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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4,8-10 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11,12 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 11, the phrase “wherein no further steps … to the first threshold value” (lines 14-16) is either (1) new by itself, or (2) new in combination with remaining claim limitations.
Understand, step B’s “no further steps” limitation phrase invokes steps S6-S8 (Figure 9). In that regard, Paragraphs 89,90 (Publication) indicate that “execution of the pressurization processing to be described later is stopped” (italics added, Para 89 of Publication), and that “executions of the remaining processing among the remaining processing related to supplying the sample gas are stopped” (italics added, Para 90 of Publication); all of which does not support the absolute that “no further steps are performed” (italics added). The specification suggests that it is only steps S9-S16 of the flow chart of Figure 9 are that which are not performed, but the plain words of claim 11 significantly expands that negative limitation to embrace so much more than S9-S16. Claim 11 calls for “no further steps” is new in contrast with the originally disclosed S9-S16. Even more so, note that Para 91 (Publication) states that “instead of stopping the execution”, that there is an alternative to stoppage by triggering the chromatograph 10 “be operated to adjust the pressure of the pressurized gas”. As such, “no further steps” (claim 11) is not consistent with Para 91 (Publication).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11,12 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.
As to claim 11, in light of the REMARKS, clearly identified alternatives in claim 11 remain a bit uncertain.
Undersigned’s accepts that there are a total of 3 alternatives, including:
#1: comprising A + B (i.e., “STEP B: comparing … value”) + B1,
#2: comprising A + B + B2 + C + C1, and
#3: comprising A + B +B2 + C + C2.
Regarding Applicant’s “exactly three possible paths” (line 7 from last, page 12 of REMARKS) please consider:
Applicant’s Path 1 is exactly #1 above; good.
Applicant’s Path 2 is internally consistent with claim 11, because the step B(2) MUST include A and B because B(2)’s “the first pressure value” and “the first threshold value” expressly relate back to “a first pressure value” (of A) and “a first threshold value” (of B). Maybe, Undersigned has confused Applicant’s term “path” with alternative? Did Applicant intend to include A and B with his Path 2 in the REMARKS?
Applicant’s Path 3 is internally inconsistent with claim 11, because path 3 MUST include A and B for the same reason as immediately above. Maybe, Undersigned has confused Applicant’s term “path” with alternative? Did Applicant intend to include A and B with his Path 2 in the REMARKS?
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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