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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word “cartridge” on line 2 is missing an article like “a”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a cartridge” on line 3 should be rewritten as “a desalting cartridge” as previously recited in Claim 1 for consistency type purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-16, 19, 21, 23 and any of their dependent claims 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the desalting resin”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “2 inches (5 cm)”. It is not clear which unit to use since 2 inches and 5 cm while very close are not the same.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the bed aspect ratio”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is not necessarily inherent to the features in the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “0.2 inches (0.5 cm)”. It is not clear which unit to use since 0.2 inches and 0.5 cm while very close are not the same.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the sorbent”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the sorbent”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a cartridge as described in claim 1”. However, Claim 1 claims “a desalting cartridge” and subsequently “the cartridge” thereafter. Thus, it is unclear what limitation is being referred to in Claim 15, and if it is the same or different.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a vacuum” on line 7. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a vacuum” on line 4 of the claim, or if it is a different limitation altogether. Examiner interprets it to be different.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “biopolymers” on line 8. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “biopolymers” on line 1 of the claim, or if it is a different limitation altogether. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the sample” on line 8. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a/the biologic sample” already recited throughout the claim, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the desalting resin”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the desalting resin”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a vacuum” on line 3. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a vacuum” on line 4 or 7 of Claim 16, or if it is a different limitation altogether. Examiner interprets it to be different.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the storage solvent” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the desalting resin” multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “a vacuum” on line 3. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a vacuum” on line 4 or 7 of Claim 16, or if it is a different limitation altogether. Examiner interprets it to be different.
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) 1, 2, 4-9, 15-17, 19, 21 & 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerde et al., (“Gjerde”, US 2005/0045543).
Regarding Claims 1 & 4-8, a first embodiment of Gjerde discloses a desalting cartridge comprising: a body, wherein the body is substantially cylindrical and hollow, (Tubular Members 2 & 3, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0135]), and wherein the body comprises a first end and a second end opposite the first end, (inherently top and bottom ends of Members 2 & 3, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0135]); an outlet coupled to the second end of the body, (‘open’ bottom end of Member 3, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0135]); a first frit positioned in the body, (Membrane screen/frit 10, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0136], [0063]), wherein the first frit is composed of a first hydrophilic polymer, (See paragraph [0129]), and wherein the first frit is positioned between the first end of the body and the second end of the body, (Membrane screen/frit 10, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0136]); a second frit positioned in the body, (Membrane screen/frit 14, See Figure 1 & 2, See paragraph [0136], [0063]), wherein the second frit is composed of a second hydrophilic polymer, (See paragraph [0129]), and wherein the second frit is positioned between the first frit and the second end of the body, (Screen 14 located at lower second end, end is defined just after, See Figure 1 & 2); a sorbent bed disposed in the body between the first frit and the second frit, (Extraction Media Chamber 16 between Screens 10/14, See Figure 1, 2, See paragraph [0136]) but does not explicitly disclose a storage solution stored in the body between the first frit and the first end of the body.
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses a storage solution stored in the body between the first frit and the first end of the body, (Buffer 350, See Figure 23, See paragraph [0408]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of the first embodiment of Gjerde by incorporating a storage solution stored in the body between the first frit and the first end of the body as in another embodiment of Gjerde because “there is a particular danger of air channels forming in the bed of extraction media…upon attachment of a column to a pump” so “a way to avoid this is to insure there is sufficient liquid…prior to attaching the tip to a pump” such as “storage liquid”, (See paragraph [0393], Gjerde).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 4: The cartridge of claim 1 wherein the first and second frit are composed of the same material, (See paragraph [0127]).
Claim 5: The cartridge of claim 1 wherein the first frit and/or second frit have a nominal mean pore size of between about 5 microns to about 200 microns, (See paragraph [0117]; anticipates the claimed range from 5 to 100 microns).
Claim 7: The cartridge of claim 1 wherein the second frit is positioned at the second end of the body, between the body and the outlet, (Screen 14 located at lower second end, end is defined just after, See Figure 1 & 2, Gjerde).
Claim 8: The cartridge of claim 1, wherein the body is tapered such that the diameter of the body proximate the first end of the body is larger than the diameter of the body proximate the second end of the body, (Member 2 is wider at top/first end than Member 3 at bottom/second end, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0135]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Gjerde discloses the cartridge of claim 1, but does not disclose in the specified combination wherein the first end of the body comprises a flange.
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses wherein the first end of the body comprises a flange, (Cylinder 62 has flange at upper end in which its bottom end joins with Outer Sleeve 70, See Figure 4 & 5, See paragraphs [0143]-[0145], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of modified Gjerde by incorporating wherein the first end of the body comprises a flange as in another embodiment of Gjerde in order to use “a disposable syringe”, (See paragraph [0143], Gjerde), in which they are “capable of manipulating fluid within the column by the application of positive or negative pressure” in which “a controlled amount of liquid can be accurately manipulated in each column”, (See paragraph [0256], Gjerde).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Gjerde discloses the cartridge of claim 1 but does not disclose in the specified combination wherein the first frit and/or the second frit have a thickness of between about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm, (See paragraph [0505], 1/16 inch converts to 1.58 mm, anticipating the claimed range at this value; modify).
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses wherein the first frit and/or the second frit have a thickness of between about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm, (See paragraph [0505], 1/16 inch converts to 1.58 mm, anticipating the claimed range at this value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of modified Gjerde by incorporating wherein the first frit and/or the second frit have a thickness of between about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm as in another embodiment of Gjerde in order to provide “columns characterized by…low backpressures”, (See paragraph [0182], Gjerde), in which “the back pressure of a column will depend on the average….back pressure due to the frit”, (See paragraph [0181], Gjerde).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Gjerde discloses the cartridge of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a ratio of a length of the desalting resin to a length of the body is between 0.5 and 0.6.
Another feature of Gjerde discloses a length of the desalting resin, and an additional feature of Gjerde disclose a length of the body, such that the ratio of the length of desalting resin to a length of the body is between 0.5 and 0.6, (See paragraph [0441] & [0175], Gjerde; The length of the resin is 8 mm in one aspect and the length of the column is 15 mm in another aspect such that the ratio would be 0.533, anticipating the claimed range at that value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of modified Gjerde by incorporating wherein a ratio of a length of the desalting resin to a length of the body is between 0.5 and 0.6 as in these additional features of Gjerde so that “the length…is such that it does not substantially introduce dead volume into the extraction column or otherwise adversely impact the function of the column”, (See paragraph [0114], Gjerde).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Gjerde discloses a sample preparation system comprising a cartridge as described in claim 1, (See rejection of Claim 1 above), but does not disclose a vacuum producing device.
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses a vacuum producing device, (See paragraph [0248], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of modified Gjerde by incorporating a vacuum producing device as in another embodiment of Gjerde in order to “aspirate and discharge the sample from the column…so long as it is capable of generating a negative internal column pressure to aspire a fluid…through the open lower end”, (See paragraph [0154], Gjerde), “which is not so great as to cause air to enter the media chamber through the bottom frit”, (See paragraph [0234], Gjerde).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Gjerde discloses a method of obtaining biopolymers from a biologic sample, the method comprising: obtaining a cartridge as described in claim 1, and removing the storage solution from the cartridge, (See rejection of Claim 1 above and [0408], [0251], Gjerde); but does not disclose in the specified embodiment, applying a vacuum to the outlet of the cartridge to remove the solution from the cartridge; introducing the biologic sample into the cartridge after the storage solution is removed; and passing the biologic sample through the sorbent bed by applying a vacuum to the outlet to obtain biopolymers separated from salts and small molecule impurities present in the sample.
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses removing the storage solution from the cartridge, (See paragraph [0251], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating removing the storage solution from the cartridge as in another embodiment of Gjerde so that “the tip is conditioned” and “sample solution [can be] drawn”, (See paragraph [0251], Gjerde).
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses applying a vacuum to the outlet to remove the solution from the cartridge, (See paragraph [0248] or [0154], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating applying a vacuum to the outlet to remove the solution from the cartridge as in another embodiment of Gjerde in order to “aspirate and discharge the sample from the column…so long as it is capable of generating a negative internal column pressure to aspire a fluid…through the open lower end”, (See paragraph [0154], Gjerde), “which is not so great as to cause air to enter the media chamber through the bottom frit”, (See paragraph [0234], Gjerde).
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses passing the biologic sample through the sorbent bed by applying a vacuum to the outlet to obtain a biomolecule, (See paragraph [0161], [0154], [0158], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating passing the biologic sample through the sorbent bed by applying a vacuum to the outlet to obtain a biomolecule as in another embodiment of Gjerde in order to “aspirate and discharge the sample from the column…so long as it is capable of generating a negative internal column pressure to aspire a fluid…through the open lower end”, (See paragraph [0154], Gjerde), so that “a controlled amount of liquid can be accurately manipulated”, (See paragraph [0256], Gjerde).
Modified Gjerde does not explicitly disclose in the specified combination that the biomolecule includes biopolymers.
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses that the biomolecule includes biopolymers, (See paragraph [0171], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating that the biomolecule includes biopolymers as in this embodiment of Gjerde in order to “extract and spot other non-protein analytes in an array format”, (See paragraph [0325], Gjerde), to “analyze the nature of the complex”, (See paragraph [0281], Gjerde).
Modified Gjerde does not explicitly disclose in the specified combination that the solution is separated from salts and small molecule impurities present in the sample.
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses that the solution is separated from salts and small molecule impurities present in the sample, (See paragraph [0301] or [0302], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating that the solution is separated from salts and small molecule impurities present in the sample as in another embodiment of Gjerde because “the sample…in many applications must have low ionic strength, or reside within a particular pH range” because “salt in the sample can prevent detection” so it will present “the analyte in low salt”, (See paragraph [0312], Gjerde).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Gjerde discloses the method of claim 16, with the vacuum applied to the outlet during removal of the storage solution, (See rejection of claim 16), but does not disclose in the specified combination that the pressure is between about 3-5 inches Hg (10 kPa – 17 kPa).
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses that the pressure is between about 3-5 inches Hg (10 kPa – 17 kPa), (See paragraph [0182], Gjerde; The range can be selected between 1 psi to 2 psi, converting to 2 inch Hg to 4 inch Hg, anticipating the claimed range from 3 to 4 inch Hg).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating the pressure is between about 3-5 inches Hg (10 kPa – 17 kPa) as in another embodiment of Gjerde because “an advantage of low back pressures is there is much less tendency of soft resins…to collapse”, (See paragraph [0182], Gjerde), leading to a wider selection of resin beads for use.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Gjerde discloses the method of claim 16, with the vacuum applied to the outlet when passing the biologic sample through the desalting resin, (See rejection of claim 16), but does not disclose in the specified combination that the pressure is between about 1-3 inches Hg (3.5 kPa – 10 kPa).
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses that the pressure is between about 1-3 inches Hg (3.5 kPa – 10 kPa), (See paragraph [0182], Gjerde; A range can be selected between 0.001 to 1 psi, converting to 0.002 inch Hg to 2 inch Hg, anticipating this range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating the pressure is between about 3-5 inches Hg (10 kPa – 17 kPa) as in another embodiment of Gjerde because “an advantage of low back pressures is there is much less tendency of soft resins…to collapse”, (See paragraph [0182], Gjerde), leading to a wider selection of resin beads for use.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Gjerde discloses the method of claim 16, but does not disclose in the specified combination wherein the method further comprises conditioning the desalting resin by adding a conditioning solution to the cartridge after the storage solvent is removed, and applying a vacuum to the cartridge to pass the conditioning solution through the sorbent bed.
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses wherein the method further comprises conditioning the desalting resin by adding a conditioning solution to the cartridge after the storage solvent is removed, to pass the conditioning solution through the sorbent bed (See paragraph [0193], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating wherein the method further comprises conditioning the desalting resin by adding a conditioning solution to the cartridge after the storage solvent is removed to pass the conditioning solution through the sorbent bed as in another embodiment of Gjerde in order to “ensure that the tip is in a uniform ready condition”, (See paragraph [0193], Gjerde).
Modified Gjerde does not explicitly disclose in the specified combination applying a vacuum to the cartridge to pass the solution.
Another feature of Gjerde discloses applying a vacuum to the cartridge to pass the solution, (See paragraph [0248], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating applying a vacuum to the cartridge to pass the solution as in another embodiment of Gjerde in order to “aspirate and discharge the sample from the column…so long as it is capable of generating a negative internal column pressure to aspire a fluid…through the open lower end”, (See paragraph [0154], Gjerde), “which is not so great as to cause air to enter the media chamber through the bottom frit”, (See paragraph [0234], Gjerde).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Gjerde discloses the method of claim 16, but does not disclose in the specified combination wherein the method further comprises conditioning the desalting resin by adding a conditioning solution to the cartridge after the storage solvent is removed, and applying a vacuum to the cartridge to pass the conditioning solution through the sorbent bed.
Another embodiment of Gjerde discloses wherein passing the biologic sample through the desalting resin comprises eluting the biologic sample through the desalting resin by adding an elution solution to the cartridge and to pass the eluting solution through the desalting resin, (See paragraph [0263] & [0354], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating wherein passing the biologic sample through the desalting resin comprises eluting the biologic sample through the desalting resin by adding an elution solution to the cartridge and to pass the eluting solution through the desalting resin as in another embodiment of Gjerde in order to pass it through “the bed…multiple times and at a rate that is conducive to maximal recovery of desired analyte”, (See paragraph [0263], Gjerde).
Modified Gjerde does not explicitly disclose in the specified combination applying a vacuum to the cartridge to pass the solution.
Another feature of Gjerde discloses applying a vacuum to the cartridge to pass the solution (See paragraph [0248], Gjerde).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Gjerde by incorporating applying a vacuum to the cartridge to pass the solution as in another embodiment of Gjerde in order to “aspirate and discharge the sample from the column…so long as it is capable of generating a negative internal column pressure to aspire a fluid…through the open lower end”, (See paragraph [0154], Gjerde), “which is not so great as to cause air to enter the media chamber through the bottom frit”, (See paragraph [0234], Gjerde).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerde et al., (“Gjerde”, US 2005/0045543), in view of Gauch et al., (“Gauch”, CA 2771000 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Gjerde discloses the cartridge of claim 1, but does not disclose the first frit and/or the second frit are composed of hydrophilic polyethylene or hydrophilic polypropylene.
Gauch discloses a membrane screen that is composed of hydrophilic polyethylene or hydrophilic polypropylene, (See page 16, fourth paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of modified Gjerde by incorporating the first frit and/or the second frit are composed of hydrophilic polyethylene or hydrophilic polypropylene as in Gauch in order to provide materials “suitable for the bonding of nucleic acids” or “adhesion and isolation” thereof, (See paragraphs 4 or 5, page 16, Gauch), as carried out in Gjerde, (See Abstract, Gjerde).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerde et al., (“Gjerde”, US 2005/0045543), in view of Gjerde et al., (“Gjerde 2”, US 6,355,791).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Gjerde discloses the cartridge of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the body has a length of about 2 inches (5 cm).
Gjerde 2 discloses wherein the body has a length of about 2 inches (5 cm), (See column 33, lines 66-67, Gjerde 2; 50 mm length column (body) converts to a length of 5 cm (about 2 cm) as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of modified Gjerde by incorporating wherein the body has a length of about 2 inches (5 cm) as in Gjerde 2 in order to provide “preparation of a standard bore monolithic separation column”, (See column 33, lines 64-65, Gjerde 2), which is used “for separating polynucleotides…a polymeric monolith, in order to improve the resolution of double stranded DNA fragments separated using the medium”, (See column 6, lines 27-32, Gjerde 2).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerde et al., (“Gjerde”, US 2005/0045543), in view of Cacace et al., (“Cacace”, US 2020/0406167).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Gjerde discloses the cartridge of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the bed aspect ratio of the cartridge is from about 4 to about 6.
Cacace discloses wherein the bed aspect ratio of the cartridge is from about 4 to about 6, (See Table 1, “length to diameter ratio” is 5.4: 1, anticipating the claimed range at this value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of modified Gjerde by incorporating wherein the bed aspect ratio of the cartridge is from about 4 to about 6 as in Cacace because “those skilled in the arts will be able to adjust and/or modify the various equipment options disclosed for producing…at least two chromatography columns”, (See paragraph [0118], Cacace), in which it can “reduce the volumes of the eluants”, (See paragraph [0107], Cacace).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerde et al., (“Gjerde”, US 2005/0045543) in view of Gjerde et al., (“Gjerde 2”, US 6,355,791), in further view of Hong et al., (“Hong”, US 2017/0197942).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Gjerde discloses the cartridge of claim 10 but does not disclose wherein a length of the sorbent bed is between about 1 inch (2.54 cm) and about 1.25 inches (3.175 cm), when an internal diameter of the body is between 0.2 inches (0.5 cm) and 0.25 inches (0.635 cm).
Hong discloses wherein a length of the sorbent bed is between about 1 inch (2.54 cm) and about 1.25 inches (3.175 cm), when an internal diameter of the body is between 0.2 inches (0.5 cm) and 0.25 inches (0.635 cm), (See paragraph [0073], [0061], [0062], Hong; The length of the column where the bed is placed is 30 to 200 mm or 3 cm to 20 cm, anticipating the claimed range from 3 to 3.175 cm. The ID of the column where the bed is placed is 1 mm to 5 mm or 0.1 to 0.5 cm, anticipating the claimed range at 0.5 cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of modified Gjerde by incorporating wherein a length of the sorbent bed is between about 1 inch (2.54 cm) and about 1.25 inches (3.175 cm), when an internal diameter of the body is between 0.2 inches (0.5 cm) and 0.25 inches (0.635 cm) as in Hong “in view of the desired…flow rate” in which “higher efficiency” will “yield faster and more sensitive separations”, (See paragraph [0060], Hong), “depending on the column dimension chosen and optimization necessary”, (See paragraph [0074], Hong).
Claim(s) 13 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerde et al., (“Gjerde”, US 2005/0045543), in view of Gjerde et al., (“Gjerde 3”, US 2009/0223893).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Gjerde discloses the cartridge of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the sorbent is a size exclusion sorbent.
Gjerde 3 discloses wherein the sorbent is a size exclusion sorbent, (See paragraph [0146]; Gjerde 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of modified Gjerde by incorporating wherein the sorbent is a size exclusion sorbent as in Gjerde 3 because it is used in “size exclusion chromatography” which “is a powerful technology for separting or treating analytes, including biomolecules” and “is one of primary tools used for preparing protein samples prior to analysis”, (See paragraph [0003], Gjerde 3).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Gjerde discloses the cartridge of claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the sorbent is a dextran sorbent.
Gjerde 3 discloses wherein the sorbent is a dextran sorbent, (See paragraph [0009], [0042]; Gjerde 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cartridge of modified Gjerde by incorporating wherein the sorbent is a dextran sorbent as in Gjerde 3 because “the advantages of this method include good separation of large molecules from the small molecules with a minimal volume of eluent and that various buffers can be used”, (See paragraph [0042], Gjerde 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779