DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is in response to the application filed on 12/22/2023. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-17, 19-21, 23-25 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claim 16, 17, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, 17, and 19, the claims are dependent on claim 13, and recite the limitation “the lid”. However, claim 13 has not introduced “a lid” thus creating an antecedent basis issue. It is unclear as to whether these claims were meant to depend on claim 14 or if the term that should be used is “a lid”. As such the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 13-14, 16-17, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190216380 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Ivosevic”).
Regarding claim 1, Ivosevic, a device for obtaining a blood samples, teaches a device for obtaining a blood sample (abstract), the device comprising:
a holder for receiving a sample source (12; paragraph [0060]; Figures 1-7B), the holder having an actuation portion (24; paragraph [0060]; Figures 1-7B) and a port (26; paragraph [0060]; Figures 1-7B);
a blood collector attachment removably connected to the holder (72; paragraph [0080]; Figure 8); and
a collection container removably connected to the blood collector attachment (16; paragraphs [0080]-[0084]; Figures 8-10), the container defining a collection cavity (paragraphs [0080]-[0084]; Figures 8-10),
wherein a collection container detachment member (32; Figures 8, 27-30) is provided between the blood collector attachment and the collection container to releasably attach the collection container to the blood collector attachment (paragraphs [0062], [0074], [0082], [0085], [0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Ivosevic teaches wherein the collection container comprises a lid including a release tab that releases the collection container from the blood collector attachment when pressed (76; paragraph [0080], [0090]; Figure 8).
Regarding claim 4, Ivosevic teaches wherein the lid is connected to the collection container via a living hinge, and wherein the living hinge has a reduced thickness or at least one cutout (as shown in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 7, Ivosevic teaches wherein the lid includes at least one guide tab to ensure a desired orientation of the lid on the collection container when closing the lid (76; paragraph [0080], [0090]; as shown in Figures 8, 27-30).
Regarding claim 8, Ivosevic teaches wherein the collection container comprises an aligning protrusion extending from an outer surface of the collection container and the blood collector attachment defines an aligning slot on an inner surface of the blood collector attachment to orient the collection container in a desired position when inserted into the blood collector attachment (paragraph [0080]; as shown in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 13, Ivosevic, a device for obtaining a blood samples, teaches a device for obtaining a blood sample (abstract), the device comprising:
a blood collector attachment (72; paragraph [0080]; Figure 8); and
a collection container removably connected to the blood collector attachment (16; paragraphs [0080]-[0084]; Figures 8-10), the container defining a collection cavity (paragraphs [0080]-[0084]; Figures 8-10),
wherein a collection container detachment member (32; Figures 8, 27-30) is provided between the blood collector attachment and the collection container to releasably attach the collection container to the blood collector attachment (paragraphs [0062], [0074], [0082], [0085], [0087]).
Regarding claim 14, Ivosevic teaches wherein the collection container comprises a lid including a release tab that releases the collection container from the blood collector attachment when pressed (76; paragraph [0080], [0090]; Figure 8).
Regarding claim 16, Ivosevic teaches wherein the lid is connected to the collection container via a living hinge having a reduced thickness or at least one cutout (76; paragraph [0080], [0090]; as shown in Figures 8, 27-30).
Regarding claim 17, Ivosevic teaches wherein the blood collector attachment comprises a protrusion and the lid defines a recess to receive the protrusion to lock the collection container into the blood collector attachment (76; paragraph [0080], [0090]; as shown in Figures 8, 27-30).
Regarding claim 19, Ivosevic teaches wherein the lid includes at least one guide tab to ensure a desired orientation of the lid on the collection container when closing the lid (76; paragraph [0080], [0090]; as shown in Figures 8, 27-30).
Regarding claim 20, Ivosevic teaches wherein the collection container comprises an aligning protrusion extending from an outer surface of the collection container and the blood collector attachment defines an aligning slot on an inner surface of the blood collector attachment to orient the collection container in a desired position when inserted into the blood collector attachment (paragraph [0080]; as shown in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 21, Ivosevic teaches wherein the blood collector attachment defines a relief recess to provide a location for a user's hand to grip when using the device, or a recess is defined in the blood collector attachment above the release tab to receive a user's thumb when using the device (paragraph [0080]; as shown in Figure 8).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivosevic as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 20080262421 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Schraga”).
Regarding claim 3, Ivosevic teaches a lid, but does not explicitly teach wherein the lid comprises an elastomer that acts as a spring pre-loading a locking feature to create resistance with the collection container.
However, Schraga teaches wherein the lid comprises an elastomer that acts as a spring pre-loading a locking feature to create resistance with the collection container (a rubber stopper; paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ivosevic, to have an elastic lid, as taught by Schraga, because making this modification merely combines prior art elements according to known methods well known in the industry (see MPEP 2143, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding claim 15, Ivosevic teaches a lid, but does not explicitly teach wherein the lid comprises an elastomer that acts as a spring pre-loading a locking feature to create resistance with the collection container.
However, Schraga teaches wherein the lid comprises an elastomer that acts as a spring pre-loading a locking feature to create resistance with the collection container (a rubber stopper; paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ivosevic, to have an elastic lid, as taught by Schraga, because making this modification merely combines prior art elements according to known methods well known in the industry (see MPEP 2143, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 23, and 24, and claims dependent thereof, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein the blood collector attachment comprises a protrusion and the lid defines a recess to receive the protrusion to lock the collection container into the blood collector attachment” in combination with the other limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein a rotatable connection assembly is provided between the holder and the blood collector attachment and is configured to permit the collection container to rotate between a filling position and a stored position relative to the holder” in combination with the other limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein, when the collection container is held in the blood collector attachment, the lid is held under pretension in the blood collector attachment” in combination with the other limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein the collection container detachment member provides haptic feedback when the collection container has been removed from the blood collector attachment” in combination with the other limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791