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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, reading on claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A1, B1, and C1 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 20231106. These drawings are not acceptable.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10758841 by Ghosh et al. (Ghosh).
In regard to claim 1, Ghosh teaches a packing assembly (abstract); capable of forming a packed-bed for a chromatography device. Ghosh teaches a bottom plate (Figure 1, bottom plate 106; C5/L37-41). Ghosh teaches a first top plate defined a top plate hole centrally positioned in the first top plate (Figure 1, top plate 102; C5/L37-41; C2/L34-39). Ghosh teaches a middle plate defining a middle plate hole centrally positioned in the middle plate (Figure 1, middle plate 104; C5/L37-41; C1/L54-67; C2/L34-39). It would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that features from existing stacked disc devices can be incorporated into Figure 1 because Ghosh recognizes that the inlet can either be laterally aligned with the edge of the device or laterally offset. See also Boston Scientific v. Cordis, 89 USPQ.2d 1704, 1712 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness. Further, such modification would have involved a mere substitution of known equivalent structures. A substitution of known equivalent structures is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Ghosh teaches the middle plate hole being aligned with the top plate hole when the packing assembly is in an assembled state where the middle plate is coupled to each of the bottom plate and the first top plate and the middle plate is positioned between the bottom plate and the first top plate (Figure 1, top plate 102, middle plate 104, bottom plate 106; C5/L37 to C6/L56). Ghosh teaches a protrusion extending outwardly (C8/L21-52, spacers positioned in channels); at least a portion of the protrusion having a same size and a same shape as the top plate hole to be received in the top plate hole when the packing assembly is in a packing state (C8/L21-52, spacers positioned in channels). Ghosh does not teach the protrusion is attached to a second top plate. However, Ghosh teaches the spacers provide lateral resistance, support for the membrane stack, and reduce dead volume (C8/L21-52).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate a second top plate in conjunction with the protrusion of Ghosh in order to increase support for the membrane stack, reduce dead volume, and tune lateral resistance. Addition of another plate would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. As the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to connect the protrusion of Ghosh with a plate, since such modification would have involved making elements integral. Making elements integral is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
In regard to claim 2, Ghosh teaches the protrusion has an upper end and a lower end (C8/L21-52, spacers positioned in channels). Ghosh teaches the lower end having a lower surface that is coplanar with a lower surface of the first top plate when the packing assembly is in the packing state (C8/L21-52, spacers positioned in channels).
In regard to claim 3, Ghosh teaches the lower surface of the protrusion is parallel with an upper surface of the bottom plate when the packing assembly is in the packing state (C8/L21-52, spacers positioned in channels).
In regard to claim 4, Ghosh teaches the protrusion has a height equal to a thickness of the first top plate (C8/L21-52, spacers positioned in channels).
In regard to claim 5, Ghosh teaches the middle plate hole in the middle plate (Figure 1, cavity 113; C6/L45-56), the top plate hole in the first top plate, and the protrusion in the second top plate are rectangular (Figure 1, colleting surface 130; C8/L53-67; C7/L19-36).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9958. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/KARA M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights