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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner notes that the limitations “the surfactant of the separating gel comprises 0.025-0.1% (m/v) of sodium lauroyl sarcosinate; a ratio of a molar concentration of the surfactant to a mass concentration of a loading protein is between 0.04 mmol/g and 11.56 mmol/g” recited in claim 1 are not disclosed in the foreign application of CN201910354425.5A with the filing date of 4/29/2019 and the Application PCT/CN2020/087126 with the filing date of 4/27/2020. The above limitations are disclosed in the foreign application of CN202110723864.6A with filing date of 6/29/2021. Furthermore, the limitations of a marker recited in claims 8 and 14 are not disclosed in the foreign application of CN201910354425.5A with the filing date of 4/29/2019 and the Application PCT/CN2020/087126 with the filing date of 4/27/2020, and the limitations of the marker are disclosed in the foreign application of CN202110723864.6A with filing date of 6/29/2021. Thus, the claims 1-3, 8-9 and 13-15 are examined based on the effective filing date of 6/29/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that an information disclosure statement (IDS) was not included in the electronic file wrapper of the instant application. Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose information material to patentability as defined by 37 C.F.R. 1.56 (also see MPEP 2001).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group III, claims 8-9 and 13-15, without traverse in the reply filed on 09/26/2025 is acknowledged. Upon consideration of the claims and the elected Group III, since claim 13 further depends upon claim 1, thus the previous Groups I and III in the previous restriction are combined into a new Group I including claims 1-3, 8-9 and 13-15 drawn to a gel, a marker and a kit, which are examined in this office action. Claims 4-7 in the unelected Group II (drawn to a buffer) and claims 10-12 in new Group III (which is the previous Group IV drawn to a method) are withdrawn.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 3, 8-9 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: please amend “separating gel” in line 1 to --a separating gel--.
Claim 3: please amend “the surfactant of the stacking gel” to – [[the]] a surfactant of the stacking gel --.
Claim 8: please amend “a Marker” in line 2 on page 31 to –[[a]]the Marker--.
Claim 9: please amend “stabilized monomer proteins” to – the stabilized monomer proteins--.
Claim 14: please amend “a Marker” in line 5 to –[[a]]the Marker--; “a stacking gel” to – [[a]] the stacking gel --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 8, claim 8 recites “A Marker … comprising 4 to 20 kinds of stabilized monomer proteins …, and no polymer is formed in the proteins themselves or between the proteins”. Since proteins are polymers of amino acids, “no polymer is formed in the proteins themselves “ contradicts the inherent structure of proteins. Thus, the scope of claim 8 is indefinite. Claim 9 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 8.
Regarding claim 14 claim 14 recites “A Marker … comprising 4 to 20 kinds of stabilized monomer proteins …, and no polymer is formed in the proteins themselves or between the proteins”. Since proteins are polymers of amino acids, “no polymer is formed in the proteins themselves “ contradicts the inherent structure of proteins. Thus, the scope of claim 14 is indefinite. Claim 15 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 14.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (CN110133091A, English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a gel for protein electrophoresis (a 05SAR-PAGE gel for separating proteins [claim 1; para. 0011-0012]), comprising separating gel (lower separation gel [claim 1]) and a stacking gel (upper stacking gel [claim 1]) disposed on the separating gel (the mixture of the stacking gel is added to the top layer of separation gel [para. 0028]);
wherein the separating gel is a polyacrylamide gel comprising a surfactant and is alkaline (the separating gel of the 05SAR-PAGE is prepared by a mixture comprising acrylamide solution, SAR at pH 8.8 [para. 0024]. Thus, the separating gel is a polyacrylamide gel comprising a surfactant of SAR, and is alkaline at pH 8.8);
the surfactant of the separating gel comprises 0.025-0.1% (m/v) of sodium lauroyl sarcosinate (protein separation gel prepared with 0.05% w/v sodium lauroyl sarcosinate abbreviated as 05SAR-PAGE [para. 0014]).
Huang does not explicitly teach “a ratio of a molar concentration of the surfactant to a mass concentration of a loading protein is between 0.04 mmol/g and 11.56 mmol/g”. However, the above limitation further limits the protein sample solution to perform the protein electrophoresis experiments since it further limits concentrations of the surfactant and protein(s) in the protein sample solution, and types of the protein(s) since a mass concentration of the loading protein(s) depends on molecular weight(s) of the loading protein(s). Since the limitation further limits the protein sample solution but fails to further limit the gel. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed limitation further limits the protein sample solution for protein electrophoresis (material worked upon) but fails to limit the gel itself, the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
In the alternative, Examiner further notes that Huang does teach the protein sample solution was obtained by mixing a protein sample with a concentration of 0.05-0.5 mM with a loading buffer at a volume ratio of 1:1 [para. 0039], wherein the loading buffer comprises 0.05% w/v SAR [para. 0030]. The disclosed protein sample solution is the same as that used in this instant application, as evidenced by [para. 0093, 0096] in PGPub of the instant specification: Mix the protein sample to be analyzed with the loading buffer at a volume ratio of 1:1, to obtain the final protein sample. The concentration of protein sample is controlled at 0.05-0.5 mM [para. 0093]; Formula of loading buffer: 50 mmol/L Tris-HCl pH 6.8, 0.05% w/v SAR, 0.1% w/v bromophenol blue, 10% v/v glycerin [para. 0096]. The proteins in Huang are PhoR and PhoB, as shown in Fig.1. In the instant application, the proteins are also PhoR and PhoB [para.0126] in PGPub of the instant specification. Thus, the protein sample solution in Huang inherently has a ratio of a molar concentration of the surfactant to a mass concentration of a loading protein between 0.04 mmol/g and 11.56 mmol/g since it is the same as that used in this instant application.
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches the gel of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the ratio of the molar concentration of the surfactant to the mass concentration of the loading protein is between 1.16 mmol/g and 9.90 mmol/g” further limits the protein sample solution to perform the protein electrophoresis experiments since it further limits concentrations of the surfactant and protein(s) in the protein sample solution, and types of the protein(s) since the mass concentration of the loading protein(s) depends on molecular weight(s) of the loading protein(s). Since the limitation further limits the protein sample solution but fails to further limit the gel. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed limitation further limits the protein sample solution for protein electrophoresis (material worked upon) but fails to limit the gel itself, the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
In the alternative, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the protein sample solution in Huang inherently has the ratio of the molar concentration of the surfactant to the mass concentration of the loading protein between 1.16 mmol/g and 9.90 mmol/g since it is the same as that used in this instant application.
Regarding claim 13, Huang teaches a kit for protein gel electrophoresis (a kit for preparation of 05SAR-PAGE [para. 0020-0028], wherein 05SAR-PAGE is a protein separation gel prepared with 0.05% w/v sodium lauroyl sarcosinate [para. 0014]), comprising a stock solution of the stacking gel and a stock solution of the separating gel of the gel for protein electrophoresis of claim 1 ([para. 0023-0025] detail a stock solution of the separating gel, and [para. 0026-0028] detail a stock solution of the stacking gel of the 05SAR-PAGE).
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 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 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiltfang et al. (WO2019121263A1, English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wiltfang teaches a gel for protein electrophoresis (Sarkosyl polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis for high-resolution separation of carboxy-terminal variants of amyloid-[Symbol font/0x62] peptides [para. 0028]), comprising separating gel (separating gel 3 in Fig.1 [para. 0027]) and a stacking gel (stacking gel 2 in Fig.1 [para. 0027]) disposed on the separating gel (see Fig.1);
wherein the separating gel is a polyacrylamide gel comprising a surfactant, and is alkaline (Sarkosyl polyacrylamide gel [para. 0028]; [para. 0041-0050] detail the preparation of the separating gel comprising acrylamide and bisacrylamide [para. 0044], a surfactant of Sarkosyl [para. 0046], and separation gel buffer at pH 8.8 [para. 0045]. Thus, the separating gel is a polyacrylamide gel comprising a surfactant, and is alkaline);
the surfactant of the separating gel comprises sodium lauroyl sarcosinate ( the surfactant is Sarkosyl [para. 0046], which is sodium lauroyl sarcosinate [para. 0040]).
Wiltfang does not explicitly teach wherein the concentration of Sarkosyl in the separating gel is 0.025-0.1% (m/v).
Wiltfang further teaches the Sarkosyl is introduced into the separating gel 3 in a concentration between 0.1% and 0.8% [w/v] [claim 3; para. 0018], and the disclosed sarkosyl concentration overlaps with the claimed range of 0.025-0.1% [m/v].
It would have been obvious to have selected and utilized Sarkosyl in the separating gel within the disclosed concentration range, including those amounts that overlap within the claimed range, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught range to be suitable given that Wiltfang specifically teaches the range to be suitable for Sarkosyl in the separating gel of the gel electrophoresis. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Wiltfang does not explicitly teach “a ratio of a molar concentration of the surfactant to a mass concentration of a loading protein is between 0.04 mmol/g and 11.56 mmol/g”. However, the above limitation further limits the protein sample solution to perform the protein electrophoresis experiments since it further limits concentrations of the surfactant and protein(s) in the protein sample solution, and types of the protein(s) since a mass concentration of the loading protein(s) depends on molecular weight(s) of the loading protein(s). Since the limitation further limits the protein sample solution but fails to further limit the gel. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed limitation further limits the protein sample solution for protein electrophoresis (material worked upon) but fails to limit the gel itself, the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 2, Wiltfang teaches the gel of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the ratio of the molar concentration of the surfactant to the mass concentration of the loading protein is between 1.16 mmol/g and 9.90 mmol/g” further limits the protein sample solution to perform the protein electrophoresis experiments since it further limits concentrations of the surfactant and protein(s) in the protein sample solution, and types of the protein(s) since the mass concentration of the loading protein(s) depends on molecular weight(s) of the loading protein(s). Since the limitation further limits the protein sample solution but fails to further limit the gel. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed limitation further limits the protein sample solution for protein electrophoresis (material worked upon) but fails to limit the gel itself, the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 3, Wiltfang teaches the gel of claim 1, wherein the stacking gel comprises polyacrylamide (Sarkosyl polyacrylamide gel [para. 0028]; [para. 0051-0061] detail the preparation of the stacking gel comprising acrylamide and bisacrylamide [para. 0053]) with a mass volume fraction of 3.5-5% (stacking gel with an acrylamide + bisacrylamide concentration of 4.8% [para. 0059]), and the surfactant of the stacking gel comprises sodium lauroyl sarcosinate (a surfactant of Sarkosyl [para. 0055], which is sodium lauroyl sarcosinate [para. 0040]).
Wiltfang does not explicitly teach wherein the concentration of Sarkosyl in the stacking gel is 0.025-0.1% (m/v).
Wiltfang further teaches the Sarkosyl is introduced into the stacking gel 2 in a concentration between 0.1% and 0.8% [w/v] [claim 3; para. 0018], and the disclosed sarkosyl concentration overlaps with the claimed range of 0.025-0.1% [m/v].
It would have been obvious to have selected and utilized Sarkosyl in the stacking gel within the disclosed concentration range, including those amounts that overlap within the claimed range, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught range to be suitable given that Wiltfang specifically teaches the range to be suitable for Sarkosyl in the stacking gel of the gel electrophoresis. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 13, Wiltfang teaches a kit for protein gel electrophoresis (kit 9 for separating carboxy-terminal variants of Abeta peptides by gel electrophoresis [claim 11; Fig.2 [para. 0027]), comprising a stock solution of the stacking gel and a stock solution of the separating gel of the gel for protein electrophoresis of claim 1 (the kit 9 comprises the stacking gel 2 and the separating gel 3, each containing Sarkosyl [para. 0027]; [Para. 0041-0061] detail a stock solution of the separating gel and a stock solution of the stacking gel for the preparation of the separating and stacking gels, respectively).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN110133091A, English translation), and in view of Saito et al. (US4507233A ).
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches a Marker for protein electrophoresis (the protein marker contains 4-8 molecular weight gradients, and the protein molecular weight range is between 5 kDa and 300 kDa [para. 0036-0037]; the present invention relates to a gel electrophoresis separation technology [para. 0002]; see Marker in Fig.1B of the SAR-PAGE electrophoresis), comprising 4 to 20 kinds of proteins with a molecular mass distribution range of 5 kDa to 100 MDa (4-8 molecular weight gradients, and the protein molecular weight range is between 5 kDa and 300 kDa [para. 0036-0037]), and a total protein concentration being 0.005 mmol/L to 0.5 mmol/L (a protein sample with a concentration of 0.05-0.5mM [para. 0039]; the disclosed protein concentration falls within the claimed protein concentration range);
wherein the proteins refer to proteins used as the Marker (the protein marker contains 4-8 molecular weight gradients [para. 0037]);
a dissolution buffer of the proteins comprises sodium lauroyl sarcosinate (the protein marker is dissolved in the loading buffer solution, which comprises 0.05% w/v SAR [para. 0029-0030, 0037]; SAR is sodium lauroyl sarcosinate [para. 0007]) with the same concentration as a stacking gel for protein electrophoresis (0.05% SAR gel electrophoresis system includes 05SAR-PAG and a protein marker containing 0.05% w/v SAR; protein separation gel prepared with 0.05% w/v sodium lauroyl sarcosinate abbreviated as 05SAR-PAGE [para. 0012, 0014]; [para.0020-0029] detail the preparation of separation gel and stacking gel of the 05SAR-PAGE gel for protein electrophoresis).
Huang is silent to the following limitations: (1) the proteins of the marker are stabilized monomer proteins; and (2) no polymer is formed in the proteins themselves or between the proteins.
Saito teaches colored molecular weight marker used for determination of the molecular weight of a protein having an unknown molecular weight, and can also be used as a reference protein for purification of a protein having a known molecular weight (abstract). The present inventors have researched with a view to developing means for measuring molecular weights very simply and precisely in a short time in the above-mentioned SDS electrophoresis method (Col. 2, Ln 47-50). A monomer of a colored protein having a known molecular weight is prepared and this monomer is polymerized to an oligomer such as a dimer or trimer (method 1 in Col. 4, Ln 23-26). Note that “monomer” inherently means no polymer formed. Thus, Saito teaches wherein the markers are stabilized monomer proteins of “known” molecular weights, which can be used as molecular weight markers for SDS electrophoresis (Col. 7, Ln 21-23), and no polymer is formed in the stabilized monomer proteins themselves or between the proteins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stabilized monomer proteins as the protein marker wherein no polymer is formed in the proteins themselves or between the proteins, as taught by Saito, since it would provide markers of known and stable molecular weights as reference proteins for gel electrophoresis to determine the molecular weight of a protein having an unknown molecular weight (abstract and Col. 7, Ln 21-23 in Saito). Furthermore, since the marker is used as reference proteins to determine the molecular weight of a protein having an unknown molecular weight, one of ordinary skill in the art would use stable monomer proteins as the marker to ensure accurate and reproducible determination of the unknown molecular weight.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Saito, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cytiva (Choosing molecular markers for polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis: Western blot, https://www.cytivalifesciences.com/en/us/news-center/western-blot---molecular-markers-for-polyacrylamide-gel-electrophoresis-10001, July 11, 2017).
Regarding claim 9, modified Huang teaches the Marker of claim 8, and is silent to comprising 10 kinds of stabilized monomer proteins.
Cytiva teaches molecular markers help users identify the protein size run in a gel electrophoresis ladder. The first sub-Figure of Fig.1 shows a marker comprising 10 kinds of proteins with known molecular weights ranging from 12 kDa to 225 kDa, wherein each band of a distinct color represents a protein of a known molecular weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a marker comprising 10 kinds of the stabilized monomer proteins, since it would allow to determine proteins of different sizes in the sample by comparing the bands between the sample and protein marker (“How do molecular weight markers work?” On page 1; “Molecular Marker size range” on page 5 in Cytiva).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Saito et al. (US4507233A ).
Regarding claim 14, Huang teaches the kit of claim 13, further comprising a Marker for protein electrophoresis (the protein marker contains 4-8 molecular weight gradients, and the protein molecular weight range is between 5 kDa and 300 kDa [para. 0036-0037]; see Marker in Fig.1B of the SAR-PAGE electrophoresis);
The Marker for protein electrophoresis comprising 4 to 20 kinds of proteins with a molecular mass distribution range of 5 kDa to 100 MDa (4-8 molecular weight gradients, and the protein molecular weight range is between 5 kDa and 300 kDa [para. 0036-0037]), and a total protein concentration being 0.005 mmol/L to 0.5 mmol/L (a protein sample with a concentration of 0.05-0.5mM [para. 0039]; the disclosed protein concentration falls within the claimed protein concentration range);
wherein the proteins refer to proteins used as the Marker (the protein marker contains 4-8 molecular weight gradients [para. 0037]);
a dissolution buffer of the proteins comprises sodium lauroyl sarcosinate (the protein marker is dissolved in the loading buffer solution, which comprises 0.05% w/v SAR [para. 0029-0030, 0037]; SAR is sodium lauroyl sarcosinate [para. 0007]) with the same concentration as a stacking gel for protein electrophoresis (0.05% SAR gel electrophoresis system includes 05SAR-PAGE and a protein marker containing 0.05% w/v SAR; protein separation gel prepared with 0.05% w/v sodium lauroyl sarcosinate abbreviated as 05SAR-PAGE [para. 0012, 0014]; [para.0020-0029] detail the preparation of separation gel and stacking gel of the 05SAR-PAGE gel for protein electrophoresis).
Huang is silent to the following limitations: (1) the proteins of the marker are stabilized monomer proteins; and (2) no polymer is formed in the proteins themselves or between the proteins.
Saito teaches colored molecular weight marker used for determination of the molecular weight of a protein having an unknown molecular weight, and can also be used as a reference protein for purification of a protein having a known molecular weight (abstract). The present inventors have researched with a view to developing means for measuring molecular weights very simply and precisely in a short time in the above-mentioned SDS electrophoresis method (Col. 2, Ln 47-50). A monomer of a colored protein having a known molecular weight is prepared and this monomer is polymerized to an oligomer such as a dimer or trimer (method 1 in Col. 4, Ln 23-26). Note that “monomer” inherently means no polymer formed. Thus, Saito teaches wherein the markers are stabilized monomer proteins of known molecular weights, which can be used as molecular weight markers for SDS electrophoresis (Col. 7, Ln 21-23), and no polymer is formed in the stabilized monomer proteins themselves or between the proteins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stabilized monomer proteins as the protein marker wherein no polymer is formed in the proteins themselves or between the proteins, as taught by Saito, since it would provide markers of known and stable molecular weights as reference proteins for gel electrophoresis to determine the molecular weight of a protein having an unknown molecular weight (abstract and Col. 7, Ln 21-23 in Saito). Furthermore, since the marker is used as reference proteins to determine the molecular weight of a protein having an unknown molecular weight, one of ordinary skill in the art would use stable monomer proteins as the marker to ensure accurate and reproducible determination of the unknown molecular weight of a protein.
Regarding claim 15, modified Huang teaches the kit of claim 14, and Huang further teaches wherein the stock solution of the separating gel comprises a buffer comprising sodium lauroyl sarcosinate and acrylamide at a formulation concentration, ammonium persulfate solution, and a tetramethylethylenediamine (TEMED) solution ([para. 0024] details the stock solution of the separating gel, which comprises a buffer [Tris buffer] comprising sodium lauroyl sarcosinate [SAR] and acrylamide [acrylamide solution] at a formulation concentration, ammonium persulfate, and a TEMED solution).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Huang et al. (05SAR-PAGE: separation of protein dimerization and modification using a gel with 0.05% sarkosyl, Analytica Chimica Acta, 2020, 1101, 193-198) teaches 05SAR-PAGE gel for protein gel electrophoresis. Brodegger et al. (WO2004036205A2) teaches a molecular weight marker kit for proteins consists especially essentially of an individual protein constituent and homomultimers thereof, the size of the multimers comprising a multiple of the number of monomers and the multimerisation being carried out under oxidative conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached on (571) 272-8521. 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795