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 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/12/2023 and 04/29/2024 were filed before the mailing date of the FAOM. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 -5 , 9, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Farrington et al ( US20170156312A1 published 06/08/2017; hereinafter Farrington) . Regarding c laim 1 , Farrington teaches a sealable container for preservation of a biological sample, comprising : a cap (a cap 104 – Fig. 2) comprising a proximal open end (an open end leading to an internal channel 124 – Fig. 2) and a distal end with a lumen extending from the proximal open end to the distal end (a rounded end 130 with an internal channel 124 extending to the open end – Fig. 2) ; and an elongate body ( a stick member 102 – Fig. 2) that extends from a handle portion (a shaft 106 – Fig. 2) to a specimen portion (a loading surface 120 – Fig. 2) , wherein the specimen portion is configured to receive a biological sample thereon ( a loading surface 120 (e.g., a support surface) upon which a specimen can be deposited – paragraph 122) , the elongate body further comprising a closure portion ( a tip 108 – Fig. 2) disposed between the handle portion and the specimen portion (see Fig. 2) , wherein the closure portion is configured to make surface to surface contact with the cap ( an external sealing surface 116 of the tip 108 configured to form the interface with the cap 104 – paragraph 12 4 ) when the specimen portion of the elongate body is fully inserted within the lumen of the cap (see Figs. 10-11) , wherein at least one of an inner surface ( an internal sealing surface 128 – Figs. 2, 10-11) of the cap that will contact the closure portion when engaged thereto (the cap 104 has an internal sealing surface 128 configured to interface with the external sealing surface 116 of the tip 108 – paragraph 124) and an outer surface of the closure portion (the external sealing surface 116 – Figs. 2, 10-11) that will contact the cap (the cap 104 has an internal sealing surface 128 configured to interface with the external sealing surface 116 of the tip 108 – paragraph 124) when engaged thereto includes a textured area with a textured surface finish ( the external sealing surface 116 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 2, 10-11 ) (the internal sealing surface 128 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 10-11) . Regarding claim 2 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 1, wherein an outer surface of the closure portion includes the textured area ( the external sealing surface 116 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 10-11) . Regarding claim 3 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 1, wherein the textured area covers an entire inner surface of the cap ( internal sealing surface 128 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 10-11) , an entire outer surface of the closure portion ( the external sealing surface 116 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 10-11) , or both. Regarding claim 4 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 1, wherein the textured area covers a portion of the inner surface of the cap ( internal sealing surface 128 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 10-11) , or a portion of the outer surface of the closure portion ( the external sealing surface 116 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 10-11) . Regarding claim 5 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 1, wherein the textured area extends around at least a portion of a circumference of the outer surface of the closure portion ( the external sealing surface 116 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 10-11) or around at least a portion of a circumference of the inner surface of the cap ( internal sealing surface 128 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 10-11) . Regarding claim 9 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 1, wherein the textured area on the inner surface of the cap (the internal sealing surface 128 – Fig. 10-11) extends along a length to a position at about 3 mm to about 10 mm from an edge of the proximal open end of the cap (the internal sealing surface 128 is the same length as the external sealing surface 116 – Figs. 10-11) ( external sealing surface 116 of the tip 108 typically has a length of about 4 mm to about 10 mm – paragraph 123) . Regarding claim 12 , Farrington teaches a sealable container for preservation of a biological sample, comprising: a cap (a cap 104 – Fig. 2) comprising a proximal open end (an open end leading to an internal channel 124 – Fig. 2) and a distal end with a lumen extending from the proximal open end to the distal end (a rounded end 130 with an internal channel 124 extending to the open end – Fig. 2) ; and an elongate body (a stick member 102 – Fig. 2) that extends from a handle portion (a shaft 106 – Fig. 2) to a specimen portion (a loading surface 120 – Fig. 2) , wherein the specimen portion is configured to receive a biological sample thereon (a loading surface 120 (e.g., a support surface) upon which a specimen can be deposited – paragraph 122) , the elongate body further comprising a closure portion (a tip 108 – Fig. 2) disposed between the handle portion and the specimen portion (see Fig. 2) , wherein the closure portion is configured to make surface to surface contact with the cap (an external sealing surface 116 of the tip 108 configured to form the interface with the cap 104 – paragraph 124) when the specimen portion of the elongate body is fully inserted within the lumen of the cap (see Figs. 10-11) , wherein an inner surface of the cap (an internal sealing surface 128 – Figs. 2, 10-11) that will contact the closure portion when engaged thereto (the cap 104 has an internal sealing surface 128 configured to interface with the external sealing surface 116 of the tip 108 – paragraph 124) and an outer surface of the closure portion (the external sealing surface 116 – Figs. 2, 10-11) that will contact the cap when engaged thereto each include a textured area with a textured surface finish (the external sealing surface 116 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 2, 10-11) (the internal sealing surface 128 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 10-11) . Regarding claim 14 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 12, wherein the textured area on the outer surface of the closure portion ( the external sealing surface 116 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 2, 10-11 ) or on the inner surface of the cap is greater than an area of contact between the closure portion and the cap ( the external sealing surface 116 has more area than the area of contact between the external sealing surface 116 and the internal sealing surface 128 – Figs. 2, 10-11 ) . Regarding claim 15 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 12, wherein the textured area covers at least a portion of the inner surface of the cap, or at least a portion of the outer surface of the closure portion ( the external sealing surface 116 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 2, 10-11 ) . Regarding claim 16 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 12, wherein the closure portion and the cap forms an interference fit therebetween due to a difference between an outer diameter of the closure portion and an inner diameter of the cap ( The internal surface 126 includes an internal sealing surface 128 configured to interface with the external sealing surface 116 – paragraph 124 and Figs. 10-11) . Regarding claim 18 , Farrington teaches sealable container for preservation of a biological sample, comprising: a cap (a cap 104 – Fig. 2) comprising a proximal open end (an open end leading to an internal channel 124 – Fig. 2) and a distal end with a lumen extending from the proximal open end to the distal end (a rounded end 130 with an internal channel 124 extending to the open end – Fig. 2) ; and an elongate body (a stick member 102 – Fig. 2) that extends from a handle portion (a shaft 106 – Fig. 2) to a specimen portion (a loading surface 120 – Fig. 2) , wherein the specimen portion is configured to receive a biological sample thereon (a loading surface 120 (e.g., a support surface) upon which a specimen can be deposited – paragraph 122) , the elongate body further comprising a closure portion (a tip 108 – Fig. 2) disposed between the handle portion and the specimen portion (see Fig. 2) , wherein the closure portion is configured to make surface to surface contact with the cap (an external sealing surface 116 of the tip 108 configured to form the interface with the cap 104 – paragraph 124) when the specimen portion of the elongate body is fully inserted within the lumen of the cap (see Figs. 10-11) , wherein an outer surface of the closure portion (the external sealing surface 116 – Figs. 2, 10-11) that will contact the cap when engaged thereto (the cap 104 has an internal sealing surface 128 configured to interface with the external sealing surface 116 of the tip 108 – paragraph 124) includes a textured area with a textured surface finish (the external sealing surface 116 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 2, 10-11) . Regarding claim 20 , Farrington teache s t he sealable container of claim 18, wherein the textured area on the outer surface of the closure portion ( the external sealing surface 116 comprising a textured area with a textured surface finish – Figs. 2, 10-11 ) is greater than or substantially equal to an area of contact between the closure portion and the cap ( the external sealing surface 116 has more area than the area of contact between the external sealing surface 116 and the internal sealing surface 128 – Figs. 2, 10-11 ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 6-8 , 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrington in view of Ho et al ( US Pat No. 9 , 399 , 107 B2 published 07/26/2016; hereinafter Ho) . Regarding claim 6 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 1 . However, Farrington does not teach wherein an average surface roughness (Ra value) of the textured area ranges from about 1 µ in to about 28 µin. Ho teaches a seal wherein an average surface roughness (Ra value) of the textured area ranges from about 1 µ in to about 28 µin ( a range of 1-100 microinches rms – column 5 lines 59-60) (the limitation “ about ” is interpreted such that roughness RMS values and average surface roughness Ra values are about the same) . Ho teaches to use a textured surface with the specified roughness to improve the effectiveness of the seal (column 2 lines 24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the textured area , as taught by Farrington, with the roughness range of 1-100 microinches rms , taught by Ho, to improve the effectiveness of the seal . The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of roughness in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claim 7 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 1 . However, Farrington does not teach wherein an average surface roughness (Ra value) of the textured area on the inner surface of the cap ranges from about 4 µin to about 5 µin , and wherein an average surface roughness (Ra value) of the textured area on the outer surface of the closure portion ranges from about 25 µin to about 28 µin . Ho teaches a seal wherein the textured area on a first surface has a roughness from about 4 µin to about 5 µin ( a range of 1-100 microinches rms – column 5 lines 59-60), and the textured area on a second surface has a roughness from about 1 µ in to about 28 µin ( the rms surface roughness of the textured area on the forehead pad is substantially the same as that of the textured area on the seal ) (the limitation “ about ” is interpreted such that roughness RMS values and average surface roughness Ra values are about the same) . Ho teaches to use the surface roughness to improve the effectiveness of the seal (column 8 lines 24-2 6 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the textured area s of the cap 104 and tip 108 , as taught by Farrington, with the roughness range of 1-100 microinches rms , taught by Ho, to improve the effectiveness of the seal . The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of roughness in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claim 8 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 1, wherein an average surface roughness (Ra value) of the textured area ranges from about 4 µin to about 5 µin . Ho teaches a seal wherein an average surface roughness (Ra value) of the textured area ranges from about 4 µin to about 5 µin ( a range of 1-100 microinches rms – column 5 lines 59-60) (the limitation “ about ” is interpreted such that roughness RMS vales and average surface roughness Ra values are about the same) . Ho teaches to use a textured surface with the specified roughness to improve the effectiveness of the seal (column 2 lines 24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the textured area , as taught by Farrington, with the roughness range of 1-100 microinches rms , taught by Ho, to improve the effectiveness of the seal . The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of roughness in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claim 13 , Farrington teaches t he sealable container of claim 12 , However, Farrington does not teach w herein an average surface roughness (Ra value) of the textured area on the inner surface of the cap ranges from about 4 µ in to about 5 µ in, and wherein an average surface roughness (Ra value) of the textured area on the outer surface of the closure portion ranges from about 25 µ in to about 28 µ in. Ho teaches a seal wherein the textured area on a first surface ranges has a roughness from about 4 µin to about 5 µin ( a range of 1-100 microinches rms – column 5 lines 59-60), and the textured area on a second surface has a roughness from about 1 µ in to about 28 µin ( the rms surface roughness of the textured area on the forehead pad is substantially the same as that of the textured area on the seal ) (the limitation “ about ” is interpreted such that roughness RMS values and average surface roughness Ra values are about the same) . Ho teaches to use the surface roughness to improve the effectiveness of the seal (column 8 lines 24-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the textured area s of the cap 104 and tip 108 , as taught by Farrington, with the roughness range of 1-100 microinches rms , taught by Ho, to improve the effectiveness of the seal . The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of roughness in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claim 21 , Farrington teache s t he sealable container of claim 18 . However, Farrington does not teach wherein an average surface roughness (Ra value) of the textured area ranges from about 1 µ in to about 28 µ in. Ho teaches a seal wherein an average surface roughness (Ra value) of the textured area ranges from about 1 µ in to about 28 µin ( a range of 1-100 microinches rms – column 5 lines 59-60) (the limitation “ about ” is interpreted such that ranges for roughness RMS values and average surface roughness Ra values are about the same) . Ho teaches to use a textured surface with the specified roughness to improve the effectiveness of the seal (column 2 lines 24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the textured area , as taught by Farrington, with the roughness range of 1-100 microinches rms , taught by Ho, to improve the effectiveness of the seal . The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of roughness in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrington in view of Badalyan et al ( US20220026029A1 published 01/27/2022; hereinafter Badalyan ). Regarding claim 10 , Farrington teache s t he sealable container of claim 1 . However, Farrington does not teach wherein at least one of the cap and the elongate body is made from material comprising a styrene-acrylic co-polymer. Badalyan teaches cryopreservation container wherein the elongate body is made from material comprising a styrene-acrylic co-polymer ( styrene acrylic copolymers – paragraph 52) . Badalyan further teaches that styrene acrylic copolymer s can withstand cold temperatures, such as temperatures down to about −150 to −273°C (paragraph 52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the stick member 102 , as taught by Farrington, with the styrene-acrylic co-polymer s, taught by Badalyan , to withstand cold temperatures, such as temperatures down to about −150 to −273°C . One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Farrington and Badalyan teach containers for cryopreservation. Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrington. Regarding claim 19 , Farrington teache s t he sealable container of claim 18, wherein at least a portion of the lumen of the cap is free from a taper ( an opening at the open end is free from a taper – Fig. 2 , 10-11 ) . Although Farrington does not teach a taper at an angle of about 1 .1 5 degrees, Farrington teaches a tapered geometry of the cap 104 and the tip 108 and that the taper geometry can vary so that the interface may provide different levels of closure (paragraph 125). Per MPEP2144.04 II where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device . Furthermore, o ne of ordinary skill would have discover the claimed angle through routine experimentation and optimization of the different levels of closure . Regarding claim 22 , Farrington teache s t he sealable container of claim 18, wherein a proximal portion of the lumen of the cap is free from a taper ( an opening at the open end is free from a taper – Fig. 2 , 10-11 ) . Although Farrington does not teach a taper at an angle of about 0.3 degree , Farrington teaches a tapered geometry of the cap 104 and the tip 108 and that the taper geometry can vary so that the interface may provide different levels of closure (paragraph 125). Per MPEP2144.04 II where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device . Furthermore, o ne of ordinary skill would have discover the claimed angle through routine experimentation and optimization of the different levels of closure . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2538 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-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 Charles Capozzi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3638 . 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. /T.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1796 /CHARLES CAPOZZI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798