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 third sentence lacks a subject-verb grammatical structure, and is a long run-on sentence. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 2 of the Specification, please delete the phrase “is support” from the phrase “is support is slidable” in paragraph [0012].
On page 2 of the Specification, please replace the word “maybe” with the phrase “may be” in paragraph [0013].
On page 7 of the Specification, please replace the word “place” with the word “placed” in the second to last paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the recesses” on line 8 & 11 should be rewritten as “the first and second recesses” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the gripping surfaces” on line 2 should be rewritten as “the first and second gripping surfaces” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the recesses” on line 4 should be rewritten as “the first and second recesses” for consistency. 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 4, 5, 9, 12 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 4 recites the limitation “the bias”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the bias”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a clamp” on line 1. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “clamp” that is later imported from Claim 1, or if it is different.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a support” on line 1. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “support” that is later imported from Claim 1, or if it is different.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lundkvist, (US 2012/0043450).
Regarding Claims 1-3 & 5-12, Lundkvist discloses a clamp, (See Abstract), wherein the clamp comprises:
- a first gripping surface comprising a first recess for accommodating a support, (Resilient Arm 1a which has Locking Part 7a which includes recesses, and Column Grip Arm 15a, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0016] & [0013]);
- a second gripping surface comprising a second recess for accommodating the support, (Resilient Arm 1b which has Locking Part 7b which includes recesses, and Column Grip Arm 15b, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0016] & [0013]);
- the first gripping surface and second gripping surface being connected at one end to a hinge, movable between a first position and a second position, (Resilient Arm 1a/Grip Arm 15a are joined to Resilient Arm 1b/Grip Arm 15b via Bend 19, See Figure 3 and See Figures 2a-d, See paragraph [0016] & [0015]);
- the hinge defining, in the first position, a first angle between the first gripping surface and the second gripping surface, (Resilient Arm 1a/Grip Arm 15a are joined to Resilient Arm 1b/Grip Arm 15b via Bend 19, See Figure 3 and See Figures 2a-d, See paragraph [0016] & [0015], in Figure 2d the open default position has a wider angle), wherein the recesses provide a clamping force against the support, and defining in the second position, a second angle between the first gripping surface and the second gripping surface, (Resilient Arm 1a/Grip Arm 15a are joined to Resilient Arm 1b/Grip Arm 15b via Bend 19, See Figure 3 and See Figures 2a-d, See paragraph [0016] & [0015], in Figures 2b & c, the arms are pushed together in a closed/secured position, smaller angle), where the clamp is slidable along the support within the recesses, (Resilient Arms 1a/1b each have Locking Parts 7a/7b which each have recesses/notches in which they are pushed together, put into the T-groove 11 of the support and turned/slid to secure the overall column holder to this support/groove 11).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: A clamp according to claim 1, wherein the second angle is smaller than the first angle (Resilient Arm 1a and Resilient Arm 1b with their Locking Parts 7a/7b are squeezed together forming a second, smaller angle as particularly shown in Figure 2c versus the wider, open angle in Figure 2d, and See Figure 3 and See Figures 2a-d, See paragraph [0016] & [0015],).
Claim 3: A clamp according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the hinge is biased to the first position, (Resilient Arm 1a and Resilient Arm 1b with their Locking Parts 7a/7b are set in the wider, open angle in Figure 2d, and See Figure 3 and See Figures 2a-d, See paragraph [0016] & [0015],).
Claim 5: A clamp according to claim 1, wherein the bias is provided by a solid state hinge, (Resilient Arm 1a/Grip Arm 15a are joined to Resilient Arm 1b/Grip Arm 15b via Bend 19, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0016] & [0013]; the arms are joined via this bend, a unitary “solid” hinge that can be squeezed or compressed).
Claim 6: A clamp according to claim 1, wherein the hinge is moved to the second position by compression of the first gripping surface and second gripping surface towards each other, (Resilient Arm 1a and Resilient Arm 1b with their Locking Parts 7a/7b are squeezed together as particularly shown in Figure 2c, See Figure 3, See Figure 2a-d, See paragraph [0016] & [0015]; the arms are joined via this bend, a unitary “solid” hinge that can be squeezed or compressed).
Claim 7: A clamp according to claim 1, wherein the first gripping surface further comprises at least one protrusion extending from the first gripping surface, (Resilient Arm 1a with Locking Part 7a have protrusions extending in the form of Column Grip Arm 15a, See Figure 3, See Figure 4, See paragraph [0016] & [0018]).
Claim 8: A clamp according to claim 1, wherein the second gripping surface further comprises at least one protrusion extending from the second gripping surface, (Resilient Arm 1b with Locking Part 7b have protrusion extending in the form of Column Grip Arm 15b, See Figure 3, See Figure 4, See paragraph [0016] & [0018]).
Claim 9: A clamp according to claim 7, wherein the at least one protrusion extends in substantially the same plane as the surface, (Resilient Arm 1a extends roughly parallel to Column Grip Arm 15a, See Figure 3, 4, See paragraph [0016] & [0018]).
Claim 10: A clamp to claim 7, wherein the at least one protrusion is adapted to receive a chromatography column, (Column Grip Arms 15a/b grip/hold Column 33, See Figure 4, See paragraph [0018]).
Claim 11: A clamp according to claim 1, wherein the support is substantially perpendicular to the gripping surfaces, (Locking Parts 7a/7b and Resilient Arms 1a/b extend outwards from Groove 11a which is perpendicular, See Figure 2a-d, Figure 3, See paragraphs [0016], [0018]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lundkvist discloses a method of attaching a clamp to a support comprising: (e) Providing a clamp as defined in claim 1, (See rejection of Claim 1 above); (f) Moving the hinge from the first position to the second position, (See Figure 2b, See paragraph [0016], [0015]), (g) Positioning the clamp such that the support is positioned inside the recesses, (See Figures 2b/2c, See paragraph [0016], [0015]); and (h) Returning the hinge to the first position, (See Figure 2d, See paragraph [0016], [0015]).
Claim(s) 1-3 & 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Prentice et al., (“Prentice”, US 2006/0008390).
Regarding Claims 1-3 & 7-12, Prentice discloses a clamp, (See Abstract, SEe Figure 8), wherein the clamp comprises:
- a first gripping surface comprising a first recess for accommodating a support, (Grasper 24 with Orifice/Recess 30 for interacting with column fitting, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]);
- a second gripping surface comprising a second recess for accommodating the support, (Latch 50 with Channel/Recess 52 for interacting with column fitting, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]);
- the first gripping surface and second gripping surface being connected at one end to a hinge, movable between a first position and a second position, (Grasper 24 and Latch 50 joined by nut/hinge that slides/turns, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]);
- the hinge defining, in the first position, a first angle between the first gripping surface and the second gripping surface, (See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]; open position, wider angle), wherein the recesses provide a clamping force against the support, and defining in the second position, a second angle between the first gripping surface and the second gripping surface, (See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]; closed/secured position, smaller angle), where the clamp is slidable along the support within the recesses, (Grasper 24 and Latch 50 joined by nut/hinge that slides/turns, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]; clamp is capable of sliding along column fitting).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: A clamp according to claim 1, wherein the second angle is smaller than the first angle (See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]; open position, wider angle vs. closed/secured position, smaller angle).
Claim 3: A clamp according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the hinge is biased to the first position, (See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]; open positio).
Claim 7: A clamp according to claim 1, wherein the first gripping surface further comprises at least one protrusion extending from the first gripping surface, (Orifice 30 is defined by protrusions on either side on Grasper 24, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]).
Claim 8: A clamp according to claim 1, wherein the second gripping surface further comprises at least one protrusion extending from the second gripping surface, (Channel 52 is defined by protrusions on either side on Latch 50, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]).
Claim 9: A clamp according to claim 7, wherein the at least one protrusion extends in substantially the same plane as the surface, (Protrusions extend in same perpendicular plane as rest of Grasper 24/Interface 14, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]).
Claim 10: A clamp to claim 7, wherein the at least one protrusion is adapted to receive a chromatography column, (Column fitting which includes column is received into Orifice 30, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]; See Figures 9-11 for further demonstration).
Claim 11: A clamp according to claim 1, wherein the support is substantially perpendicular to the gripping surfaces, (Column fitting is received into Orifice 30 will be perpendicular, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]; See Figures 9-11 for further demonstration).
Regarding Claim 12, Prentice discloses a method of attaching a clamp to a support comprising: (e) Providing a clamp as defined in claim 1, (See rejection of Claim 1 above); (f) Moving the hinge from the first position to the second position, (Column fitting which includes column is received into Orifice 30, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]; See Figures 9-11 for further demonstration), (g) Positioning the clamp such that the support is positioned inside the recesses, (Column fitting which includes column is received into Orifice 30, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]; See Figures 9-11 for further demonstration); and (h) Returning the hinge to the first position, (Column fitting which includes column is received into Orifice 30, See Figure 8, See paragraph [0047]; See Figures 9-11 for further demonstration).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundkvist, (US 2012/0043450), in view of Loraing et al., (“Loraing”, US 2022/0236235).
Regarding Claim 4, Lundkvist discloses a clamp according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the bias is provided by a spring.
Loraing discloses a clamp wherein the bias is provided by a spring, (See paragraphs [0075] & [0102], Loraing).
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 clamp of Lundkvist by incorporating wherein the bias is provided by a spring as in Loraing for operating with “an additional biasing force” that will be “advantageously…biased…for further strengthening created connections”, (See paragraph [0102], Loraing).
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