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 .
Applicant filing of claims 1-21 on 1/11/24 is acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are pending and are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/12/24 was acknowledged. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The Office asserts that terms and phrases like “configured to” and “wherein” constitute recitations of intended use language for purposes of examination. The Office asserts that in the examined claims reciting such “configured to” language, the claim language that follows such recitations does not necessarily denote structure MPEP 2173.05(g). The functional limitation was evaluated and considered, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, a “wherein” clause may have a limiting effect on a claim if the language limits the claim to a particular structure. MPEP 2111.04. The determination of whether a “wherein” clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. While all words in each claim are considered in judging the patentability of the claim language, including functional claim limitations, not all limitations provide a patentable distinction.
During patent examination, the examined claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, unless a term has been given a special definition in the specification (“BRI”). See MPEP 2111.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the horizontal beam has at least two rows of through-holes arranged along its length (claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liqi (CN 107126997, cited in IDS).
As to claims 1 and 8, Liqi discloses a retaining apparatus configured to secure minicolumns in a holder plate, the retaining apparatus comprising:
a pair of laterally spaced apart upright supports, each upright support comprising: a downwardly facing surface configured to slidably rest upon an upper surface of a minicolumn holder plate; and an upwardly facing surface configured to slidably contact a lower surface of the holder plate; and a horizontal beam spanning between the upright supports and holding them in the laterally spaced apart relationship, the horizontal beam having a plurality of vertical through-holes along its length, the through-holes having a diameter larger than an aspiration needle and smaller than an outside diameter of an upper portion of a minicolumn, the horizontal beam having a bottom surface spaced apart from the downwardly facing surfaces of the upright supports a distance that is greater than an amount that a minicolumn would protrude from an upper surface of a holder plate, wherein the apparatus is configured to contact the holder plate only along peripheral edges of the holder plate and is configured to slide along the holder plate after minicolumns have been inserted therein, thereby retaining the minicolumns in the holder plate but allowing access to the minicolumns through the vertical holes in the horizontal beam. See annotated drawing below from fig. 1 of Liqi. For the “configured to” claim language, see claim interpretation above.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liqi in view of Johnson et al. (“Johnson,” US Pub. No. 2016/0096179, cited in IDS).
See Liqi above.
As to claims 2 and 12, the combination of Liqi and Johnson disclose the apparatus is integrally formed from a single piece of material. See e.g., [0048] et seq. of Johnson. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the apparatus from a single material for cost efficiency.
As to claims 3 and 13, the combination of Liqi and Johnson disclose the horizontal beam has at least three through-holes arranged in a single row along its length. See e.g., fig. 1 of Liqi.
As to claims 4, 5, 14 and 15, the combination of Liqi and Johnson disclose the horizontal beam has at least eight through-holes arranged in a single row along its length; and has at least two rows of through-holes arranged along its length. See fig. 1 of Johnson. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include additional through-holes to hold more components. Also, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless new and unexpected result is produced.
As to claims 6 and 16, the combination of Liqi and Johnson disclose the pair of upright supports each comprise at least two pairs of downwardly facing and upwardly facing surfaces, thereby allowing the horizontal beam to be positioned at at least two different heights above a minicolumn holder plate to accommodate different lengths of minicolumns. See e.g., fig. 1 of Liqi.
As to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Liqi and Johnson disclose the downwardly facing surface of each upright support is formed by a first inwardly protruding flange, and the upwardly facing surface of each upright support is formed by a second inwardly protruding flange, each pair of first and second inwardly protruding flanges forming a gap there-between that has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of a minicolumn holder plate. See e.g., fig. 1-3 of Liqi; and [0046] et seq. of Johnson. it would appear that such dimensions are result-effective variables. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the claimed dimensions because discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the thickness flanges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 9, the combination of Liqi and Johnson disclose standoffs configured to position the upper holder plate a predetermined distance above a lower horizontal surface. See upright legs 2004 in fig. 21 of Johnson. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include standoffs to provide additional support.
As to claim 10, the combination of Liqi and Johnson disclose a lower holder plate which forms the lower horizontal surface, the lower holder plate having a recess or hole directly below each vertical hole in the upper holder plate, each recess or hole being configured to receive a bottom portion of a minicolumn in order to constrain it from lateral movement. See fig. 1-3 of Liqi.
As to claim 11, the combination of Liqi and Johnson disclose a plurality of minicolumns. See e.g., [0031] et seq. Johnson.
As to claims 18-21, the combination of Liqi and Johnson teach a method of retaining a plurality of minicolumns, the method comprising: providing a holder plate having a plurality of vertical hole there-through; placing a plurality of minicolumns into the plurality of holes in the holder plate such that at least some of the minicolumns are in a first row; sliding a retaining apparatus along the holder plate until it covers the first row of minicolumns, the retaining apparatus having a vertical hole therethrough above each of the minicolumns; inserting an aspiration needle through at least one of the vertical holes in the retaining apparatus and into at least one of the minicolumns in the first row; withdrawing the aspiration needle from the at least one minicolumn and the at least one vertical hole in the retaining apparatus; whereby the retaining apparatus has a lower surface that contacts a top surface of any of the minicolumns in the first row that rise during the withdrawing step, the lower surface serving to retain the rising minicolumns in the holder plate. See figs. 1-3 of Liqi; and [0031] et seq. of Johnson. Also see MPEP 2112.02 for claims 18-21.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORE RAMILLANO JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254.
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.
/LORE R JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
8/22/26
Prosecution Insights