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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
PNG
media_image1.png
784
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent no. 10,207,273 (Kamees) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,124,122 (Emmitt’122).
With respect to claim 1, Kamees discloses a column tube holder comprising: a first side rail (R1, SEE EXAMINER’S MARKUP ABOVE) extending vertically, a second side rail (R2) extending vertically, a first shelf (S1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, a second shelf (S2) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, the second shelf (S2) disposed below the first shelf (S1), a third shelf (S3) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, the third shelf (S3) disposed below the second shelf (S2), the third shelf (S3) comprising at least one hole (H1) disposed therethrough and at least two sidewalls (W1 and W2) extending vertically between the second shelf (S2) and the third shelf (S3), each sidewall of the at least two sidewalls disposed on opposing sides of the at least one hole (H1) and equidistant from the at least one hole,
However, Kamees is silent as to wherein the column tube holder material comprises at least one of a conductive material, an anti- static material, and a static dissipative material.
Emmitt’122 teaches in a column tube holder (10) comprising: a first side rail (18, figure 1) extending vertically; a second side rail (20, figure 1) extending vertically; a first shelf (16, figure 1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail; a second shelf (14, figure 1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, the second shelf disposed below the first shelf; and a third shelf (12, figure 1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, the third shelf disposed below the second shelf, wherein the column tube holder comprises at least one of a conductive material, an anti-static material, and a static dissipative material (Emmitt’122 discloses “ It will also be readily apparent that the rack 10 may be constructed of any appropriate material other than plastic, such as stainless steel, aluminum or the like.”- see column 2, lines 53-55 where stainless steel and aluminum meet the limitations of at least one of a conductive material, an anti-static material, and a static dissipative material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have replace the material of the column tube holder of Kamees with common material such as stainless steel, aluminum or the like as taught to be desirable by Emmitt’122.
With respect to claim 2, Kamees and Emmitt’122 combined discloses the column tube holder of claim 1, wherein Emmitt’122 teaches the column tube holder is composed of at least one of copper, aluminum, nickel, graphene, brass, stainless steel, carbon steel, and titanium (Emmitt’122 discloses “ It will also be readily apparent that the rack 10 may be constructed of any appropriate material other than plastic, such as stainless steel, aluminum or the like.”- see column 2, lines 53-55).
With respect to claim 3, Kamees and Emmitt’122 combined discloses the column tube holder of claim 1, except wherein the column tube holder comprises a surface resistivity from about 1 x 10^-6 ohm/sq to about 1 x 10^9 ohm/sq. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the column tube holder with a surface resistivity from about 1 x 10^-6 ohm/sq to about 1 x 10^9 ohm/sq, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 4, Kamees and Emmitt’122 combined discloses the column tube holder of claim 1, except wherein the column tube holder comprises a conductivity from about 1.01 x 10^-8 (ohm-meters)^-1 to about 1.01 x 10^4 (ohm-meters)^-1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the column tube holder with a conductivity from about 1.01 x 10^-8 (ohm-meters)^-1 to about 1.01 x 10^4 (ohm-meters)^-1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 7, Kamees discloses a column tube holder comprising: a first side rail (R1) extending vertically; a second side rail (R2) extending vertically; a first shelf (S1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail; a second shelf (S2) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, the second shelf disposed below the first shelf; a third shelf (S3) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, the third shelf disposed below the second shelf, the third shelf comprising at least one hole disposed therethrough; and at least two sidewalls (W1 and W2) extending vertically between the second shelf (S2) and the third shelf (S3), each sidewall of the at least two sidewalls disposed on opposing sides of the at least one hole (H1) and equidistant from the at least one hole (H1).
However, Kamees is silent as to wherein the column tube holder material comprises at least one of a conductive material, an anti- static material, and a static dissipative material.
Emmitt’122 teaches in a column tube holder (10) comprising: a first side rail (18, figure 1) extending vertically; a second side rail (20, figure 1) extending vertically; a first shelf (16, figure 1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail; a second shelf (14, figure 1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, the second shelf disposed below the first shelf; and a third shelf (12, figure 1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, the third shelf disposed below the second shelf, wherein the column tube holder comprises at least one of a conductive material, an anti-static material, and a static dissipative material (Emmitt’122 discloses “ It will also be readily apparent that the rack 10 may be constructed of any appropriate material other than plastic, such as stainless steel, aluminum or the like.”- see column 2, lines 53-55 where stainless steel and aluminum meet the limitations of at least one of a conductive material, an anti-static material, and a static dissipative material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have replace the material of the column tube holder of Kamees with common material such as stainless steel, aluminum or the like as taught to be desirable by Emmitt’122.
With respect to claim 8, Kamees and Emmitt combined discloses the column tube holder of claim 7 as advanced above, further comprising a base (B, see examiner’s markup above) beneath the third shelf (S3), wherein each of the first and second side rails (R1 and R2) are anchored into the base (B).
With respect to claim 11, Kamees and Emmitt combined discloses the column tube holder of claim 7 as advanced above, except wherein discloses each sidewall of the at least two sidewalls is substantially planar. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the sidewalls of Kamees substantially planar since applicant has not disclose such shape is of any criticality. Moreover, other shapes slightly convex (as shown in Kamees) would perform as well.
With respect to claim 12, Kamees and Emmitt combined discloses the column tube holder of claim 7 as advanced above, wherein Kamees discloses each sidewall (W1 and W2) of the at least two sidewalls comprises a shape that is at least one of convex (as seen in the figures, the outer wall surface of W1 and W2 is shape flush with the circular shelves S1-S2, and thus make sidewalls W1 and W2 convexly shaped) at least.
With respect to claim 21, Kamees discloses a column tube holder for performing size-exclusion chromatography comprising: two vertical support members (R1 and R2) at least three horizontal shelves (S1-S3) extending between the two vertical support members, at least one of the at least three horizontal shelves comprising at least one hole (H1) disposed therethrough; and at least two sidewalls (W1 and W2) extending vertically between two of the at least three horizontal shelves (S1-S3), the at least two sidewalls (W1 and W2) disposed on opposing sides of the at least one hole (H1) and equidistant from the at least one hole (H1).
However, Kamees is silent as to wherein the column tube holder is composed of conductive material.
Emmitt’122 teaches in a column tube holder (10) comprising: a first side rail (18, figure 1) extending vertically; a second side rail (20, figure 1) extending vertically; a first shelf (16, figure 1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail; a second shelf (14, figure 1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, the second shelf disposed below the first shelf; and a third shelf (12, figure 1) extending horizontally between the first side rail and the second side rail, the third shelf disposed below the second shelf, wherein the column tube holder comprises at least one of a conductive material, an anti-static material, and a static dissipative material (Emmitt’122 discloses “ It will also be readily apparent that the rack 10 may be constructed of any appropriate material other than plastic, such as stainless steel, aluminum or the like.”- see column 2, lines 53-55 where stainless steel and aluminum meet the limitations of at least one of a conductive material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have replace the material of the column tube holder of Kamees with conductive material as taught to be desirable by Emmitt’122 and as such conductive materials are old and well-known in the art as demonstrated by Emmitt’122 .
Claims 15-19 are allowed.
Claims 5, 13, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record further demonstrate holders with holes of interest.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 571-272-8227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http: //pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3631
Khc
Prosecution Insights