Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nogami et al. (US 2015/0231536).
Regarding claim 1, Nogami teaches a device (refer fig. 1) (the limitation “for extracting biomolecules” is intended use limitation without imparting additional structure to the filter device), comprising:
a membrane tube (101), comprising an upper portion (refer upper portion having cap 103) and a lower portion (refer lower portion having membrane 102), the upper portion having an upper opening (a cap is provided in/on the opening), the lower portion accommodating a permeable membrane (102), and having a lower opening (membrane 102 is provided at the opening); and
a container (105), comprising an upper portion (through which membrane tube 101 is inserted) and a lower portion (105B), the upper portion having an opening configured to receive the membrane tube (refer fig. 1), and the lower portion of the container having a closed end (refer 105B);
wherein the membrane tube and the container are configured such that when the membrane tube is pushed into the opening of the upper portion of the container, and interface between the membrane tube and the container is liquid-tight, such that liquid in the container does not leak through the interface but flows through the opening of the membrane tube and the permeable membrane and enters the membrane tube (refer circumferential seal 104 providing seal between tube 101 and container 105, refer [0069]-[0074]. The liquid tight seal is a part of the membrane tube).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Nogami et al. (US 2015/0231536), applicant argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
592
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because claim recites “wherein the membrane tube and the container are configured such that an annular liquid-tight seal is formed by direct circumferential contact between an outer circumferential surface of the membrane tube and an inner circumferential surface of the container along a portion of an axial length of the membrane tube upon insertion”. Claim doesn’t exclude a circumferential seal similar to what is disclosed by Nogami. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The circumferential seal 104 of Nogami is a part of the membrane tube that gets pushed into the container, and therefore meets the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3661265 (Greenspan) teaches a device for separation of serum or plasma from the formed elements of blood, the serum or plasma is physically isolated from the precipitated formed elements by inserting a plug into the collection tube.
US 3969250 (Farr) teaches a device for filtering, isolating, containing, and storing fluid specimens, the device includes a filter means for removing particulates, a membrane valve for isolating the filtrate, a releasable piston ring which permits telescoping of the assembly, and a plunger tube which serves as a simple and/or storage vessel.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights