DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 December 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (i.e., claims 13-19) in the reply filed on 05 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 and 20 are canceled.
Claims 21-31 are newly added.
Claims 13-19 and 21-31 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
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 13-15, 21-25, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Loane, US20240272182 (“LOANE”) in view of Taylor, US20180080855 (“TAYLOR”).
Re claim 13, LOANE discloses a method of taking evidence from a crime scene or accident scene [0008] comprising:
providing an evidence kit including a container into which is placed a substrate configured to remove a substance from a surface [0040];
removing the substrate from the container [0059-0063];
contacting the surface with the substrate [0059-0063];
collecting powder-evidence from the surface with the substrate [0059-0063];
LOANE fails to explicitly disclose an evidence bag; placing the substrate with collected powder-evidence thereon in the evidence bag; and sealing the evidence bag
However, YY, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an evidence bag for use in storing trace evidence materials [0006] and further teaches a crime scene evidence collection kit including an evidence container [0087], wherein a substrate with collected powder evidence is placed and sealed therein [0087], [0027]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify LOANE to include the particular evidence collecting mechanism of TAYLOR. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an evidence collection system that decreases collection time and cost while enabling forensic lab examiners to become significant contributors to the crime scene investigation as a whole (see TAYLOR [0033-0034]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, TAYLOR merely teaches that it is well-known to provide and use a secure evidence bag for an evidence collection kit. Since both LOANE and TAYLOR disclose similar evidence collection kits, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 14, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 13, as shown above. LOANE further discloses:
wherein providing the substrate includes manufacturing the substrate from a material which changes in at least one physical characteristic when brought into contact with an opioid drug or a mixture which includes an opioid [0011], [0013-0014]
Re claim 15, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 13, as shown above. LOANE further discloses:
removing the substrate from a pouch or wrapper prior to contacting the surface with the substrate [0017]
Re claim 21, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 14, as shown above. LOANE further discloses:
wherein the at least one physical characteristic is a change in color that is visually perceptible upon contact with the opioid-containing mixture [0054]
Re claim 22, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 13, as shown above. LOANE further discloses:
wherein the container is a sanitary pouch or wrapper, and further comprising: removing the substrate from a sanitary pouch or wrapper immediately prior to contacting the surface with the substrate [0063]
Re claim 23, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 22, as shown above. LOANE further discloses:
wherein the sanitary pouch or wrapper includes a separate compartment containing a wetting agent isolated from the substrate by a frangible seal, and the method further comprises breaking the frangible seal to release the wetting agent and wet the substrate before contacting the surface [0063-0064]
Re claim 24, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 23, as shown above. LOANE further discloses:
wherein wetting the substrate primes the substrate to detect a target analyte selected from opioids, amine- containing drugs, and xylazine [0014]
Re claim 25, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 24, as shown above. LOANE further discloses:
wherein the target analyte comprises one or more of morphine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, fentanyl, carfentanil, naloxone, endorphins, heroin, codeine, cocaine, xylazine, and mixtures or derivatives thereof [0014]
Re claim 30, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 13, as shown above. LOANE further discloses:
wherein the substrate is configured to detect and retain trace amounts of powder-evidence thereon or therein, and wherein the substrate comprises a woven fabric that traps powder particles between fibers of the fabric [0046]
Re claim 31, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 13, as shown above. LOANE further discloses:
wherein the container houses a plurality of pouches each containing a different substrate configured to detect a different substance and a plurality of evidence bags, and the method further comprises, for each substrate, repeating the removing, contacting, collecting, placing, and sealing steps and returning the sealed evidence bags together from the scene in the container or in an additional bag [0043]
Claims 16-19 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over LOANE/TAYLOR in further view of Mason, US20220371803 (“MASON”).
Re claim 16, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 13, as shown above.
LOANE/TAYLOR fails to explicitly teach providing a pair of gloves as part of the evidence kit, wherein the pair of gloves is placed into the container with the substrate and the evidence bag
However, MASON, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an evidence collection kit including a pair of gloves that are placed in a container with a substrate and evidence bag [0012]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify LOANE/TAYLOR to include the pair of gloves for use in collecting evidence like in MASON. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user of the kit to collect evidence without contamination (see MASON [0033]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, MASON merely teaches that it is well-known to provide a pair of gloves for an evidence collection kit. Since both LOANE/TAYLOR and MASON disclose similar evidence collection kits, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 17, LOANE/TAYLOR/MASON renders obvious the method of claim 16, as shown above.
LOANE/TAYLOR fails to explicitly teach removing the pair of gloves from the container; and donning the pair of gloves before contacting the surface with the substrate
However, MASON, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an evidence collection kit including a pair of gloves that are removed from the kit and used to collect evidence with a substrate [0019], [0033]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify LOANE/TAYLOR to include the pair of gloves for use in collecting evidence like in MASON. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user of the kit to collect evidence without contamination (see MASON [0033]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, MASON merely teaches that it is well-known to provide a pair of gloves for an evidence collection kit. Since both LOANE/TAYLOR and MASON disclose similar evidence collection kits, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 18, LOANE/TAYLOR/MASON renders obvious the method of claim 16, as shown above.
LOANE/TAYLOR fails to explicitly teach wherein providing the pair of gloves includes fabricating the pair of gloves from glove material which is one or more of opioid-resistant, bodily fluid resistant, and toxic or corrosive chemical resistant
However, MASON, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an evidence collection kit including a pair of gloves, wherein providing the pair of gloves includes fabricating the pair of gloves from glove material which is one or more of opioid-resistant, bodily fluid resistant, and toxic or corrosive chemical resistant [0033]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify LOANE/TAYLOR to include the particular pair of gloves for use in collecting evidence like in MASON. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user of the kit to collect evidence without contamination (see MASON [0033]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, MASON merely teaches that it is well-known to provide a pair of gloves for an evidence collection kit. Since both LOANE/TAYLOR and MASON disclose similar evidence collection kits, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 19, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 13, as shown above.
LOANE/TAYLOR fails to explicitly teach recording evidence-collection-related information on an exterior surface of the evidence bag
However, MASON, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an evidence collection kit including an evidence bag, wherein the evidence bag is used to record evidence-collection-related information on an exterior surface of the evidence bag [0045]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify LOANE/TAYLOR to include the information recording techniques of MASON. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user of an evidence collection kit to properly document and store evidence to be used administratively/legally (see MASON [0011]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, MASON merely teaches that it is well-known to record evidence information on an exterior of an evidence bag of a collection kit. Since both LOANE/TAYLOR and MASON disclose similar evidence collection kits, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 26, LOANE/TAYLOR/MASON renders obvious the method of claim 18, as shown above.
LOANE/TAYLOR fails to explicitly teach doffing the pair of gloves after placing the substrate into the evidence bag and placing the doffed pair of gloves into the evidence bag prior to sealing
However, MASON, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an evidence collection kit including an evidence bag, wherein a pair of gloves is doffed after placing the substrate into the evidence bag and placing the doffed pair of gloves into the evidence bag prior to sealing [0012]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify LOANE/TAYLOR to include the glove handling techniques of MASON. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user of an evidence collection kit to properly document and store evidence to be used administratively/legally (see MASON [0011]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, MASON merely teaches that it is well-known to doff the gloves used to collect evidence and stored them in the evidence bag. Since both LOANE/TAYLOR and MASON disclose similar evidence collection kits, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 27, LOANE/TAYLOR/MASON renders obvious the method of claim 19, as shown above.
LOANE/TAYLOR fails to explicitly teach wherein the exterior label includes a region configured for recording laboratory testing information after examination
However, MASON, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an evidence collection kit including an evidence bag, wherein an exterior label includes a region configured for recording laboratory testing information after examination [0045]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify LOANE/TAYLOR to include the evidence documenting techniques of MASON. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user of an evidence collection kit to properly document and store evidence to be used administratively/legally (see MASON [0011]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, MASON merely teaches that it is well-known to document collected evidence on an evidence bag. Since both LOANE/TAYLOR and MASON disclose similar evidence collection kits, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 28, LOANE/TAYLOR renders obvious the method of claim 13, as shown above.
LOANE/TAYLOR fails to explicitly teach wherein the evidence bag comprises first and second sealing strips, and the method further comprises sealing the first sealing strip at the scene after placing contents into the evidence bag and, after opening the bag for examination, resealing the evidence bag by engaging the second sealing strip
However, MASON, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an evidence collection kit including an evidence bag a plurality of sealing tape to seal and reseal items in the kit [0012]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify LOANE/TAYLOR to include the sealing techniques of MASON. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user of an evidence collection kit to properly document and store evidence to be used administratively/legally (see MASON [0011]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, MASON merely teaches that it is well-known to seal evidence in an evidence bag after handling. Since both LOANE/TAYLOR and MASON disclose similar evidence collection kits, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over LOANE/TAYLOR/MASON in further view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Re claim 29, LOANE/TAYLOR/MASON renders obvious the method of claim 28, as shown above.
LOANE further discloses wherein the evidence kit comprises opening the kit by tearing off a top region of the kit along a line of weakness defined between opposed notches to expose an interior of the evidence kit
LOANE/TAYLOR/MASON fails to explicitly teach wherein opening the evidence bag for examination comprises tearing off a top region of the evidence bag along a line of weakness defined between opposed notches to expose an interior of the evidence bag
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the rip-open technique along a line of weakness defined between two notches as disclosed in LOANE, is well-known and applicable to a variety of packaging, including packaging for an evidence bag, as insinuated by LOANE.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify LOANE/TAYLOR/MASON to include this type of package opening mechanism. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user of an evidence collection kit to properly document and store evidence to be used administratively/legally (see MASON [0011]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE merely teaches that it is well-known to provide this particular type of package opening mechanism. Since both LOANE/TAYLOR/MASON and the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE are all disclosed similar evidence collection kits, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20240261779, Loudermilk et al. – fluid collection and test system for drugs and other specimens.
US20210302446, Joy et al. – drug detection device with color indicator system.
WO2021053315A1, Humphrey – configurable evidence bag for use in an evidence collection kit.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855