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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/24/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending, with claims 1-16 being examined, and claim 17 deemed withdrawn. Claim 18 is canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) received on 12/28/2022, 3/19/2024, 10/1/2024, and 5/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, Ln. 3 recites, “for treatment of a contaminate”. However, “contaminate” in this instance is a typo, and should be “contaminant”.
Regarding claim 5, Lns. 3-4 recite, “the rinse solution introduction”. However, as this limitation is in reference to the rinse solution introduction portion, it should be “the rinse solution introduction portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “the at least one switching unit provided in the heavy solution introduction portion is identical to the at least one switching unit provided in the rinse solution introduction” in claim 5 has been interpreted as meaning that the at least one switching unit in the heavy solution introduction portion is either the same unit or has an identical structure to the at least one switching unit provided in the rinse solution introduction portion.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “switching unit…switching between entry and exit of a solution” in claims 2-6, 9, and 14-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: [0049]-[0050] of the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant Application, US 2023/0258544 A1 (Takahashi et al., hereinafter “Takahashi”) teaches the switching unit being a valve, a piston, or a gear. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the switching unit to be a valve, a piston, or a gear, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji et al. (Translation of CN Pub. No. 109655321; hereinafter Ji; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ji discloses a sample purification apparatus that purifies a mixed sample (Pg. 2 4th Para.-Pg. 3 3rd Para., see Fig. 1). The sample purification apparatus comprises:
a container for separating, with a heavy solution, the mixed sample based on a specific gravity difference (Pg. 3 4th Para.-Pg. 4 7th Para., see Fig. 1 at separation tube 7).
A heavy solution introduction portion for introduction of the heavy solution into the container (Pg. 3 4th Para.-Pg. 4 7th Para., see Fig. 1 at pipe having outflow valve 11).
A flow-out portion provided vertically above the heavy solution introduction portion in the container, the flow-out portion arranged so that a supernatant of a solution in the container due to the introduction of the heavy solution is flowed out to the outside of the container (Pg. 3 4th Para.-Pg. 4 7th Para., see Fig. 1 at overflow port 5. Portions of the pipe having outflow valve 11 are below overflow port 5, including the part of the pipe opening into separation tube 7).
A collector provided vertically below the flow-out portion in the container, the collector collecting a component in the mixed sample, the component being lighter in specific gravity than the heavy solution from the supernatant flowed out from the flow-out portion (Pg. 3 4th Para.-Pg. 4 7th Para., see Fig. 1 at filtering device 12).
With regards to the sample purification apparatus being a sample purification apparatus that purifies a mixed sample, see MPEP 2111.02, which states that, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “for separating, with a heavy solution, the mixed sample based on a specific gravity difference…”, “for introduction of the heavy solution into the container…”, “collecting a component in the mixed sample…”, etc.). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 16, Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 1.
Ji further discloses an analysis system comprising:
the sample purification apparatus according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1).
an analysis apparatus that analyzes the component collected by the collector of the sample purification apparatus (Pg. 4 3rd to Last Para.).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (Translation of KR Pub. No. 10-2006-0128458; hereinafter Jang).
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a sample purification apparatus that purifies a mixed sample (Pg. 3 Last Para.-Pg. 4 3rd Para., Pg. 8 5th Para.-Pg. 9 3rd Para., see Fig. 3). The sample purification apparatus comprises:
a container for separating, with a heavy solution, the mixed sample based on a specific gravity difference (Pg. 3 Last Para.-Pg. 4 3rd Para., Pg. 8 5th Para.-Pg. 9 3rd Para., see Fig. 3 at settling tank 120).
A heavy solution introduction portion for introduction of the heavy solution into the container (Pg. 3 Last Para.-Pg. 4 3rd Para., Pg. 8 5th Para.-Pg. 9 3rd Para., see Fig. 3 at pipe having valve 318).
A flow-out portion provided vertically above the heavy solution introduction portion in the container, the flow-out portion arranged so that a supernatant of a solution in the container due to the introduction of the heavy solution is flowed out to the outside of the container (Pg. 3 Last Para.-Pg. 4 3rd Para., Pg. 8 3rd to Last Para.-Pg. 9 3rd Para., see Fig. 3 at supernatant discharge pipe 322).
A collector provided vertically below the flow-out portion in the container, the collector collecting a component in the mixed sample, the component being lighter in specific gravity than the heavy solution from the supernatant flowed out from the flow-out portion (Pg. 3 Last Para.-Pg. 4 3rd Para., Pg. 8 3rd to Last Para.-Pg. 9 3rd Para., see Fig. 3 at storage unit 330).
With regards to the sample purification apparatus being a sample purification apparatus that purifies a mixed sample, see MPEP 2111.02, which states that, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji.
Regarding claim 2, Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 1. Ji further discloses:
a decomposition agent introduction portion for introduction into the container, of a decomposition agent for treatment of a contaminant contained in the mixed sample (Pg. 3 4th Para.-Pg. 4 7th Para., see Fig. 1 at aeration pipe having air valve 8).
A waste solution discharge portion for discharge of a waste solution in the container (Pg. 3 4th Para.-Pg. 4 7th Para., see Fig. 1 at pipe having discharging valve 9).
At least one switching unit provided in the decomposition agent introduction portion, the heavy solution introduction portion, and waste solution discharge portion, the at least one switching unit switching between entry and exit of a solution (Pg. 3 4th Para.-Pg. 4 7th Para., see Fig. 1 at outflow valve 11, air valve 8, and discharging valve 9. The at least one switching unit has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a valve, a piston, or a gear, and equivalents thereof, as shown in the Claim Interpretation section of this instant Office Action).
The apparatus introduces the decomposition agent through the decomposition agent introduction portion into the container where the mixed sample is accommodated (Pg. 3 4th Para.-Pg. 4 7th Para., see Fig. 1).
Discharges, through the waste solution discharge portion, the waste solution in the container resulting from treatment of the contaminant with the decomposition agent, and introduces the heavy solution through the heavy solution introduction portion into the container (Pg. 3 4th Para.-Pg. 4 7th Para., see Fig. 1).
Ji fails to explicitly disclose:
a control unit that controls the at least one switching unit, wherein
the control unit controls the at least one switching unit to introduce the decomposition agent through the decomposition agent introduction portion into the container where the mixed sample is accommodated,
to discharge through the waste solution discharge portion, the waste solution in the container resulting from treatment of the contaminant with the decomposition agent, and to introduce the heavy solution through the heavy solution introduction portion into the container.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a control unit that controls the at least one switching unit, wherein the control unit controls the at least one switching unit to introduce the decomposition agent through the decomposition agent introduction portion into the container where the mixed sample is accommodated, to discharge through the waste solution discharge portion, the waste solution in the container resulting from treatment of the contaminant with the decomposition agent, and to introduce the heavy solution through the heavy solution introduction portion into the container, since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III), and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). The motivation would have been that automatically performing these actions using a control unit rather than manually would decrease the potential for human error, and improve the throughput of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 2. Modified Ji further discloses that the at least one switching unit provided in the decomposition agent introduction portion and the heavy solution introduction portion is different from the at least one switching unit provided in the waste solution discharge portion (Ji; Pg. 3 4th Para.-Pg. 4 7th Para., see Fig. 1 at outflow valve 11, air valve 8, and discharging valve 9. All valves are separate devices).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 2, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Ji fails to explicitly disclose:
a rinse solution introduction portion for introduction into the container, of a rinse solution for cleaning of inside of the container; and
at least one switching unit provided in the rinse solution introduction portion, the at least one switching unit switching between entry and exit of a solution, wherein
the control unit controls the at least one switching unit provided in the rinse solution introduction portion to introduce the rinse solution through the rinse solution introduction portion into the container from which the waste solution has been discharged.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a rinse solution introduction portion for introducing a rinse solution, and at least one switching unit in the rinse solution introduction period, where the control unit controls the at least one switching unit to introduce rinse solution into the container from which the waste solution has been discharged. The motivation would have been to clean the container in between introduction of heavy solutions into the containers, so that different batches of solutions are not mixed undesirably, thereby reducing contamination.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 4.
Modified Ji fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one switching unit provided in the heavy solution introduction portion is identical to the at least one switching unit provided in the rinse solution introduction portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the at least one switching unit provided in the heavy solution introduction portion is identical to the at least one switching unit provided in the rinse solution introduction portion. The motivation would have been to provide switching units in each portion that are capable of transporting a solution, e.g. valves that are identical would be identically capable of transporting a solution as required in the apparatus of modified Ji.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 4, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Ji fails to explicitly disclose that the control unit controls the at least one switching unit after the supernatant produced by introduction of the heavy solution flows out to the outside of the container,
to discharge through the waste solution discharge portion, the waste solution in the container into which the heavy solution has been introduced,
to introduce the rinse solution through the rinse solution introduction portion into the container from which the waste solution has been discharged, and
to discharge through the waste solution discharge portion, the waste solution in the container into which the rinse solution has been introduced.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the control unit control the at least one switching unit after the supernatant produced by introduction of the heavy solution flows out to the outside of the container, to discharge through the waste solution discharge portion, the waste solution in the container into which the heavy solution has been introduced, to introduce the rinse solution through the rinse solution introduction portion into the container from which the waste solution has been discharged, and to discharge through the waste solution discharge portion, the waste solution in the container into which the rinse solution has been introduced. The motivation would have been to clean the container in between introduction of heavy solutions into the containers, so that different batches of solutions are not mixed undesirably, thereby reducing contamination.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 2, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Ji further discloses stirring the mixed sample in the container into which the decomposition agent has been introduced (Ji; Pg. 2 4th to Last Para.-Pg. 3 3rd Para.).
Modified Ji fails to explicitly disclose a stirring unit that stirs the mixed sample in the container, wherein the control unit controls the stirring unit to stir the mixed sample in the container into which the decomposition agent has been introduced.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a stirring unit that stirs the mixed sample in the container, where the control unit controls the stirring unit to stir the mixed sample in the container into which the decomposition agent has been introduced, since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III), and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). The motivation would have been that automatically performing these actions using a control unit rather than manually would decrease the potential for human error, and improve the throughput of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 2, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Ji fails to explicitly disclose that the control unit controls the at least one switching unit provided in the decomposition agent introduction portion to introduce the decomposition agent by a prescribed amount in constant cycles through the decomposition agent introduction portion into the container where the mixed sample is accommodated.
Ji further teaches introducing the decomposition agent through the decomposition agent introduction portion into the container where the mixed sample is accommodated until the reaction mixture is fully stirred, i.e. the decomposition agent is introduced by a prescribed amount (Ji Pg. 2 2nd to Last Para.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Ji so that the control unit controls the at least one switching unit provided in the decomposition agent introduction portion to introduce the decomposition agent by a prescribed amount in constant cycles through the decomposition agent introduction portion into the container where the mixed sample is accommodated. The motivation would have been to ensure that the decomposition agent is introduced into the mixed sample in an amount effective to obtain a supernatant for subsequent extraction (Ji Pg. 2 2nd to Last Para.).
Claims 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji as applied to claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 above and claims 2-7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, and further in view of Saitoh et al. (US Pat. No. 4,119,533; hereinafter Saitoh).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 7, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Ji fails to explicitly disclose a heating unit that heats the mixed sample in the container, wherein the control unit controls the heating unit to heat the mixed sample in the container into which the decomposition agent has been introduced.
Saitoh is in the analogous field of methods for separating mixed plastics (Saitoh Col. 1 Lns. 21-54). Saitoh teaches heating a mixed sample in a vessel, where the temperature of the mixed sample may be at a room temperature range, or can be warmed if desired (Saitoh Col. 2 Lns. 54-68). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Ji with the teachings of Saitoh to include a heating unit that heats the mixed sample in the container, wherein the control unit controls the heating unit to heat the mixed sample in the container into which the decomposition agent has been introduced. The motivation would have been to keep the mixed sample at a temperature that is optimal for separation of various components from the mixed sample (Saitoh; Col. 1 Lns. 21-54, Col. 2 Lns. 54-68).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 8, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Ji fails to explicitly disclose a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the mixed sample in the container, wherein the control unit controls the heating unit based on a measurement value from the temperature sensor.
Saitoh further teaches that a temperature of a mixed sample may be at a room temperature range, or can be warmed if desired (Saitoh Col. 2 Lns. 54-68). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Ji with the further teachings of Saitoh to include a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the mixed sample in the container, wherein the control unit controls the heating unit based on a measurement value from the temperature sensor. The motivation would have been to keep the mixed sample at a temperature that is optimal for separation of various components from the mixed sample (Saitoh; Col. 1 Lns. 21-54, Col. 2 Lns. 54-68).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 8, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Ji fails to explicitly disclose a cooling unit that cools the mixed sample in the container; and a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the mixed sample in the container, wherein the control unit controls the cooling unit based on a measurement value from the temperature sensor.
However, Saitoh further teaches that a temperature of a mixed sample may be at a room temperature range, or can be warmed if desired (Saitoh Col. 2 Lns. 54-68). Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to accordingly include a cooling unit to cool the mixed sample so that it remains in the preferred range, in the event that the mixed sample gets heated beyond its preferred range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Ji with the further teachings of Saitoh to include a cooling unit that cools the mixed sample in the container; and a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the mixed sample in the container, wherein the control unit controls the cooling unit based on a measurement value from the temperature sensor. The motivation would have been to keep the mixed sample at a temperature that is optimal for separation of various components from the mixed sample (Saitoh; Col. 1 Lns. 21-54, Col. 2 Lns. 54-68).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji as applied to claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 above and claims 2-7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (Translation of CN Pub. No. 109682654; hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ji discloses the sample purification apparatus according to claim 2, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Ji fails to explicitly disclose at least one port provided in the container, wherein a solution comes in and goes out between the at least one port and the at least one switching unit, and the at least one port includes a filter.
Zhang is in the analogous field of microplastic extraction from a liquid (Zhang; Pg. 2 5th to Last Para.-3rd to Last Para., see Fig. 1). Zhang teaches passing fluid into a container, removing the fluid from the container, and filtering the fluid after it is removed from the container (Zhang Pg. 2 5th to Last Para.-3rd to Last Para., Pg. 3 6th to Last Para.,-Pg. 4 2nd Para.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Ji with the teachings of Zhang to include at least one port provided in the container, wherein a solution comes in and goes out between the at least one port and the at least one switching unit, and the at least one port includes a filter. The motivation would have been to be able to recycle liquid used in the sample purification apparatus, thereby reducing cost (Zhang; Pg. 2 5th to Last Para.-3rd to Last Para., Pg. 3 6th to Last Para.,-Pg. 4 2nd Para., Pg. 4 7th Para.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 would be allowable for reciting a camera that shoots the mixed sample in the container, wherein the control unit controls the heating unit based on a shot image of the mixed sample obtained by the camera.
Claim 13 would be allowable for reciting a cooling unit that cools the mixed sample in the container; and a camera that shoots the mixed sample in the container, wherein the control unit controls the cooling unit based on a shot image of the mixed sample obtained by the camera.
Claim 14 would be allowable for reciting a water introduction portion for introduction of water into the container; and at least one switching unit provided in the water introduction portion, the at least one switching unit switching between entry and exit of a solution, wherein the control unit controls the at least one switching unit provided in the water introduction portion before introduction of the decomposition agent through the decomposition agent introduction portion, to introduce the water through the water introduction portion into the container.
Ji, Jang, Saitoh, and Zhang teach an apparatus similar to that claimed. However, Ji, Jang, Saitoh, and Zhang do not teach a heating unit or cooling unit that are controlled by a control unit based on a shot image of a mixed sample obtained by a camera, or a control unit that controls at least one switching unit provided in a water introduction portion such that water is introduced through the water introduction portion into the container before introduction of the decomposition agent through the decomposition agent introduction portion into the container. Specifically, although Saitoh teaches that a mixed sample is kept at a desired temperature, and may be warmed (Saitoh Col. 2 Lns. 54-68), Saitoh does not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the prior art, a heating unit or cooling unit that are controlled by a control unit based on a shot image of a mixed sample obtained by a camera. Further, although Ji, which is considered the closest prior art, teaches introducing a decomposition agent into a container, and introducing water into the container (Ji Pg. 2 4th Para.-Pg. 3 3rd Para., it is implied that the mixed surfactant solution contains water), this water is introduced into the container through the heavy solution introduction portion, not a separate water introduction portion, and further, Ji does not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the prior art, that the control unit controls at least one switching unit provided in a water introduction portion such that water is introduced through the water introduction portion into the container before introduction of the decomposition agent through the decomposition agent introduction portion into the container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798