DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the Zadeh, et al. application filed with the Office on 5 February 2025.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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(s) (IDS(s)) submitted regarding the present application filed on 5 February 2025, is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) have/has been 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a US Patent to Monthony (US 4,246,222; hereinafter, “Monthony”) in view of a US Patent Application Publication to Shtevi (US 2015/0346145 A1; hereinafter, “Shtevi”) and in view of a published paper by H. Summer, et al. (“Denaturing Urea Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoresis (Urea PAGE)”, Journal of Visualized Experiments, 32, e1485, 29 Oct 2009; hereinafter, “Summer”).
Regarding claim 1, Monthony discloses a method for producing a separation medium for electrophoresis separation (Title: “Gel Slab Casting”), the method comprising the steps of:
connecting a top portion and a base of a gel casting device so as to place the gel casting device in a closed position, thereby forming at least one loading port (Col. 3, lines 9-12: “… the gel layer to be made is formed between a glass plate 6 and the portion 10 of the bottom surface 8 of a casting tray 10 which is coextensive with the plate 6 …”);
loading a volume of gel solution through the at least one loading port and into an interior casting chamber of the gel casting device; positioning the gel casting device in at least one of a horizontal orientation and a vertical orientation; effectuating polymerization of the gel solution by maintaining the gel casting device in the vertical orientation, thus forming a polymerized gel layer (Col. 1, line 65 – Col. 2, line 5: “Typically two glass plates are separated by a rubber gasket interjected between the four edges and held together and sealed by a series of adjacent clamps. The thin space thus formed is then placed in a vertical position and monomer is introduced at one corner where the gasket is displaced. After the space is filled the remaining portion of the gasket is put in place and clamped. The monomer solution is then polymerized in place by procedures known in the art, e.g. by exposure to polymerizing light, heat or the like, depending upon the cross-linking agent and/or initator present in the solution.”);
disconnecting the top portion from the base of the gel casting device so as to place the gel casting device in an open position (Figure 1C); and
removing the polymerized gel layer from the base with a laboratory spatula (Col. 5, lines 31-37: “Separation of the gel slab may be effected by prying, i.e. by inserting a spatula or other flat edge at one open edge between the gel layer and the bottom surface so that air may slowly penetrate through the channel made by the spatula and then exerting an upward prying force on the glass plate.”).
Monthony does not explicitly teach 60 minutes for polymerization.
However, Summer teaches a fabrication of a polyacrylamide gel (the same type contemplated by Monthony), wherein is taught: “Pour the gel immediately using a serological pipette and an automatic pipette aid between the two glass plates. Avoid introducing air bubbles. Insert the comb and let the gel polymerize for 30-60 minutes.” (Gel Sandwich assembly and gel preparation, p. 2).
At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the up to 60 minute polymerization time, taught by Summer, in the method disclosed by Monthony because it would have ensured the polyacrylamide gel was fully polymerized prior to use in electrophoresis.
Monthony does not explicitly teach placing the polymerized gel layer superjacent a support base.
However, Shtevi discloses a device for performing polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, wherein is taught a gel is placed in an electrophoresis chamber ([0003]).
At the time of filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have placed the resultant gel of Monthony into an electrophoresis chamber, as taught by Shtevi, as it would allow for using the gel to effect electrophoresis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Monthony is considered the closet prior art to the instant claims. However, Monthony does not anticipate nor render obvious placing the polymerized gel layer superjacent a support base and positioning the support base with sample-loaded polymerized gel layer horizontally atop a bottom wall of a horizontal electrophoresis tank, as required by instant independent claim 2-5.
Interview with the Examiner
If at any point during the prosecution it is believe an interview with the Examiner would further the prosecution of an application, please consider this option.
The Automated Interview Request form (AIR) is available to request an interview to be scheduled with the Examiner. First, an authorization for internet communications regarding the case should be filed prior or with an AIR online request.
The internet communication authorization form (SB/0439), which authorizes or withdraws authorization for internet-based communication (e.g., video conferencing, email, etc.) for the application must be signed by the applicant or the attorney/agent for applicant. The form can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
The AIR form can be filled out online, and is automatically forwarded to the Examiner, who will call to confirm a requested time and date, or set up a mutually convenient time for the interview. The form can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html
The Examiner encourages, but does not require, interviews by the USPTO Microsoft Teams video conferencing. This system allows for file-sharing along audio conferencing. Microsoft Teams can be used as an internet browser add-on in Microsoft IE, Google Chrome, or Mozilla Foxfire, or as a temporary Java-based application on these browsers. Steps for joining an Examiner setup Microsoft Teams can be found at the USPTO website:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice#step3
Additionally, a blank email to the Examiner at the time of a telephonic interview can be used for a reply to easily allow for Microsoft Teams communication. Please note, policy guidelines regarding Internet communications are detailed at MPEP §500-502.3, and office policy regarding interviews are detailed at MPEP §713.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C BALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5119. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9 am - 5:30 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 Van can be reached at (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.
/J. Christopher Ball/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights