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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nie (CN 107356653, machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Nie teaches an electrophoresis tank (Fig. 8; p. 9, para. 2: electrophoresis apparatus) with a splicing function (Fig. 8; p. 9, para. 2: the electrophoresis tray 3 has a splicing structure), comprising:
an electrophoresis tank body (p. 9, para. 2: tray small pieces 35), provided with an accommodation chamber (p. 8, para. 3: the electrophoresis tank tray 3 is provided with an opening for each of the electrophoresis tanks 4; e.g., Fig. 12: the electrophoresis tank is a vertical electrophoresis tank 44 including an accommodation chamber) and a first slot for communicating the accommodation chamber with outside (Fig. 10: as annotated, the first tray small piece 35 having a slot structure, e.g., slots 351 on the right side and the bottom side, that would be able to connect the second and the third tray pieces 35; further, this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987));
PNG
media_image1.png
810
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a connecting frame (Fig. 9-10: sides of the tray small pieces 35; e.g., p. 9, para. 3: tray mechanism 9, as well as the side hole 351, 352), provided at a side of the electrophoresis tank body to connect two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies (Fig. 9-10: as annotated, e.g., the vertical tray mechanism 9, which is used to connect the first and the third tray small pieces 35); and
a plurality of first wiring terminals, arranged on the connecting frame (Fig. 9; p. 9, para. 3: the second conductive contacts 321 and the fourth conductive contacts 354 disposed in the contact side holes 352 of the longitudinal sides, which are electrically connected to the conductive contacts 93 of the tray mechanism 9), wherein when the two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies are connected through the connecting frames, the plurality of first wiring terminals on a first electrophoresis tank body are allowed to be connected to the plurality of first wiring terminals on a second electrophoresis tank body, wherein a series or parallel connection of circuits between the two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies is allowed (this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims, and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; the prior art apparatus has the identical structure as recited, and thus the plurality of first wiring terminals on a first electrophoresis tank body and the plurality of first wiring terminals on a second electrophoresis tank body would be able to be connected and a series or parallel connection of circuits between these two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies would also be able to be allowed).
Regarding claim 9, Nie teaches wherein the connecting frame is provided with a plurality of hollow slots (Fig. 9: slots 351, 352 and the slot accommodating tray mechanism 9 on the right and bottom sides).
Regarding claim 10, Nie teaches a first tank cover provided on the first slot of the electrophoresis tank body (Fig. 2: indicating a cover with terminals and terminal guides on the tray small pieces), wherein the first tank cover is provided with a plurality of terminal caps (Fig. 2; e.g., p. 5, last para.: positive positioning guide column 31, negative positioning guide column 32); at least two of the plurality of terminal caps are in a position correspondence with the first wiring terminal (Fig. 2: the positive positioning guide column 31 and the negative positioning guide column 32 corresponding to the first conductive contact piece 311 and the second conductive contact piece 312 respectively); and the plurality of terminal caps are connected through a connection terminal (Fig. 2; p. 6, para. 3: the power connection part 7), wherein the series or parallel connection of the circuits between the two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies is allowed (this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims, and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; the prior art apparatus has the identical structure as recited, and thus the series or parallel connection of the circuits between the two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies is able to be allowed).
Regarding claim 11, Nie teaches wherein the connecting frame and the electrophoresis tank body are detachably connected or integrate (Fig. 9-10: the tray mechanism 9 is detachably connected and the side holes 351, 352 are integrated to the tray small piece 35).
Regarding claim 12, Nie teaches wherein the plurality of electrophoresis tanks are arranged linearly (Fig. 10: the first and second small tray pieces are linearly arranged).
Regarding claim 20, Nie teaches wherein the plurality of electrophoresis tanks are arranged linearly (Fig. 10: the first and second small tray pieces are linearly arranged).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie in view of Becker (US 6,063,250).
Regarding claim 2, Nie discloses all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the connecting frame comprises a clamping boss and a clamping groove adapted to the clamping boss; and when the two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies are connected, the clamping boss of the first electrophoresis tank body is clamped into the clamping groove of the second electrophoresis tank body, or the clamping groove of the first electrophoresis tank body is clamped on the clamping boss of the second electrophoresis tank body.
However, Becker teaches an electrophoresis running tank assembly including a running tank and a power supply holder that is integral to the running tank (Fig. 1; [Abstract]). The power supply holder 14 defines a power supply bay 30 that receives the inserted power supply 34 (Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 5-7). Inside the holder 14, the side walls have identical left and right elongated flanges 78 (Fig. 1; col. 6, ll. 61-64), corresponding to the snap arms 84 formed on the power supply 34 (Fig. 1; col. 7, ll. 1-3). Thus, Becker teaches a connecting frame comprising a clamping boss (Fig. 1: flange 78) and a clamping groove (Fig. 1: snap arm 84) adapted to the clamping boss).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nie by adopting the connecting frame composed of flange and groove as taught by Becker for connecting two components because it is a suitable connecting mechanism known in the art. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). As a result, the combined Nie and Becker would necessarily result in when two adjacent tray small pieces are connected, the clamping boss of the first tray small piece is clamped into the clamping groove of the second tray small piece (Nie, Fig. 9-10; Becker, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Nie and Becker discloses all limitations of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the clamping boss is provided with second slots; the clamping groove is provided with first bosses, the first bosses are adapted to the second slots; and when the two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies are connected through the second slots and the first bosses, the electrophoresis tank bodies are located on a same horizontal plane.
However, Becker teaches the snap arms terminate in respective hemispherical detents 86 (Fig. 1; col. 7, ll. 3-4), and when the power supply 34 has been fully advanced into the bay 30, the detents 86 are juxtaposed with the respective indents 82 and the arms 84 consequently snap outwardly to snappingly engage the detents 85 with the respective indents 82, thereby holding the power supply 34 in the power supply bay 30 (col. 7, ll. 14-18). Thus, Becker teaches the clamping boss is provided with second slots (Fig. 1; indents 82), the clamping groove is provided with first bosses (Fig. 1: detents 85), the first bosses are adapted to the second slots (col. 7, ll. 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nie by adopting the connecting mechanism as taught by Becker for connecting two components because it is a suitable connecting mechanism known in the art. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). As a result, the combined Nie and Becker would necessarily result in when two adjacent tray small pieces are connected (Nie, Fig. 9-10) through the second slots and the first bosses (Becker, Fig. 1: 82, 86), the tray small pieces are located on the same horizontal plane (Nie, Fig. 9-10; Becker, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Nie and Becker discloses all limitations of claim 6, and wherein the second slots are provided along a side of the connecting frame (Becker, Fig. 1: the indents 82 are along a side of the connecting frame, i.e., the left wall of the power supply bay 30). As a result, the combined Nie and Becker would necessarily result in when the two adjacent tray small pieces are connected (Nie, Fig. 9-10), the clamping boss on the connecting frame of one tray small piece abuts against the connecting frame of the second tray small piece (Nie, Fig. 9-10; Becker, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Nie teaches wherein the plurality of electrophoresis tanks are arranged linearly (Fig. 10: the first and second small tray pieces are linearly arranged).
Regarding claim 16, Nie teaches wherein the plurality of electrophoresis tanks are arranged linearly (Fig. 10: the first and second small tray pieces are linearly arranged).
Regarding claim 17, Nie teaches wherein the plurality of electrophoresis tanks are arranged linearly (Fig. 10: the first and second small tray pieces are linearly arranged).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-4, 7-8, 14-15, and 18-19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of claims 3-4, 7-8, 14-15, and 18-19 with particular attention to the limitations:
wherein the electrophoresis tank body and the connecting frame are at a preset angle; and the electrophoresis tank body is inclined relative to the connecting frame through the preset angle, wherein the two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies are misaligned (claim 3 and its dependent claim 4 and 14-15);
wherein the connecting frame is provided with a first mounting plate at one side of the clamping boss; a first reinforcing rib is provided between the first mounting plate and the clamping boss; the first mounting plate is provided with second wiring terminals, as well as first clearance grooves, wherein the first clearance grooves are in a position correspondence with the second slots; and when the two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies are connected, the first mounting plate on the connecting frame of the second electrophoresis tank body abuts against the connecting frame of the first electrophoresis tank body (claim 7 and its dependent claim 8 and 18-19).
Here, Nie teaches an electrophoresis apparatus having the electrophoresis tray 3 having a splicing structure (Fig. 8; p. 9, para. 2). The tray small pieces 35 accommodating electrophoresis tanks 4 (Fig. 12), and the tray small pieces 35 have connecting frames to be connected with adjacent tray small pieces (Fig. 9-10). The connecting frame has a plurality of terminals (Fig. 9) which are allowed to be connected for the circuit connections. Further, Becker teaches a connecting frame (Fig. 1: e.g., for connecting the power supply component 34 to the power supply holder 14 abuts the electrophoresis running tank 12 by inserting it into the power supply bay 30). The connecting frame is composed of a clamping boss (Fig. 1: flange 78) and a clamping groove (Fig. 1: snap arm 84) adapted with each other. Further, the clamping boss includes second slots (Fig. 1; indents 82), and the clamping groove includes first bosses (Fig. 1: detents 85) adapted to each other (col. 7, ll. 14-18). Neither of them teaches the electrophoresis tank body is inclined relative to the connecting frame so that the two adjacent electrophoresis tank bodies are misaligned (e.g., claim 3) or a reinforcing rib is between a mounting plate and the clamping boss, or the mounting plate includes additional wiring terminals and clearance grooves (e.g., claim 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights