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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/29/2025 has been entered.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first mode." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second mode." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first mode." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second mode." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (US 2016/0011155) in view of Henderson et al. (US 2005/0279408).
Regarding claim 1, Klein teaches a method comprising executing, by a computer system/controller, a set of logical operations measuring a mass flow control valve position of a control valve connected to a mass flow controller coupled to a field flow fractionator and a pressure control means coupled to the field fold fractionator in an optimal stability state; storing, by the computer system, the valve positions to a data store as preset values (open closed valve positions); and in response to receiving, by the computer system, a switch mode command, executing, by the computer system, a set of logical operations retrieving the preset values from the data store and processing the retrieved preset values for setting initial conditions for the controllers corresponding to the preset values (focusing mode valve control based on preset open and closed [0033]-[0036] and elution mode based on preset valve position values [0042]), resulting in changing from a current mode to a new mode (focusing to elution) of the field flow fractionator ([0006], [0039]-[0042], [0061]-[0065] and claim 15).
Klein teaches that the pressure regulating means is a back pressure regulator comprising a stamp and spring (similar/same components to a valve) but fails to teach the back pressure regulator/valve being connected to a pressure controller as claimed. Henderson teaches that it is beneficial to provide an electronically controlled back pressure regulator that has a proportional valve in order to modify and control the pressure in the desired conduits (claim 5). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a controller that electronically controls and monitors the valve within the back pressure regulator in order to more accurately control the pressure within the system to a desired value.
Regarding claims 2 and 10-11, Klein teaches that current mode/first mode can be focus mode and the new mode/second mode can be elution mode.
Regarding claim 6, it is submitted that the apparatus capable of performing the method discussed in claim 1 above would include all elements and programming stated in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, it is submitted that the computer program capable of performing the method discussed in claim 1 above would include all programming stated in claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., enabling stable transitions, measured optimal valve positions, dynamically applying stored presets, the differences from how the presets are used in comparison to Klein) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As stated above in the rejection, the claims merely require the computer system to store valve positions as preset values. Klein teaches that valve positions of open and closed are used as preset values and such preset values for the valves are used to initialize, control, and operate the field flow fractionator in focus mode and then switch to elution mode according to the a switch command. It is further noted in the course of operating the valves according to the focus and elution modes of Klein, the preset values of open and closed for the valve positioning would be retrieved and processed thereby setting initial and subsequent operational positioning for the valves when the modes are performing and switching the focus to elution modes and vice versa.
If Applicant is attempting to claim more than the open and closed valve positions as preset values, then the claims should positively recite such a limitation provided there is originally filed support. Otherwise, preset values of only the open valve position and the closed valve position would read on the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights