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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/17/2025, 5/29/2025, 7/3/2025, and 9/5/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-5, 9 and 20-21, drawn to an electrotransfer cassette and a system, classified in G01N27/447.
II. Claims 26-28, drawn to a method of performing electrotransfer of biomolecules, classified in G01N27/44739.
III. Claims 31-34 and 38, drawn to a method of manipulating biomolecules, classified in G01N27/44743.
IV. Claims 35-37, drawn to a method of manipulating biomolecules, classified in G01N27/44713.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as separating proteins by gel electrophoresis.
Inventions I and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different electrotransfer cassette comprising two plastic plates clamped by clips.
Inventions I and IV are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different electrotransfer cassette comprising two plastic plates clamped by clips.
Inventions II and III are directed to related electrotransfer cassette. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect since invention II requires the electrotransfer cassette of claim 1 while invention III can be performed in another materially different electrotransfer cassette comprising two sealed plates without hinge and slider. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and IV are directed to related electrotransfer cassette. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect since invention II requires the electrotransfer cassette of claim 1 while invention III can be performed in another materially different electrotransfer cassette comprising two sealed plates without hinge and slider. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions III and IV are directed to related manipulating biomolecules with an electrotransfer cassette. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect since invention III requires the electrotransfer cassette having two plates that sealably enclose therebetween a transfer stack comprising at least a transfer membrane and a gel, while invention IV can be performed in another materially different electrotransfer cassette comprising two sealed plates without a transfer stack and transfer membrane. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired separate statuses in the art in view of their different statutory categories;
the inventions have acquired separate statuses in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries;
the prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention; and/or
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues (i.e., under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and/or 112).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Aaron B. Rabinowitz, the representative of applicant, on April 14, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-5, 9, and 20-22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 26-28 and 31-38 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37. CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 5, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: please amend “the inside of each plate” to – [[the]] an inside of each plate--.
Claim 5: please amend “at least three sides” to – the at least three sides--.
Claim 20: please amend “an electrotransfer cassette according to claim 1” to – [[an]] the electrotransfer cassette according to claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1, “two plates joined by a joining mechanism to allow the two plates to move between an open position and a closed position”, is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Prong 1: a joining mechanism (uses the generic placeholder), prong 2: to allow the two plates to move between an open position and a closed position (functional language), prong 3: sufficient structure for performing the function not recited. Therefore, claim 1 invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure for performing the functions is described in the specification (paragraph [0050] in PG-Pub) such as a joining mechanism of an electrotransfer cassette, comprise one or more of the following: a hinge, a plurality of hinges, a dis-connected hinge, a clamp, one or more hooks, one or more clips, mechanical components on both plates (or shells) that can slide and interlock, gluing, taping, bonding or welding two plates together, linkage designs, two plates connected by flexible material, or external components to join two plates.
Claim 1, “a locking mechanism to lock the two plates in the closed position”, is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Prong 1: a locking mechanism (uses the generic placeholder), prong 2: to lock the two plates in the closed position (functional language), prong 3: sufficient structure for performing the function not recited. Therefore, claim 1 invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure for performing the functions is described in the specification (paragraph [0057] in PG-Pub) such as a locking mechanism of an electrotransfer cassette of the present disclosure comprises a slider.
Claim 1, “a sealing mechanism operable to seal the two plates in the closed position to form a liquid-proof seal on at least three sides”, is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Prong 1: a sealing mechanism (uses the generic placeholder), prong 2: to seal the two plates in the closed position to form a liquid-proof seal on at least three sides (functional language), prong 3: sufficient structure for performing the function not recited. Therefore, claim 1 invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure for performing the functions is described in the specification (paragraph [0033] in PG-Pub) such as a sealing mechanism such as a gasket, or a clamping or securing mechanism inside a chamber/compartment.
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 1-5, 9 and 20-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the first plate”, which lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “the first plate” and “a second plate”, which are unclear if “the first plate” and “a second plate” are the same as or different than the two plates. Thus, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-5, 9 and 20-22 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “the plates”, which is unclear if the plates refer to the first and second plates or the two plates. Therefore, the scope of claim 5 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “the electrical connections”, which lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the scope of claim 20 is indefinite. Claims 21-22 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 20.
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.
(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, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Latham (US20110297544A1).
Regarding claim 1, Latham teaches an electrotransfer cassette (an electrotransfer cassette 11 [para. 0019; Fig.1]), comprising:
two plates (cathode support 12 and anode support 13 in Figs. 2-3 [para. 0019]) joined by a joining mechanism to allow the two plates to move between an open position and a closed position (Figs. 1 and 4 show the two plates are in a closed position, and Figs. 2-3 show the two plates are in an open position; the anode support 13 has raised walls 14, 15, 16, 17 on all four sides to receive the cathode support 12 in a close but loose fit so that the cathode support 12 can easily be inserted inside these walls and removed [para. 0019]);
a locking mechanism to lock the two plates in the closed position (the rack-and-pinion mechanism governing the positions of the pegs 31 is shown in Fig.5; Rotation of the circular gear in one direction thus causes both frames to move outward, and hence both pairs of pegs to protrude further outward, and rotation in the other direction causes both frames, and hence both pairs of pegs, to move inward. The circular gear 45 is affixed to the underside of the rotary disk 33. FIGS. 6A and 6B are horizontal cross sections of the cathode support, showing the action of the rotary disk and moving the pegs. The locking position is shown in FIG. 6A and the release position is shown in FIG. 6B [para. 0025]);
a sealing mechanism operable to seal the two plates in the closed position to form a liquid-proof seal on at least three sides (the anode support 13 has an integrated gasket 23 [FIG. 3A], which can be overmolded onto the floor of the support. The gasket extends around the periphery of the floor of the anode support and encircles the anode 21. The blotting sandwich is placed on the anode inside the gasket 23 [para. 0020]; the gasket 23 is deemed as the sealing mechanism);
a second plate (anode support 13 in Fig.3) configured to receive components of a transfer stack on its interior side (the anode support 13 has raised walls 14, 15, 16, 17 on all four sides to receive the cathode support 12 in a close but loose fit so that the cathode support 12 can easily be inserted inside these walls and removed [para. 0019]; Fig.4 shows the anode support 13 configured to receive components of a transfer stack [electrotransfer cassette 11] on its interior side); and
the external sides of the first plate and the second plate comprising at least one electrical interface each that is connected to an electrode located on the inside of each plate (a flat area on the outer surface of the back end wall 15 serves as a single anode contact 34. Two protrusions 35, 36 with flat ends extending outward from the back edge of the cathode support serve as cathode contacts. The contacts are extensions of the anode and cathode plates, respectively, bent to a vertical position [para. 0023, Figs. 2A and 3A]; Fig.8 shows the cathode plate 22 and the anode plate 21 separated by a gap 63 [para. 0029]; the cathode contacts of the cathode support 12 and the anode contact of the anode support 13 are deemed as, respectively, the at least one electrical interfaces of the first and second plate, connecting respectively to the cathode plate 22 and the anode plate 21 located on the inside of each plate).
Regarding claim 3, Latham teaches the electrotransfer cassette of claim 1, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a slider (Figs.6A-6B show the pegs slide/move outward or inward to lock or unlock by rotating the circular gear 45 [para. 0025]; the inward/outward pegs are deemed as sliders).
Regarding claim 9, Latham teaches the electrotransfer cassette of claim 1, further comprising a support structure located on the external side of the second plate (Fig.3B shows a support structure such as feet 25 located on the external side of the second plate 13, and the feet 25 are useful in stabilizing the cassette on a laboratory bench [para. 0021]), the support structure optionally allowing the second plate to rest at an angle (the limitation is optional).
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shih et al. (US20010037940A1).
Regarding claim 2, Latham teaches the electrotransfer cassette of claim 1, and is silent to wherein the joining mechanism comprises a hinge, a hook, a clip, a clamp or a latch.
Shih teaches an electrotransfer cassette as shown in Fig.4, wherein the cassette top portion 30 and bottom portion 40 are connected by hinge parts 36 and 42, forming hinge 47 (FIG. 4) [para. 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cassette in Latham to provide a hinge such that the cassette top portion (corresponding to the cathode support 12 in Latham) and the cassette bottom portion (corresponding to the anode support 13 in Latham) are joined by the hinge, as taught by Shih, since Shih teaches a suitable alternative joining mechanism of joining two portions of the cassette with a hinge [para. 0026; Fig.4].
Claims 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Panattoni et al. (US20130056909A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Latham teaches the electrotransfer cassette of claim 3, and is silent to: (1) wherein the slider comprises: a band that wraps around portions of the width of the exterior side of the first plate; side extensions of the band that further wrap around portions of the depth of the exterior side of the first plate; and elements operable to reversibly engage with portions on the exterior side of the second plate to form a lock between the first and second plates when engaged (of claim 4); and (2) wherein, when closed, the slider aligns with corresponding elements on the second plate that are operable to slide to form a lock and further wherein the slider is moved in the direction toward the top end of the plates to form the liquid-proof seal on at least three sides of the cassette (of claim 5).
Panattoni teaches a gel cassette 12 as shown in Fig.1 comprising a front plate 13 and a back plate 14 spaced apart at their two side edges by spacers 15 and 16 [para. 0023], and further teaches the use of external cages, bars, clamps, plates, and the like, that are attached to or otherwise pressed against the outer surfaces of the plastic plates that form the cassette. These external fixtures can be attached, applied, or held in place during casting of the gels, storage and shipment, or both, and removed shortly prior to use of the cassette in an electrophoresis experiment. A box, grid, or cage of rigid material such as metal, wood, or extra-thick plastic, that can be slid or otherwise placed over the cassette while contacting the outer walls of both cassette plates and readily removed prior to us of the cassette, can be used. FIG. 10 depicts such a box 61 poised above a cassette 62. The box 61 is hollow and open at the top and bottom to enable the user or manufacturer to slide the box over the cassette [para. 0031; Fig.10]. Thus, Panattoni teaches a locking mechanism of a slider contacting the outer walls of both cassette plates, wherein the slider comprises: a band that wraps around portions of the width of the exterior side of the first plate (box 61 wraps around the entire width of the exterior side of the first plate as shown in Fig.10); side extensions of the band that further wrap around portions of the depth of the exterior side of the first plate (see Fig.10); and elements operable to reversibly engage with portions on the exterior side of the second plate to form a lock between the first and second plates when engaged (slide the box over the cassette and contacts the outer walls of both cassette plates); and wherein, when closed, the slider aligns with corresponding elements on the second plate that are operable to slide to form a lock (slide the box over the cassette) and further wherein the slider is moved in the direction toward the top end of the plates (slide the box over the cassette and can be readily removed) to form the liquid-proof seal on at least three sides of the cassette (Fig.10 shows the box wrap around four sides of the cassette).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slider locking mechanism in Latham to further comprise a band that wraps around portions of the width of the exterior side of the first plate; side extensions of the band that further wrap around portions of the depth of the exterior side of the first plate; and elements operable to reversibly engage with portions on the exterior side of the second plate to form a lock between the first and second plates when engaged (of claim 4); and wherein, when closed, the slider aligns with corresponding elements on the second plate that are operable to slide to form a lock and further wherein the slider is moved in the direction toward the top end of the plates to form the liquid-proof seal on at least three sides of the cassette (of claim 5), as taught by Panattoni, since it would prevent any outward bowing of the flat plates of the cassette [para. 0031 in Panattoni].
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Jackson (US20170328862A1) and in view of Latham (US20110297544A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Jackson teaches a system for performing electrotransfer (a system 10 as shown in Fig.1 for electrophoresis or electrophoretic transfer of biomolecules [claim 52; para. 0062; Fig.1]) comprising:
a base (container 12 in Fig.1 [para. 0062]) comprising:
two chambers ( the container comprising two chambers for the first and second buffer core assemblies 24 separated by an expanding cam lock 22 as shown in Figs.1 and 7 [para. 0062]; see “chamber 1” and “chamber 2” in annotated Fig.7 in Jackson);
a single first electrode spanning the two chambers of the base, connected to a first electrical node located on a top side of the base (the buffer tank comprises or contacts two electrodes [see “+” and “-“ in Figs. 1 and 7 [para. 0039]; Figs.1 and 7 show a single first electrode [see annotated “first electrode” in Fig.7 of Jackson] spanning the two chambers of the base, connected to a first electrical node [see annotated “first electrode node” in Fig.7 of Jackson] located on a top side of the base, wherein the first electrode node connects one of the conductor cables 21 as shown in Fig.1, 5 and 7);
a second electrode (see annotated “second electrode” in Fig.7 of Jackson) located in each chamber, the two second electrodes connected at a common second electrical node located on the top side of the base (similar to the first electric node for the “+” first electrode, the second “-“ electrodes connected to a common second electric node located on the top side of the base connecting to the other conductor cable 21 on the lid as shown in Fig.1);
each chamber configured to independently receive an electrotransfer cassette (Each buffer core assembly 24 includes gel cassettes 16 and 18 as shown in Fig.1 [para. 0066]; thus each chamber is configured to independently receive an electrotransfer cassette),
a removable lid that covers the base (a removable lid 20 covering the container 12 as shown in Fig.1 [para. 0062]), the lid providing electrical connectivity to a power source (Lid 20 is then positioned above the front portion of container 12, the conductor cables 21 are attached to a power supply system or charging means and electrophoresis commences [para. 0088]; see conductor cables 21 in Fig.1); and
the lid having electrical connectors (conductor cables 21 in Fig.1 [para. 0088]) that electrically connect with the electrical connections of the electrotransfer cassette to complete the circuit when the electrotransfer cassette is placed in the base and the lid covers the base (Lid 20 is then positioned above the front portion of container 12, the conductor cables 21 are attached to a power supply system or charging means and electrophoresis commences [para. 0088]).
Jackson is silent to: (1) wherein the electrotransfer cassette is the electrotransfer cassette of claim 1.
Latham teaches the electrotransfer cassette of claim 1, as outlined in the ejection of claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Jackson such that each chamber is configured to independently receive the electrotransfer cassette of claim 1, since Latham teaches a suitable alternative electrotransfer cassette with integrated electrical contacts and locking mechanism (title in Latham).
Regarding claim 21, modified Jackson teaches the system of claim 20, comprising one electrotransfer cassette (Each buffer core assembly 24 includes gel cassettes 16 and 18 [para. 0066 in Jackson]; as outlined in the rejection of claim 20 above, each cassette of Jackson is substituted with the electrotransfer cassette of claim 1; thus the system comprising one electrotransfer cassette).
Regarding claim 22, modified Jackson teaches the system of claim 20, comprising two electrotransfer cassettes (Each buffer core assembly 24 includes gel cassettes 16 and 18 [para. 0066 in Jackson]; as outlined in the rejection of claim 20 above, each cassette of Jackson is substituted with the electrotransfer cassette of claim 1; thus the system comprising two electrotransfer cassettes).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Latham et al. (US20160041121A1) teaches instrument for independent electrotransfer in multiple cassettes. Hellman (US4828669A) teaches an EP device. Jackson et al. (US20100059380A1) teaches an EP system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 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, Luan V. 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights