DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner notes claims 31-36 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37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. See Paragraphs 2-4 of the Final Rejection mailed 08/20/25.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 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.
Claims 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fung et al. (US 6,221,655) in view of Nova et al. (US 2007/0248957), and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2009/0007937) and Knight (US 2014/0272989). This rejection was applied in Paragraphs 9-16 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/03/26. The rejection remains in effect. Please see Response to Arguments below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/01/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 23-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fung et al. (US 6,221,655) in view of Nova et al. (US 2007/0248957), and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2009/0007937) and Knight (US 2014/0272989) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 23 to recite the additional limitation of “wherein the kit lacks a filter for the bead retaining tube” and then argued this feature is not taught by the cited prior art Fung because Fung requires a filter element for the bead retaining tube. See claim 23 and see pages 5-6 of Applicant’s Remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant to column 4, lines 50-64 of Fung:
“The cylindrical body 6 of the spin filter 1 has two ends, an open top 7 and a bottom end, the bottom end 8 preferably having a screen disposed in the bottom of the cylindrical body. The screen is typically of a woven mesh. The mesh size varies depending upon the particle size of the solid to be retained. For finer filtration, a filter frit 9, is introduced and usually fits on top of the screen located at the bottom 8 of the spin filter as shown in FIGS. 2 and 4. A usable spin filter with a bottom screen but without the filter frit is Forensic Micro-Spin sold by PGC Scientific of Gaithersburg, Md. 20898 under catalog number 34-0480. The spin filter with the filter frit 9 is used when the solid binding matrix, such as a protein binding matrix, has a mesh size smaller than the screen at the bottom end 8 of the spin filter”. The highlighted portions recite “a bottom end, the bottom end 8 preferably having a screen disposed in the bottom of the cylindrical body”; “A usable spin filter with a bottom screen but without the filter frit is Forensic Micro-Spin..”; and “the spin filter with the filter frit 9 is used when…”. The Examiner submits the highlighted and repeated portions of the cited passage teach a spin filter (1) having a cylindrical body (6) with a bottom end (8) that already contains a screen with openings integrated into a portion of the bottom (8). The filter frit (9) is only used for situations when the solid binding matrix has a mesh size smaller than the bottom screen. See also Figure 1. Therefore, Tung teaches embodiments that do not require the filter frit element for the bead retaining tube and meets the limitation of “wherein the kit lacks a filter for the bead retaining tube”. The claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 July 15, 2026
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights