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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered.
The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
The indefiniteness rejections have been withdrawn but a new rejection is presented below.
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 and 6-10 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 “a flow rate of fluid that has passed through the adsorbent”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because the term “fluid” in not connected to any of the liquid elements present in the claim or another element of the claim. That is, it is unclear if “fluid” is referring to “a liquid to be tested”, one of the liquids in the elution process, regeneration process, a cleaning process or some other liquid. Claim 1 is understood as being applicable to any of these interpretations. Claim 8 is deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Claims 6-10 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, suggest or provide motivation to achieve the presently claimed impurity acquisition system, as recited in independent claim 8.
Independent claim 1 recites a system comprising an adsorbent, a first controller that switches at least one valve, and a flow rate acquisition unit. Independent claim 1 recites that the first controller controls at least one valve to execute 5 specific processes, i.e. a concentration process, an elution process, a first cleaning process, a regeneration process, and a second cleaning process. In the January 21, 2026 Response, Applicant noted that independent claim 1 was amended to clarify that the “various ‘processes’ are states of ‘the at least one valve’ that sets the specific flows of liquid to be tested, regeneration liquid, and eluent to the absorbent, and under what conditions the valve will be so selected and set by the first controller. The state of the valve and corresponding control of the same are structural components, not process components. And while the claims continue to recite the various ‘process’ features, it is to be understood that these are labels to distinguish the various valve states, and not method steps” (see Response pages 8-9). Thus, the claimed process limitations are defining structural elements of the claimed “at least one valve” limitation and the claimed “first controller” limitation. None of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, suggest or provide motivation to achieve a controller that controls an at least one valve that achieves at least the five recited process limitations, which are defining structural limitations of the claimed valve/controller limitations of the claimed impurity acquisition system, as recited in claim 1. That is, none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, suggest or provide motivation to achieve a controller possessing an algorithm or functional capabilities of modifying or controlling at least one valve to execute the functions of a concentration process, an elution process, a first cleaning process, a regeneration process, and a second cleaning process.
The closest cited prior art, WO2019221186A1 (hereinafter WO 186) (US 20210247373 A1 (hereinafter US 373) is cited as the English language translation of WO 186), discloses “an introduction pipe 23 for an eluent 22 is connected to each of the first branched pipe 15 and the second branched pipe 18” and “to prevent the ultrapure water 21 from flowing into the introduction pipe 23 for the eluent 22, the flow is controlled by a valve not illustrated in the figure” (see US 373 paragraph 0120; see also US 373 figures 1-2).). However, the controller and valve of US 373 does not disclose , teach, suggest or provide motivation to achieve a controller and at least one valve that executes the functions of a concentration process, an elution process, a first cleaning process, a regeneration process, and a second cleaning process, as recited in independent claim 1.
Hence, claims 1 and 6-10 are deemed allowed.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
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 extension fee 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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773