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 .
35 USC 112(A) REJECTION
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the combination of lines 5-9 from last, with remaining limitations is new. the combination of “wherein the sample volume is compressed to a high pressure to create a compressed sample” (italics added, lines 5-6 from last), in combination with remaining limitations (especially, that of “a controlled amount comprising a first distance based at least in part upon a compressibility of the eluent in the sample and the pump pressure” (lines 6-7 from last, claim 1) is new. Please understand, that “moving the moveable element … a controlled amount comprising a first distance” is indicative of distance control, while the originally disclosed control amount is only pressure (not distance) related. There is no support for existence of a “controlled amount comprising a first distance” while “moving”; any final distance is ultimately established but never controlled. A final distance is merely attained when the desired pressure (i.e. controlled pressure) is reached. It is only the pressure that has a “controlled amount” in the originally disclosed method; any distance displacement is a variable based upon a compressibility of the eluent. Distance amounts are not controlled, they are merely varied until “a high pressure” (line 5 from last line, claim 1) of the controlled pressure is reached. The controller 208 does not know the compressibility of the eluent, does not determine any distance. Any distance is determinable only after high pressure is reached. The moveable element is not moved a “controlled” amount. It is just moved.
As to claim 10, “moving the moveable element relative to the pump volume structure by a controlled amount comprising a second distance to thereby decompress the sample loop to a pressure that essentially corresponds to an atmospheric pressure” (italics added), in combination with remaining claim limitations is new. Please understand, similarly to above, there is no support for controlling the second distance.
As to claim 8, combination of “the sample volume comprises the eluent” with remaining limitations is new. Note original disclosure does not introduce eluent into the system such that it “is compressed to a high pressure to create a compressed sample volume” (lines 5-6 from last, claim 1). The eluent only experiences the depressurization.
Note: As to the new matter, contrast the entirety of lines 7-8 from last of claim 1 with - - isolated from the high-pressure fluidic path, moving the moveable element a first distance relative to the pump volume structure an amount controlled amount” is directed to “a first distance” via that powerful term “comprising”, directing that it is the distance that is actively controlled, while the original disclosure supports relating all controlled amounts to pressure (and not distance). Again, contrasting phrase above may potentially introduce new double patenting issues.
PRIOR ART CITED/NOT APPLIED
Mueller et al 20090230028 relates liquid chromatography 100MPa on Para 5.
ADDRESSING REMARKS
As to REMARKS, consider:
As to the last full paragraph of p. 7; terms/phrases from the specification are repeated, but by itself does not seem to be relevant to the outstanding issues.
As to p. 8; such appears to be a general description of the invention, and as such does not seem to be relevant to the outstanding issues.
As to p. 9; such appears to be a general description of the invention, and as such does not seem to be relevant to the outstanding issues.
As to the first full paragraph of p. 10; lines 5 to 10 from bottom of claim 1 are distance based. Please consider the “Note” above, which illustrates a pressure based control. That phrase “controlled amount comprising a first distance” (claim 1) is quite powerful. The “controlled amount” is “distance”.
As to the second full paragraph of p. 10; claim 1 is not repeated in the originally filed specification. Claim 1 is not inherent in the originally filed specification.
As to the last paragraph of p. 10; the distance amount is never determined in the specification. The distance is never controlled in the specification. The pressure is measured by sensor 220, a desired pressure is determined, a pressure signal is sent from the sensor 220 to controller 208, the pressure is controlled by the piston movement.
As to the first 5 lines of p. 11; the displacement is not controlled. It is the pressure that is controlled. Please consult Figure 2, that illustrates a “pressure sensor 220, pressure being increased until it equals the system pressure” (Para 84, Pub), and a control 208 that controls the pressure based on the pressure sensor (Para 67).
As to the middle of p. 11; the movement (i.e. distance) that is “necessary” is not controlled. It is not the measured. The pressure sensor 220 measures, and the controller 208 controls the pressure by sending a signal to the pump 206, and the - - the controlled amount comprises a pressure - - . There is no distance sensor in the application, there are no predetermined distances in the application. Lines 5-10 (from last) of claim 1 are new in regard to stating that distance is a controlled amount.
As to the last paragraph of p. 11; again, the claim calls for “a controlled amount comprising a first distance” to create a compressed sample volume. That phrase “controlled amount comprising a distance” speaks to knowing/requiring/controlling a distance. It is the pressure that is controlled by the controller 208 receiving a pressure signal from the pressure sensor 220, and controlling the pressure by moving the plunger 210 until a desired pressure is reached. Understand, the disclosure shows that the controlled amount comprises a pressure. Regarding distance, “moving the moveable element relative to the pump volume structure a controlled amount comprising a first distance” (claim 1) is new. Again, distance is never measured, distance is never predetermined, the controller controls the pump as a function of pressure. Distance is varied, not controlled.
As to the first paragraph of p. 12; the specification does not support the claims.
As to the last paragraph of p. 12; the issue here is whether there is support for lines 5-9 (or more broadly, whether there is support for the combination of lines 5-9 (from last, claim 1) with remaining limitations). The originally filed disclosure relates control to a pressure sensor 220, a controller 208 and a pump 206 that operates “as a sample volume is compressed to a high pressure” (italics added, lines 5-6 from last). The disclosure provides for only that pressure sensor 220 which signals only that controller 208, which only controller 208 recognizes the “high pressure” (line 5 from last, claim 1) parameter of claim 1, which controller 208 alone activates the pump to provide that “high pressure” (line 5 from last, claim 1) to “create a compressed sample volume” (line 5 from last, claim 1). That is all of the control described in the originally filed disclosure. Yet, the claim now calls for “a controlled amount comprising a first distance” (italics added, line 7 from last, claim 1). The claim is new to the originally filed application as the distance is never measured, the distance is never known, the controller knows nothing about a distance, the distance is neither parameter nor variable in any regard to the manner of control. As such, the distance is unrelated to any control.
As to pp. 13-14; there are two distances. Any controlled amount is that of pressure. There is no support for lines 5-9 from the bottom of claim 1.
As to the last paragraph of p. 15; any controlled amount is that of pressure. There is no support for lines 5-9 from the bottom of claim 1.
As to lines 2-5 of p. 16; the distance is not controlled. Any controlled amount is that of pressure. There is no support for lines 5-9 from the bottom of claim 1.
As to lines 8-9 of p. 16; the distance is not controlled. Any controlled amount is that of pressure. There is no support for lines 5-9 from the bottom of claim 1. The quoted passage is not in the originally filed specification.
As to lines 15-18 of p. 16; there is no example at all relating to “controlled amount comprising a first distance”. Any controlled amount is that of pressure. There is no support for lines 5-9 from the bottom of claim 1.
As to the last 3 lines of p. 16; there is no example at all relating to “controlled amount comprising a first distance”. For all of the reasons (disclosed pressure sensor 220, disclosed pressure signal, disclosed controller 208 that receives the pressure sensor and accordingly controls the amount of pressure in the system until high pressure is reached) any controlled amount is that of pressure. There is no example of a “controlled amount comprising a first distance” (italics added). There is no support for lines 5-9 from the bottom of claim 1. Quoting only portions of the claim and specification and piecing together does not support 5-9 from bottom of claim 1. There is no example as to how the originally filed disclosure provides for lines 5-9 from last of the bottom of claim 1, let alone ”controlled amount comprising a first distance” (italics added, line 7 from last of claim 1).
As to the second full paragraph of p. 17; claim 1 is limited to include lines 5-9 from last of claim 1, but nothing in the originally disclosure provides for such. There is no example as to how the originally filed disclosure provides for lines 5-9 from last of the bottom of claim 1, let alone ”controlled amount comprising a first distance” (italics added, line 7 from last of claim 1).
As to lines 5-6 from the bottom of p. 17; the claim calls for “a controlled amount comprising a first distance”. There is no example of a “controlled amount comprising a first distance” (italics added). There is no support for lines 5-9 from the bottom of claim 1. Quoting only portions of the claim and specification with (with added thoughts) does not support 5-9 from bottom of claim 1. There is no example in the originally filed disclosure that supports lines 5-9 from last of the bottom of claim 1, let alone ”controlled amount comprising a first distance” (italics added, line 7 from last of claim 1). For all of the reasons (disclosed pressure sensor 220, disclosed pressure signal, disclosed controller 208 that receives the pressure sensor and accordingly controls the amount of pressure in the system until high pressure is reached) any controlled amount is that of pressure.
As to the first full paragraph of p. 18; all of the originally filed specification provides for controlling pressure. Claim 1 is new as it newly calls for “controlled amount comprising a first distance”. There is no support in the originally filed disclosure for lines 5-9 from last of the bottom of claim 1, let alone ”controlled amount comprising a first distance” (italics added, line 7 from last of claim 1). For all of the reasons (disclosed pressure sensor 220, disclosed pressure signal, disclosed controller 208 that receives the pressure sensor and accordingly controls the amount of pressure in the system until high pressure is reached) any controlled amount is that of pressure.
As to the last paragraph of p. 18; there is no support in the originally filed disclosure for lines 5-9 from last of the bottom of claim 1, let alone ”controlled amount comprising a first distance” (italics added, line 7 from last of claim 1). For all of the reasons (disclosed pressure sensor 220, disclosed pressure signal, disclosed controller 208 that receives the pressure sensor and accordingly controls the amount of pressure in the system until high pressure is reached) any controlled amount is that of pressure.
As to the first full paragraph of p. 19; there is no support in the originally filed disclosure for lines 5-9 from last of the bottom of claim 1, let alone ”controlled amount comprising a first distance” (italics added, line 7 from last of claim 1). For all of the reasons (disclosed pressure sensor 208, disclosed pressure signal, disclosed controller 208 that receives the pressure sensor and accordingly controls the amount of pressure in the system until high pressure is reached) any controlled amount is that of pressure.
As the last paragraph of p. 19; there is no support in the originally filed disclosure for lines 5-9 from last of the bottom of claim 1, let alone ”controlled amount comprising a first distance” (italics added, line 7 from last of claim 1). For all of the reasons (disclosed pressure sensor 220, disclosed pressure signal, disclosed controller 208 that receives the pressure sensor and accordingly controls the amount of pressure in the system until high pressure is reached) any controlled amount is that of pressure.
A to the last paragraph of p. 19; claim 10’s “second distance” is analogous to claim 1’s “first distance”, and is new for the same reasons as described above for claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights