CTNF 18/202,626 CTNF 93606 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims Claims 1-9 are pending and the subject of this NON-FINAL Office Action. This is the first action on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112- Indefiniteness 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. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The apparatuses required by the claims are too ambiguous to apply prior art without conjecture as to their scope. When the claims become so ambiguous that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine their scope absent speculation, such claims are invalid for indefiniteness. see In re Steele , 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). Claim 1 is representative and recites: 1. A liquid chromatographic data processing apparatus comprising a data processing unit that generates : display data displaying in accordance with a correspondence relationship of analytical condition data and analytical characteristic data of a chromatographic apparatus, wherein the analytical condition data is of diameters of particles of a column filler, and the analytical characteristic data are of a separation performance index and a sensitivity performance index . First, the underlined portion recites a method of using the generic “chromatographic data processing apparatus” that includes a generic “data processing unit.” This renders the scope of the claimed product confusing. See MPEP § 2173.05(p) (“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”). Second, the phrases “in accordance” and “correspondence relationship” are vague and ambiguous. Neither of these phrases are defined in the specification. “Accordance” means in agreement or conformity with something. Yet, this definition utilizes vague words. Agreement means harmony of opinion, action, or character. In other words, what does this mean: “display data displaying in [harmony of opinion, action, or character] with a correspondence relationship of analytical condition data and analytical characteristic data of a chromatographic apparatus”? On it’s face, the meaning of this “accordance” is too vague to provide any concrete metes and bounds. This is before “correspondence relationship” is considered, which only adds to the confusion. Correspondence is also undefined in the specification. It means the agreement of things with one another; a particular similarity; or a relation between sets in which each member of one set is associated with one or more members of the other. Once again, the definition of “correspondence” is vague. “Agreement,” “similarity” and “associated” are all vague terms on their own. This compounding of vagueness fails to provide any concrete metes and bounds. Then, the “correspondence” is qualified by more vagueness: “correspondence relationship .” What kind of relationship? Loose? Tight? Something more precise. One can see the confusion based on lack of concrete meaning. Yet, most important, what are the “separation performance index” and “sensitivity performance index.” Yet again, the specification never defines these phrases created by Applicants. These are not phrases common in the liquid chromatography art. In fact, the Examiner cannot find them. Applicants seem to have invented these terms without defining them. Instead, the specification mentions them in passing (paras. 0045, 0051, 0054-55, 0073-74 & 0228-29). They might be specific equations (e.g. equation 16 at para. 0062). However, a specific equation does not define a broad, generic phrase. In sum, Applicants are strongly encouraged to amend each independent claim to remove the methods of using the claimed products, and replace that language with programming on the processing unit; remove vague, ambiguous phrases like “accordance” and “correspondence relationship,” and replace them with concrete terms and phrases; and define the “separation performance index” and the “sensitivity performance index” (e.g. with equations, which seem to be the only written description support for the phrases). The dependent claims are full of other confusing terms and phrases. For example, claims 2, 4 and 6-7 recite “accordance” and/or “correspondence relationship,” just like the independent claims. Claims 2-3, 5 and 7 recite “given” (e.g. “given data”), which is confusing because it is not clear who or what gave it. Claims 3 and 5 recite “optimal” (e.g. “a diameter of particles at which the sensitivity performance index becomes optimal for a given separation performance index”), which is confusing because “optimal” is a relative subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). Nor do the claims or specification define how to measure “optimal.” Claim 6 suffers the same confusion as all other claims that include “performance indexes” because claim 6 recites “high-speed performance index,” which is also undefined. Finally, claims 8-9 replace “correspondence relationship” with “concerning,” which is also vague. For example, claim 8 recites “a correspondence relationship between data concerning analytical conditions of a chromatographic apparatus and data concerning analytical characteristics.” “Concern” means to relate to, or be about. It is unclear in what way the data relates to or is about the “conditions of a chromatographic apparatus” and “analytical characteristics.” No specific relationship or measure of “about” is provided. Again, Applicants are encouraged to amend the claims to clarify these issues. Prior Art The following prior art draws a correlation between particle size and HPLC performance and/or sensitivity: US 20160136544, paras. 0015, 0076; US20240279192, Example 3; US 20190145943, para. 0142; US 20210389287, para. 0005; US 20060219633, para. 0106; US 20090277254, para. 0005; Spec, Description of Related Art. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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. /YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/202,626 Page 2 Art Unit: 1743