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 II, Claims 1-4, 6-7, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, 32, 48-49, and 86-87 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 47, 52, and 85 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/2025.
Examiner’s Note: the claims belonging to elected Group II have been changed pursuant to Applicant’s amendments to change some of the claims in the instant claim set received 11/24/2025 to depend from Claim 32, the independent claim of Group II as shown in the Restriction Requirement mailed 10/3/2025. Further, although Claim 47 has been mistakenly identified with the status identifier “(Previously Presented)” in the instant claim set, it should have been identified with the status identifier “(Withdrawn)”, as Claim 47 and its dependent claims were drawn to non-elected Group III, as shown in the Restriction Requirement mailed 10/3/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, 32, 47-49, 52 and 85-87 are pending, with claims 1-4, 6-7, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, 32, 48-49, and 86-87 being examined, and claims 47, 52, and 85 deemed withdrawn. Claims 5, 8-13, 16, 18, 21, 24-25, 28-31, 33-46, 50-51, and 53-84 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) received on 6/24/2024, 7/18/2024, and 2/4/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 22, the limitation “a second elution buffer reservoir” has been examined as part of the purification cartridge. This interpretation is corroborated by at least [0018]-[0019] of the instant Specification.
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 17 and 26 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.
Regarding claim 17, Ln. 2 recites, “a second mixing chamber”. However, none of the previous claims recite a first mixing chamber. Therefore, it is unclear if a first mixing chamber is present, that would necessitate the recited mixing chamber being referred to as a second mixing chamber. Further clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 26, Ln. 2 recites, “a third mixing chamber”. However, the only previous claim that recites a mixing chamber is claim 17, which recites, “a second mixing chamber”. Therefore, it is unclear if a first mixing chamber is present, that would necessitate the recited mixing chamber being referred to as a third mixing chamber. Further clarification is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 32, 1-4, 6-7, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, and 86-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andeshmand et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0047678; hereinafter Andeshmand; already of record on the IDS received 7/18/2024) in view of Braman et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0153078; hereinafter Braman; already of record on the IDS received 7/18/2024).
Regarding claim 32, Andeshmand discloses an apparatus for automated purification of a target biomolecule from a biological sample ([0015], [0192]-[0193], [0342], see Fig. 3). The apparatus comprises:
a casing having an internal compartment configured in size and shape for receiving a purification cartridge (see Fig. 3 at casing 2000).
Optionally, a selectively closable access door providing access to the internal compartment (optionally not included).
A pump assembly disposed within the internal compartment ([0251], see Figs. 48-49 at pneumatic subsystem 2130, which is within the instrument enclosure).
The purification cartridge is configured to receive from about 5 mL to about 5 L of biological sample (the purification cartridge is not positive recited. Nevertheless, Andeshmand teaches a purification cartridge that is capable of receiving from about 5 mL to about 5 L of biological sample in [0320]-[0321]).
Andeshmand fails to explicitly disclose that the pump assembly is configured to provide pumping action through peristaltic motion.
Braman is in the analogous field of systems for isolating biomolecules from samples (Braman [0003]). Braman teaches a peristaltic pump (Braman [0066]-[0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump in the apparatus of Andeshmand to be a peristaltic pump as in Braman, as Braman teaches that a peristaltic pump can be used to force liquids and air into a purification cartridge (Braman [0066]-[0067]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured in size and shape for receiving a purification cartridge…”, “configured to provide pumping action…”, “for receiving the biological sample”, etc.). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 1, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the purification cartridge comprises:
an input reservoir for receiving the biological sample;
a first bioprocessing assembly in fluid communication with the input reservoir and a lysis buffer reservoir, the first bioprocessing assembly configured to generate a lysate comprising target biomolecule;
a second bioprocessing assembly in fluid communication with the first bioprocessing assembly and a first elution buffer reservoir, the second bioprocessing assembly including a target-biomolecule-binding filter configured to retain the target biomolecule; and
a receptacle in fluid communication with the second bioprocessing assembly, the receptacle configured to receive an output container for receiving the target biomolecule from the second bioprocessing assembly (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 2, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the purification cartridge comprises a consumable cartridge (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 3, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the target biomolecule is a target protein or a target nucleic acid (the purification cartridge, and its associated first and second bioprocessing assemblies for generating a lysate comprising target biomolecule and retaining the target biomolecule, respectively, are not positively recited).
Regarding claim 4, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein (a) the purification cartridge further comprises an optical density detector window disposed between the input reservoir and the first bioprocessing assembly, the optical density detector window being configured to allow detection of an optical density of the biological sample, (b) the first bioprocessing assembly comprises a clarification filter, or both (a) and (b) (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 6, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the clarification filter is in fluid communication with the input reservoir and the lysis buffer reservoir, the clarification filter being configured to separate a target-biomolecule-containing portion of the biological sample from a first waste portion of the biological sample (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 7, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first bioprocessing assembly further comprises a cell capture filter disposed upstream of the clarification filter (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 14, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the target-biomolecule-binding filter of the second bioprocessing assembly comprises a silica-based filter or a column of beads having affinity for the target biomolecule (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 15, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein (a) the second bioprocessing assembly further comprises a purification reagent reservoir in fluid communication with the target-biomolecule-binding filter, (b) the target-biomolecule-binding filter, is in fluid communication with the first elution buffer reservoir and the output container, or both (a) and (b) (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 17, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the second bioprocessing assembly comprises a second mixing chamber disposed between the first bioprocessing assembly and the target-biomolecule-binding filter (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 19, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the target-biomolecule-binding filter is a nucleic-acid binding filter comprising an anion exchange membrane (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 20, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the second bioprocessing assembly comprises a precipitator membrane disposed downstream of the anion exchange membrane (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 22, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 20, further comprising a second elution buffer reservoir, the first elution buffer reservoir being fluidically coupled to the anion exchange membrane to enable elution of a target nucleic acid from the anion exchange membrane, and the second elution buffer reservoir being fluidically coupled to the precipitator membrane to enable elution of the target nucleic acid from the precipitator membrane (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 23, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the precipitator membrane is any one or more of (a) configured to separate a waste portion from a target-biomolecule-containing portion of the biological sample, (b) in fluid communication with a precipitation reagent reservoir, the precipitation reagent reservoir optionally comprising isopropanol, and (c) in fluid communication with a wash/desalting solution reservoir, the wash/desalting solution reservoir optionally comprising about 70% ethanol (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 26, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the second bioprocessing assembly comprises a third mixing chamber disposed between and in fluid communication with the anion exchange membrane and the precipitator membrane, wherein the third mixing chamber is fluidically coupled to a precipitation reagent reservoir and/or a desalting solution reservoir and is disposed between the precipitator membrane and the precipitation reagent reservoir and/or the desalting solution reservoir (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 27, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein (a) the output container is selectively detachable from the apparatus, (b) the input reservoir is sized and shaped to receive up to 5 L of biological sample, or both(a) and (b) (the purification cartridge is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 86, modified Andeshmand discloses an apparatus according to claim 32. Modified Andeshmand further discloses a method (Andeshmand; [0327]-[0328], [0342]-[0343]). The method comprises:
causing operation of an apparatus according to claim 32 so as to give rise to a purified form of the target molecule (Andeshmand; [0327]-[0328], [0342]-[0343]).
Regarding claim 87, modified Andeshmand discloses the method of claim 86. Modified Andeshmand further discloses that the target molecule is a target nucleic acid, and wherein the operation generates a lysate from the biological sample at a first bioprocessing assembly of the purification cartridge (Andeshmand; [0327]-[0328], [0342]-[0343]).
Claims 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andeshmand in view of Braman as applied to claims 32, 1-4, 6-7, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, and 86-87 above, and further in view of Regan (US Pub. No. 2008/0213872; already of record on the IDS received 7/18/2024).
Regarding claim 48, modified Andeshmand discloses the apparatus according to claim 32. Modified Andeshmand fails to explicitly disclose:
one or more processors; and
one or more hardware storage devices having stored thereon computer-executable instructions which are executable by the one or more processors to cause the control system to at least:
receive sensor data from one or more sensors to determine one or more process states of the apparatus;
compare the determined process states to a set of different protocols stored within a protocol library;
select a purification protocol from the protocol library based on the determined process states; and
carry out the selected purification protocol by causing one or more instrument actuators of the apparatus to operate according to the selected purification protocol.
Regan is in the analogous field of nucleic acid purification cartridges (Regan [0011]). Regan teaches one or more processors (Regan; [0040], [0074]), and one or more hardware storage devices storing computer-executable instructions executable by the one or more processors (Regan; [0040], [0074]) to cause a control system to at least: receive sensor data from one or more sensors to determine one or more process states of the apparatus (Regan; [0040], [0074]), compare the determined process states to a set of different protocols stored within a protocol library, select a purification protocol from the protocol library based on the determined process states, and carry out the selected purification protocol by causing one or more instrument actuators of the apparatus to operate according to the selected purification protocol (Regan; [0040], [0074]). The one or more sensors include a cartridge scanner (Regan; [0040], [0074]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Andeshmand with the teachings of Regan to include one or more processors; and one or more hardware storage devices having stored thereon computer-executable instructions which are executable by the one or more processors to cause the control system to at least: receive sensor data from one or more sensors to determine one or more process states of the apparatus; compare the determined process states to a set of different protocols stored within a protocol library; select a purification protocol from the protocol library based on the determined process states; and
carry out the selected purification protocol by causing one or more instrument actuators of the apparatus to operate according to the selected purification protocol. The motivation would have been to ensure that the proper purification protocol is performed on a specified cartridge, and to prevent against inserting the wrong cartridge in a specified application (Regan; [0040], [0074]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Andeshmand with the teachings of Regan so that the one or more sensors include a cartridge scanner, and Regan teaches that a cartridge scanner can be used to ensure that the correct cartridge is inserted into the apparatus for a specified application (Regan; [0040], [0074]).
Regarding claim 49, modified Andeshmand discloses the control system of claim 48. Modified Andeshmand further discloses that the one or more sensors include an optical density sensor, an access door sensor, a cartridge proximity or contact sensor, an output container proximity or contact sensor, a cartridge scanner, a timer, a temperature sensor, a weight sensor, a volumetric sensor, or combinations thereof (see Claim 48 above at Regan teaching a cartridge scanner in [0040], [0074]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 32, 1-4, 6-7, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22-23, and 26-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,528 (hereinafter the reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 32 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent.
Claim 1 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 2 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 3 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 4 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 6 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 7 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 14 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 15 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 17 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 19 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 20 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 22 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 23 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 26 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claim 27 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as the purification cartridge is not positively recited.
Claims 48-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent in view of Regan. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 48 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, except that the reference patent is silent on one or more processors; and
one or more hardware storage devices having stored thereon computer-executable instructions which are executable by the one or more processors to cause the control system to at least:
receive sensor data from one or more sensors to determine one or more process states of the apparatus;
compare the determined process states to a set of different protocols stored within a protocol library;
select a purification protocol from the protocol library based on the determined process states; and
carry out the selected purification protocol by causing one or more instrument actuators of the apparatus to operate according to the selected purification protocol.
Regan is in the analogous field of nucleic acid purification cartridges (Regan [0011]). Regan teaches one or more processors (Regan; [0040], [0074]), and one or more hardware storage devices storing computer-executable instructions executable by the one or more processors (Regan; [0040], [0074]) to cause a control system to at least: receive sensor data from one or more sensors to determine one or more process states of the apparatus (Regan; [0040], [0074]), compare the determined process states to a set of different protocols stored within a protocol library, select a purification protocol from the protocol library based on the determined process states, and carry out the selected purification protocol by causing one or more instrument actuators of the apparatus to operate according to the selected purification protocol (Regan; [0040], [0074]). The one or more sensors include a cartridge scanner (Regan; [0040], [0074]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of the reference patent with the teachings of Regan to include one or more processors; and one or more hardware storage devices having stored thereon computer-executable instructions which are executable by the one or more processors to cause the control system to at least: receive sensor data from one or more sensors to determine one or more process states of the apparatus; compare the determined process states to a set of different protocols stored within a protocol library; select a purification protocol from the protocol library based on the determined process states; and
carry out the selected purification protocol by causing one or more instrument actuators of the apparatus to operate according to the selected purification protocol. The motivation would have been to ensure that the proper purification protocol is performed on a specified cartridge, and to prevent against inserting the wrong cartridge in a specified application (Regan; [0040], [0074]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of the reference patent with the teachings of Regan so that the one or more sensors include a cartridge scanner, and Regan teaches that a cartridge scanner can be used to ensure that the correct cartridge is inserted into the apparatus for a specified application (Regan; [0040], [0074]).
Claim 49 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as modified by Regan (see the double patenting rejection of claim 48 above, where Regan teaches that the one or more sensors include a cartridge scanner in [0040], [0074]).
Claims 86-87 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent in view of Andeshmand. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 86 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, except that the reference patent is silent on a method comprising:
Causing operation of an apparatus according to claim 32 so as to give rise to a purified form of the target molecule.
Andeshmand is in the analogous field of purification cartridges (Andeshmand; [0015], [0192]-[0193], [0342], see Fig. 3). Andeshmand teaches causing operation of an apparatus so as to give rise to a purified form of a target molecule (Andeshmand; [0327]-[0328], [0342]-[0343]). The target molecule is a nucleic acid, and the operation generates a lysate from the biological sample at a first bioprocessing assembly of the purification cartridge (Andeshmand; [0327]-[0328], [0342]-[0343]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of the reference patent with the teachings of Andeshmand to include a method comprising causing operation of the apparatus so as to give rise to a purified form of the target molecule, where the target molecule is a target nucleic acid, and the operation generates a lysate from the biological sample at a first bioprocessing assembly of the purification cartridge. The motivation would have been that lysing a biological sample can disrupt cell walls and cell membranes to release nucleic acids from a cell (Andeshmand; [0309], [0327]-[0328]), and providing purified nucleic acids will isolate and/or enrich nucleic aids from a lysed sample (Andeshmand; [0309], [0342]-[0343]), thereby providing nucleic acids suitable for performing molecular diagnostic tests (Andeshmand [0008]).
Claim 87 is taught by claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent, as modified by Andeshmand (see the double patenting rejection of claim 86 above, where Andeshmand teaches a target nucleic acid and generating a lysate at a first bioprocessing assembly in [0327]-[0328], [0342]-[0343]).
Other References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mulakkapurath Narayanan et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0100182; hereinafter Narayanan) teaches an apparatus for automated purification of a target biomolecule from a biological sample ([0007], [0048], see Fig. 1). The apparatus comprises:
a casing having an internal compartment configured in size and shape for receiving a purification cartridge ([0048], see Fig. 1 at housing 101 including cartridge holder 102).
optionally, a selectively closable access door providing access to the internal compartment ([0048], see Fig. 1 at cartridge loading door 102A, which is selectively closable over recess 102B).
A pump assembly disposed within the internal compartment and configured to provide pumping action through peristaltic motion ([0048], [0060], see Fig. 1 at pump 105, which operates through peristaltic motion).
The purification cartridge is configured to receive from about 0.1 mL to about 3 mL of biological sample ([0063]-[0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798