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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 are pending with claims 1-10 being examined.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claims 1-8 recites “the cooling module” in various places. There is lack of antecedent basis for subsequent recitations of this limitation in the claims since claim 1 initially recites “at least one cooling module” in line 13. Subsequent recitations of the limitation in the claims will be interpreted as “the at least one cooling module” for consistency and clarity.
Dependent claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on base claim 1 in addition to lack of antecedent basis for limitations recited therein.
As to line 2 and 3 of claim 9, the “support’ lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
As to line 3 of claim 10, the “support’ lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Brown (US 20040149725 A1; hereinafter “Brown”).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a system for the automated preparation of a biological sample or of a biological mixture comprising at least one reagent and a biological sample or an eluate of the biological sample (Brown, Title), comprising at least:
a plate support (Brown; fig. 2. 90);
a plate comprising a body (Brown; fig. 2. 24), from which a plurality of wells extends that are configured to contain a reagent and/or a biological sample or a biological sample eluate containing at least nucleic acids (Brown; fig. 2. 24 and [0046] “wells for receiving DNA samples”), each well comprising an opening emerging onto the body of the plate and a bottom (Brown; fig. 2. 77), each well longitudinally extending in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction Z- Z' along which a surface of the body of the plate extends (Brown; fig. 4. 77, 110), the plate being at least partially housed in the plate support (Brown; fig. 2. 90 illustrates the plate partially housed in the plate support);
at least one cooling module (Brown; fig. 2. 20);
wherein the plate is positioned on the cooling module so that each well of the plate is partially inserted into the cooling module (Brown; fig. 7. 20, 22, 24), the body of the plate being at a predetermined distance from the cooling module so as to delimit a space between the body of the plate and the cooling module (Brown; fig. 6 and 7. 20, 24).
Regarding claim 2, Brown taches the system as claimed in claim 1 (see above), wherein the space formed between the cooling module and the body of the plate is provided with a thermal insulator (Brown; fig. 2. 70).
Regarding claim 3, Brown teaches the system as claimed in claim 2 (see above), comprising a peripheral seal (Brown; fig. 20. 76) arranged in the space between the cooling module and the body of the plate (Brown; fig. 20 and 21. 72, 76 and [0077] “plurality of bosses 76 with attachment holes for passage of attachment screws” implying some sort of seal between the insulating cover and the inside surface 72).
Regarding claim 4, Brown teaches the system as claimed in claim 2 (see above), comprising a vacuum chamber (Brown; fig. 5. 79) arranged between the body of the plate (Brown; fig. 5. 24) and the cooling module (Brown; fig. 5. 20 and [0072] “insulating cover is provided for insulating block 20”).
Regarding claim 5, Brown teaches the system as claimed in claim 2 (see above), comprising two distinct zones having a different temperature (Brown; fig. 2. 40, 80 and [0059] “Peltier heaters are capable of providing cooling”), the first zone being located between the body of the plate and a thermal insulator (Brown; fig. 2. 80, 110), the second zone being located in the vicinity of the cooling module and the temperature in the first zone being higher than the temperature within the second zone (Brown; fig. 2. 20, 40).
Regarding claim 6, Brown teaches the system as claimed in claim 5 (see above), comprising at least one heating component (Brown; fig. 2. 58) positioned in the vicinity of the body of the plate (Brown; fig. 2. 24, 58) and insulated from the cooling module (Brown; fig. 2, 58, 64).
Regarding claim 7, Brown teaches the system as claimed in claim 1 (see above), wherein the cooling module comprises a first part (Brown; fig. 21. 74) configured to engage with a portion of the plate (Brown; [0072] “inner surface 72 has a shape as the inner surface of the wells in order to encapsulate the wells”).
Regarding claim 8, Brown teaches the system as claimed in claim 7 (see above), wherein the first part of the cooling module has a plurality of cavities distributed over the surface of the first part (Brown; fig. 21. 77), each cavity being shaped so as to partially accommodate a well of the plate (Brown; [0074]).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Brown as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Williams et al (US 20090221059 A1; hereinafter “Williams”).
Regarding claim 9, Brown teaches the system as claimed in claim 1 (see above include a support (see above).
Brown fails to teach the system comprises a cover configured to fit with the support in a form fitting manner.
However, Williams teaches the analogous art of an apparatus for sample preparation (Wiliams; [0105] ”apparatus 981 for carrying out sample preparation”) that includes that includes a plate support (Williams; fig. 3B. 995 and [0123]), and a cover configured to fit with the support in a form fitting manner (Wiliams; fig. 3B 987, and [0123] “apparatus has a cover 987”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Brown’s support to include a cover configured to fit with the support as taught by Williams because Wiliams teaches an apparatus for sample preparation (Wiliams; [0105] ”apparatus 981 for carrying out sample preparation”) that includes that includes a plate support (Williams; fig. 3B. 995 and [0123]), and a cover configured to fit with the support in a form fitting manner (Wiliams; fig. 3B 987, and [0123] “apparatus has a cover 987”).
The modification allows to open and close the cover to access the interior of the housing and to close the housing (Williams; [0123]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Brown in view of Williams as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of Won et al. (US 20190329261 A1; hereinafter “Won”).
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches the system as claimed in claim 9 (see above) to include a cover (see above).
Brown fails to teach wherein the cover comprises at least one notch configured to engage with a lug of the support.
However, Won teaches the analogous art of an apparatus for sample preparation (Won; Abstract “apparatus for nucleic acid amplification”) that includes a cover (Won; fig. 2. 600), a support (Won; fig. 2. 120) wherein the cover includes at least one notch configured to engage with a lug of the support (Won; [0075] “support 120 may be provided with fasteners 124 which fastens to the cover”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Brown’s cover to include at least one notch configured to engage with a lug of the support as taught by Won because Won teaches an apparatus for sample preparation (Won; Abstract “apparatus for nucleic acid amplification”) that includes a cover (Won; fig. 2. 600), a support (Won; fig. 2. 120) wherein the cover includes at least one notch configured to engage with a lug of the support (Won; [0075] “support 120 may be provided with fasteners 124 which fastens to the cover”).
The modification allows to fasten the cover to the upper plate (Won; [0075]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
