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
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “one traction mechanism is provided on the base; a pulling force being applied to a traction mechanism” and should be amended to recite “a traction mechanism is provided on the base; a pulling force being applied to [[a]] the traction mechanism”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "11", "12", and “16” have been used to designate the “extrusion table” – see specification para. [0071].
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“an...extrusion table...configured to allow an absorption element to be compressed” as in Claim 4.
“a traction mechanism...allowing the second chamber/base to depart from the first chamber” as in Claims 5, 7-8, 10, and 14-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
***See the 35 USC 112 section below.***
“a pulling ring directly connected with the base” as in para. [0019] of Applicant’s instant pre-grant publication US 2025/0137890 A1...and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Independent Claims 1 and 19 recite “the liquid sample located in the second chamber is a part of the liquid sample in the first chamber” wherein the metes and bounds of this recitation are unclear as to what constitutes “being a part of” the liquid sample in the first chamber; if this merely requires the sample in the chamber be an aliquot of the sample from the first chamber, if a fluidic communication/connection/continuity of the fluid sample is required, or if some other “part” is present in the sample in the second chamber. Applicant may wish to amend the claim to recite that an aliquot of the sample is in the second chamber from the first chamber so as to more particularly define what it means to be “a part of” the sample. Further, does Applicant intend the liquid sample to be a positively claimed and required element of the device given this recitation designating sample liquid as being in the second chamber. Further, the claim provides no step of flowing the liquid into the second chamber, further implying it is a positive element of the device.
Claim 4 recites “an...extrusion table...configured to allow an absorption element to be compressed” which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a generic placeholder “extrusion table” coupled with functional language. However, the instant specification fails to provide a particular structure corresponding to the extrusion table, thereby rendering its metes and bounds indefinite. Further, the extrusion table is referenced by multiple different reference characters in the specification, making it impossible to identify the extrusion table from the drawings. Further, the extrusion table is indefinitely understood because no “extruding” takes place within the systems and methods claimed herein, and it appears to be more than a mere surface given that the claim further requires that the extrusion table and the second chamber are in fluid communication through the channel.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the shaft and the connecting rod are foldably connected” wherein it is unclear the metes and bounds of what constitutes such a foldable connection. Further, Applicant’s specification does not provide particular definition/clarification to what is intended by this “foldably” recitation. Applicant may wish to provide the particular elements and/or geometries which serve to provide such a “foldable” connection or cancel the limitation from the claims.
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.
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 1-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2019/0250075 A1), hereinafter “Wu”.
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches a device for detecting an analyte in a liquid sample (Abstract: “an apparatus for collecting and detecting liquid samples”), comprising:
a first chamber 103 for collecting the liquid sample (Fig. 1 and Abstract: “The first chamber is used for collecting liquid samples for initial detection...”) and a second chamber 104 for collecting a liquid sample for determination test (Fig. 1 and Abstract: “...and the second chamber is used for collecting liquid samples for second confirmatory detection.”);
wherein the first chamber 103 is detachably combined or connected with the second chamber 104 (See Fig. 1 showing the second chamber 104 having screw threads for attaching/detaching from the first chamber 103, and [0009]: “the second chamber can be separated from the initial collection chamber (first chamber) before or after the initial detection is completed, to achieve a detachable separation of the second chamber and the chamber for initial collection of samples”); the first chamber 103 is in communication with the second chamber 104 ([0012]: “In some preferred embodiments, before the second chamber is separated from the first chamber, the first chamber and the second chamber are in a fluid communication state; or when the first chamber and the second chamber are combined, the first chamber and the second chamber are in fluid communication state.”); and the liquid sample located in the second chamber 104 is a part of the liquid sample in the first chamber 103 ([0295]: “The liquid that enters the first chamber flows into the second chamber.”), as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above wherein the first chamber 103 is in fluid communication with the second chamber 104; alternatively, when the second chamber 104 does not depart from the first chamber 103, the first chamber 103 is in fluid communication with the second chamber 104 ([0012]: “In some preferred embodiments, before the second chamber is separated from the first chamber, the first chamber and the second chamber are in a fluid communication state; or when the first chamber and the second chamber are combined, the first chamber and the second chamber are in fluid communication state.” – Further note that Applicant’s alternative recitation “when the second chamber does not depart from the first chamber” is drawn to a conditional (“when”) which is not necessitated by thy claim and is thereby not afforded patentable weight.), as in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above further comprising a channel 109 through which the first chamber 103 is in fluid communication with the second chamber 104 (Fig. 4 and [0017]: “the second chamber and the first chamber are in fluid communication through a connecting channel”), as in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 19, Wu teaches a device for detecting an analyte in a liquid sample (Abstract: “an apparatus for collecting and detecting liquid samples”), comprising:
a first chamber for collecting the liquid sample (Fig. 1 and Abstract: “The first chamber is used for collecting liquid samples for initial detection...”) and a second chamber for collecting a liquid sample for determination test (Fig. 1 and Abstract: “...and the second chamber is used for collecting liquid samples for second confirmatory detection.”);
wherein the first chamber is detachably combined or connected with the second chamber (See Fig. 1 showing the second chamber 104 having screw threads for attaching/detaching from the first chamber 103, and [0009]: “the second chamber can be separated from the initial collection chamber (first chamber) before or after the initial detection is completed, to achieve a detachable separation of the second chamber and the chamber for initial collection of samples”); the first chamber is in communication with the second chamber ([0012]: “In some preferred embodiments, before the second chamber is separated from the first chamber, the first chamber and the second chamber are in a fluid communication state; or when the first chamber and the second chamber are combined, the first chamber and the second chamber are in fluid communication state.”); and the liquid sample located in the second chamber is a part of the liquid sample in the first chamber ([0295]: “The liquid that enters the first chamber flows into the second chamber.”), wherein the second chamber is located on a side wall of the first chamber (See Fig. 7 showing the second chamber on a side wall of the first chamber in the assembled device.), as in Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 19 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above wherein the side wall of the first chamber is further provided with a cover for sealing the second chamber thereon (See Fig. 7 showing a covering portion of the first chamber forming the channel 109 which seals the second chamber thereon the first chamber via internal screw threads outside the channel.), as in Claim 20.
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 4-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Alley (US 2003/0190259 A1), hereinafter “Alley”. Wu has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above. Further, Wu does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein an extrusion table is provided in the first chamber; and the extrusion table is configured to allow an absorption element to be compressed on the extrusion table to release the liquid sample thereon; wherein one end of the channel is in fluid communication with the extrusion table, and the other end thereof is in fluid communication with the second chamber, as in Claim 4.
However, Alley teaches a respective fluid specimen testing device comprising an extrusion table 33 and an absorption element 61 which is compressed against the extrusion table to release the liquid sample, wherein an end of a channel leading to a storage chamber is in fluid communication with the extrusion table and the storage chamber such that fluid extracted from the absorption element flows to the storage chamber (See Fig. 7 and [0035]: “The test subject places specimen swab absorbent pad 61 into ones mouth for a short period of time. Absorbent pad 61 consists of a hydrophilic membrane, which enhances the collecting of a saliva specimen from the test subject. After the absorbent pad 61 is saturated with saliva the specimen swab 40 is pushed into the opening of the top cover 20 which is attached to the divided container 18 of apparatus 10. Eventually the bottom plug footer 33 will contact the absorbent pad 61 causing the absorbent pad 61 to compress, thus forcing the saliva specimen through both windows 29 which lead to both, chambers 17 and 21 (shown in FIG. 1) respectively.”). Therein, the absorbent pad of Alley represents a convenient means of collecting a saliva sample and transferring said saliva sample to the chambers; wherein such saliva sample collection is similarly sought by Wu ([0292]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Wu wherein an extrusion table is provided in the first chamber; and the extrusion table is configured to allow an absorption element to be compressed on the extrusion table to release the liquid sample thereon; wherein one end of the channel is in fluid communication with the extrusion table, and the other end thereof is in fluid communication with the second chamber, such as suggested by Alley, so as to provide a sufficient means for collecting a saliva sample and transferring said saliva sample to the chambers of the device.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above further comprising a traction mechanism 1041 (Fig. 13: screw threads 1041) wherein the traction mechanism 1041 is connected with the second chamber 104 (Fig. 13 and [0031]: “the second chamber is detachably connected to the connecting channel by a screw thread”), and a pulling force is applied to the traction mechanism 1041, whereby allowing the second chamber 104 to depart from the first chamber 103 (The recitation “a pulling force is applied to the traction mechanism” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight when the prior art device is capable of performing the claimed process. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). Herein Wu, the second chamber 104 is fully capable of departing the first chamber 103 when a pulling force is applied to unscrew the second chamber 104.), as in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above further comprising a base 1004, wherein the second chamber 104 is provided on the base 1004 (See Figs. 28-29 and [0573]: “The second chamber 304 is located on a base structure or a tray structure 1004...”), and the base is connected with the bottom of the first chamber through the second chamber (See Figs. 28-29 and [0573]: “...and the base tray 1004 is detachably connected with the first chamber, while the second chamber is also detachably connected with the base tray 1004.”), as in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above wherein one traction mechanism is provided on the base ([0573]: “the tray structure 1004 has an internal thread, and the internal thread matches with the extended external thread 3031 at the bottom of the first chamber 303”); a pulling force being applied to a traction mechanism causes the base to depart from the first chamber (The recitation “a pulling force is being to a/the traction mechanism” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight when the prior art device is capable of performing the claimed process. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). Herein Wu, the base 1004 is fully capable of departing the first chamber 103 when a pulling force is applied to unscrew the base 1004.), whereby driving the second chamber 104 to depart from the first chamber 103 (As the second chamber may be attached to the base, as seen through Wu Figs. 28-29, detaching the base also detaches the second chamber from the first chamber.), as in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above wherein the traction mechanism comprises a pulling ring 10041 (The inner screw threads 10041 seen through Fig. 30. – See also [0573]: “the tray structure 1004 matches with the external thread 3031 of the extension of the first chamber 103 through the screw thread 10041”), a shaft for connecting the pulling ring 10041 to the base 1004 (The interior shaft walls from which the screw threads are inwardly extruded.), and a connecting rod connected with the shaft, wherein the connecting rod is connected with the base 1004 (The inset, downwardly extending portion of the first chamber holding the exterior threads 3031 mating with those of the base.), as in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above wherein the shaft and the connecting rod are foldably connected (In as much as is claimed and required by the recitation “foldably connected”, the connection of the base and first chamber in Wu is fully capable of being folded, given an applied force, thereby representing a “foldable connection”. Applicant may wish to claim the particular structures which result in the claimed “foldable” aspect of the connection.), and the pulling ring is capable to be folded and fixed onto the base (Similarly as above, the pulling ring is fully capable of being folded given an applied force, and then being fixed onto the base as an exogenous thread instead of an integral member to form the overall traction structure.), as in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above wherein the traction mechanism comprises a pulling ring 10041 (The inner screw threads 10041 seen through Fig. 30. – See also [0573]: “the tray structure 1004 matches with the external thread 3031 of the extension of the first chamber 103 through the screw thread 10041”); the pulling ring 10041 is provided on the base 1004 (See Fig. 30.), as in Claim 10.
Further as in Claim 10, Wu does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the pulling ring is provided on the base but not connected with the base; in case of use, the pulling ring is allowed to be connected with the base such that the pulling force is applied to the pulling ring, allowing the base to depart from the first chamber, as in Claim 10.
However, merely making as separate pieces what exists in the prior art as one integral piece absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B). Herein, given that the claimed attachable/detachable pulling ring and the pulling ring threads of Wu serve the identical purpose of securing the base and second chamber to the first chamber by supplying a traction therebetween. Thus, whether or not the pulling ring is integral with or detachable from the base is a mere matter of design choice not given particular patentable weight, absent evidence of a criticality or unexpected results associated therewith the claimed attachability/detachability.
Examiner further notes that the recitation “in case of use, the pulling ring is allowed to be connected” is drawn to a conditional process recitation that is both not necessitated by the claim and, as the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above wherein the traction mechanism is directly connected with the base (See Fig. 30 showing the traction threads 10041 of the base 1004 as being integrally formed with the base.), as in Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above wherein the traction mechanism is directly connected with the second chamber (See Fig. 28 showing the second chamber 304 being connected to the traction mechanism 10041 by way of combination with the base 1004.); the pulling force being applied to the traction mechanism causes the second chamber to depart from the first chamber, whereby driving the base to depart from the first chamber (These recitations are drawn to process recitations. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight when the prior art device is capable of performing the claimed process. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). Herein, the device of Wu is fully capable of having a pulling force be applied to the threads so as to drive the3 base and second chamber away from the first chamber.), as in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 15 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above wherein the base is provided with a first surface contacting with the bottom of the first chamber (The bottom mating surface of the base (From which the snapping ring 10042 protrudes, as seen through Fig. 29.) which approaches the extending threaded rod of the first chamber, as seen through Fig. 30.); a recess area 10042 is provided in the first surface (See Fig. 29 showing the recess 10042 into which the second chamber 304 is inserted.), and a cover 301 for sealing an opening of the second chamber is provided (See Figs. 28 and 29 showing the cover 301 for capping the second chamber 304.), as in Claim 16.
Further regarding Claim 16, Wu does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the cover for sealing the opening of the second chamber is provided in the recess area, as in Claim 16.
However, mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Herein, whether the cover is located separate from the base or conveniently located within the recess of the base is a mere matter of design choice. The cover serves its identical function of sealing an opening of the second chamber regardless of if it is stored exogenously, or within the recess. Merely providing a particular location for storing the cover is not sufficient to distinguish the claim over the prior art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would readily combine the cover with a holder mechanism so as to provide the device as a “one-piece” arrangement, wherein consolidation and convenient construction of separate elements is a known aim in the rapid-test fluidics art.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above further comprising a neck-shaped pipe 3041 of the second chamber (See Fig. 28 showing the second chamber having a neck 3041 onto which the cover 301 is screwed.); the opening is provided in the neck-shaped pipe and used for receiving a fluid from the channel; and the neck- shaped pipe is used for connecting with an outlet of the channel (See Fig. 27 showing the neck-shaped opening receiving the extension part 3098 of the upper chamber, the extension part having an outlet of the channel which transfers fluid through the opening of the second chamber for receiving the fluid in the second chamber.), as in Claim 17.
Further regarding Claim 17, Wu does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein a protrusion is provided in the first surface and serves as the neck-shaped pipe of the second chamber, as in Claim 17.
However, merely making integral as one piece what exists in the prior art as separate pieces absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B). Herein, the separable base and second chamber (Elements 1004 and 304 respectively as seen through Fig. 29.) serve the identical function of attaching to the first chamber such that the second chamber receives liquid from the first chamber regardless of the neck opening being formed as a protrusion from the first surface, or the separate bottle-type chamber seen in Fig. 29 and as is seen connecting to the base in Fig. 28. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found providing the neck part as a protrusion from the first surface as an obvious matter of routine design choice.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above. Further, Wu teaches the device discussed above wherein the outlet of the channel is not internally provided with a screw thread (See Fig. 27 showing an interior screw thread missing from the outlet, the outlet instead being formed by a smooth surface.); the neck-shaped pipe is also not provided with the screw thread (See Fig. 27 showing an interior screw thread missing from the neck-shaped pipe, the pipe interior instead being formed by a smooth surface. Further, as “the” screw thread of this recitation refers to that of the outlet of the channel, it can be said that the neck opening lacks that thread of the outlet of the channel.) and is directly inserted into the channel to implement connection of the second chamber and the first chamber, whereby allowing the first chamber to be in fluid communication with the second chamber (See Fig. 27 showing the neck opening as inserted into the channel extension part 3098, thereby fluidically connecting the first chamber and the second chamber. See also [0329]: “liquid can flow from or to the first chamber and a second opening 3092 through which liquid can flow from or to the second chamber, while the connecting channel has an extension 3098 which goes deep into the opening 3052 of the second chamber”), as in Claim 18.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Kikuchi et al. (US PAT 5,342,347 A), hereinafter “Kekuchi”. Wu has been discussed above.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, the prior art meets the limitations of Claims 9 and 10 respectively as discussed above. Further, Wu does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein a snap-fit hole is provided in the base, and the pulling ring is fixed onto the base through the snap-fit hole, as in Claims 11 and 12.
However, Kikuchi teaches a respective dual-chamber system for containing a fluid, wherein a second chamber 1 is connected to a first chamber 21 by way of a channel connection between the two chambers (See Fig. 3.), and wherein an extending portion of the second container is provided with a snap-fit hole (col. 4, lines 32-34: “Around the mouth portion 8 there may be provided a circumferential groove for holding the sealing means 7 such as an O-ring for example.”) for supporting a pulling ring which provides a seal between the first chamber and the second chamber (col. 6, lines 53-55: “...the clearance between the mouth portion 8 of the drug container V and the inside wall of the connecting member 22 is sealed by the sealing member 7.”). Therein, this arrangement of Kikuchi allowing an elastic member around the base/second container of the base provides a fluid-tight seal between the chambers wherein such an elastic member enhances the seal through compression.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Wu wherein a snap-fit hole is provided in the base, and the pulling ring is fixed onto the base through the snap-fit hole, such as suggested by Kekuchi, so as to provide an enhanced fluid-tight seal between the chambers wherein such an elastic member enhances the seal through compression.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above. Further, Wu does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the shaft is capable to rotate with respect to the pulling ring; alternatively, the pulling ring and the shaft are capable to be connected together through relative rotation, as in Claim 13.
However, Kikuchi teaches a respective dual-chamber system for containing a fluid, wherein a second chamber 1 is connected to a first chamber 21 by way of a channel connection between the two chambers (See Fig. 3.), and wherein an extending portion of the second container is provided with a snap-fit hole (col. 4, lines 32-34: “Around the mouth portion 8 there may be provided a circumferential groove for holding the sealing means 7 such as an O-ring for example.”) for supporting a pulling ring which provides a seal between the first chamber and the second chamber (col. 6, lines 53-55: “...the clearance between the mouth portion 8 of the drug container V and the inside wall of the connecting member 22 is sealed by the sealing member 7.”). Therein, this arrangement of Kikuchi allowing an elastic member around the base/second container of the base (wherein such a separate arrangement provides for the two elements to be rotated relative to one another) provides a fluid-tight seal between the chambers wherein such an elastic member enhances the seal through compression.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Wu wherein the shaft is capable to rotate with respect to the pulling ring; alternatively, the pulling ring and the shaft are capable to be connected together through relative rotation, such as suggested by Kekuchi, so as to provide an enhanced fluid-tight seal between the chambers wherein such an elastic member enhances the seal through compression, which provides for the sealing element and the base/second chamber to be rotated relative to one another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights