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 .
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.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 7/21/26, amended claim(s) and 1, 3, 9, 12-13, 17-19, canceled claim(s) 4, 25, 27, and 29, and new claim(s) 33-35 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0337620 to Morrison et al. (hereinafter “Morrison”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0042460 to Holmes et al. (hereinafter “Holmes”).
For claim 1, Morrison discloses a sample holder (Abstract) comprising:
a vessel (110) (Fig. 8) (para [0079]) comprising a wall defining an internal space (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Figs. 8-11) and an opening to the internal space (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Figs. 8-11);
a conduit (120 and/or 150) (Figs. 8-11) (para [0079]) comprising a distal end positioned in the internal space (as can be seen in Fig. 11) and a proximal end extending from the internal space (see Figs. 8-11), the conduit configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) receive a liquid sample into the proximal end of the conduit (Fig. 10) (para [0080]-[0081]); and
a cap (160) (Figs. 16-18) (para [0093]) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) move relative to the vessel such that movement of the cap relative to the vessel from a first position toward a second position causes a pressure differential between the proximal and distal ends of the conduit suitable to move the liquid sample from the conduit into the internal space (see Figs. 15-18) (para [0043]-[0044] and [0071]) (also see para [0113]-[0116]).
Morrison further discloses wherein the cap is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) cause the pressure differential in response to a “non-linear pathway” of the cap relative to the vessel (para [0044]).
Morrison does not expressly disclose that the non-linear pathway is a rotation.
However, Holmes teaches rotation (para [0090] and/or [0130]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Morrison where the non-linear pathway is a rotation, in view of the teachings of Holmes, because rotation is a suitable type of non-linear motion that would lead to the predictable result of moving the parts of Morrison relative to each other.
For claim 2, Morrison further discloses wherein the cap is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) cause a pressure below ambient pressure in the internal space in response to movement of the cap relative to the vessel (para [0043]-[0044] and [0071]) (also see para [0113]-[0116]).
For claim 3, Morrison further discloses wherein the pressure below ambient pressure is suitable to move a liquid sample from the conduit into the internal space via the distal end (para [0043]-[0044] and [0071]) (also see para [0113]-[0116]).
For claim 5, Morrison further discloses wherein the cap is configured to cause the pressure differential in response to linear movement of the cap relative to the vessel (see Figs. 15-18).
For claim 6, Morrison further discloses wherein the cap (Examiner’s Note: the cap to also include 130 for this claim) is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) sealingly engage with an outer surface of the wall of the vessel (as can be seen in Fig. 11).
For claim 7, Morrison does not expressly disclose wherein a portion of the outer surface of the wall includes a channel that provides a vent for the internal space when the cap is at the first position.
However, Holmes teaches wherein a portion of an outer surface of a wall (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Fig. 11I) includes a channel (1182 and/or 1184) that provides a vent (1190 and/or 1192) for an internal space (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Fig. 11I) when a cap is at a first position (para [0201]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Morrison wherein a portion of the outer surface of the wall includes a channel that provides a vent for the internal space when the cap is at the first position, in view of the teachings of Holmes, as an additional means/structure or a substitutionary means/structure by which to vent the vessel in Morrison. Such a modification would lead to the predictable result of venting the inside of the vessel of Morrison after the vacuum has been applied to pull the sample into the vessel and this modification would just be another way to do that.
For claim 8, Morrison further discloses wherein the cap (Examiner’s Note: the cap to also include 130 for this claim) is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) sealingly engage with an inner surface of the wall of the vessel (as can be seen in Fig. 11).
For claim 9, Morrison does not expressly disclose wherein a portion of the inner surface of the wall includes a channel that provides a vent for the internal space when the cap is at the first position.
However, Holmes teaches wherein a portion of an inner surface of a wall (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Fig. 11I) includes a channel (1182 and/or 1184) that provides a vent (1190 and/or 1192) for an internal space (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Fig. 11I) when a cap is at a first position (para [0201]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Morrison wherein a portion of the inner surface of the wall includes a channel that provides a vent for the internal space when the cap is at the first position, in view of the teachings of Holmes, as an additional means/structure or a substitutionary means/structure by which to vent the vessel in Morrison. Such a modification would lead to the predictable result of venting the inside of the vessel of Morrison after the vacuum has been applied to pull the sample into the vessel and this modification would just be another way to do that.
For claim 10, Morrison further discloses wherein the conduit includes a capillary tube (150) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) draw a blood sample into the capillary tube by contacting blood to the proximal end (as can be seen in Fig. 10) (para [0080]-[0081]).
For claim 11, Morrison further discloses wherein the conduit is fixed to the cap (para [0093]).
For claim 12, Morrison, as modified, further discloses wherein the cap and the conduit are removable from the vessel by rotating the cap from the first position to the second position (as can be seen in Figs. 15-18).
For claim 13, Morrison further discloses a cover configured to engage with the vessel to close the opening and seal the internal space closed with the cap and conduit removed from the vessel (see “Automatically Sealed Vessel” in Fig. 18).
For claim 16, Morrison further discloses wherein the conduit extends from an upper side of the cap (as can be seen in Figs. 9-11) (also see Fig. 1) and the cap includes a guard (tapered portion of 160) (alternatively, the cap including both 140 and 160 with 160 reading on the claimed “guard”) that extends from the upper side of the cap adjacent the proximal end of the conduit (as can be seen in Figs. 8-10).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Holmes, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0102299 to Laugharn Jr. et al. (hereinafter “Laugharn Jr.”).
For claim 14, Morrison and Holmes do not expressly disclose a desiccant associated with the cover, positionable in the internal space and configured to dry a blood sample enclosed in the internal space.
However, Laugharn Jr. teaches a desiccant (73) associated with a cover (Fig. 2) (para [0009]), positionable in the internal space (Fig. 2) and configured to dry a blood sample enclosed in the internal space (para [0009]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Morrison to include a desiccant associated with the cover, positionable in the internal space and configured to dry a blood sample enclosed in the internal space, in view of the teachings of Laugharn Jr., for the obvious advantage of stabilizing the blood sample.
For claim 15, Morrison and Holmes do not expressly disclose wherein the desiccant extends from the cover and is configured to be positioned in the internal space with the cover engaged with the vessel.
However, Laugharn Jr. teaches wherein the desiccant extends from the cover (Fig. 2) and is configured to be positioned in the internal space with the cover engaged with the vessel (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Laugharn Jr. wherein the desiccant extends from the cover and is configured to be positioned in the internal space with the cover engaged with the vessel, in view of the teachings of Laugharn Jr., for the obvious advantage of stabilizing the blood sample.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Holmes, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0061822 to Robbins et al. (hereinafter “Robbins”).
For claim 17, Morrison and Holmes do not expressly disclose a stand configured to engage with the vessel and hold the vessel in an upright position on a surface with the proximal end of the conduit extending upwardly from the vessel.
However, Robbins teaches a stand (110/111) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) engage with the vessel and hold the vessel in an upright position on a surface with the proximal end of the conduit extending upwardly from the vessel (as can be seen in Figs. 21-22 and 24-25).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Morrison to include a stand configured to engage with the vessel and hold the vessel in an upright position on a surface with the proximal end of the conduit extending upwardly from the vessel, in view of the teachings of Robbins, for the obvious advantage of providing a means by which to store Morrison’s device.
For claim 18, Morrison and Holmes do not expressly disclose wherein the stand and the vessel include complementary engagement features to removably engage the vessel with the stand.
However, Robbins teaches wherein the stand and the vessel include complementary engagement features (130/132) (Figs 25A-B) to removably engage the vessel with the stand (as can be seen in Figs. 25A-B).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Morrison wherein the stand and the vessel include complementary engagement features to removably engage the vessel with the stand, in view of the teachings of Robbins, for the obvious advantage of providing a means by which to securely store Morrison’s device.
For claim 19, Morrison further discloses wherein the cap is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) support the vessel and conduit in a horizontal position on a surface with the conduit extending horizontally (see Fig. 33).
Morrison and Holmes do no expressly disclose the stand is configured to support the vessel and conduit in a horizontal position.
However, Robbins teaches the stand is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) support the vessel and conduit in a horizontal position (most directly Fig. 25B, but as can also be seen in Figs. 21-22 and 24-25A).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Morrison such that the stand is configured to support the vessel and conduit in a horizontal position, in view of the teachings of Robbins, for the obvious advantage of providing a means by which to securely store Morrison’s device.
Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Holmes and Robbins, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0315618 to Torris et al. (hereinafter “Torris”).
For claim 33, Morrison, Holmes, and Robbins do not expressly disclose wherein the stand is configured to engage the vessel to resist rotation of the vessel relative to the stand.
However, Torris teaches wherein the stand is configured to engage the vessel to resist rotation of the vessel relative to the stand (para [0118]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Morrison wherein the stand is configured to engage the vessel to resist rotation of the vessel relative to the stand, in view of the teachings of Torris, for the obvious advantage of providing another way/means to increase stability of the vessel while it is in the stand so that it doesn’t fall over.
For claim 34, Morrison, Holmes, and Robbins do not expressly disclose wherein the stand is configured to resist rotation of the vessel relative to the stand when the cap is rotated relative to the stand.
However, Torris teaches wherein the stand is configured to resist rotation of the vessel relative to the stand when the cap is rotated relative to the stand (para [0118]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Morrison wherein the stand is configured to resist rotation of the vessel relative to the stand when the cap is rotated relative to the stand, in view of the teachings of Torris, for the obvious advantage of providing another way/means to increase stability of the vessel while it is in the stand so that it doesn’t fall over.
For claim 35, Morrison, Holmes, and Robbins do not expressly disclose wherein the complementary engagement features cooperate to resist rotation of the vessel relative to the stand.
However, Torris teaches wherein the complementary engagement features cooperate to resist rotation of the vessel relative to the stand (para [0118]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Morrison wherein the complementary engagement features cooperate to resist rotation of the vessel relative to the stand, in view of the teachings of Torris, for the obvious advantage of providing another way/means to increase stability of the vessel while it is in the stand so that it doesn’t fall over.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the objections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 112 rejection(s), Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
With respect to the 102/103 rejections, rotation is not dichotomous with axial movement. It is possible that a cap can rotate while it is linearly displaced and this is contemplated by Holmes. Specifically, Holmes mentions that “a base may rotate while moving relative to the support” (emphasis added). Why would Holmes use the phrase “while moving” is the rotation itself was the only movement? That would be redundant and unnecessary. Instead, the previous sentence mentions that “the base may slide co-axially with the support without rotating” and then mentions that the base “may rotate while moving.” So when reading para [0090] of Holmes as a whole and not isolating any sentence by itself, but instead reading each sentence in context, a skilled artisan would understand that the “while moving” is referring to the sliding movement that was mentioned in the previous sentence. Otherwise, saying that something is rotating while it’s moving means that it only rotates (without other movement) would require an interpretation where the phrase “while moving” must be completely disregarded.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights