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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-5, 11-13, 15-26 and 29-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/8/25.
Applicant indicated that specie 1 includes claims 1-10, 14 and 27-28. However, claims 4-5 are directed to the embodiment shown in figure 1b and therefore are not part of the elected specie of figure 1a.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 27-28 and 31 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the capillary tube" in lines 9, 10, 11 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the capillary tubes”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the capillary tube" and “the inner diameter of the column tube”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the capillary tubes” and “an inner diameter of the column tube”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the capillary" and “the end face of the column tube”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the capillary tubes” and “an end face of the column tube”.
Claim 9 is directed to a connection structure, which is an apparatus. However, lines 9-10 recite a process limitation that before insertion of the capillary tubes the inner diameter of the microcolumn has a particular diameter in relation to that of the capillary tubes. Therefore claim 9 is directed to both an apparatus and a process. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. It is unclear if infringement would occur if an apparatus that is capable of having the recited diameter relationship existed or if infringement would occur when the capillary tubes are actually inserted.
The additional claims are rejected as depending from claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14, the limitation of claim 14 in recited in lines 2-3 of claim 1 as newly amended.
Claim 28 recites the stopper or indicator is attached to each of the two capillary tubes. These limitations are already required in the amendments made to claim 1, from which claim 28 depends and therefore claim 28 does not provide any further structural limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, 14, 27-28 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimura JP7045737 (US equivalent 2023/0358705 will be referred to as the English language equivalent) in view of Michienzi et al. WO 2013/032832.
Claims 1 and 14, Shimura teaches a connection structure (1280) comprising: a microcolumn (1282) and two capillary tubes (1250), the microcolumn comprising a singly composed polymeric column tube (1286) and a packing material (1287) packed inside the column tube, the microcolumn comprising openings at both ends thereof for receiving the two capillary tubes and an inner diameter and material properties of the column tube are configured such that, upon insertion of the capillary tubes into the openings, the column tube elastically engages the outer surfaces of the capillary tubes to form a liquid tight seal without requiring an additional fastening or sealing member (fig. 12, par 125-139, 145-146). In this embodiment Shimura does not teach the capillary tubes comprising a stopper or indicator. In a separate embodiment Shimura teaches each capillary tube comprises a stopper or indicator (1283) which defines a depth of reception of the capillary tubes in the microcolumn, and in a connected state where the capillary tube is received in the column tube, the stopper or indicator is disposed on an outer surface of each capillary tube and has an outer diameter greater than an inner diameter of the microcolumn so as to block further insertion of the capillary tubes into the microcolumn by abutting an end face of the microcolumn (fig. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the stopper or indicator from the embodiment of figure 13 in the embodiment of figure 12 as the stopper/indicator prevents the capillary tubes from being destroying the packing material (par 138). Shimura does not teach porous members disposed within the column tube.
Michienzi teaches a connection structure comprising a microcolumn (pg. 10) comprising a singly composed polymeric column tube (24) and a packing material (28) packed inside the column tube and porous members (30) disposed within the column in contact with both ends of the packing material, the microcolumn comprising openings at both ends thereof capable of receiving capillary tubes (fig. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the porous members of Michienzi because they help to retail the particles of the sorbent bed/packing material (pg. 7, lines 10-18).
Claim 2, Michienzi further teaches the porous member comprises a porous material (pg. 10).
Claims 6-10, Shimura further teaches an inner diameter of the column tube is substantially the same as the outer diameter of the capillary tubes (fig. 12); the packing material is a particulate packing material (par 136); the column tube is made of a fluororesin material (par 131-134); the stopper or indicator is a protrusion provided on the outer circumference of each capillary tube or a flange fixed on the outer circumference of each capillary tube and when each capillary tube is inserted into the column tube, the protrusion or flange abuts against an end face of the column tube, thereby defining the depth to which the capillary is inserted into the column tube, wherein the connection structure is formed by inserting the two capillary tubes into the column tube and the inner diameter of each portion of the microcolumn that receives the capillary tubes is equal to an outer diameter of each of the two capillary tubes (fig. 12-13); and the stopper or indicator defines a position such that an end of each of the capillary tubes would contact an end of the porous member (fig. 12 (Shimura) and fig. 2 (Michienzi)).
Claims 27-28, Shimura in view of Michienzi teaches a microcolumn kit comprising the connection structure according to claim 1, the two capillary tubes, each bearing the stopper or indicator is received in the microcolumn, the stopper or indicator being attached to each capillary tube (fig. 12 (Shimura) and fig. 2 (Michienzi)).
Claim 31, Shimura in view of Michienzi further teaches a method for manufacturing the connection structure of claim 1 as Shimura teaches packing the inside of the column tube with the packing material and Michienzi teaches inserting the porous members into the column tube being in contact with the packing material (fig. 12 (Shimura) and fig. 2 (Michienzi)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimura JP7045737 (US equivalent 2023/0358705 will be referred to as the English language equivalent) in view of Michienzi et al. WO 2013/032832 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Wang et al. US 2021/0172913.
Shimura in view of Michienzi teaches the connection structure of claim 1 but does not teach the porous member comprises a fibrous material.
Wang teaches a connection structure comprising a microcolumn (par 1) and two capillary tubes (270) comprising a singly composed column tube (210) and a packing material (220) packed inside the column tube and porous members (230) comprising a fibrous material (par 41) disposed within the column in contact with both ends of the packing material, the microcolumn comprising openings at both ends thereof capable of receiving capillary tubes (fig. 2). The use of a fibrous material for a porous member to retain packing material is well established as demonstrated by Wang and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights