Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/840,884

CONTINUOUS LIQUID-LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHIC SEPARATION OF CHEMICAL SPECIES USING MULTIPLE LIQUID PHASES AND RELATED SYSTEMS AND ARTICLES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 15, 2022
Examiner
JEONG, YOUNGSUL
Art Unit
1772
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Zaiput Flow Technologies LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

72%
Career Allow Rate
506 granted / 703 resolved
Without
With
+21.9%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
46 pending
749
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.2%
+17.2% vs TC avg
§102
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
§112
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§112
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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-39 are pending. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election of invention II, claims 22-39, without traverse in the reply filed on September 29, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim Objections Claims 26, 38 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 26 recites “at least one of the one of the intermediate separator stages” in lines 3-4 which appears to be a misspelling of “at least one of the or more of the intermediate separator stages”. Claim 38 recites “the extraction factor” in lines 1-2 which lacks an antecedent basis. Claim 39 recites “the extraction factor” in lines 1-2 which lacks an antecedent basis. Appropriate corrections are required. 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. Claim 27 is 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 regard(s) as the invention. Claim 27 recites “the feed liquid stream feeds into at least one of the one or more intermediate separator stages before passing through the first separator stage or the last separator stage” in lines 1-3. This is considered indefinite for the following reason: Claim 22, an independent claim from which all of the claims ultimately depend, recites “transporting a liquid comprising at least a portion of the first solute and at least a portion of the second solute into a first liquid inlet of a first separator stage,” in lines 7-9. Therefore, it is unclear how the feed liquid stream is transported to at least one of the one or more intermediate separator stages before passing through the first separator stage. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 27 fails to add a further limitation to the subject matter of claim 22. Claim 22, an independent claim from which all of the claims ultimately depend, recites “transporting a liquid comprising at least a portion of the first solute and at least a portion of the second solute into a first liquid inlet of a first separator stage,” in lines 7-9. However, claim 27 recites “the feed liquid stream feeds into at least one of the one or more intermediate separator stages before passing through the first separator stage or the last separator stage” in lines 1-3. Consequently, it is the examiner's assessment for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matters and Allowed claims Claims 22-39 in the instant application are allowed if previously presented objection to claims 26, 38 and 39, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to claim 27 and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections to claim 27 are resolved. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 22-39. A method, comprising: transporting a feed liquid stream comprising a first solute and a second solute into a feed liquid inlet of a liquid-liquid chromatographic separator system, wherein the liquid-liquid chromatographic separator system comprises three or more separator stages arranged in series with one another from a first separator stage to a last separator stage, with one or more intermediate stages positioned between the first separator stage and the last separator stage; transporting a liquid comprising at least a portion of the first solute and at least a portion of the second solute into a first liquid inlet of a first separator stage, such that the first separator stage produces: a liquid having a mole fraction of the first solute relative to the sum of the first solute and the second solute that is larger than a mole fraction of the first solute relative to the sum of the first solute and the second solute in the liquid received by the first liquid inlet of the first separator stage, and a liquid having a mole fraction of the second solute relative to the sum of the first solute and the second solute that is larger than a mole fraction of the second solute relative to the sum of the first solute and the second solute in the feed liquid stream; and transporting a liquid comprising at least a portion of the first solute and at least a portion of the second solute into a last liquid inlet of the last separator stage, such that the last separator stage produces: a liquid having a mole fraction of the first solute relative to the sum of the first solute and the second solute that is larger than a mole fraction of the first solute relative to the sum of the first solute and the second solute in the feed liquid stream, and a liquid having a mole fraction of the second solute relative to sum of the first solute and the second solute that is larger than a mole fraction of the second solute relative to the sum of the first solute and the second solute in the liquid received by the last liquid inlet (claim 22), is considered novel. A closest prior art to Runco et al. (US 10,501,432 B2) discloses a method of separating an isomer of THC selected from (+)trans-Δ8-THC, (−)trans-Δ8-THC, (+)trans-Δ9-THC, and (−)trans-Δ9-THC using CO2-based chromatography, comprising: (i) injecting a sample comprising the isomer of THC into a CO2-based mobile phase; (ii) flowing the CO2-based mobile phase and sample into a CO2-based chromatography system having a 150 mm length and 3 mm internal diameter column including a stationary phase disposed within the column, the stationary phase comprising modified polysaccharide-coated silica-based particles with a particle size of 2.5 μm at a rate of 2 mL/min; and (iii) eluting the isomer of THC from the chromatography column using a mobile phase comprising CO2 and ethanol, wherein the retention time of the isomer of THC, or the first isomer of THC when multiple isomers are present, is greater than 1.5 minutes, and the total elution period of the isomer of THC, or the total elution period for the last eluted isomer of THC when multiple isomers are present, is 6 minutes or less, wherein a resolution of each pair of isomers is greater than about 2. Other pertinent prior art to Simmons et al. (Two-Stage Gas-Liquid Chromatography, VOL 30, NO.1, JANUARY 1958, pp. 32-35) discloses an apparatus for connecting two or more gas-liquid chromatographic columns in such a manner that preliminary cuts prepared by the first column can be charged directly to one or more secondary columns. This arrangement makes it possible to obtain detailed separation (and analysis) of various components in samples having a wide molecular weight range without the need for separate sample prefractionation by conventional distillation or gas-liquid chromatography techniques. Furthermore, separations can be obtained with this column arrangement which are not normally possible with previously described arrangements of single columns and multiple columns connected in series. Other pertinent prior art to Peeva et al. (Continuous purification of active pharmaceutical ingredients using multistage organic solvent nanofiltration membrane cascade, Chemical Engineering Science, 116 (2014) 183–194) discloses a cascade apparatus: The cascade consists of a 0.25 L feed tank where fresh feed and diluting solvent (when required) were constantly fed in. An HPLC (Gilson305) supplies feed from the tank into the first stage of the cascade. Permeate from the first stage is fed directly into the second cascade stage. Each stage consists of 3 circular cross-flow cells (~0.04 L holdup volume each) connected in series. Each circular cell holds a membrane disk (22% PBI membrane) with an area of 51cm2. Mixing is provided by vigorously recirculating the retentate of each stage via a gear pump (80 L h-1, residence time per cell of ~2 s). Other pertinent prior art to Tegen et al. (US 2022/0002259 A1) discloses processes comprising the continuous isolation and purification of cannabinoids and further isomerization of the purified cannabidiol to Δ8tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8THC) and Δ9tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9THC). Other pertinent prior art to Weeranoppanant et al. (Design of Multistage Counter-Current Liquid−Liquid Extraction for Small-Scale Applications, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 4095−4103) discloses a multistage counter-current liquid−liquid extraction (MCCE) system that integrates segmented flow mixing and membrane-based phase separators to achieve equilibrium extraction at each stage. Multichannel peristaltic pumps transfer fluids from stage to stage in a counter-current manner, rather than dedicated pumps at each stage. The cited prior arts, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest a method for continuous liquid-liquid chromatographic separation of chemical species using multiple liquid phases, as recited in claim 22 of claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM. 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. 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. /YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 15, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 15, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12595193
MEMBRANE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576359
AUTOMATED GAS SCRUBBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570548
COOLING WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS FOR USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570826
Thermal Depolymerization and Monomer Repurposing Using Geothermal Energy
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565936
MULTIFUNCTIONAL FILTER VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+21.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 703 resolved cases by this examiner