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 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. Claim (s) 1-4, 5, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll et al. US 2012/0028296 in view of Kagaya US 5,882,942 . Regarding claim 1, Poll discloses a fecal collection apparatus comprising: a main body including an insertion end and a removal end opposite the insertion end, the main body defining a main body cavity between the insertion end and the removal end ([¶38] container 12 with ends 14 and 16. Either end can be the insertion or removal end); a sample collection member ([FIG1][¶39] collector 30) positionable within the main body cavity through the insertion end, the sample collection member defining a fecal engagement portion for holding a fecal sample ([¶39] collection portion 34) and a handle portion spaced apart from the fecal engagement portion ([¶39] section 32); and Poll does not specifically disclose a plug provided at the removal end of the main body, the plug positionable from a closed position in which the plug restricts fluid from passing from the main body cavity through the removal end, to an open position. Kagaya teaches a similar fecal sampling device with a plug ([C4 L65-C5 L5] hole 16 which is closed when the sampling device is inserted). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Poll with the teachings of Kagaya in order to have an even distribution of the sample. Regarding claim 2, Poll discloses a plunger positioned at least partially within the main body cavity of the main body ( [FIG1] rod 32). Regarding claim 3, Poll discloses the plunger defines a sample collection aperture defining an aperture inner diameter, the sample collection member insertable through the sample collection aperture ([¶40] filter 50). Regarding claim 4, Kagaya teaches the fecal engagement portion is deformable between a compressed position and an uncompressed position, the fecal engagement portion defining an uncompressed sample collection outer diameter when in the uncompressed position that is greater than the aperture inner diameter, and a compressed sample collection outer diameter when in the compressed position that is less than the uncompressed sample collection outer diameter ([C4 L65-C5 L5] the brush collection portion is compressible). Regarding claim 5, Poll disclose a guide cap positioned at the insertion end of the main body ([FIG8] cap 90). Regarding claim 9, Kagaya teaches a brush positioned within the main body cavity of the main body proximate the removal end, the brush having a plurality of bristles for engaging the fecal engagement portion of the sample collection member ([FIG1] brush 18) . Regarding claim 12, Kagaya teaches the plug is monolithic with the main body ([FIG1]) . Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll et al. in view of Kagaya further in view of Jackson US 2017/0072393. Regarding claim 6, Poll does not disclose the guide cap comprises a plurality of teeth; the main body includes a flange extending from the insertion end; and the flange of the main body engages the plurality of teeth of the guide cap to retain the guide cap on the main body. Jackson teaches a similar fecal sampling container that has a guide cap with teeth ([¶54]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Poll with the teachings of Jackson in order to provide extra grip between components ([¶54]). Claim (s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll et al. in view of Kagaya further in view of Carpenter et al. US 4,562,844. Regarding claim 7, Poll does not disclose the guide cap defines a rail and the plunger comprises a slotted portion, the plunger is rotatable relative to the guide cap to position the rail of the guide cap within the slotted portion of the plunger. Carpenter teaches a sampling syringe that has a guide cap with a rail ([FIG2] cap 32) and a plunger with a slotted portion ([FIG2] plunger 36) wherein the plunger is rotatable relative to the guide cap ([C5 L28-55]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the device of Poll with the teachings of Carpenter in order to lock the chamber of the sampling device ([C5 L28-55]). Regarding claim 8, Carpenter teaches the plunger is inhibited from moving in an axial direction when the rail of the guide cap is positioned within the slotted portion of the plunger, and wherein the plunger is permitted to move in the axial direction when the rail of the guide cap is not positioned within the slotted portion of the plunger ([C5 L28-55] when the rail of the guide cap is engaged in the slot between the 40 and 42 it cannot be moved but when it is not the plunger moves freely) . Claim (s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll et al. in view of Kagaya further in view of Hasegawa et al. US 2010/0000341. Regarding claim 10, Kagaya discloses a liquid positioned in the main body cavity ([FIG1] liquid 11). Kagaya does not specifically disclose the liquid is a buffer solution. Hasegawa teaches a similar feces collection device that contains a buffer ([¶74]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Poll as modified by Kagaya with the teachings of Hasegawa in order to extract the sample ([¶74]). Regarding claim 11, Poll does not disclose the plug is coupled to the main body through a frangible seal. Hasegawa teaches a frangible seal with the plug ([¶73] seal 25 with the engagement members which act as the plug). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Poll with the teachings of Hasegawa in order to separate and contain the liquid ([¶73]). Claim(s) 13, 14, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll et al. in view of Carpenter et al. Regarding claim 13 and 19 , Poll discloses a fecal collection apparatus comprising: a main body including an insertion end and a removal end opposite the insertion end, the main body defining a main body cavity between the insertion end and the removal end ([¶38] container 12 with ends 14 and 16. Either end can be the insertion or removal end); a plunger positioned at least partially within the main body ([FIG1] rod 32) a sample collection member ([FIG1][¶39] collector 30) positionable within the main body cavity through the insertion end, the sample collection member defining a fecal engagement portion for holding a fecal sample ([¶39] collection portion 34) and a handle portion spaced apart from the fecal engagement portion ([¶39] section 32); and and a guide cap positioned at the insertion end of the main body ([FIG1] cap 90) , wherein: Poll does not disclose the plunger is movable with respect to the guide cap between a locked state and an unlocked state; the plunger is inhibited from moving in an axial direction with the plunger in the locked state, the axial direction corresponding to a longitudinal axis extending from the insertion end to the removal end of the main body; and the plunger is moveable in the axial direction with the plunger in the unlocked state. Carpenter teaches a sampling syringe that has a guide cap with a rail ([FIG2] cap 32) and a plunger with a slotted portion ([FIG2] plunger 36) wherein the plunger is rotatable relative to the guide cap ([C5 L28-55]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the device of Poll with the teachings of Carpenter in order to lock the chamber of the sampling device ([C5 L28-55] when the rail of the guide cap is engaged in the slot between the 40 and 42 it cannot be moved but when it is not the plunger moves freely). Regarding claim 14, Poll discloses the plunger defines a sample collection aperture defining an aperture inner diameter ([FIG1] filter 50) . Regarding claim 17, Carpenter teaches a guide cap with a rail ([FIG2] cap 32) and a plunger with a slotted portion ([FIG2] plunger 36) wherein the plunger is rotatable relative to the guide cap ([C5 L28-55]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the device of Poll with the teachings of Carpenter in order to lock the chamber of the sampling device ([C5 L28-55]). Claim(s) 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll et al. in view of Carpenter further in view of Kagaya . Regarding claim 15 and 20 , Poll does not specifically disclose the sample collection member comprises a handle portion and the fecal engagement portion opposite the handle portion, the fecal engagement portion being deformable between a compressed position and an uncompressed position, the fecal engagement portion defining an uncompressed sample collection outer diameter that is greater than the aperture inner diameter when in the uncompressed position. Kagaya teaches compressible portion ([C4 L65-C5 L5] the brush collection portion is compressible). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Poll with the teachings of Kagaya in order to have an even distribution of the sample. Regarding claim 18, Poll does not specifically disclose the brush. Kagaya teaches a brush positioned within the main body cavity of the main body proximate the removal end, the brush having a plurality of bristles for engaging the fecal engagement portion of the sample collection member ([FIG1] brush 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Poll with the teachings of Kagaya in order to have an even distribution of the sample. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll et al. in view of Carpenter further in view of Jackson. Regarding claim 16, Poll does not disclose the guide cap comprises a plurality of teeth; the main body includes a flange extending from the insertion end; and the flange of the main body engages the plurality of teeth of the guide cap to retain the guide cap on the main body. Jackson teaches a similar fecal sampling container that has a guide cap with teeth ([¶54]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Poll with the teachings of Jackson in order to provide extra grip between components ([¶54]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5951 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10-6pm . 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 Robert Chen can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712723672 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL A CATINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791