to col. 2, line 40; FIGS. 1A-1D of Kayyem). Tan teaches a cartridge having a housing portion containing an arrangement of a filter for filtering the biological sample, a cavity for metering the sample, a cavity for mixing the sample with reagents, and an optical reader in that order (paragraphs 0063-0064, 0080-0083, and 0088 of Tan). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a microfluidic system, as suggested by Kayyem, in the form of a housing with the filter, the metering cavity, the mixing cavity, and the path to the optical reader in that order, as suggested by Tan, since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and it provides a tangible arrangement suitable for the processing of a target analyte in a biological fluid.
Kayyem teaches that pumps may be used (col. 1-2 of Kayyem). Tan also teaches the application of fluid pressure to push or pull fluid (including the sample fluid) into the compartments and allow mixing with the loaded reagents (paragraphs 0080-0083 and 0088 of Tan). Suction (negative pressure) may be applied at a port, such as an exit port and/or an entrance port, to pull fluid into or out of the chamber (paragraphs 0080-0083 and 0088 of Tan). Larsen teaches that the membrane located in the insertable element while the actuating element located in the docking element may be used as a pump (paragraphs 0038 and 0062 of Larsen). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the membrane of Tan in the cartridge and the actuating element in the reader as the pump suggested by Kayyem since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and it provides a safeguard that the pumping operation cannot be instituted until the cartridge is in the reader.
Tan discloses that sensing surfaces on a sensing chip and optical waveguides are used to interface with electro-optical readers (paragraphs 0008-0019, 0039, 0044, and 0062-0065 of Tan). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sensing surfaces on a sensing chip and optical waveguides of Tan in the handle components of Slowey since a method of transmission to the electro-optical components of the reader is required and Tan discloses such a method of transmission and/or it permits the more efficient transmission of the optical data.
Tan also teaches the use of valves and vents for manipulating the sample (paragraphs 0063-0064, 0080-0083, and 0088 of Tan).1 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the valves and vents of Tan in the combination since it provides a method for manipulating the movement of the samples through the microfluidic system. Larsen teaches that valves may be located in the docking element (paragraphs 0063 and 0154 of Larsen). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the valves for opening and closing flow to the vents in the reader since it provides a safeguard that the flowing operation cannot be instituted until the cartridge is in the reader.
Liu teaches that serpentine channels increase mixing (paragraph 0068 of Liu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use serpentine channels in the combination as the mixing chamber since it would increase mixing and/or it is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In view of the above, the combination teaches or suggests the operation of filtering the biological sample using a filter, metering the sample using a cavity, mixing the sample with onboard reagents or the added reagents using a serpentine channel, and channeling the flow to an optical reader. These flow operations are performed with the application of fluid pressure to push or pull fluid (including the sample fluid) into the compartments and allow mixing with the loaded reagents (paragraphs 0080-0083 and 0088 of Tan) using a diaphragm in the cartridge, actuating members in the reader, valves, and vents for manipulating the sample (paragraphs 0063-0064, 0080-0083, and 0088 of Tan).
Drews teaches of the cycling of the pump to move the reagents into and out of the mixing volume to mix the reagents (paragraphs 0058 and 0069 of Drews). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to oscillate the pumping mechanism of the combination (the membrane of Tan in the cartridge and the actuating element in the reader) to move the reagents into and out of the serpentine channel, as suggested by Drews, so as to ensure complete mixing of the reagent.
With respect to claim 1, the combination teaches or suggests a cartridge for testing a subject’s saliva for a drug using a reader device, the cartridge comprising:
a cartridge body (the handle components 14a, 14b of Slowey; the housing of Tan);
a photonic chip comprising a plurality of waveguides (the plurality of waveguides of Tan) having an exposed edge on one end of the cartridge body, further comprising the drug bound to a surface of the photonic chip above the plurality of waveguides (the sensing surface on the sensing chip of Tan; drug detection of paragraphs 0061, 0081, 0088, 0096-0097, 0099 of Slowey);
a diluted sample cavity configured to hold a diluted saliva sample (the initial cavity in handle 114 of Slowey);
a metering channel within the cartridge body in fluid communication with the diluted sample cavity (the metering cavity of Tan);
a serpentine mixing channel in fluid communication with the metering channel at a first end and in fluid communication with the photonic chip at a second end (the serpentine channel of Liu);
a plurality of vent holes through the cartridge body (the vents suggested by Tan), wherein the plurality of vent holes are configured to be shut by a valve on the reader device (the valve of Tan in the reader as suggested by Larsen);
a diaphragm in the cartridge body (the diaphragm suggested by Tan and Larsen), the diaphragm having a neutral position, a first displaced position extending a first distance from the neutral position and a second displaced position extending a second distance from the neutral position that is greater than the first distance; and
wherein the cartridge is configured such that: displacement of the diaphragm from the neutral position to the first displaced position, in cooperation with selective opening and closing of the plurality of vent holes, causes a defined volume of the diluted saliva sample to be metered into the metering channel, displacement of the diaphragm to the second displaced position causes the defined volume to be pushed through the serpentine mixing channel in a first direction, and
With respect to claim 2, Kayyem teaches that antibodies are used as reagents, that antibodies may be used (col. 11, lines 10-40 of Kayyem), and that fluorescent labels are used (col. 80, lines 25-37 of Kayyem). Tan teaches that lyophilized and fluorescently-marked antibodies may be used be used as reagents (paragraphs 0066, 0080, 0083, 0095, and 0100 of Tan). It would have been obvious to use a lyophilized and fluorescently-marked antibody in fluid communication with the metering channel since a form a reagent is required and Kayyem and Tan teach such forms.
With respect to claim 3, Tan teaches the use of a waste reservoir and a passage thereto so as to contain the reagents and sample after being used (0063-0064, 0080-0083, and 0088 of Tan). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the waste reservoir and a passage thereto of Tan in the combination since it provides a location where the reagents and sample can be contained after being used. Thus, the combination teaches or suggest a waste channel fluidly connected to a waste chamber and in fluid communication with the photonic chip.
With respect to claim 4, Tan teaches the use of a plurality of mixing chambers (paragraph 0008 and 0080 of Tan). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple mixing chambers as suggested by Tan since it permits multiple opportunities for mixing. Liu teaches that serpentine channels increase mixing (paragraph 0068 of Liu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use serpentine channels in the combination as the mixing chambers since it would increase mixing and/or it is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Tan teaches the use of buffer solutions (paragraph 0074, 0083-0084, 0100 of Tan). Thus, the combination teaches or suggests a second serpentine mixing channel (the second serpentine mixing channel of the combination) in fluid communication with the photonic chip in fluid connection with a second metering channel coupled to a source of control fluid (the buffer solution of Slowey).
With respect to claim 5, Tan teaches the use of chambers with a buffer solution (paragraphs 0074, 0084, 0100 of Tan); Liu teaches the use of buffer solutions (paragraph 0165 of Liu); and Kayyem teach the use of buffer solutions (col. 1, lines 45-65; col. 9, lines 60-65; col. 12, lines 34-37 of Kayyem). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a chamber with a buffer solution so as to tailor the sample to a specific test’s requirements. Thus, the combination teaches a blister pack containing a buffer solution.
With respect to claim 6, the combination teaches or suggests a saliva collection body extending distally from the cartridge body, and configured to collect and dilute the subject’s saliva (the split absorbent pad 115 of Slowey).
With respect to claim 10, the combination teaches or suggests that the drug comprises one or more drugs of addiction (paragraphs 0096-0097 of Slowey).
With respect to claim 11, the combination teaches or suggests that the drug comprises one or more of: cocaine (paragraph 0009 of Slowey), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)(paragraphs 0012, 0057, 0061, and 0081 of Slowey), an opiate, and benzodiazepine (paragraphs 0097 of Slowey).
With respect to claim 12, the combination teaches or suggests a method of testing a subject’s saliva for a drug, the method comprising:
inserting a cartridge into a reader so that: an outer edge of a photonic chip in the cartridge is aligned with an optical sensor in the reader (inserting the cartridge into the reader as suggested by Slowey), a piston in the reader (the actuating element in the reader as suggested by Tan and Larsen) aligns with a diaphragm on the cartridge (the diaphragm suggested by Tan and Larsen), and a plurality of vent holes in the cartridge (the vents suggested by Tan), each align with individual valves in the reader configured to open or close respective vent holes in the cartridge, the plurality of vent holes including a first vent hole, a second vent hole and a third vent hole, wherein the first, second and third vent holes are different from each other (the valve of Tan in the reader as suggested by Larsen);
pushing, using the piston, on the diaphragm on the cartridge to displace the diaphragm from a neutral position to a first deflected position while the first
closing the first vent hole and opening the second vent hole in the cartridge (finish setting the pump and preparing for pulling fluid to the cartridge);
partially releasing the diaphragm by withdrawing the piston to pull a defined volume of a diluted saliva sample from a diluted sample cavity in the cartridge into a metering well (moving fluid into the metering well), wherein the second vent hole is in fluid communication with the diluted sample cavity distal to the metering well;
closing the second vent hole and opening the third vent hole that is in fluid communication with a region between the metering well and the diluted sample cavity (preparing for moving the fluid into the mixing chamber);
releasing the diaphragm further by further withdrawing the piston to pull the diluted saliva sample into the metering well and to introduce air between the metering well and the diluted sample cavity (moving the fluid into the mixing chamber);
alternatively pushing and releasing the piston to push and pull the diluted saliva sample from the metering well within a serpentine mixing channel in fluid communication with the serpentine mixing channel (the oscillation suggested by Drews);
releasing the piston to pull the diluted saliva sample from the serpentine mixing channel onto a surface of the photonic chip (moving the fluid to the chip); and
reading an evanescent optical signal from a waveguide of the photonic chip (making measurements using the chip).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slowey, in view of Kayyem, and further in view of Tan, and further in view of Larsen, and further in view of Liu, and further in view of Drews, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,792,699 (Tobin)(previously cited).
Slowey discloses a split absorbent pad 115. Tobin discloses a dual swab configuration (FIG. 2 of Tobin) that is functionally equivalent to the split absorbent pad of Slowey. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dual swab configuration of Tobin in place of the split absorbent pad of Slowey since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 7, the combination teaches or suggests that the saliva collection body comprises a first swab piston (the first swab of Tobin) and a second swab piston (the second swab of Tobin), the first swab piston comprising a first internal channel configured to wick the subject’s saliva from an open distal end of the first swab piston; and the second swab piston comprising a second internal channel configured to wick the subject’s saliva from an open distal end of the second swab piston (col. 3, line 50 to col. 4, line 32 of Tobin).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slowey, in view of Kayyem, and further in view of Tan, and further in view of Larsen, and further in view of Liu, and further in view of Drews, and further in view of Tobin, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,827,675 (Skiffington)(previously cited) or U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0216196 (Satoh)(previously cited).
Slowey further teaches that the compression tube 120 may be provided with caps for sealing (paragraph 0091 of Slowey). Skiffington or Satoh discloses membrane or frangible seals for containing solutions in tubes (seals 74, 20 of Skiffington; col. 6, lines 30-65 of Skiffington; seals 62 and 77; paragraphs 0044, 0046, and 0053-0054 of Satoh). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a seal for each tube in the compression tube 120 of Slowey since (1) Slowey teaches that the compression tube 120 may be provided with caps for sealing and Skiffington or Satoh teaches one such cap for sealing, and/or (2) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 8, the combination teaches or suggests a cap having a first tube (one tube of the compression tube 120 of Slowey) configured to receive the first swab piston (one of the stems 47 of Tobin) and a second tube (the other tube of the compression tube 120 of Slowey) configured to receive the second swab piston (the other of the stems 47 of Tobin); a dilution buffer within the first tube (the buffer solution in the one tube of Slowey; paragraphs 0079 and 0091 of Slowey) and covered by a first frangible cover that is configured to be pierced by the first swab piston when the cap is attached to the saliva collection body (the seals of the combination); and a preservation solution (the buffer solution in the other tube of Slowey; paragraphs 0079 and 0091 of Slowey), having a different composition than the dilution buffer, within the second tube and covered by a second frangible cover that is configured to be pierced by the second swab piston when the cap is attached to the saliva collection body (the seals of the combination).
With respect to claim 9, the combination teaches or suggests a fastener configured to secure the cap to the saliva collection body when a predetermined amount of force is applied (the lock 160 and key 162 of Slowey), wherein the first swab piston and the first tube are configured so that securing the cap to the saliva collection body drives the dilution buffer through the first internal channel to mix and dilute the subject’s saliva within the first internal channel and to push the mixed and the diluted saliva sample into the diluted sample cavity.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/6/2026 have been fully considered.
Drawing objections
The Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image1.png
159
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive since no replacement sheets containing FIGS. 5A and 5B have been filed. The drawing objections based on the presence of reference numbers 202, 205, and 206 in the figures and not referred to in the specification are maintained.
The Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image2.png
60
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, this amendment does not resolve the drawing objections related to the recitations “wherein the plurality of vent holes are configured to be shut by a valve on the reader device” of claim 1 and “a plurality of vent holes in the cartridge each align with individual valves in the reader” of claim 12. In particular, the figures do not show the valves of these limitations. The drawing objections based on the recitations of the valves are maintained.
Claim objections
There are new grounds of claim objections that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 5/6/2026.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
There are new grounds of claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 5/6/2026.
Prior art rejections
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. That is, there are new grounds of rejections that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 5/6/2026.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 Col. 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,104,813 (previously cited) also teaches how vents and valves are used to manipulate fluid flow in cartridges.
Prosecution Insights