DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Please note that the examiner for this application has changed. Please address future correspondence to Robert T. Crow (Art Unit 1683) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1113.
Election/Restrictions and Status of the Claims
3. Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 18 November 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 31 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 November 2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 11-15, 18-19, 22, 24-27, 30, and 43 are under prosecution.
Notice to Comply with Requirements for Patent Applications Containing Nucleotide Sequence And/Or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosure.
4. This application contains sequence disclosures that are encompassed by the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825 for the reason(s) set forth below.
Specifically, the application fails to comply with CFR 1.821(d), which states:
(d) Where the description or claims of a patent application discuss a sequence that is set forth in the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, reference must be made to the sequence by use of the sequence identifier, preceded by “SEQ ID NO:” in the text of the description or claims, even if the sequence is also embedded in the text of the description or claims of the patent application.
5. The Specification discloses nucleotide sequences on page 69. However, none of the sequences are identified by a SEQ ID No.
For compliance with sequence rules, it is necessary to include the sequence in the “Sequence Listing” and identify them with SEQ ID NO. In general, any sequence that is disclosed and/or claimed as a string of particular bases or amino acids, and that otherwise meets the criteria of CFR 1.821(a), must be set forth in the “Sequence Listing.” See MPEP 2422.03.
While the Examiner has made every attempt to check the Specification for sequence compliance, Applicant is required to carefully check the entire Specification for any and all issues regarding sequence compliance.
For the response to this Office Action to be complete, Applicant is REQUIRED to comply with the Requirements for Patent Applications Containing Nucleotide Sequence And/Or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures. Failure to comply with the Requirements will be considered nonresponsive.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The Information Disclosure Statements filed 14 August 2023, 31 May 2024, and 18 November 2025 are acknowledged and have been considered.
It is noted that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 11-15, 18-19, 22, and 43 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.
A. Claim 11 (upon which claims 13-15, 18-19, and 22 depend) is indefinite in the recitation “the biological samples,” which lacks antecedent basis in the previous recitation of a “plurality of biological samples.”
B. Claim 12 is indefinite in each of the following:
I. The recitation “the biological samples,” which lacks antecedent basis in the previous recitation of a “plurality of biological samples.”
II. The recitation “the sample tubes,” which lacks antecedent basis because there is no previous recitation of “sample tubes.”
C. Claim 13 is indefinite in the recitations “the reducing agent” and “the sample preparation module,” each of which lacks antecedent basis because there is no previous recitation of a reducing agent or a sample preparation module.
D. Claim 15 is indefinite in the recitations of lithium, lithium, sodium, potassium, lithium aluminum hydride, sodium borohydride, sodium cyanoborohydride, lithium tri-butoxy aluminum hydride, dibutoxy aluminum hydride, and lithium triethyl borohydride. It is unclear how these highly reactive reducing agents, which generally ignite when contacted with water, are compatible with the buffer required by claim 11.
In addition, it is unclear how sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), which is a detergent, is a reducing agent.
E. Claim 22 is indefinite in the recitation “NAC,” as it is not defined by the claim.
For the purposes of examination, NAC is interpreted as N-acetyl cysteine, as defined in claim 15.
F. Claim 43 is indefinite in each of the following:
I. The recitation “the plurality of patients,” which lacks antecedent basis because there is no previous recitation of a “plurality of patients.”
II. The recitation “the input sample” in each of lines 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12, each of which lacks antecedent basis in the previous recitation of a “combined input sample.”
III. The recitation “the heater,” which lacks antecedent basis because there is no previous recitation of a “heater.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012).
It is noted that while the claims refer to “modules,” a review of the specification yields no limiting definition of a “module” (e.g., as a removable component). Thus, any “module” is merely interpreted as any region or collection of regions (e.g., multiple chambers) with the device capable of performing the claimed function, and the claim has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the teachings of the specification regarding a “module” (In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (see MPEP 2111).
Regarding claim 1, Crnogorac et al. teach methods comprising detecting a pathogen (paragraph 0010), comprising combining a plurality of biological samples to form a combined sample (paragraph 0079) and performing the methods in a stand-alone device comprising a plurality of chambers (paragraph 0100 and Figure 8). Crnogorac et al. also teach the combination of reverse transcription to produce cDNA, and amplification (i.e., PCR) to produce a target amplicon (i.e., A DNA sample; paragraph 0079). Crnogorac et al. also teach detection the DNA target (paragraph 0087), as well as detection by reaction with a reagent formulated to produce a signal that indicates the presence of the target DNA, in the form of a labeled hybridization probe (paragraph 0003), and that the methods have the added advantage of allowing point of care applications and field detection of pathogens (paragraph 0010). Thus, Crnogorac et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
Crnogorac et al. do not teach the various claimed modules (i.e., regions within the device).
However, Glezer et al. teach methods utilizing a stand-alone device, in the form of a single assay cartridge (paragraph 0005 and Figure 2(a)), comprising conveying (i.e., receiving) the sample in a sample inlet, (Figure 7), actuating the device, via pumping the fluid through the device (paragraph 0157) to perform a first reverse transcription in a first module (i.e., chamber), followed by performing a second amplification (i.e., PCR) of the product of the reverse transcription (i.e., the produced cDNA) in a second module (i.e., chamber), followed by detection of the PCR amplified product in a detection module, in the form of a chamber detection apparatus (i.e., module), wherein the (output) solution of the liquid sample is reacted with detection probes (paragraph 0118). Glezer et al. teach revers transcription is performed with heating to 46oC (paragraph 0185), that PCR produces amplicons (paragraph 0035) using heat (paragraph 0060), and that the solutions are conveyed (i.e., flowed) through flow paths (paragraph 0005). Glezer et al. also teach the detection probes are unique to primer binding sites found in the target (paragraph 0120), and that the method have the added advantage of allowing multiplexed nucleic acid measurements (Abstract). Thus, Glezer et al. tech the known techniques discussed above.
It is noted that the courts have held that optimization through routine experimentation, and in particular, when related to differences in temperature, do not support patentability (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Thus, the claimed heating merely represent routine optimization of the teachings of the cited prior art.
Applicant is advised that MPEP 716.01(c) makes clear that “[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record” (In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)). Thus, Applicant should not merely rely upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the cited prior art arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing point of care applications and field detection of pathogens as explicitly taught by Crnogorac et al. (paragraph 0010) and the added advantage of allowing multiplexed nucleic acid measurements as explicitly taught by Glezer et al. (Abstract). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of the cited prior art could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques of the cited prior art predictably result in steps and devices useful for detecting pathogens.
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1 is discussed above. Crnogorac et al. teach detection of viruses (paragraph 0077), as do Glezer et al. (paragraph 0135).
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 1 is discussed above. Crnogorac et al. teach combinations of multiple samples, including from two or more individuals (paragraph 0079).
It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01).
It is also reiterated that the courts have also found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
12. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
Regarding claims 4-5, the method of claim 2 is discussed above in Section 11.
Crnogorac et al. teach detection of viruses (paragraph 0077), as do Glezer et al. (i.e., claim 4; paragraph 0135), and Glezer et al. teach the sample is obtained from a swab (i.e., claim 5; paragraph 0087).
Neither reference teaches nasal swabs (i.e., claim 5) or coronavirus (i.e., claim 4).
However, Balog et al. teach method using modular microfluidic devices (Abstract) for detection of coronavirus (paragraph 0118) using nasal swabs (paragraph 0097), and that the methods have the added advantage of allowing early detection of potentially pandemic causing mutations (paragraph 0172). Thus, Balog et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further combined the teachings of the cited prior art with those of Balog et al. arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing early detection of potentially pandemic causing mutations as explicitly taught by Balog et al. (paragraph 0172). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Balog et al. could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Balog et al. predictably result in useful samples and important viruses for detection.
13. Claims 5, 11-15, 18, 24-25, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009).
It is noted that while claim 5 has been rejected as described above, the claim is also obvious using the interpretation outlined below.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, the method of claim 2 is discussed above in Section 11.
While Glezer et al. teach the sample is obtained from a swab (i.e., claim 5; paragraph 0087), neither Crnogorac et al. nor Glezer et al. teach nasal swabs.
However, Becker et al. teach methods using microfluidic cartridges (paragraph 0135) to detect pathogens (paragraph 0003), wherein nasal swabs are utilized (i.e., claim 5, paragraph 0011). The swab is inserted into a tube containing buffer (i.e., claim 11), which has the added advantage of allowing isolation of the nucleic acids from clinical samples (paragraph 0081). Thus, Becker et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further combined the teachings of the cited prior art with those of Becker et al. arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing isolation of the nucleic acids from clinical samples as explicitly taught by Becker et al. (paragraph 0081). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Becker et al. could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Becker et al. predictably result in useful samples for detection.
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 5 is discussed above. Becker et al. teach a swab is inserted into a disposable tube (paragraph 0081) and that swabs are combined with aliquots of a sample buffer solution (paragraph 0179); thus it would have been obvious that each swab could have been inserted into an individual tube having an aliquot of sample buffer. Becker et al also teach multiplex nucleic acid amplification is a single tube paragraph 0075), and Crnogorac et al. teach combining samples (paragraph 0079); thus, it would have been obvious to combine all of the samples from each of the tubes into one tube.
Regarding claims 13-15, the method of claim 11 is discussed above. Glezer et al. teach drying of reagents into the modules (chambers; paragraph 0072), thereby coating the chambers, as well as a lysis chamber (i.e., the sample preparation module of claims 13-14; paragraph 0008), and coating of surfaces with reagents (paragraph 0145). Becker et al. sodium dodecyl sulfate as a lysis reagent (i.e., claim 15; paragraph 0070).
Alternatively, Glezer et al. teach treatment of the sample with dithiothreitol (paragraph 0178) and sample chambers (i.e., the claimed sample preparation module; paragraph 0008).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have either reagent in dried form coating a sample preparation module.
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 14 is discussed above. Glezer et al. teach the dried reagents are pellets (paragraph 0096).
Regarding claims 24-25, the method of claim 11 is discussed above. Glezer et al. teach the cDNA is amplified via PCR in the amplification module (i.e., reaction zone; paragraph 0008), which is a serpentine flow channel (Figures 2(a) and 3(h) and paragraph 0042), which is coupled to a heater (paragraph 0190 and Figure 17) and that the device is actuated by pumping fluid therethrough so that the sample flows into the amplification module (i.e., PCR zone) to amplify the cDNA (paragraph 0157).
Regarding claim 27, the method of claim 11 is discussed above. Glezer et al. teach measuring a signals from the device (e.g., paragraph 00232), and that the device (i.e., cartridge) is disposable. Thus, it would have been obvious to discard the device after detecting the signal.
Regarding claim 30, the method of claim 11 is discussed above. Glezer et al. teach the method if performed in less than 45 minutes with each step individually performed in a specific time periods “or less” (paragraph 0110). Thus, performance of each step in slightly less time results in a time of the claimed “about” 30 minutes.
It is reiterated that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and that the courts have also found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
14. Claims 14-15 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
It is noted that while claims 14-15 have been rejected as described above, the claims are also obvious using the interpretation outlined below.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 19, the methods of claims 11 and 18 are discussed above in Section 13.
While Glezer et al. teach lyophilized reagents (paragraph 0117), none of the previously cited references teach the lyophilized particles of claim 19.
However, Balog et al. teach method using modular microfluidic devices (Abstract) for detection of coronavirus (paragraph 0118), wherein a sample preparation (i.e., lysis) module contains beads for lysis (paragraph 0098), as well as dry reagents for lysis (i.e., claim 19; paragraph 0155). Balog et al. also teach the lysis reagents comprise the reducing agent sodium bisulfite (i.e., claims 14-15), and that the methods have the added advantage of facilitating DNA binding (paragraph 0192). Thus, Balog et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further combined the teachings of the cited prior art with those of Balog et al. arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of facilitating DNA binding s as explicitly taught by Balog et al. (paragraph 0192). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Balog et al. could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Balog et al. predictably result in useful samples and important viruses for detection.
15. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in combination with Brewer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009).
Regarding claim 22, the method of claim 19 is discussed above in Section 14.
None of the previously cited references teach N-acetylcysteine of claim 22.
However, Brewer et al. teach methods utilizing microfluidic devices (paragraph 0027), wherein the lysis materials include lyophilized N-acetylcysteine, which have the added advantage of aiding in the extraction of nucleic acids (paragraph 0102). Thus, Brewer et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further combined the teachings of the cited prior art with those of Brewer et al. arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of aiding in the extraction of nucleic acids as explicitly taught by Brewer et al. (paragraph 0102). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Brewer et al. could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Brewer et al. predictably result in useful reagents for cell lysis.
16. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in combination with Battrell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0156750 A1, published 21 June 2012).
Regarding claim 26, the method of claim 11 is discussed above in Section 13.
While Glezer et al. teach the importance of storing the devices (i.e., cartridges; paragraph 0092), none of the cited references teach storage for at least six months.
However, Battrell et al. teach methods of manufacturing microfluidic cartridges that have shelf lives of greater than six months, which also have the added advantage of allowing mass production (paragraph 0029). Thus, Battrell et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further combined the teachings of the cited prior art with those of Battrell et al. arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing mass production of devices having a long shelf life as explicitly taught by Battrell et al. (paragraph 0102). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Battrell et al. could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Battrell et al. predictably result in useful techniques for producing cartridges.
17. Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) in combination with Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
It is reiterated that while the claims refer to “modules,” a review of the specification yields no limiting definition of a “module” (e.g., as a removable component). Thus, any “module” is merely interpreted as any region or collection of regions (e.g., multiple chambers) with the device capable of performing the claimed function, and the claim has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the teachings of the specification regarding a “module”
Regarding claim 43, Crnogorac et al. teach methods comprising detecting a pathogen (paragraph 0010), comprising combining a plurality of biological samples from different patients (i.e., individuals) to form a combined sample (paragraph 0079) and performing the methods in a stand-alone device comprising a plurality of chambers (paragraph 0100 and Figure 8). Crnogorac et al. also teach the combination of reverse transcription to produce cDNA, and amplification (i.e., PCR) to produce a target amplicon (i.e., A DNA sample; paragraph 0079). Crnogorac et al. also teach detection the DNA target (paragraph 0087), as well as detection by reaction with a reagent formulated to produce a signal that indicates the presence of the target DNA, in the form of a labeled hybridization probe (paragraph 0003), and that the methods have the added advantage of allowing point of care applications and field detection of pathogens (paragraph 0010). Thus, Crnogorac et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
Crnogorac et al. do not teach the various claimed modules (i.e., regions within the device).
However, Glezer et al. teaches methods utilizing a stand-alone device, in the form of a single assay cartridge (paragraph 0005 and Figure 2(a)), comprising conveying (i.e., receiving) the sample in a sample inlet, (Figure 7), actuating the device, via pumping the fluid through the device (paragraph 0157) to perform a first reverse transcription in a first module (i.e., chamber), followed by performing a second amplification (i.e., PCR) of the product of the reverse transcription (i.e., the produced cDNA) in a second module (i.e., chamber), which is coupled to a heater (paragraph 0190 and Figure 17) and that the device is actuated by pumping fluid therethrough so that the sample flows into the amplification module (i.e., PCR zone) to amplify the cDNA (paragraph 0157). PCR is followed by detection of the PCR amplified product in a detection module, in the form of a chamber detection apparatus (i.e., module), wherein the (output) solution of the liquid sample is reacted with detection probes (paragraph 0118). Glezer et al. teach revers transcription is performed with heating to 46oC (paragraph 0185), that PCR produces amplicons (paragraph 0035) using heat (paragraph 0060), and that the solutions are conveyed (i.e., flowed) through flow paths (paragraph 0005). Glezer et al. also teach the detection probes are unique to primer binding sites found in the target (paragraph 0120), and that the method have the added advantage of allowing multiplexed nucleic acid measurements (Abstract). Thus, Glezer et al. tech the known techniques discussed above.
It is reiterated that the courts have held that optimization through routine experimentation, and in particular, when related to differences in temperature, do not support patentability. Thus, the claimed heating merely represent routine optimization of the teachings of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the cited prior art arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing point of care applications and field detection of pathogens as explicitly taught by Crnogorac et al. (paragraph 0010) and the added advantage of allowing multiplexed nucleic acid measurements as explicitly taught by Glezer et al. (Abstract). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of the cited prior art could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques of the cited prior art predictably result in steps and devices useful for detecting pathogens.
While Crnogorac et al. teach detection of viruses (paragraph 0077), as do Glezer et al. (paragraph 0135). neither reference teaches coronavirus.
However, Balog et al. teach methods using modular microfluidic devices (Abstract) comprising housings (paragraphs 0091 and 0155), as well as detection of coronavirus (paragraph 0118) using nasal swabs (paragraph 0097), and that the methods have the added advantage of allowing early detection of potentially pandemic causing mutations (paragraph 0172). Thus, Balog et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further combined the teachings of the cited prior art with those of Balog et al. arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing early detection of potentially pandemic causing mutations as explicitly taught by Balog et al. (paragraph 0172). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Balog et al. could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Balog et al. predictably result in useful samples and important viruses for detection.
Double Patenting
18. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
19. Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,623,415 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. any additional limitations of the ‘415 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘415 claims do not utilized combined samples or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘415 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
20. Claims 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,623,415 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) based on the citations and rational presented above.
21. Claims 5, 11-15, 18, 24-25, 27, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,623,415 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
22. Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,623,415 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in combination Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) with based on the citations and rational presented above.
23. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,623,415 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in combination with Brewer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
24. Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,623,415 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in combination with Battrell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0156750 A1, published 21 June 2012) based on the citations and rational presented above.
25. Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,623,415 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘415 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘415 claims do not utilize combined samples, coronavirus, or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘415 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
26. Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,052,629 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘629 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘629 claims do not utilized combined samples or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘629 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
27. Claims 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,052,629 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) based on the citations and rational presented above.
28. Claims 5, 11-15, 18, 24-25, 27, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,052,629 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
29. Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,052,629 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in combination Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) with based on the citations and rational presented above.
30. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,052,629 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in combination with Brewer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
31. Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,052,629 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in combination with Battrell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0156750 A1, published 21 June 2012) based on the citations and rational presented above.
32. Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,052,629 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘629 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘629 claims do not utilized combined samples, coronavirus, or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘629 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
33. Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,112,197 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. any additional limitations of the ‘197 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘197 claims do not utilized combined samples or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘197 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
34. Claims 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,112,197 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) based on the citations and rational presented above.
35. Claims 5, 11-15, 18, 24-25, 27, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,112,197 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
36. Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,112,197 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in combination Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) with based on the citations and rational presented above.
37. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,112,197 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in combination with Brewer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
38. Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,112,197 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in combination with Battrell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0156750 A1, published 21 June 2012) based on the citations and rational presented above.
39. Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,112,197 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘197 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘197 claims do not utilized combined samples, coronavirus, or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘197 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
40. Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 10,124,334 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘334 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘334 claims do not utilized combined samples or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘334 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
41. Claims 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 10,124,334 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) based on the citations and rational presented above.
42. Claims 5, 11-15, 18, 24-25, 27, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 10,124,334 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
43. Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 10,124,334 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in combination Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) with based on the citations and rational presented above.
44. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 10,124,334 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in combination with Brewer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
45. Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 10,124,334 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in combination with Battrell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0156750 A1, published 21 June 2012) based on the citations and rational presented above.
46. Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 10,124,334 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘334 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘334 claims do not utilized combined samples, coronavirus, or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘334 claim in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
47. Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,907,202 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘202 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘202 claims do not utilized combined samples or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘202 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
48. Claims 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,907,202 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) based on the citations and rational presented above.
49. Claims 5, 11-15, 18, 24-25, 27, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,907,202 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
50. Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,907,202 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in combination Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) with based on the citations and rational presented above.
51. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,907,202 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in combination with Brewer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
52. Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,907,202 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in combination with Battrell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0156750 A1, published 21 June 2012) based on the citations and rational presented above.
53. Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,907,202 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘202 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘202 claims do not utilized combined samples, coronavirus, or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘202 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
54. Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,167,285 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘285 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘285 claims do not utilized combined samples or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘285 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
55. Claims 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,167,285 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) based on the citations and rational presented above.
56. Claims 5, 11-15, 18, 24-25, 27, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,167,285 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
57. Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,167,285 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in combination Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) with based on the citations and rational presented above.
58. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,167,285 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in combination with Brewer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
59. Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,167,285 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in combination with Battrell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0156750 A1, published 21 June 2012) based on the citations and rational presented above.
60. Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,167,285 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘285 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘285 claims does not utilized combined samples, coronavirus, or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘285 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
61. Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,675 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘675 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘675 claims do not utilized combined samples or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘675 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
62. Claims 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,675 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) based on the citations and rational presented above.
63. Claims 5, 11-15, 18, 24-25, 27, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,675 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
64. Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,675 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in combination Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) with based on the citations and rational presented above.
65. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,675 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in combination with Brewer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
66. Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,675 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in combination with Battrell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0156750 A1, published 21 June 2012) based on the citations and rational presented above.
67. Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,675 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘675 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘675 claim does not utilized combined samples, coronavirus, or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘675 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
68. Claims 1-2 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-27 of copending Application No. 18/733,278 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘278 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘278 claims do not utilized combined samples or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘278 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
69. Claims 4-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-27 of copending Application No. 18/733,278 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) based on the citations and rational presented above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
70. Claims 5, 11-15, 18, 24-25, 27, and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-27 of copending Application No. 18/733,278 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
71. Claims 14-15 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-27 of copending Application No. 18/733,278 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in combination Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) with based on the citations and rational presented above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
72. Claim 22 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-27 of copending Application No. 18/733,278 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in combination with Brewer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
73. Claim 26 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-27 of copending Application No. 18/733,278 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in combination with Battrell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0156750 A1, published 21 June 2012) based on the citations and rational presented above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
74. Claim 43 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-27 of copending Application No. 18/733,278 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘675 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘675 claims do not utilized combined samples, coronavirus, or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘675 claim in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
75. Claims 1-2 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/936,279 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘279 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘279 claims do not utilized combined samples or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘279 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
76. Claims 4-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/936,279 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) based on the citations and rational presented above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
77. Claims 5, 11-15, 18, 24-25, 27, and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/936,279 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017) and Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
78. Claims 14-15 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/936,279 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in combination Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) with based on the citations and rational presented above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
79. Claim 22 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/936,279 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in combination with Brewer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) based on the citations and rational presented above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
80. Claim 26 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/936,279 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0181395 A1, published 16 July 2009) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in combination with Battrell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0156750 A1, published 21 June 2012) based on the citations and rational presented above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
81. Claim 43 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/936,279 in view of Crnogorac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0044601 A1, published 16 February 2017), Glezer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178091 A1, published 12 July 2012), and Balog et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0058324 A1, published 2 March 2017).
Both sets of claims are drawn to actuation of devices comprising the same modules, time frames, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘279 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘279 claims do not utilized combined samples, coronavirus, or reverse transcription.
However, these limitations, along with the rationale from combining, are taught by the cited references as discussed above. Thus, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘675 claims in view of the prior art citations discussed above.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
82. No claim is allowed.
83. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert T. Crow whose telephone number is (571)272-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at 571-272-6047. 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.
Robert T. Crow
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1683
/Robert T. Crow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683