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 .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed September 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, and 11-17 have been amended; and claims 18-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-17 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 21, 2026.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/19/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 5785835 A), and in view of Berninger et al. (US4830725A).
Regarding claim 1, Saito teaches a high-throughput multiplexing system (apparatus for gel electrophoresis of multiple samples [Abstract]). The limitation “for conducting electrophoresis separation of proteins” is an intended use limitation [see MPEP 2111.02]. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Saito teaches the apparatus for gel electrophoresis of multiple samples (abstract), thus the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the intended use of conducting electrophoresis separation of protein samples. The system comprising:
a gel casting device comprising a top portion and a bottom portion (gel casting case 10 includes a top lid 14 and base portion 12 in Fig. 1 [col. 7, lines 15-24]), the bottom portion providing a gel mold support base (Figs. 1-3 show the base portion 12 providing a gel mold support base to support the formed gel-matrix layer 40), the gel mold support base and the top portion adapted and configured to be detachably connected in a complementary, co-planar relationship so as to form an interior separation medium casting chamber (lid 14 is sealed closed over base 12 in Fig. 3 to form a chamber for the gel medium [col. 7, lines 21-24 and 33-35]; thus the gel mold support base and the top portion are adapted and configured to be detachably connected in a complementary, co-planar relationship so as to form an interior separation medium casting chamber to form gel-matrix layer 40 as shown in Fig.3).
Saito is silent to: a horizontal electrophoresis tank comprising a gel mold support base compartment being sizably-shaped, and dimensioned to receive a collaborative structure in a snug, complementary-fit manner, the collaborative structure comprising
Berninger teaches an electrophoresis apparatus for casting an agarose gel and for conducting an electrophoresis process (abstract and Fig.1), wherein the apparatus comprises a horizontal electrophoresis tank 106 comprising a gel mold support base compartment (electrophoresis tank 106 supports a gel casing deck 202 as shown in Figs. 1-3; gel casting deck 202 is designed to fit snugly into the center of the bottom of the electrophoresis tank 106 [Fig.1], and deck end 210 fits snugly against deck step 120. The opposite end of the gel casting deck 202 fits snugly against deck stop 118 [FIG. 1]. The outside wall 214 of the casting deck 202 may have a 5° draft so as to match a draft on the side walls of the electrophoresis tank 106 [FIG. 1]. In this manner, the substantial immobility of casting deck 202 within electrophoresis tank 106 is ensured [Col. 6 Ln 7-16]) being sizably-shaped, and dimensioned to receive a collaborative structure in a snug, complementary-fit manner (as explained above, the gel mold support base compartment of the electrophoresis tank 106 is sizably-shaped, and dimensioned to receive a collaborative structure [gel casting deck 202] in a snug, complementary-fit manner), the collaborative structure comprisingBerninger corresponds to the gel casting device of Saito.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito by providing a horizontal electrophoresis tank comprising a gel mold support base compartment being sizably-shaped, and dimensioned to receive a collaborative structure (corresponding to the gel casting device in Saito) in a snug, complementary-fit manner, the collaborative structure comprisingBerninger, which would allow for electrophoresis reaction take place (Col. 4 Ln 10-12 in Berninger).
Regarding claim 11, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 1, and Berninger teaches wherein the horizontal electrophoresis tank comprises a bottom wall having a perimeter from which a right sidewall, a left sidewall, a forward sidewall, and a rear sidewall extend upward integrally enclosing the bottom wall and forming a receptacle for containing a buffer solution (Figs.1 and 3-4 in Berninger show the horizontal electrophoresis tank 106 comprises a bottom wall having a perimeter from which a right sidewall, a left sidewall, a forward sidewall, and a rear sidewall [four side walls in Fig.1] extend upward integrally enclosing the bottom wall and forming a receptacle [see receptacle in Figs. 1, 3-4] for containing a buffer solution [Liquid buffer is inserted into buffer reservoirs 316 to a level which may approximately match the top of the agarose gel in the gel casting deck [Col 7 Ln 5-8]), and wherein the gel mold support base compartment is positioned intermediate along the bottom wall of the tank (the bottom of electrophoresis tank 106 has a position between deck stops 118 and 120).
Regarding claim 12, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 11, and Berninger teaches wherein the gel mold support base compartment comprises a first longitudinal sidewall (the forward sidewall of the electrophoresis tank 106 in Fig.1) opposing a second longitudinal sidewall (the rear sidewall of the electrophoresis tank 106 in Fig.1), the first longitudinal sidewall and the second longitudinal sidewall each comprises a recessed portion aligned intermediate along the first longitudinal sidewall and the second longitudinal sidewall, respectively (Figs.1 and 3 in Berninger show the first longitudinal sidewall and the second longitudinal sidewall each comprises a recessed portion aligned intermediate along the first longitudinal sidewall and the second longitudinal sidewall, respectively, to provide deck stops 118 and 120), wherein the recessed portions provide spaces enabling the collaborative structure to be grasped by a user in order to be seated in and removed from the gel mold support base compartment (Figs.1 and 3 in Berninger show the recessed portions provide spaces enabling the collaborative structure [gel casting deck 202] to be grasped by a user in order to be seated in and removed from the gel mold support base compartment).
Regarding claim 14, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 12, and Berninger teaches wherein the collaborative structure is seated within the gel mold support base compartment of the horizontal electrophoresis tank (Fig.3 in Berninger shows the collaborative structure [gel casting deck 202] is seated within the gel mold support base compartment of the horizontal electrophoresis tank), the receptacle of the horizontal electrophoresis tank is filled with the buffer solution to a depth so as to completely submerge the polymerized gel layer of the collaborative structure ( during the electrophoresis process, when the gel is partially or totally submerged in buffer, the gel’s tendency to float upward is arrested by the dovetail walls 204 [Col. 6 Ln 35-38 and abstract in Berninger]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the buffer solution having an electric field applied thereto (Saito teaches the gel-matrix layer comprises electrophoresis buffer [claim 5], and electric current is then applied to carry out the electrophoresis process wherein the samples are transported in the direction of the electric field along tracks [Col. 8 Ln 10-15]; Berninger also teaches a banana plug 112 is located on the side of housing 104. It is into this plug 112 that a banana jack is inserted for providing an electrical potential to electrodes such as that indicated at 130 disposed within electrophoresis tank 106 during the electrophoresis process [Col. 4 Ln 45-52 in Berninger]; electrodes for receiving electrical potential generated outside said tank and applying said potential to said buffer solution [claim 1 in Berninger]).
The limitation “causing an electric current to pass through the buffer solution, the liquid samples, and through the polymerized gel layer so as to facilitate separation of proteins of the liquid samples” is an intended result of the applied electric field for electrophoresis. The applied electric field to carry out the electrophoresis process in Saito and/or Berninger is configured to perform the claimed function of causing an electric current to pass through the buffer solution, the liquid samples, and through the polymerized gel layer so as to facilitate separation of proteins of the liquid samples.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and Berninger, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Detroy (US4035377A).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 from Saito
Regarding claim 2, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 1, and Saito teaches wherein the top portion comprises a sample wells molding portion (a multiple row comb 30 comprising a base 32 and twelve comb elements 34 having multiple teeth fitted through slits 18 of the lid 14 to define sample wells in the gel-matrix layer 40 [Col 7 Ln 36-42; Figs.1 and 3]), the sample wells molding portion comprises a floor (lid 14 comprising a floor as shown in Fig.1) having an upper surface (upper surface of the lid 14 as shown in Figs.1-2) opposing a lower surface (lower surface of the lid 14), the lower surface having a perimeter from which a first longitudinal sidewall (see first longitudinal sidewall in annotated Fig.1 in Saito), a second longitudinal sidewall (see first longitudinal sidewall in annotated Fig.1 in Saito).
Saito further teaches a first portal and a second portal through which an unpolymerized, flowable separation medium is introduced into the interior separation medium chamber (Liquid agarose or other suitable gel is then introduced into the gel casting case 10 by means of one or more of the ports 20 and allowed to harden to form a gel-matrix layer 40 within the gel casting case [Col7 Ln 45-48]).
Saito is silent to wherein the sample wells molding portion further comprises a latitudinal sidewall extend integrally upward therefrom forming an integrated wall, the integrated wall has an open end opposing the latitudinal sidewall, and wherein the open end includes a base support wall positioned adjacent an edge of the open end and intermediate the first longitudinal sidewall and the second longitudinal sidewall, thereby forming a first portal and a second portal through which an unpolymerized, flowable separation medium is introduced into the interior separation medium chamber.
PNG
media_image2.png
635
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Detroy teaches a gel casting device as shown in Figs.1-2 comprising a top portion (plate 12 [Col. 5 Ln 60-61]) and bottom portion (plate 10 [Col. 5 Ln 60-61]), and an interior gel casting chamber formed by holding the plates 12 and 10 together with clamps 28 and 30 (Col. 5 Ln 60 – Col. 6 Ln 14). Figs. 1-2 show the integrated wall has an open end (top edge of plate 12 has an open end for pouring a liquid 32 into the gel casting chamber between the two plate [Col. 6 Ln 7-8]), and wherein the open end includes a base support wall (projections 54 in Fig.1 [Col. 7 Ln 8-15]) positioned adjacent an edge of the open end (the top edge of the plate 12 in Fig.1) and intermediate the first longitudinal sidewall (left sidewall having a strip member 18 in Fig.1) and the second longitudinal sidewall (the right sidewall having a strip member 18 in Fig.1), thereby forming a first portal (see “first portal” in annotated Fig.1 in Detroy) and a second portal (see “second portal” in annotated Fig.1 in Detroy) through which an unpolymerized, flowable separation medium (liquid 32 that forms the gel in Fig.2 [Col. 6 Ln 7-8]) is introduced into the interior separation medium casting chamber (see Fig.2).
-It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gel casting device in modified Saito by providing a latitudinal sidewall extend integrally upward therefrom forming an integrated wall, the integrated wall has an open end opposing the latitudinal sidewall, and wherein the open end includes a base support wall positioned adjacent an edge of the open end and intermediate the first longitudinal sidewall and the second longitudinal sidewall, thereby forming a first portal and a second portal through which an unpolymerized, flowable separation medium is introduced into the interior separation medium chamber, as taught by Detroy, since Detroy teaches a suitable alternative gel casting device by vertically holding the gel casting device and pouring the unpolymerized gel medium into the gel casting chamber through the first and second portals positioned at the top open end (see Figs. 1-2).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Berninger and Detroy, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (WO 2014088948 A1, referencing previously furnished copy).
Regarding claim 3, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 2, and Saito teaches twelve comb elements 34 comprises a plurality of protrusions (multiple teeth in Fig.3) projecting upwardly from the upper surface of the floor, the plurality of protrusions interpolate the unpolymerized, flowable separation medium (the teeth from each comb 34 will define sample wells in the gel-matrix layer [Col. 7 Ln 35-44]).
Saito is silent to wherein the top portion comprising the plurality of protrusions integrally projecting upwardly from the upper surface of the floor.
Wang teaches a gel casting device (gel cassette 10 includes a front plate 14 and back plate 12 in Fig. 1 for making precast gels for gel electrophoresis [0009, 0028]), wherein a plurality of protrusions integrally project from a surface of the gel casting device (teeth 16 in Fig. 1 project from the inner surface of teeth 16 [0029, 0032]). Wang further teaches that integrating a plurality of protrusions onto the surface of the device eliminates the need for a separate removable comb, saving on comb-related materials and labor [Abstract].
Modified Saito and Wang are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gel casting devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of protrusions in Saito by integrating the plurality of protrusions onto the upper surface of the floor of the top portion of the gel casting device, as taught in Wang, such that the plurality of protrusions are integrated onto the top portion surface, since this would eliminate the need for a separate removable comb, saving on comb-related materials and labor [Abstract in Wang]. Furthermore, Wang teaches the claimed improvement as a known technique that is applicable to the base device in modified Saito. One skilled in the art could have applied the integrated protrusions in Wang in the same way to the base device in modified Saito, yielding predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 3, and Saito is silent to the limitation wherein the unpolymerized, flowable separation medium comprises a polyacrylamide gel solution.
Wang teaches polyacrylamide gel used as an unpolymerized, flowable separation medium, as polyacrylamide is suitable for protein separation [0003, 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the separation medium material in modified Saito with a polyacrylamide gel solution, as taught in Wang, because the substitution would enable the separation of proteins [0003, 0030 in Wang]. Furthermore, the claimed device differs from modified Saito by the substitution of some components (the gel-matrix layer material in modified Saito) with other components (the polyacrylamide gel material in Wang) whose functions were known in the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art could substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 5-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Berninger, Detroy and Wang, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Siegel (US20060108729A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the gel casting device is positioned in a vertical orientation such that the first portal and the second portal are facing upwards and providing a loading edge (Annotated Fig.1 in Detroy shows the gel casting device is positioned in a vertical orientation such that the first portal and the second portal are facing upwards and providing a loading edge for introducing the unpolymerized, flowable separation medium into the gel casting chamber), and the loading edge having at least one clamp placed and tightened on the loading edge (Fig.2 in Detroy shows the loading edge having two clamps 28 placed and tightened on the loading edge).
Modified Saito is silent to wherein the casting device is held in the vertical orientation via a vise.
Siegel teaches holding in such vertical orientation via a vise (a Flexi-vise is disclosed comprising a stationary and movable jaw that can be easily opened and closed. The vise also has the capability to be configured such that the jaws can be aligned down the middle of the base to be used upright with maximum stability, or they can be aligned with the edge of the base so that the vise can lay flat on its side to provide through-access for vertical operations [para. 0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hold the gel casting device in the vertical orientation via a vise, as taught by Siegel, since it would stabilize and hold the clamped device [para. 0003 in Siegel ].
Regarding claim 6, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 5, and “wherein the gel casting device is maintained in the vertical orientation for a period of time enabling polymerization of the polyacrylamide gel solution, thereby producing the polymerized gel layer” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, modified Saito teaches the gel casting device is held in the vertical orientation via a vise, as outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above. Detroy teaches a liquid 32 which forms the gel is then poured into the chamber between the plates [Col. 6 Ln 7-14]. Thus, the disclosed gel casting device is capable of maintaining in the vertical orientation for a period of time enabling polymerization of the polyacrylamide gel solution, thereby producing a polymerized gel layer between the two plates.
Regarding claim 7, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the polymerized gel layer comprises a plurality of sample loading wells formed integrally therein via the plurality of protrusions (as outlined in the rejection of claim 3 above, a plurality of sample loading wells formed integrally therein via the plurality of protrusions [teeth]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 7, and Saito teaches wherein the plurality of sample loading wells comprises a number equal to the number of the plurality of protrusions (the teeth will define sample wells in the gel-matrix layer [Col. 7 Ln 41-42]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 7, and Saito teaches wherein the polymerized gel layer comprises a thickness in a range of approximately 0.5 mm to 20 mm (the thickness of the gel-matrix layer is preferably 2 to 5 millimeters [Col. 6 Ln 14-16]).
Claims 9, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Berninger, Detroy and Wang, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Candelari (Candelari C., Optimization of PEGDA Hydrogel Platform for Gel Electrophoresis Application, Master thesis, 2017, University of Houston).
Regarding claim 9, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 8, and is silent to wherein each of the plurality of sample loading wells comprises a sample loading volume in a range of approximately 1 μl to 1 ml.
Candelari teaches a gel electrophoresis platform [para. 1 on page 36], wherein decreasing the sample loading well volume decreases the strength of the sample lane signal during electrophoresis [para. 1 on page 18;para. 2 on page 37], and increasing the sample loading well volume increases the undesirable diffusion of sample out of the loading well [para. 2 on page 37].
As the signal strength and undesirable sample diffusion are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the sample loading volume, with signal strength decreasing as the volume is decreased and diffusion increasing as the volume is increased, the precise sample loading volume would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed sample loading volume cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the sample loading volume in modified Saito to be approximately 1 µL to 1.00 mL in order to obtain the desired balance between the signal strength and undesirable sample diffusion as taught by Candelari. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II).
Regarding claim 13, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 8, and is silent to wherein each of the plurality of sample loading wells is loaded sequentially with a liquid sample comprising a volume in a range of approximately 0.1 μl to 1 ml.
Candelari teaches a gel electrophoresis platform [para. 1 on page 36], wherein decreasing the sample loading well volume decreases the strength of the sample lane signal during electrophoresis [para. 1 on page 18; para. 2 on page 37], and increasing the sample loading well volume increases the undesirable diffusion of sample out of the loading well [para. 2 on page 37].
As the signal strength and undesirable sample diffusion are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the sample loading volume, with signal strength decreasing as the volume is decreased and diffusion increasing as the volume is increased, the precise sample loading volume would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed sample loading volume cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the sample loading volume in modified Saito to be approximately 0.1 µL to 1 mL in order to obtain the desired balance between the signal strength and undesirable sample diffusion as taught by Candelari. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II).
Thus, each of the plurality of sample loading wells is modified to be capable of being loaded sequentially with a liquid sample comprising a volume in a range of approximately 0.1 μl to 1 ml. Furthermore, the claimed limitation further limits the sample but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed limitations further limit the liquid sample (material worked upon) but fails to limit the electrophoresis system (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 17, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 9, and the limitations “wherein each of the plurality of sample loading wells is loaded sequentially with a liquid sample, the liquid sample comprising a volume in a range of approximately 0.1 μL to 1 mL of a molecular weight ladder loaded in each sample loading well of a first column and a last column of the polymerized gel layer, and a lysate being loaded in each sample loading well positioned between the first column and the last column of the polymerized gel layer” are functional recitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, modified Saito teaches each of the plurality of sample loading wells comprises a sample loading volume in a range of approximately 0.1 μl to 1 ml, as outlined in the rejection of claim 9 above. Thus, each of the plurality of sample loading wells is capable of being loaded sequentially with a liquid sample, the liquid sample comprising a volume in a range of approximately 0.1 μL to 1 mL of a molecular weight ladder loaded in each sample loading well of a first column and a last column of the polymerized gel layer, and a lysate being loaded in each sample loading well positioned between the first column and the last column of the polymerized gel layer. Furthermore, the claimed limitations further limit the sample but fail to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed limitations further limit the sample (material worked upon) but fails to limit the electrophoresis system (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Berninger, Detroy and Wang, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Manusu (US5954934A).
Regarding 10, modified Saito teaches the system of claim 3, and is silent to wherein the top portion comprises a continuous, support shelf integrally recessed from the first longitudinal sidewall, the latitudinal sidewall, and the second longitudinal sidewall for seating the gel mold support base in a complementary-fit manner.
Manusu teaches a gel casting device as shown in Figs. 1-3 comprising a top portion (first side wall 11) and a bottom portion (second side wall 13), wherein the first side wall 11 comprise a continuous, support shelf integrally recessed from the left sidewall and the right sidewall for seating the gel mold support base (the second side wall 13) in a complementary-fit manner (see the support shelf integrally recessed from the left sidewall and the right sidewall for fitting the ridges 14 of the second side wall. One part forms a first side wall 11 of the cassette which is bounded on each side by a connecting means comprising a pair of spaced apart ridges 12. The other part forms a second side wall 13 of the cassette which is bounded on each side by a pair of spaced apart ridges 14. The ridges 12 and 14 interdigitate to form a seal along each side of the cassette 10 to prevent leakage there through of the gel forming liquid during setting of the gel [Col. 3 Ln 55-65]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gel casting device in modified Saito to provide a continuous, support shelf integrally recessed from the first longitudinal sidewall and the second longitudinal sidewall of the front portion for seating the gel mold support base (the bottom portion) in a complementary-fit manner, as taught by Manusu, since it would form a seal along each side of the cassette to prevent leakage there through the gel forming liquid during setting of the gel [Col. 3 Ln 55-65 in Manusu].
Since Manusu teaches the top portion comprising a continuous, support shelf integrally recessed from the left sidewall and the right sidewall for seating the other plate (bottom portion) to form a seal along each side of the cassette 10 to prevent leakage there through of the gel forming liquid during setting of the gel, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also provide a continuous, support shelf integrally recessed from the bottom sidewall (the latitudinal sidewall) such that each of the three sidewalls comprises a continuous, support shelf integrally recessed from the corresponding sidewall for seating the gel mold support base in a complementary-fit manner to form a seal along each side of the cassette to prevent leakage there through the gel forming liquid during setting of the gel [Col. 3 Ln 55-65 in Manusu].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 10-14, filed 9/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered, and all 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues at page 10 that the prior art does not teach or suggest conducting electrophoresis separation of proteins.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive since “for conducting electrophoresis separation of proteins” is an intended use limitation [see MPEP 2111.02]. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the disclosed electrophoresis apparatus is capable of performing electrophoresis separation of proteins.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Applicant argues at pages 10-14 that the amended claim 1 recites “the gel mold support base and the top portion adapted and configured to be detachably connected in a complementary, co-planar relationship so as to form an interior separation medium casting chamber”, and the prior art does not teach the amended feature.
Examiner’s Response #2:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection of the amended claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIZHI QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights