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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/13/2023 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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) are: “mechanical clinging means” in claim 11 – interpreted to be a ferruginous ring or abutment elements (evidenced by [0044] in the disclosure) , and “external connection means” in claim 12 – interpreted to be an external thread, bayonet fitting, or magnetic (evidenced by [0024] in the disclosure). 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. 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 § 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. Claims 1- 5 , 9 -11 , and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Corbett (WO 2017/106917 A2) (Referenced in IDS) . Regarding claim 1, Corbett discloses a reaction unit ( abstract; Fig. 4A, reaction chamber 1 and cap 7 assembly – see annotated figure below ) configured to receive a reaction solution ( [0063] discloses a list of reactants received by cap; [00150]-[00151], “Lyophilised reagents” and “stable reagent solution” ) and configured to be placed inside a thermocycler ( [0034] discloses use in a thermocycler ), said reaction unit comprising an elongated hollow body ( Fig. 4 A , cap 7 ) extending along a flowing axis X ([0078] discloses flow through center of cap 7 (i.e., elongated hollow body)) , the elongated hollow body defining a first opening at its first extremity and a second opening at its second extremity ( Fig. 4A shows a first opening at first extremity and second opening at second extremity ), wherein the walls of the elongated hollow body are at least partially made of a thermally conductive material ( [0079] discloses a list of materials that are thermally conductive ), and center 2957195 0 0 wherein the reaction unit further comprises at least one filter element extending inside the elongated hollow body ([0077], [00157]; Fig. 4A , conduit 8) , the filter element being secured in a sealed way to the walls of the elongated hollow body over its complete circumference ( Fig. 4A shows cross-section of the filter element being secured in a sealed way to the walls ), leading any fluid flowing from the first opening to the second opening to cross the at least one filter element ( [0066], “conduit of the cap can be adapted to substantially retain at least the barrier fluid within the reaction chamber” ). Regarding claim 2, Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1. Corbett further discloses wherein a diameter of the first opening is larger than a diameter of the second opening ( Fig. 4A shows that the first opening diameter is larger than the second opening diameter ). Regarding claim 3, Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1. 2352675 1800225 Corbett further discloses wherein the elongated hollow body has a general frustoconical shape (Fig. 4 A shows general frustoconical shape – see annotated figure below ), the at least one filter element being situated in a frustoconical second extremity of the elongated hollow body ( Fig. 4A shows the conduit (i.e., the at least one filter element) situated in a frustoconical second extremity ). Regarding claim 4, Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1. Corbett further discloses wherein the at least one filter element is made of a hard material ([0077] and claim 27 each disclose the conduit (i.e., the at least filter element) may be ceramic). Regarding claim 5, Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1. Corbett further discloses wherein the at least one filter element comprises a filter membrane made of a flexible material ([0077] and claim 27 each disclose the conduit (i.e., the at least filter element) is a permeable membrane that may be polymeric). Regarding claim 9, Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1. Corbett further discloses wherein the reaction unit further comprises a sealing cap configured to seal the first opening ([0083] and claim 38 disclose the upper portion of the cap having a disposable removable foil seal, disposable lid, or plastic film). Regarding claim 10, Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 9. Corbett further discloses wherein the sealing cap is configured to seal the first opening in a removable way ([0083] and claim 38 disclose the upper portion of the cap having a disposable removable foil seal). Regarding claim 11, Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1. Corbett further discloses wherein a first extremity of the reaction unit comprises mechanical clinging means – note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted as a ferruginous ring or abutment elements ; see Claim Interpretation – (Fig. 4A shows abutment elements – 1152525 666750 0 0 see annotated figure below ) . The limitation “configured to connect the reaction unit to a carrying device” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed apparatus and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art apparatus (MPEP §2114 II). The apparatus taught by Corbett would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is taught to be carried and loaded into a thermocycler by a robot ([0034]) and would be structurally capable of connecting to a carrying device. Regarding claim 15, Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1. Corbett further discloses wherein the reaction unit is a passive element which is not affected by the reaction carried inside the elongated hollow body ( [00154]-[00156] discloses the reaction carried inside the reaction container and cap assembly (i.e., reaction unit) ; [00160] teaches that the assembly is for transportation of reactants, i.e., a passive element ). 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. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbett (WO 2017/106917 A2) (already referenced) in view of Seo ( KR 101955708 B1 ) ( machine translation provided) ( Referenced in IDS) . Regarding claim 6 , Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the elongated hollow body comprises a first part and a second part configured to be removably assembled with each other, the first part comprising the first opening, the second part comprising the second opening and further comprising the at least one filter element. 1971675 2609850 0 0 However, Seo discloses an extraction tube for extracting nucleic acid (i.e., elongated hollow body), wherein the tube comprises a first tube (i.e., first part) and a second tube (i.e., second part) configured to be removably assembled with each other (Fig. 3 shows that first and second tubes are removably assembled with each other – see annotated figure below) , the first part comprising the first opening ([0044] and claim 1 ; Fig. 3), the second part comprising the second opening ([0046] and claim 1 ; Fig. 3) and further comprising the at least one filter element (Fig. 3, filtration absorbing material 7) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the elongated hollow body disclosed by Corbett such that it comprises a first part and second part removable or separable from each other , based on the teachings of Seo, to access the sample in the second part use . Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the at least filter element because it would allow for the purification of a product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Corbett and Seo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6. Regarding claim 7, modified Corbett teaches the reaction unit according to claim 6 , but fails to teach wherein the second part is a frustoconical second extremity of the elongated hollow body. However, Seo discloses that the shape of the second tube (i.e., the second part) may be varied according to convenience ([0046]). I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the second part such that it is frustoconical, as modifying the second part of modified Corbett to be a frustoconical second extremity as claimed would amount to merely changing the shape of the second part . It has been held that changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant (MPEP §2144.04). Therefore, the claim does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbett (WO 2017/106917 A2) (already referenced) in view of Holländer et al. (US 2013/0115693 A1) (see PTO-892) . Regarding claim 8, Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1, but is silent to the thermally conductive material comprising aluminum. However, Holländer et al. discloses a device for isolating or purifying a biomolecule from a sample (abstract) comprising a foil, wherein the metal foil can be aluminum foil ([0031] , “thin metal layers like aluminium foil” ). Holländer et al. teaches that it is known in the art to use aluminum in devices meant for biomolecular , i.e., genetic material , purification ([0031]) . Further, Holländer et al. teaches that the hollow body of the device may be made of any material suitable for sample collection, storage or treatment, including metal ([0008]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use aluminum as the thermally conductive material because the aluminum would conduct heat at a better rate and improve reaction efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Corbett and Holländer et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbett (WO 2017/106917 A2) (already referenced) . Regarding claim 12, Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a second extremity of the reaction unit includes an external connection means configured to cooperate with the thermocycler. However, Corbett discloses an embodiment of the reaction container and cap assembly (i.e., reaction unit) with external connection means - note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted as an external thread, a bayonet fitting, or magnetic – see Claim Interpretation . Corbett teaches that the reaction container and cap are engaged via a screw thread (i.e., thread) to as a means for connection ([0088]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Corbett and construct the second extremity of the reaction unit with a thread, as taught by Corbett, because the thread would allow it to connect with an external device. Further, the addition of a thread to the second extremity of the reaction unit would merely amount to the duplication of parts. I t has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04 VI B). The limitation “configured to cooperate with the thermocycler” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed device and does not differentiate the claimed device from the prior art device because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art apparatus (MPEP §2114 II). The apparatus taught by modified Corbett would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is taught to have an external screw thread (i.e., thread) and would be structurally capable of cooperating with a thermocycler with a compatible thread. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Corbett to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12. Claims 13- 1 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbett (WO 2017/106917 A2) (already referenced) in view of Kolb et al. (US 2018/0125464 A1) (See PTO-892) . Regarding claim 1 3 , Corbett discloses the reaction unit according to claim 1 , and wherein a cap and reaction chamber assembly (i.e., reaction unit ) comprises at least two reaction compartments connected along an axis (i.e., flowing axis X ) (Fig. 4A shows two connected compartments ) , wherein one of the reaction compartments comprises a filter ([0088], “conduit is a permeable membrane or a barrier filter”; Fig. 4A, conduit 8). Corbett fails to disclose wherein each of the reaction compartments comprises one of the filter elements, all the filter elements being, when all the reaction compartments are assembled, aligned along the flowing axis X. 1287145 2047875 0 0 However, Kolb et al. discloses a specimen collection and delivery apparatus that may be used for PCR-based molecular analysis ([0021]-[0022]), an embodiment of the apparatus comprising two compartment connected along an axis, each compartment housing a filter (Figs. 8A-8B, filter chamber 745 housing filter matrix 760B and interior portion housing filter matrix 760A; Figs. 8A-8B shows that filter matrixes 760A and 760B are aligned along an axis – see annotated figure below). Kolb et al. teaches that it is known in the art to use multiple filters housed in two compartments, the compartments and filters being aligned . Kolb et al. teaches that the first filter prevents contamination and the second filter filters the sample under vacuum ([0029], “ In this manner, the filter matrix [760B] protects the end-user from contact with the specimen, while allowing for venting of the interior of the sample tube … In practice, application of vacuum force to the luer taper end 750 of the specimen collection and delivery apparatus draws the liquid phase of a collected specimen through the filter matrix [760A] . ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reaction unit of Corbett to include filter in each compartment because the use of two filters would maintain sterility and filter the sample , as taught by Kolb et al . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Corbett and Kolb et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13. Regarding claim 14, modified Corbett teaches the reaction unit according to claim 13 , but fails to teach wherein each of the filter elements has different filtering properties. However, Kolb et al. teaches that the filter matrix (i.e., filter elements) may be selected from a group consisting of materials with different filtering properties ([0040], [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reaction unit of modified Corbett to use filters with different filtering properties because it would allow for specific filtering during use (e.g., allowing fluid through one filter and not the other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Corbett and Kolb et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Evans et al. (WO 96/41810) discloses an apparatus for extracting DNA comprising a membrane filter, two parts which are removably assembled with each other , and a cap . Block et al. (US 2005/0208548 A1) discloses a device for isolating and purifying nucleic acids comprising a first and a second hollow body, the first hollow body comprising an inlet and an outlet opening; the first hollow body and second hollow body being detachable from one another. Dawson ( WO 2010/014970 A 1 ) discloses a device for purifying biological molecules (e.g., DNA or RNA), comprising two separable parts, one part having a general frustoconical shape and a filter disposed within. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADRIAN J CARREON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6818 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5 PM . 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 Michael Marcheschi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1374 . 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. /A.J.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 1799 /William H. Beisner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799