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 Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, the claimed, “the second holder (26; 26a; 26b)” appears as though it should be amended to remove the reference numbers, for consistency with every other claim that was amended as such.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed, “the first card carrier element” and “the second card carrier element” lack antecedent basis in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, and 17–19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bedrio (US Pub. # 20170282177).
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 18, Bedrio teaches, “(claim 17, 18: system and method) A sample taking device (Fig. 1-6, ref. # 100; see para. [0040–0061]) with an applicator unit (110, 120) for an application of a liquid sample to a first sample card (124), wherein the applicator unit is in an application state configured for a simultaneous application of the liquid sample to a second sample card (122).”
Regarding claim 2, Bedrio teaches, “a card carrier unit comprising a first holder for the first sample card and a second holder for the second sample card (para. [0040–0045]).”
Regarding claim 6, Bedrio teaches, “wherein the applicator unit is, at least in the application state, connected to the card carrier unit (Fig. 1–5).”
Regarding claim 7, Bedrio teaches, “wherein the applicator unit is in the application state arranged at least partly between the first card carrier element and the second card carrier element (area at 110, 120 between area where 124/122 reside in 100; see Fig. 1–5 and para. [0040–0045]).”
Regarding claim 8, Bedrio teaches, “a fixing unit, which prevents the applicator unit from slipping out of the card carrier unit (110, 120 bound by the structure of 100 and fixed therewith, thus preventing 110, 120 from slipping out).”
Regarding claim 10, Bedrio teaches, “wherein the applicator unit comprises a first applicator element for an application of the liquid sample to the first sample card and a second applicator element for an application of the liquid sample to the second sample card, the first applicator element and the second applicator element being connected via a separating unit, in particular a film unit, of the applicator unit (see para. [0041–0043, 0052–0056]).”
Regarding claim 12, Bedrio teaches, “wherein the first applicator element and the second applicator element are realized so as to be identical to each other (see Fig. 1–5).”
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Bedrio teaches, the details of claim 1, and “a transport unit, which is connectable with the applicator unit for a transfer of the liquid sample to the applicator unit (device or member transferring sample at 110, 120).”
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedrio (US Pub. # 20170282177) in view of Frye et al. (US Pat. # 6272939), hereinafter referred to as Frye.
Regarding claim 15, Bedrio does not appear to teach, “wherein the applicator unit comprises at least one blocking valve unit, which is at least configured to optionally block or release at least one of the applications of the liquid sample.” However, Frye teaches the deficiencies of Bedrio (Col. 11, ln. 1–8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bedrio’s invention to include wherein the applicator unit comprises at least one blocking valve unit, which is at least configured to optionally block or release at least one of the applications of the liquid sample.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bedrio’s invention for at least the purpose of allowing fine control of the sample liquid from the applicator to the channel/card of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3–5, 9, 11, 14, and 16 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 claims 3–5, and 9, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “
wherein the card carrier unit includes a first card carrier element, which comprises the first holder, and a second card carrier element, which is movable relative to the first card carrier element and comprises the second holder
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein the first applicator element comprises at least one first flow channel and the second applicator element comprises at least one second flow channel, the first flow channel and the second flow channel being at least partly closed by means of the separating unit.”
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein the transport unit comprises a valve unit, which is configured, during a connection of the transport unit to the applicator unit, to be pressed open by the applicator unit.”
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein the first applicator element and/or the second applicator element comprises at least one de-aeration channel for a de-aeration of at least one of the flow channels.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach devices and systems for collecting samples with configurations similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852