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. Claim Status Claims 1-9 filed on 05/18/2023 are pending and under examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1-9 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. Regarding claims 1, 3, & 6-8, the claims recite the limitation “the magnetic particles” in lines 7 & 9 of claim 1, in lines 2-3 of claim 3, in line 3 of claim 6, in line 2 of claim 7, and in line 2 of claim 8 and there is in sufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. In addition, it is unclear if the recitation of “the magnetic particles” is referring back to “silica magnetic particles” in lines 3-4 of claim 1 , from which claims 3, & 6-8 depend from, or if “the magnetic particles” is referring to different magnetic particles. Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “with an acidic buffer … and adding the magnetic particles to bind the nucleic acid” in lines 2-3 of the claim is unclear. It is unclear if the “an acidic buffer” is referring to the binding buffer in step (a) of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends from, of if the “an acidic buffer” is referring to “an acidic pH buffer” in step (b) of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends from. Claims 2, 4, 5, & 9 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Srinivasan (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0087366 A1), in view of Berensmeier ( Berensmeier ; Appl Microbiol BioTechnol , Vol. 73, pages 495-504, October 2006) . Regarding claim 1, Srinivasan teaches a method for extracting (isolating) target nucleic acids through capturing target nucleic acids on a solid support with magnetic microparticles in a solution (binding buffer) comprising acetic acid buffer (acetic acid solution), and then washing the magnetic microparticles with an acidic wash solution with a pH of 1-5, and then eluting the target nucleic acids from the magnetic microparticles (separating the magnetic particles and eluting the nucleic acid) in basic solution such as a basic elution solution comprising NaOH with a pH of 8 (paragraph [0084] lines 1-3; paragraph [0085] lines 1-21). In addition, Srinivasan teaches the acetic acid buffer (acetic acid solution) is at a concentration of at least 10mM and usually up to 250mM (175mM/0.175M or more aqueous acetic acid solution) (paragraph [0078] lines 1-6). Srinivasan does not teach that the magnetic microparticles are silica magnetic particles. Berensmeier teaches the method of nucleic acid isolation with magnetic separation through silica based magnetic particles that specifically inter acts with nucleic acids (pg. 496-497 paragraph bridging pg. 496 & pg. 497 lines 1-13; pg. 498 column 1 1 st full paragraph lines 1-2; pg. 498 column 1 2 nd full paragraph lines 1-4; pg. 498 column 1 3 rd full paragraph lines 1-5). In addition, Berensmeier teaches that the use of nucleic acids with these magnetic particles provides a quick, simple, and efficient to separate the magnetic particles after the binding or elution step with the nucleic acids and provides a method for nucleic acids to be isolated directly from crude samples (pg. 495 column 2 2 nd full paragraph lines 1-5; pg. 496-497 paragraph bridging pg. 496 & pg. 497 lines 8-13). Srinivasan and Berensmeier are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of isolation of nucleic acids with magnetic particles. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method extracting (isolating) target nucleic acids with magnetic microparticles in an acetic acid solution in Srinivasan to incorporate the use of silica based magnetic particles as taught in Berensmeier because Berensmeier teaches that doing so would provide a simple and efficient method for isolating nucleic acids even from nucleic acids in crude samples . Regarding claim 2, Srinivasan teaches alcohol precipitation is not used in the method for extracting (isolating) target nucleic acids (paragraph [0085] lines 1-21). Regarding claim 3, Srinivasan teaches a method for extracting (isolating) target nucleic acids through capturing target nucleic acids on a solid support with magnetic microparticles (1 μm ) (paragraph [0085] lines 10-12). Berensmeier teaches the method of nucleic acid isolation with magnetic separation through silica based magnetic particles that specifically interests with nucleic acids and in which the magnetic particles have a diameter of approximately between 0.5 to 10 μm (magnetic particles have a size of 50 nm to 1 μm ) (pg. 496-497 paragraph bridging pg. 496 & pg. 497 lines 1-13; pg. 498 column 1 1 st full paragraph lines 1-2; pg. 498 column 1 2 nd full paragraph lines 1-4; pg. 498 column 1 3 rd full paragraph lines 1-5). Regarding claim 4, Srinivasan teaches that the target nucleic acid is RNA or DNA and teaches that the method for extracting (isolating) nucleic acids with the solution (binding buffer) comprising acetic acid buffer (acetic acid solution), in which the acetic acid solution is added to reduce the pH ( change in pH of the binding buffer), and the method comprises an acidic pH buffer and a basic pH elution buffer (paragraph [0034] line 1; paragraph [0035] line 1; paragraph [0077] lines 1-4; paragraph [0084] lines 1-3; paragraph [0085] lines 1-21 ). Regarding claim 5, Berensmeier teaches that a magnetic field is applied with a permanent magnet in binding and elution steps of isolating nucleic acids (pg. 496-497 paragraph bridging pg. 496 & pg. 497 lines 3-13). Regarding claim 6, it is noted as discussed above, the recitation of “with an acidic buffer … and adding the magnetic particles to bind the nucleic acid” in lines 2-3 of the claim is unclear. It is unclear if the “an acidic buffer” is referring to the binding buffer in step (a) of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends from, of if the “an acidic buffer” is referring to “an acidic pH buffer” in step (b) of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends from. Therefore, for the purposes of this rejection the “an acidic buffer” is interpreted to comprise the binding buffer of step (a) of claim 1. Srinivasan teaches the solution (binding buffer) comprising acetic acid buffer (acetic acid solution) is at a pH less than about 5 pH and as low at pH 1 (mixing the sample with an acid buffer at a pH of 1 to 6) and capturing target nucleic acids on a solid support with magnetic microparticles in this solution (adding magnetic particles to bind nucleic acid to the magnetic particles) (paragraph [0077] lines 1-4; paragraph [0084] lines 1-3; paragraph [0085] lines 1-21). Regarding claim 7, Srinivasan teaches washing the magnetic microparticles with an acidic wash solution with a pH of 1-5 (washing with an acidic solution at a pH of 4 to 6.5) (paragraph [0085] lines 15-17). Berensmeier teaches that a magnetic field is applied with a permanent magnet (using a magnet to remove a supernatant) in binding and elution steps of isolating nucleic acids (pg. 496-497 paragraph bridging pg. 496 & pg. 497 lines 3-13). Regarding claim 8, Srinivasan teaches eluting the target nucleic acids from the magnetic microparticles (separating the magnetic particles and eluting the nucleic acid) in basic solution such as a basic elution solution comprising NaOH with a pH of 8 ( basic solution at a pH of 8.0 to 10.0) (paragraph [0085] lines 17-20). Berensmeier teaches that a magnetic field is applied with a permanent magnet (using a magnet to remove a supernatant) in binding and elution steps of isolating nucleic acids (pg. 496-497 paragraph bridging pg. 496 & pg. 497 lines 3-13). Regarding claim 9, Srinivasan teaches the extraction solution comprising acetic acid buffer (binding buffer) comprises proteinase K (paragraph [0041] lines 1-2). Conclusion Claims 1-9 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT BAILEY C BUCHANAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1315 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Winston Shen can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3157 . 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. /BAILEY BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1682 /JEHANNE S SITTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682