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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/19/2024, 01/19/2026 and 09/01/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (TWI741832B) in view of MacBeath et al. (US 20030026739 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches a purification apparatus (concentrator) that purifies a sample (concentrates liquid sample by removing solvent, and consequently purifies the sample from the solvent), the purification apparatus comprising:
a container (test tube rack 42 with test tubes 90, Fig. 3) where the sample is to be accommodated;
a heating apparatus (heating wires 329 + insulating plate 321 + base 31) arranged below the container, the heating apparatus configured to heat the sample accommodated in the container (generate high heat);
a heat conduction plate (322) arranged between the container and the heating apparatus, the heat conduction plate having a first main surface (top surface of 322) thermally connected to the container and a second main surface (bottom surface of 322) thermally connected to the heating apparatus and located opposite to the first main surface (Fig. 5);
a sealing member (waterproof gasket 323) peripherally arranged around the container (Fig. 3) on the first main surface (Figs. 3 and 5, waterproof gasket 323 is between 322 and 33); and
a support plate (33) arranged as being stacked on the first main surface around the container on the first main surface, wherein
Hong teaches a laboratory apparatus comprises a water bath with a liquid connecting space 300 that is defined by heating plate 322 and substrate 33 (Fig. 5 and p. 5, 3rd para – p.6, 1st para.) Hong further teaches waterproof gasket 323 is disposed between the heating plate 322 and substate 33 to provide water tightness for the connecting space (p. 6, 1st para.). Hong teaches the waterproof gasket 323 is made of an elastic material (p. 6, 1st para.) does not disclose a specific elastic material and thus fails to the sealing member (waterproof gasket 323) is thermally insulating.
However, MacBeath teach a laboratory apparatus that comprises a gasket for providing water-tight seal (para. 0008). MacBeath further teaches the gasket is made of silicone (paras. 0046 and 0094), an elastic material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the material of the waterproof gasket 323 taught by Hong with silicone as taught by MacBeath because it was recognized that silicone was an alternative to a elastic material for gasket and would provide reversible, water-tight seals between surfaces (MacBeath, para. 0046), and simple substitution of one known element (undisclosed water-proof material for gasket) for another element (silicone) is likely to be obvious when predictable results (provide a material for a gasket to achieve water-tight seal) are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The teachings of Hong as modified by MacBeath would yield the sealing member (waterproof gasket 323) is thermally insulating (silicone is thermally insulating).
Regarding claim 2, Hong teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Hong further teaches wherein the first main surface is in contact with
Regarding claim 6, Hong teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Hong teaches the apparatus further comprising a discharge port (the opening of one of the test tubes 90) provided in the container for discharge of a waste solution in the container (interpreted as a functional limitation. The waste solution is not positively recited. the opening of one of the 90 is structurally capable of discharging a waste solution in the container).
Regarding claim 7, Hong teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Hong further teaches wherein the container (test tube rack 42 with test tubes 90, Fig. 3) is dividable into a first member and a second member (dividable into tube rack 42 and one of test tubes 90) .
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (TWI741832B) in view of Guo et al. (US 20190101477 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hong teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Hong further teaches the purification apparatus further comprising:
a first port (the opening of the first test tube 90 from left shown in Fig. 5) for introduction into the container, of a decomposition solution for treatment of a contaminant contained in the sample (interpreted as function limitation. The decomposition solution or sample are not positively recited. The opening of the first test tube 90 from the left in Fig. 5 is structurally capable of for introduction into the container a decomposition solution for treatment of a sample);
a second port (the opening of the second test tube 90 from left shown in Fig. 5) for introduction into the container, of a heavy solution for separation of the sample based on a specific gravity difference (interpreted as function limitation. The heavy solution or sample are not positively recited. The opening of the second test tube 90 from the left in Fig. 5 is structurally capable of for introduction into the container a heavy solution for separation of a sample);
Hong teaches an apparatus comprising a container including a rack of test tubes in an array format (Figs. 2 and 3). Hong teaches a liquid sample in each of the test tubes is being concentrated/purified through heating and subsequent removal of unwanted solvent in the sample. Hong does not teach how a liquid sample is being introduced or removed from the test tube and thus fails to a discharge portion for discharge of a supernatant produced by introduction of the heavy solution to outside of the container, and further fails to teach a control device that controls introduction of the decomposition solution through the first port and introduction of the heavy solution through the second port.
