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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejections using the same prior art references and a newly found secondary reference Miyashita et al., (“Miyashita”, “A Simple and Effective Method for Speciation Analysis of 13 Arsenic Species Using HPLC on a Fluorocarbon Stationary Phase Coupled to ICP-MS”, Analytical Sciences, published Feb. 2021, 6 total pages).
On page 6 of the Remarks section as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the status of the current claims, and the amendments made to the claims.
On pages 6-9, Applicant summarizes the previous 103 prior art rejections of independent Claims 1, 10 & 20. Then, Applicant argues against the previous references used disclosing the currently added claim limitations to these claims, “wherein the plurality of arsenic species are retained on the mixed mode column by binding to the anionic and cationic functional groups of the stationary phase and are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times”. Applicant argues that primary reference Hu does not disclose the claimed stationary phase in which the phase has anionic and cationic functional groups. Applicant also argues that evidentiary references Fekete and Zhang do not disclose this feature either. Then, Applicant acknowledges that previous secondary reference Prince is relied upon to disclose this limitation. Next, Applicant argues against the combination of Prince with Hu because Hu is limited to a specific ion-pair RPLC system with a particular kind of stationary phase. Applicant asserts that replacing or substituting the stationary phase of Prince with Hu would make it unclear if the stationary phase would be applicable to the specific process undertaken in Hu.
However, the Examiner notes that Prince specifically states that the functionalized particles used in its stationary phase are used as arsenic reduction materials or used for removing heavy metals, also applicable to arsenic, (See paragraph [0156], Prince). Furthermore, Prince explicitly states that the filtration media (functionalized particles) are used in ion exchange chromatography and affinity chromatography, (See paragraph [0084], Prince). Finally, the Examiner points out that the functionalized particles in Prince include silica covalently bonded to organic moieties such as C18 alkyl chains. The Examiner notes that this disclosure structure is analogous to the composition of the CAPCELL stationary phase of Hu. For all these reasons, the Examiner maintains that Prince is analogous to the technology and specific process of Hu. The Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive as a result.
On pages 9-10, Applicant presents further remarks against other secondary references and their 103 prior art rejections of other claims. However, no specific arguments are made against the specific disclosures and combinations relied upon for these references and the subsequent rejections. Therefore, the Examiner finds these remarks moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 20-25 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al., (Hereinafter “Hu”, “Separation methods applied to arsenic speciation”, Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, Volume 85, Chapter 4, pp. 89-144, 2019, 56 pages total), as evidenced by Fekete et al., (Hereinafter “Fekete”, “Weak to strong ion-pair gradients to expand the selectivity of oligonucleotide separations in reversed phase liquid chromatography – A proof of concept”, Journal of Chromatography Open, 8, 2025, 8 total pages), and as evidenced by Zhang et al., (Hereinafter “Zhang”, “The potential role of malonic acid in the atmospheric sulfuric acid – Ammonia clusters formation”, Chemosphere, 203, 26-33, 2018), in view of Prince et al., (“Prince”, US 2014/0048741), in further view of Miyashita et al., (“Miyashita”, “A Simple and Effective Method for Speciation Analysis of 13 Arsenic Species Using HPLC on a Fluorocarbon Stationary Phase Coupled to ICP-MS”, Analytical Sciences, published Feb. 2021, 6 total pages).
Claims 1-5 & 9 are directed to a method, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 1-5 & 9, Hu discloses a method comprising: separating a plurality of arsenic species using a mixed mode column and a strong acid, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), the plurality of arsenic species including at least one of each of an anionic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsIII”, known as arsenite, and “AsV”, known as arsenate, according to page 90, Hu), a cationic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsC”; which is arsenocholine according to page 90, Hu), a neutral arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “TMAO”; which is trimethylarsinoxide according to page 90, Hu), and a zwitterionic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu), wherein the mixed mode column includes a stationary phase, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract).
Hu does not disclose the stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups, wherein the plurality of arsenic species are retained on the mixed mode column by binding to the anionic and cationic functional groups of the stationary phase and are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times.
Prince discloses a method with a stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups, (See paragraph [0126], Prince), wherein the plurality of arsenic species are retained, (See paragraph [0018], [0181], Prince), on the mixed mode column by binding to the anionic and cationic functional groups of the stationary phase, (See paragraph [0181], [0137], Prince).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hu by incorporating the stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups wherein the plurality of arsenic species are retained on the mixed mode column by binding to the anionic and cationic functional groups of the stationary phase as in Prince for “removing heavy metal ions”, (See paragraph [0127], Prince), based on “the requirements of an intended filtration application”, (See paragraph [0121], Prince), providing “performance benefits over the same ion exchange resin used in traditional packed beds or columns”, (See paragraph [0088], Prince).
Modified Hu does not specifically disclose the plurality of arsenic species are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times.
Miyashita discloses the plurality of arsenic species are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times, (See page 383, “Results and Discussion”, “HNO3”, “the overall elution of the As species in the case of HNO3 was more than two times faster”, Miyashita).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hu by incorporating the plurality of arsenic species are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times as in Miyashita in order because it “showed the highest potential for the separation of a larger number of As species when using simple acid-based mobile phases” in which “the overall elution of the As species in the case of HNO3 was more than two times faster”, (“Results and Discussion”, page 383, Miyashita).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The method of claim 1 wherein the anionic arsenic species is selected from the group consisting of arsenite, methylarsonate, dimethylarsinate, phenylarsonate, and arsenate, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsIII”, known as arsenite, and “AsV”, known as arsenate, according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 3: The method of claim 1 wherein the neutral arsenic species includes trimethylarsinoxide, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “TMAO”; which is trimethylarsinoxide according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 4: The method of claim 1 wherein the zwitterionic arsenic species includes arsenobetaine, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 5: The method of claim 1 wherein the cationic arsenic species is selected from the group consisting of arsenocholine and tetramethylarsonium, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsC”; which is arsenocholine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 9: The method of claim 1 wherein separating the plurality of arsenic species further uses an organic solvent, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “methanol”).
Claims 20-25 & 30 are directed to a method, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 20-25 & 30, Hu discloses a method comprising: separating a plurality of arsenic species using a chromatography column and a strong acid, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), the plurality of arsenic species including at least two anionic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsIII”, known as arsenite, and “AsV”, known as arsenate, according to page 90, Hu), wherein the chromatography column is a mixed mode column and the mixed mode column includes a stationary phase, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), but does not disclose the stationary phase with anionic and cationic functional groups.
Hu does not disclose the stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups, wherein the plurality of arsenic species are retained on the mixed mode column by binding to the anionic and cationic functional groups of the stationary phase and are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times.
Prince discloses a method with a stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups, (See paragraph [0126], Prince), wherein the plurality of arsenic species are retained, (See paragraph [0018], [0181], Prince), on the mixed mode column by binding to the anionic and cationic functional groups of the stationary phase, (See paragraph [0181], [0137], Prince).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hu by incorporating the stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups wherein the plurality of arsenic species are retained on the mixed mode column by binding to the anionic and cationic functional groups of the stationary phase as in Prince for “removing heavy metal ions”, (See paragraph [0127], Prince), based on “the requirements of an intended filtration application”, (See paragraph [0121], Prince), providing “performance benefits over the same ion exchange resin used in traditional packed beds or columns”, (See paragraph [0088], Prince).
Modified Hu does not specifically disclose the plurality of arsenic species are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times.
Miyashita discloses the plurality of arsenic species are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times, (See page 383, “Results and Discussion”, “HNO3”, “the overall elution of the As species in the case of HNO3 was more than two times faster”, Miyashita).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hu by incorporating the plurality of arsenic species are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times as in Miyashita in order because it “showed the highest potential for the separation of a larger number of As species when using simple acid-based mobile phases” in which “the overall elution of the As species in the case of HNO3 was more than two times faster”, (“Results and Discussion”, page 383, Miyashita).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 21: The method of claim 20 wherein the anionic arsenic species is selected from the group consisting of arsenite, methylarsonate, dimethylarsinate, phenylarsonate, and arsenate, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsIII”, known as arsenite, and “AsV”, known as arsenate, according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 22: The method of claim 20 wherein the plurality of arsenic species further includes at least one zwitterionic arsenic species, at least one neutral arsenic species, or at least one cationic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu; Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsC”; which is arsenocholine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 23: The method of claim 22 wherein the neutral arsenic species includes dimethylarsinate, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “DMA”, which is “dimethylarsonic acid”, according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 24: The method of claim 22 wherein the zwitterionic arsenic includes arsenobetaine, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 25: The method of claim 22 wherein the cationic arsenic species is selected from the group consisting of arsenocholine and tetramethylarsonium, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsC”; which is arsenocholine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 30: The method of claim 20 wherein separating the plurality of arsenic species further uses an organic solvent, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “methanol”, Hu).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10-15, 17-19 & 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al., (Hereinafter “Hu”, “Separation methods applied to arsenic speciation”, Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, Volume 85, Chapter 4, pp. 89-144, 2019, 56 pages total), as evidenced by Fekete et al., (Hereinafter “Fekete”, “Weak to strong ion-pair gradients to expand the selectivity of oligonucleotide separations in reversed phase liquid chromatography – A proof of concept”, Journal of Chromatography Open, 8, 2025, 8 total pages), in view of Prince et al., (“Prince”, US 2014/0048741), in further view of Miyashita et al., (“Miyashita”, “A Simple and Effective Method for Speciation Analysis of 13 Arsenic Species Using HPLC on a Fluorocarbon Stationary Phase Coupled to ICP-MS”, Analytical Sciences, published Feb. 2021, 6 total pages), in further view of Voice et al., (“Voice”, US 2004/0101971), as further evidenced by “Table of Acids”, (“Appendix 5 Chem 1A, B, C, Lab Manual and Zumdahl 6th Ed., George Washington University, obtained from web 10/15/2025, 2 total pages) and as further evidenced by Holl, (“Anion Exchangers: Ion Exchange”, Water Treatment, III, published 2000, 8 total pages).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Hu discloses the method of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0.
Voice discloses a method wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0, (See paragraph [0033]; HCl; and as evidenced by “Table of Acids”, pKa of HCl is less than 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0 as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Hu discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof.
Voice discloses a method wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof, (See paragraph [0033]; HCl).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Claims 10-15 & 17-19 are directed to a method, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 10-15 & 17-19, modified Hu discloses a method comprising: separating a plurality of arsenic species using a chromatography column and a strong acid, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), wherein chromatography column is a mixed mode column, and the mixed mode column includes a stationary phase, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), but does not explicitly disclose the strong acid having a counter ion, the counter ion including a weaker anion exchange species than NO3-, or the stationary phase with anionic and cationic functional groups, wherein the plurality of arsenic species are retained on the mixed mode column by binding to the anionic and cationic functional groups of the stationary phase and are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times.
Prince discloses a method with a stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups, (See paragraph [0126], Prince), wherein the plurality of arsenic species are retained, (See paragraph [0018], [0181], Prince), on the mixed mode column by binding to the anionic and cationic functional groups of the stationary phase, (See paragraph [0181], [0137], Prince).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hu by incorporating the stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups wherein the plurality of arsenic species are retained on the mixed mode column by binding to the anionic and cationic functional groups of the stationary phase as in Prince for “removing heavy metal ions”, (See paragraph [0127], Prince), based on “the requirements of an intended filtration application”, (See paragraph [0121], Prince), providing “performance benefits over the same ion exchange resin used in traditional packed beds or columns”, (See paragraph [0088], Prince).
Modified Hu does not specifically disclose the plurality of arsenic species are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times.
Miyashita discloses the plurality of arsenic species are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times, (See page 383, “Results and Discussion”, “HNO3”, “the overall elution of the As species in the case of HNO3 was more than two times faster”, Miyashita).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hu by incorporating the plurality of arsenic species are eluted from the mixed mode column with the strong acid according to different retention times as in Miyashita in order because it “showed the highest potential for the separation of a larger number of As species when using simple acid-based mobile phases” in which “the overall elution of the As species in the case of HNO3 was more than two times faster”, (“Results and Discussion”, page 383, Miyashita).
Voice discloses a method, the strong acid having a counter ion, the counter ion including a weaker anion exchange species than NO3-., (See paragraph [0033]; HCl; as evidenced by Holl, NO3- is higher than Cl- on page 1, “Introduction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating the strong acid having a counter ion, the counter ion including a weaker anion exchange species than NO3- as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 11: The method of claim 10 wherein the plurality of arsenic species includes an anionic arsenic species selected from the group consisting of arsenite, methylarsonate, dimethylarsinate, phenylarsonate, and arsenate, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsIII”, known as arsenite, and “AsV”, known as arsenate, according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 12: The method of claim 10 wherein the neutral arsenic species is selected from the group consisting of trimethylarsinoxide, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “TMAO”; which is trimethylarsinoxide according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 13: The method of claim 10 wherein the plurality of arsenic species includes a zwitterionic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 14: The method of claim 13 wherein the zwitterionic arsenic species includes arsenobetaine, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 15: The method of claim 10 wherein the plurality of arsenic species includes a cationic arsenic species selected from the group consisting of arsenocholine and tetramethylarsonium, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsC”; which is arsenocholine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 17: The method of claim 10 wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2, (See paragraph [0033], Voice; HCl; and as evidenced by “Table of Acids”, pKa of HCl is less than 1).
Claim 18: The method of claim 10 wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof, (See paragraph [0033], Voice; HCl).
Claim 19: The method of claim 10 wherein separating the plurality of arsenic species further uses an organic solvent, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “methanol”, HU).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Hu discloses the method of claim 20 but does not disclose wherein the strong acid has a counter ion that is a weaker anion exchange species than NO3-.
Voice discloses a method wherein the strong acid has a counter ion that is a weaker anion exchange species than NO3-, (See paragraph [0033]; HCl; as evidenced by Holl, NO3- is higher than Cl- on page 1, “Introduction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating wherein the strong acid has a counter ion that is a weaker anion exchange species than NO3- as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Hu discloses the method of claim 20 but does not disclose wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0.
Voice discloses a method wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0, (See paragraph [0033]; HCl; and as evidenced by “Table of Acids”, pKa of HCl is less than 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0 as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Hu discloses the method of claim 20, but does not disclose wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof.
Voice discloses a method wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof, (See paragraph [0033]; HCl).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights