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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, reading on claims 1-3 and 5, in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/8/2025. Drawings The drawings were received on 4/11/2023 and 8/11/2025. These drawings are not acceptable . In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked -up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Claim Objection Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation s “actually measured value” and “actually measured values” are grammatically the same as “measured value” and “measured values”; the term “actually” does not add anything to the claim . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation s “actually measures” is grammatically the same as “measures”; the term “actually” does not add anything to the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “calculation formula acquisition unit” in claims 1-2. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" Paragraph [0064] describes the calculation formula acquisition unit; but does not provide any structure or details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can understand what is encompassed by this unit . If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claim s 1-3 and 5 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. In regard to claim 1 , the limitations and values a 1 , a 2 , b 1 , b 2 , t R , and t 0 render the claim indefinite. It is not clear what these variables are or what they represent. Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected as well for being dependent on claim 1. In regard to claim 1 , the limitations “mixing ratio B” and “solvent ratio: B)” render the claim indefinite. It is not clear if these are the same or different. Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected as well for being dependent on claim 1. Claim 2 recites the limitation "a mixing ratio B". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “a mixing ratio B” has previously been defined in claim 1; it is therefore not clear if this is the same or a different mixing ratio. Claim 5 is rejected as well for being dependent on claim 2. Claim 2 recites the limitation "two specific types of solvents". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term has previously been defined in claim 1; it is therefore not clear if these are the same or different solvents. Claim 5 is rejected as well for being dependent on claim 2. Claim limitation “ calculation formula acquisition unit ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" Paragraph [0064] describes the calculation formula acquisition unit; but does not provide any structure or details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can understand what is encompassed by this unit . Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to FILLIN "Identify whether the claim(s) are directed to a law of nature; a natural phenomenon; or an abstract idea." \* MERGEFORMAT an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, specifically a mathematical equation, more specifically FILLIN "Identify the exception by referring to how it is recited in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception. See examiner note 4 for more information." \* MERGEFORMAT "relational formula of Rf =a 1 B + b 1 (1) or a 2 in a relational formula of logk ' = a 2 logB + b 2 (2) (where retention ratio: k' = (t R -t 0 )/t 0 ” . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed towards an abstract idea without additional element that add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to generic chromatography device components and data gathering steps and is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the formula to a particular technological environment . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the following elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more to the exception: In regard to claim 1 the limitations: “a separation chromatography supporting device” which is well understood, routine, or conventional to the art of chromatography. The claims are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h) ; “the separation chromatography supporting device provides information related to separation in column chromatography based on an actually measured value of an R r value when a mixed solvent having a mixing ratio B of two specific types of solvents measured by thin-layer chromatography or liquid chromatography is used” is data gathering and further TLC is well understood, routine, or conventional to the art of chromatography. The claims are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). In regard to claim 2 the limitations: “a calculation formula acquisition unit configured to actually measure a relationship between Rf values of plural types of compounds and a mixing ratio B of a solvent for a combination of two specific types of solvents, the calculation formula acquisition unit being obtained based on data obtained in the measurement” is data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In regard to claims 3 and 5 the limitation “a separation chromatography apparatus” is well understood, routine, or conventional to the art of chromatography. The claims are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0199165 by Okura (Okura). Regarding limitations recited in the claims which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed separation chromatography supporting device, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. , 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto , 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young , 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). This applies to the following limitations: “provides information related to separation in column chromatography based on an actually measured value of an Rf value when a mixed solvent having a mixing ratio B of two specific types of solvents measured by thin-layer chromatography or liquid chromatography is used” (claim 1); “the calculation formula acquisition unit acquires a1 in a relational formula of Rf=a 1 B+b 1 or a 2 in a relational formula of log k’ = a 2 logB +b 2 (where retention ratio: K’ = (t r -t 0 )/t 0 ” (claim 1); “actually measure a relationship between Rf values of plural types of compounds and a mixing ratio B of a solvent for a combination of two specific types of solvents” (claim 2); “the calculation formula acquisition unit being obtained based on data obtained in the measurement” (claim 2). In regard to claim 1 , Okura teaches a separation chromatography supporting device ( abstract ). Okura teaches a calculation formula acquisition unit ( [0017], calculating; [0028]-[0029], calculation formula creation part ). Okura teaches the separation chromatography supporting device provides information related to separation in column chromatography based on an actually measured value of an Rf value when a mixed solvent having a mixing ratio B of two specific types of solvents measured by thin-layer chromatography or liquid chromatography is used ( [0013]-[002 9 ] ; [0082]-[0086 ). Okura teaches the calculation formula acquisition unit acquires a1 in a relational formula of Rf=a 1 B+b 1 or a 2 in a relational formula of log k’ = a 2 logB +b 2 (where retention ratio: k ’ = (t r -t 0 )/t 0 ( [00 13 ]-[00 29 ] ; [0082]-[0086] ). Okura teaches solvent ratio B based on B and Rf that are actually measured values as one measurement result by TLC ( [0013]-[002 9 ] ). In regard to claim 2 , Okura teaches a calculation formula acquisition unit ( [0013]-[002 9 ]; [0082]-[0086] ); configured to actually measure a relationship between Rf values of plural types of compounds and a mixing ratio B of a solvent for a combination of two specific types of solvents ([0013]-[0029]; [0082]-[0086]) . Okura teaches the calculation formula acquisition unit being obtained based on data obtained in the measurement ([0013]-[0029]; [0082]-[0086]) . In regard to claim 3 , Okura teaches a separation chromatography apparatus comprising the separation chromatography supporting device according to claim 1 ( [0013]-[0029] ). In regard to claim 5 , Okura teaches a separation chromatography apparatus comprising the separation chromatography supporting device according to claim 2 ( [0013]-[0029] ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KARA M PEO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9958 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9 to 5:30 . 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 Claire Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1051 . 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. /KARA M PEO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777