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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-19 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. The term s “ high affinity ” and “high off-rate” in claim 1 and scattered among the dependent claims are relative term s which renders the claim indefinite. The term s are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While paragraphs [0032] and [0041] of the specification give examples of values that could fall within the scope of the terms, these are not limiting definitions . Applicant is advised to amend the claims in accordance with these paragraphs. Allowable Subject Matter While the claims are rejected for the reasons stated above, they are free of the prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims embrace a principle known in the prior art by various names. One term is “affinity retardation chromatography ” (ARC) , as described by Schnitty (Analytical Biochemistry 222:140-148 (1994)), in which binding partners with low affinity are analyzed by immobilizing one binding partner to a solid phase, and passing the other binding partner through the solid phase. In contrast to standard affinity chromatography, in which the binding affinity is strong enough to effectively capture the non-immobilized binding partner until conditions are altered to allow its elution, in ARC, the immobilized binding partner merely slows down the progress of the non-immobilized binding partner as it passes through the solid phase (e.g., a column). See Figure 2. Schnitty describes the technique as a way to estimate binding coefficients, and there is no suggestion to modify the method by incorporat ing a labeled detection agent that also binds to the non-immobilized binding partner. Another name for this principle is “weak-affinity chromatography” (WAC) (see Schnitty first paragraph of Discussion). Ljungberg (Electrophoresis 19:461-464 (1998)) combined WAC with capillary gel electrophoresis, using weak affinity monoclonal antibodies immobilized within the capillary to effect separation of various structurally similar saccharides. While these saccharides were derivatized with p -nitrophenyl or o -nitrophenyl groups, these do not represent detection agents that “bind” to the saccharides with an “affinity”. Again, there is no suggestion here to modify the technique by incorporating a labeled detection agent that also binds to the non-immobilized binding partner. Strandh (Journal of Immunological Methods 214:73-79 (1998)) used WAC in an HPLC format, in which monoclonal antibody against digoxin was used to separate digoxin and ouabain from crude samples. There is no suggestion here to modify the technique by incorporating a labeled detection agent that also binds to the non-immobilized binding partner. Karger (US 5,348,633) disclosed a method for detecting an analyte in which the analyte was contacted with a labeled binding agent. The mixture was then subjected to capillary electrophoresis, whereupon the free binding agent was separated from the analyte:binding agent complexes; see Figure 1. Karger does not disclose an immobilized binding agent. In addition, Karger shows that such is not necessary to effect separation between free binding agent and complexed binding agent. In the case of low molecular weight analytes that might not cause sufficient different in mobility to binding agents, Karger disclosed a solution in which, rather than using a labeled binding agent, a labeled analyte analog was used. In this embodiment, the labeled analyte analog competes with the analyte in the sample for binding to the unlabeled binding agent. The distribution between the complex and free labeled analyte is therefore a function of the amount of analyte in the sample; see column 3, lines 29-44. There is no suggestion or apparent need to immobilizing a capture agent to the solid phase in order to carry out separation of the analyte from the sample. Hafeman (US 2006/0211055) disclosed a method in which a sample containing an analyte was mixed with a labeled binding agent. This mixture was then passed through a channel comprising a zone having immobilized capture agent. After non-bound constituents passed through, the immobilized capture agents were released and the complexes were passed on to a detection step; see Figure 4 and paragraphs [0093] -[ 0094]. In this system, the analyte:detection agent complex does not “migrate across” the zone of immobilized capture agents. One of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the instant disclosure, would understand that the ability of the analyte:detection agent complex to “migrate across” is based upon the weak binding of the capture agent. That is, one of ordinary skill would not construe the “capture” in Hafeman’s Figure 4 as “migrating across”. There is no suggestion in Hafeman to replace the capture agents, which capture and hold the analyte:detection agent complexes to allow for washing, which capture agents that allow the complexes to “migrate across” the zone where the capture agents are bound. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SAMUEL C WOOLWINE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1144 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9am-5:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT GARY BENZION can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0782 . 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. /SAMUEL C WOOLWINE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681