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 § 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.
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) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al (CN 107281222, 10/24/2017, cited by applicants) in view of Ekemar A (US 20040045958 A1), Ekemar B (US 6191402 B1) and Westin et al (US 20190014624 A1, cited by applicants).
Hou et al teaches separation of cryoprecipitate from fresh frozen plasma by thawing the plasma using variable frequency microwave energy (electromagnetic waves) then removal of the supernatant from the cryoprecipitate. See pages 1-2, 4 of the English translation. Hou et al do not teach a specific electromagnetic frequency for their methods, indicating that prior methods used a typical microwave frequency of 2450 MHz, which typically leads to inferior results due to overheating (page 4, third and fourth full ¶’s). Hou et al teach their solution is to use microwaves at a low temperature setting, e.g. 50C.
Ekemar A teaches problems associated with overheating blood products by microwave techniques (abstract, ¶’s [0001]-[0008]) and their solution is to use electromagnetic/dielectric heating at a lower frequency, preferably below 300 MHZ and exemplified at 135 MHz (¶’s [0013]-[0014], [0034]-[0035]). Ekemar B teaches the use of electromagnetic frequencies of from 1-299 MHz, or 100-299MHz in methods of heating organic materials, e.g. blood, (abstract, col. 1, lines 23-26; col. 3, lines 39-45).
In similar methods as Ekemar A, Westin et al teach methods of thawing frozen blood plasma using electromagnetic energy at a frequency of 135MHz (abstract, ¶’s [0001]-[0002], ¶ [ 0027]).
The claimed methods of producing a cryoprecipitate are essentially disclosed by Hou et al with the exception of the specific electromagnetic frequency used. The ordinary skilled artisan, seeking a method to prepare cryoprecipitate from frozen plasma, would have been motivated to use electromagnetic frequencies of 1-299MHz, with emphasis on frequencies near 135 Mhz, with the methods of Gou et al because Ekemar A, Ekemar B and Westin et al teach these frequencies to be a well-known means for thawing plasma in order to avoid the same problems of overheating as taught by Hou et al. It would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to do this because of the known benefit of generating cryoprecipitate for administration as taught by Hou et al. Given the teachings of the cited references and the level of skill of the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of applicants’ invention, it must be considered, absent evidence to the contrary, that the ordinary skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in practicing the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Burkhart whose telephone number is (571)272-2915. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Tracy Vivlemore can be reached at 571 272-2914. 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.
/MICHAEL D BURKHART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638