However, Guo teaches an automated system comprising a container (rack) with compartments in an array format (Figs. 1, 4a). Guo further teaches the system comprises a liquid handling platform comprises x-, y-, z- arms 3, 4, 5 and dispensing nozzle 6 controlled by a controller (para.18 ) for dispensing and aspirating liquid into and out of the compartments of the rack (Fig. 1, para. 0020, 0071). Guo teaches the system allows for automated dispensing and aspirating of liquid into an array of compartments of a container (abstract, Fig. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Hong with the addition of a liquid handling platform comprises x-, y-, z- arms and dispensing nozzle controlled by a controller in order to enable automated dispensing and aspirating of liquid into an array of compartments of a container (Guo, abstract, Fig. 1) with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of Hong as modified by Guo would yield a discharge portion (dispensing nozzle 6) for discharge of a supernatant produced by introduction of the heavy solution to outside of the container (dispensing nozzle aspirating liquid, para. 0020), and a control device (controller, para. 0018) that controls introduction of the decomposition solution through the first port and introduction of the heavy solution through the second port (dispensing liquid, para. 0020).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (TWI741832B) in view of Parra (NPL, YouTube, “How to Recrystallize a solid”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfzcBhr1zmE&t=5s, July 17, 2020, accessed on 9/13/20256) in view of MIT Lab Manual (NPL, MIT Department of Chemistry, Laboratory Manual 5.301, Chemistry Laboratory Techniques, 2013), and further in view of Thermo Scientific (Super-Nuova Multi-Place Stirrer and Stirring Hot Plates Operation Manual, 10/27/2009).
Regarding claim 5, Hong teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Hong teaches a purification apparatus for concentrating/purifying a liquid sample by removing a solvent in the sample (p. 2, 1st para.). Hong teaches the purification apparatus comprises heating apparatus on body unit 2 (Figs. 2 and 4, p. 5) and a container including a rack of test tubes (Figs. 2 and 3) being heat in water bath (p.2, 2nd para.) by the heating apparatus. Hong teaches the purification apparatus comprises multiple test tubes enabling multiple samples to be heated simultaneously (p.2, 2nd para.). Hong does not teach purifying a solid sample and thus fails to teach wherein the heating apparatus is a constant-temperature stirrer, the purification apparatus further comprises a stirring bar provided in inside of the container, the stirring bar stirring the sample with magnetic force from the heating apparatus, and the heat conduction plate is a non-magnetic element.
However, Parra teaches purification of a solid sample by recrystallization in a test tube (Title, 0:47 sec ). Parra teaches recrystallization involves the steps of heating the solid sample impurity in a water bath (0:47) dissolving the solid sample in a solvent (2:06), such that the sample with impurity is dissolved into the solvent (3:03).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified they purification method taught by Hong with the steps of heating up and dissolving a solid sample in the recrystallization method taught by Parra (0:47 and 2:06) using the apparatus of Hong in order to perform steps of recrystallization toward purifying solid samples (0:47, 2:06 and 3:40-4:00) in multiple simultaneously (Hong, a plurality of test tubes to be heated simultaneously) with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Modified Hong further teaching stirring to help the solid sample to be dissolved in the solvent (Parra, 2:56-2:59). Modified Hong teach manual stirring using a rod (Parra, 2:56-2:59), and thus does not teach the heating step of recrystallization thus fails to teach wherein the heating apparatus is a constant-temperature stirrer, the purification apparatus further comprises a stirring bar provided in inside of the container, the stirring bar stirring the sample with magnetic force from the heating apparatus, and the heat conduction plate is a non-magnetic element.
However, MIT Lab Manual teaches recrystallization (pp. 28-30). MIT Lab Manual further teaches in the heating step of recrystallization, the mixture in the reaction vessel is being stirred using a magnetic stirrer on a hot plate stirrer (p. 30, “Experimental”). In addition, Thermo Scientific teaches a multi-position hot plate stirrer that can heat and stir multiple reaction vessels simultaneously and automatically.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating apparatus and body 2 taught by modified Hong with a hot-plate stirrer capable of automatically and simultaneously stirring multiple reaction vessels as taught by MIT Lab Manual (p. 30, Figure with a flask on stir plate) and Thermo Scientific (p. 8); and to have modified the container (test tube rack 42 with test tubes 90) with the corresponding number of the test tubes the hot-plate stirrer can accommodate and to include a stir bar in each test tube, because such modification enable the automatic, simultaneous stirring of multiple test tubes in the heating step (Thermo Scientific, p. 8) with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G). The claimed limitation are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and a POSITA 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 (an apparatus that can provide stirring during heating step of recrystallization). See MPEP 2143(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/M.L.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights