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 Interpretation
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:
1) Robotic sample processing system configured to (i) mix and (ii) isolate as in claim 1.
2) Robotic sample analysis system configured to receive and carry out an assay as in claim 1.
3) An apparatus for operating the multichannel pipette configured as in cls. 16, and 19-27, 29, 30, and 32-34.
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.
1) Unclear from the disclosure. *See additional discussion below under 35 USC 112 b/2nd.
2) Unclear from the disclosure. *See additional discussion below under 35 USC 112 b/2nd.
3) Unclear from the disclosure. *See additional discussion below under 35 USC 112 b/2nd.
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.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 15, 16, 19-27, 29, 30, 32-34, and 41-43 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.
The metes and bounds of the mobile laboratory are indefinitely defined herein.
With respect to items iii) and iv) the recited “robotic sample analysis system” is indefinitely provided with respect to the concordant functionality provided in item iv).
The robotic sample analysis system is initially generically provided in item iii) (i.e. without a configuration/function), and in part c) provided as being configured to receive target-PMP complexes and carry out an assay to detect the target if present.
This configuration/functionality indefinitely correlates with the concordant functionality found in item iv), which sets forth associating data received from the sample analysis system with individual members of the plurality of biological samples.
For example, does Applicant intend that, in addition to the configuration/functional provided in part c), the robotic sample analysis system is also configured to read patient identification information (i.e. a barcode reader or the like) in order to provide basis for the subsequent association provided in item iv)?
Further, it appears that Applicant intends to call out items b) and c) as the robotic sample processing system and the robotic sample analysis system so as to avoid being construed as potentially distinct systems from those established within the recitation to the computer system in item a).
Further, the metes and bounds of the claims are further indefinitely defined as the preamble of the claims (including independent claim 1) calls for a mobile laboratory, however, no mobile elements/structures are particularly provided.
Does Applicant intend for the totality of the elements a)-c) to be in a common housing on wheels?
Additionally, the recitation “said processors” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Applicant utilizes “one or more processors” previously and appears to intend to receive “said one or more processors.”
Further, as discussed above, the recitations to 1) Robotic sample processing system configured to (i) mix and (ii) isolate as in claim 1, and 2) Robotic sample analysis system configured to receive and carry out an assay as in claim 1 are given as means-for type recitations wherein the metes and bounds of such structure(s) are indefinitely defined as it is not clear from the disclosure the corresponding structure(s) and equivalents thereof to each of these robotic systems that provide for their set forth functionalities.
With respect to the robotic sample processing system (“mix” and “isolate”), Examiner notes that pars.[0014,0015] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2024/0061002 discuss mixing with respect to a multichannel pipette and isolating with respect to aspirating thereafter each target-PMP complex with a distinct pipette and positioning a multichannel pipette proximal to a magnet proximal to the sample collection device (i.e multiwell plates), however a multichannel pipette and a magnet does not provide for “robotic,” in which such terminology implies a robot arm or likewise manipulator/effector. Is the multichannel pipettor connected with a particular robotic arm and affects the mixing? Does the multichannel pipettor connected to an assumed robotic arm also have a magnet thereat for selectively recovering the target-PMP complex after mixing? Is a separate robot manipulator with a magnet utilized to recover the target-PMP complex?
Paragraph [0068] references that an apparatus operates the multichannel pipette, but this apparatus is not clearly discussed in its structure(s) as it may relate to the robotic aspect. This also pertains to the lack of clarity to the metes and bounds of such “apparatus for operating the multichannel pipette configured as in cls. 16, and 19-27, 29, 30, and 32-34,” wherein the disclosure provides various configurations/functionalities therewith but does not provide what the constituent structural element(s) is/are in order to afford such functionalities as recited in the claims (i.e induce movement, aspirate and/or inject). It also remains unclear if this “apparatus for operating the multichannel pipette” is the robotic aspect wherein a multichannel pipette, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, does not suffice on its own as robotic.
It is noted that par.[0038] discusses robotic components in the above-discussed sense of arms/manipulators by way of grippers, however, this disclosure is drawn to application of the grippers for moving the multiwell plates and not with respect to mixing and isolating.
With respect to the robotic sample analysis system (configured to 1)receive and 2) carry out an assay), Examiner notes par.[0151], which discusses that the system may comprise a sample collection device, reagents, and additional equipment necessary for performing the assay.
As above, a sample collection device/multiwell plate and reagents are not robotic elements, and the additional equipment necessary for performing the assay are not discussed in terms of defining particular robotic structure(s) for a) taking the isolated target-PMP complexes and placing them in the various wells, and b) “carrying out an assay.”
As a whole to both elements b) and c), it is also noted that in par.[0067] Applicant provides that “robotic” does not exclude the possibility that one or more steps may still be performed manually (e.g. by a human), which further conflates the sought metes and bounds of the claim as such definition is contrary to the term itself. It would appear that Applicant does not intend to define “robotic” as such, but to merely set forth in a method of operation (i.e. distinct from the present apparatus type-claim) that steps of such a method may be done by hand. It is noted that for the present apparatus, positively including a human to either both of the b), c) robotic systems makes the bounds of the invention unclear and indefinitely defined.
Further, par.[0036] provides general discussion to a mobile laboratory including, among other elements a 6-axis robot, and par.[0200] references known robotic elements, however, this disclosure does not particularly correlate such to the claimed items b) and c) and their respective functionalities.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sample storage container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 is absent a recitation to a sample storage container.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the distinct wells on the multi-well plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim wherein the prior claim-dependency chain lacks discussion to both of these elements.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "processing the plurality of samples…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim wherein the prior claim-dependency chain lacks basis for “processing the plurality of samples.” Examiner notes that Applicant claims the physical infrastructure of a robotic sample processing system in item b) of claim 1.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the data regarding detection…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 presents a general recitation to the computer system being configured to communicate data and a robotic sample analysis system configured to receive and carry out an assay to detect, which does not provide antecedent basis for the present recitation.
Claims 20-27 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.
The metes and bounds of the claims are indefinitely provided for herein. The recited processes in the claims rely on the biological samples and PMPs (and compositions thereof) wherein the biological samples and PMPs have not been positively claimed herein so as to be acted upon (i.e. aspirated, isolated, analyzed, etc…).
Claims 20-27 recite the limitation “the magnet.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as the claims are without discussion to a magnet.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 15, 16, 19-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 41, and 43, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ju et al. (US 2020/0292565), hereafter Ju.
Ju discloses an automate nucleic acid sample preparation, detection, and analysis system (abstract). With regard to claim 1, Ju discloses a mobile laboratory (and given as the body of the claim does not necessitate any particular mobile architecture thereto wherein the preamble thus does not breather particular life into the claim) and item a), Ju discloses a computer system comprising one or more processors configured to: i) catalog a plurality of biological samples as recited, ii) operate a robotic sample processing system as recited, iii) operate a robotic sample analysis system, iv) associate data received from the sample analysis system with individual members as recited, and v) communicate said data (pars.[0013,0022,0035,0072,0078,0100-0102], wherein both the sample source tube and the sample processing tube that undergoes the assay is provided with a barcode that is read by a barcode scanner 104, wherein the computer system catalogues the scanned samples, and further automates/operates the robotic sample processing system and robotic sample analysis system, associates data received with the sample analysis system with individual members of the plurality of biological samples in order to particular monitor and track the samples throughout, and communicates the data such as by the computer’s display or GUI).
With regard to claim 1 and item b), Ju discloses a robotic sample processing system configured to (i) mix each sample with PMPs as recited (further noting that samples themselves and PMPs are not drawn to positively recited structural elements of the system but are drawn to intended workpieces) and (ii) isolate target-PMP complexes as recited (wherein the robotic sample processing system comprises a shaker 112 for mixing each sample as claimed, and including a nucleic acid isolation system 110 with a robotic pipettor comprising one or more movable pipettes and with a holder and magnet to actively retain the magnetically-responsive particle/target complex after applying the magnet and washing by the robotic pipettor(pars.[0023,0035,0068,0069,0085,0104,0105,0122], fig. 1, for example).
With regard to claim 1 item c), Ju discloses a robotic sample analysis system configured to receive target-PMP complexes and carry out an assay to detect said target if present (Ju discloses a robotic arm for transporting the sample processing tube(s), which may be a multi-well plate, to a second tube holder on a fluorometer (point of assay/analyzer) wherein the fluorometer carries out an assay (i.e. light interrogation, fluorescent emission detection) to detect if the target is present (pars.[0008,0035,0051,0091,0104], for example).
With regard to claims 2 and 6, Examiner notes that biological samples are not positively claimed elements of the system as they are drawn to intended workpieces not afforded patentable weight, and wherein Ju is fully capable of use with such in as much as recited and required herein.
With regard to claim 5, the recitation is drawn to a process recitation not afforded patentable weight herein (and further noting that Ju both discloses an incubator 114 for heating the sample processing tubes and fluorometer itself is configured to heat the connected sample processing tubes above room temperature; pars.[0051,0072]).
With regard to claims 12 and 15, Examiner notes that biological PMPs are not positively claimed elements of the system as they are drawn to intended workpieces not afforded patentable weight, and wherein Ju is fully capable of use with such in as much as recited and required herein.
With regard to claim 16, Ju discloses the robotic sample processing system comprises a multichannel pipette and an apparatus for operating the multichannel pipette, being configured to induce movement and aspirate and/or inject liquid when pipette tips are attached (see the robotic pipettor comprising a plurality of pipettes affecting horizontal movement of the plurality of pipettes as well as aspiration and/or injection when pipette tips are attached; pars.[0019,0071,0099,0104]). With regard to claim 19, Ju discloses that the apparatus for operating the multichannel pipette is controlled by the computer system (par.[0099]).
With regard to claim 32, Ju discloses distinct wells of the mulitwell plate comprise a wash buffer (pars.[0008,0035,0084]).
With regards to claims 20-27, 33, and 41, the recitations are drawn to process recitations not afforded patentable weight in a device claim. For example, as in cls. 20-27, these are process recitations and remain to speak to the configuration (i.e. functional capability) of the robotic sample processing system of item b), and wherein Ju provides to commensurately disclose a robotic sample processing system as in cl. 1 and a robotic pipettor comprising a plurality of pipettes, as discussed above, and as such is said to be fully capable of such processes in as much as recited and required herein. Furthermore thereto, it is noted that these process recitations rely on the biological samples and PMPs (and compositions thereof) wherein the biological samples and PMPs have not been positively claimed herein so as to be acted upon (i.e. aspirated, isolated, analyzed, etc…). See also, as in cls. 20 and 21, as best understood and provided herein, pars.[0104,015] wherein Ju provides the plurality of pipette tips for withdrawing/aspirating the liquid while the magnet is in the active configuration with respect to the tube/well of interest.
As in claim 33, in addition to being a process recitation not afforded patentable weight, Examiner notes that the claims themselves are absent any prior discussion to “processing the plurality of biological samples” (herein, lacking proper antecedent basis). As in cl. 41, this is a process step in which data is also not a positive claimed element of the system but is drawn to a functionality associated with the computing system; herein, Applicant may wish to connect a further configuration of the controller with this added feature. In extrapolating to potential amendments in a subsequent submission, Examiner directs Applicant to the disclosure of Ju highlighted above and notes the similar nature provided in the sample processing, isolating, and analysis thereof, as well as data cataloguing and tracking samples by way of unique identifier barcodes.
With regard to claim 29, Ju discloses that the sample collection device comprises a multi-well plate for distinct PMP-target complexes, and noting that the recitation “such that target….are drawn into…” is drawn to a process recitation not afforded patentable weight in a device claim (par.[0008,0077], for example). With regard claim 30, Ju discloses a movable surface that is configured to change orientation or move in the x-y plane holding the biological samples, one or more magnets and sample collection device (the various platforms supporting these elements are fully capable of changing orientation or moving in the x-y plane given a sufficient applied force(s) thereto).
With regard to claim 43, the recitation is drawn to a process recitation not afforded patentable weight in a device claim.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 19-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 41, and 43, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Stelling (US 2018/0362963).
Ju has been discussed above.
With regard to claim 16, while Ju discloses the robotic sample processing system comprises a robotic pipettor comprising a plurality of pipettes and an apparatus for operating the multichannel pipette, being configured to induce movement and aspirate and/or inject liquid when pipette tips are attached (see the robotic pipettor comprising a plurality of pipettes affecting horizontal movement of the plurality of pipettes as well as aspiration and/or injection when pipette tips are attached; pars.[0019,0071,0099,0104]), if the robotic pipettor comprising a plurality of pipettes is not construed as providing a multichannel pipette than a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, as in claim 20, while the biological samples and PMPs are not positively claimed elements and the provided process step is both indefinitely defined and not attributed patentable weight, Ju discloses a shaker for mixing the samples within the multi-well (see par.[0008] wherein the sample processing tubes may be constituted by a multi-well plate and the shaker 112 as in par.[0069]) and does not specifically disclose utilizing the plurality of pipettes of the robotic pipettor (and as in a plurality of pipettes of a multichannel pipette).
Stelling discloses a microplate with application of isolating nucleic acids by way of applied magnets and in which the preparation and detection involves mixing the samples with a multichannel pipette to make sure any beads that may have settled had been completely resuspended (pars.[0088,0135], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ju to utilize a multichannel pipette as claimed in cls. 16, and 20 such as taught by the analogous art of Stelling to isolating nucleic acids in a microplate format in which utilizing a multichannel pipette for mixing the sample provides for assuring that any beads that may have settled have been completely resuspended and wherein the mixing is done in a faster and more efficient manner by simultaneously affecting a plurality of wells at-once.
With regard to claim 19, Ju discloses that the apparatus for operating the multichannel pipette is controlled by the computer system (par.[0099]). With regard to claim 32, Ju discloses distinct wells of the mulitwell plate comprise a wash buffer (pars.[0008,0035,0084]).
With regards to claims 20-27, 33, 41, and 43, the recitations are drawn to process recitations not afforded patentable weight in a device claim (and are indefinitely defined as discussed above under 35 USC 112 b/2nd). For example, as in cls. 20-27, these are process recitations and remain to speak to the configuration (i.e. functional capability) of the robotic sample processing system of item b), and wherein Ju provides to commensurately disclose a robotic sample processing system as in cl. 1, as discussed above, and as such is said to be fully capable of such processes in as much as recited and required herein. As in claim 33, in addition to being a process recitation not afforded patentable weight, Examiner notes that the claims themselves are absent any prior discussion to “processing the plurality of biological samples” (herein, lacking proper antecedent basis and clarity as discussed above under 35 USC 112 b/2nd). As in cl. 41, this is a process step in which data is also not a positive claimed element of the system but is drawn to a functionality associated with the computing system; herein, Applicant may wish to connect a further configuration of the controller with this added feature In extrapolating to potential amendments in a subsequent submission, Examiner directs Applicant to the disclosure of Ju highlighted above and notes the similar nature provided in the sample processing, isolating, and analysis thereof, as well as data cataloguing and tracking samples by way of unique identifier barcodes.
See also, as in cls. 20 and 21, as best understood herein, pars.[0104,015] wherein Ju provides the plurality of pipette tips for withdrawing/aspirating the liquid while the magnet is in the active configuration with respect to the tube/well of interest, and likewise application with respect to the above-discussed multichannel pipette would be appreciated and represent an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to more efficiently isolate all of the complexes within the wells by accessing multiple wells at-once.
Claim(s) 23-27, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Stelling (US 2018/0362963) as applied above over claims 16, 19-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 41, and 43, and in further view of Beebe et al. (US 2011/0212509).
Ju/Sterling have been discussed.
Further, while the claims are indefinitely defined and are drawn to processes steps not particularly provided or afforded patentable weight in a device claim, prior art is herein provided thereto as may point to Applicant’s intentions in subsequent amendments to positive provide these aspects.
Beebe discloses a device and method for extracting a fraction from a biological sample (abstract). Beebe discloses utilizing solid-phse substrate such as a paramagnetic material and providing a liquid/oil interface between the biological sample/reagent mixture 106 and isolation buffer (oil) such that all such components are submerged in the isolation buffer to prevent evaporation and maintain solution composition while facilitating the phase separation in the desired extraction (pars.[0056-0058,0074], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ju/Sterling to isolate target-PMP complexes such as recited in claims 23-27 such as taught by the analogous art of Beebe to methods and devices for extracting fractions from a biological sample and provides that generating a liquid/oil interface (wherein Ju already provides for that of cls. 20/21 and thus steps of aspirating and positioning a magnet to isolate the complex) in order to provide an interface that assures stability to the solution’s composition, prevents evaporation, and facilitates phase separation in the desired extraction. This is further seen as Ju discloses analogous art, as discussed above, and utilizes a plurality of magnets and magnets of different strength grades for providing successive forces thereto the wells so as to selectively isolate the complexes in desired positions within the wells (pars.[0013,0076,0108]) as best construed with respect to the steps in claims 23-27 to positioning with respect to first and second magnets for successive isolation.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Stelling as applied to claims 16, 19-27, 32, 33, 41, and 43 above, and further in view of Briggs (US 2017/0234900).
Ju/Sterling does not specifically disclose that the mobile laboratory is housed in a vehicle.
Briggs discloses an automated analysis system 180 therewith wherein the automated analysis system is installed in a mobile laboratory vehicle (par.[0064], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ju/Sterling to house the mobile laboratory apparatus in a vehicle such as taught by the analogous art of Briggs to an automatic analyzer for samples in which provides the added benefit of being utilized in a field-deployed operation that affords greater flexibility in points of use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL N TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-8914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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.
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798