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 Status
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are pending:
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed 04/21/2026 have been entered. Amendments to the claims overcome §102 rejections do not overcome §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed 01/21/2026.
Amendments to the claims have necessitated new grounds of rejection using prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pg. 10 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Para. [0065]. That is, Nogami describes rotating the fastener lever 220 which in turn moves the fastener handle 210. However, Nogami does not disclose an upstream pipe movement mechanism being an actuator configured to move the upstream pipe in an axial direction to attach and detach the upstream pipe to and from the column cartridge in the state of being installed at the column installation position," as set forth in claim 1. Further, Nogami does not describe any of the components being actuators.
Nakagawa discloses a column tube 15, pipes 11, 19, screws 12, 18, ferrules 13, 17 and motors 41, 43 which may be used to cause the entrance connecting part and the exit concocting part to be close to or apart from the column, attachment and detachment is possible by only one of the motor 41 and the motor 43 when the column can move to right and left.
Para. [0022]. However, Nakagawa does not disclose "...[an] actuator configured to move the upstream pipe in an axial direction to attach and detach the upstream pipe to and from the column cartridge," as set forth in claim 1.
For at least the reasons presented herein, the cited combination of documents does not teach or suggest all of the elements of claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the cited combination of documents does not render independent claim 1 unpatentable, and respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 102 rejections of claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive because Nakagawa explicitly discloses motors 41 and 43 that cause entrance connecting part and exit connecting part to move toward and away from the column (Nakagama, see ¶22) to effect attachment and detachment; such movement occurs along the longitudinal axis of the connection members and therefore constitutes movement in an axial direction. Additionally, a motor is an actuator because it converts energy into mechanical motion. Therefore, Nakagawa teaches an actuator configured to move the connection members.
Arguments and amendments overcome §102 rejections of Nogami (WO 2020/175651) and Yamazaki (JP S 50-150497), therefore said rejections have been withdrawn. Claim 1 is now obvious over Yamazaki (JP S 50-150497) in view of Nakagawa (US 2019/0317061) which is necessitated by amendments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (JP S 50-150497) in view of Nakagawa (US 2019/0317061).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a chromatograph (a liquid chromatography apparatus, see ¶2) comprising: a separation column (column 1) that incorporates a stationary phase (filler 2); a column cartridge (upper and lower covers 3,4 form the cartridge) that accommodates the separation column and is detachably provided in a predetermined column installation position (see Fig. 2); an upstream pipe (includes liquid guide channel 15) that is detachably provided on the column cartridge in a state of being installed at the column installation position, and configured to supply a mobile phase to the separation column of the column cartridge (see Fig. 3 and ¶3); a downstream pipe (includes liquid guide channel 16) that is detachably provided on the column cartridge in a state of being installed at the column installation position, and configured to deliver the mobile phase that has passed through the separation column of the column cartridge (see Fig. 3 and ¶3); and a cover (holder base 10) that is disposed apart from the column installation position, the upstream pipe, the downstream pipe, the upstream pipe moving mechanism and the downstream pipe moving mechanism (see Fig. 3) and that integrally covers the column installation position, the upstream pipe, and the downstream pipe to separate an inner side and an outer side of the cover from each other, wherein the cover has an insertion hole that penetrates the cover and allows the column cartridge to be installed from the outer side of the cover to the column installation position (see Fig. 3).
Yamazaki does not teach an upstream pipe movement mechanism being an actuator configured to move the upstream pipe in an axial direction to attach and detach the upstream pipe to and from the column cartridge in the state of being installed at the column installation position; a downstream pipe movement mechanism configured to move the downstream pipe in the axial direction to attach and detach the downstream pipe to and from the column cartridge in the state of being installed at the column installation position.
In a related field endeavor, Nakagawa teaches a column and exchange device (see ABS) teaches an upstream pipe movement mechanism being an actuator configured to move the upstream pipe in an axial direction to attach and detach the upstream pipe to and from the column cartridge in the state of being installed at the column installation position; a downstream pipe movement mechanism configured to move the downstream pipe in the axial direction to attach and detach the downstream pipe to and from the column cartridge in the state of being installed at the column installation position (motors 41 and 43 may be used to cause the entrance connecting part and the exit concocting part to be close to or apart from the column, attachment and detachment is possible by only one of the motor 41 and the motor 43 when the column can move to right and left, see ¶22 and Fig. 6; a motor is an actuator because it converts energy into mechanical motion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Yamazaki by incorporating pipe movement devices as disclosed by Nakagawa because the connections can be automated and it allows for long-term operation (Nakagawa, see ¶9).
The combination of Yamazaki and Nakagawa teaches “a cover that is disposed apart from the upstream pipe moving mechanism and the downstream pipe moving mechanism”.
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki and Nakagawa teach the chromatograph according to claim 1, wherein the chromatograph includes a plurality of the column installation positions where a plurality of the column cartridges are capable of being installed (Nakagawa, columns can be attached and detached extremely easily, see ¶2), respectively, and a plurality of the upstream pipes (Nakagawa, includes channels 13 and 15, it is suggested that additional piping can be connected with additional columns in ¶2 and Fig. 3) and a plurality of the downstream pipes that are detachably provided on the column cartridges in a state of being installed at the plurality of the column installation positions, respectively, the cover integrally covers the plurality of the column installation positions, the plurality of the upstream pipes, and the plurality of the downstream pipes (Nakagawa, includes channels 14 and 16, it is suggested that additional piping can be connected with additional columns in ¶2 and Fig. 3) to separate the inner side and the outer side of the cover from each other, and the cover (Nakagawa, i.e. holder base 10) has a plurality of the insertion holes that penetrate the cover and allow the plurality of the column cartridges to be installed from the outer side of the cover to the plurality of the column installation positions (Nakagawa, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki and Nakagawa teach the chromatograph according to claim 1.
Yamazaki does not teach an upstream pipe movement mechanism configured to move the upstream pipe in an axial direction to attach and detach the upstream pipe to and from the column cartridge in the state of being installed at the column installation position, wherein the downstream pipe is connected to the column cartridge in association with the installation of the column cartridge at the column installation position via the insertion hole, and the upstream pipe is connected to the column cartridge by the upstream pipe movement mechanism thereafter.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein the downstream pipe is connected to the column cartridge in association with the installation of the column cartridge at the column installation position via the insertion hole, and the upstream pipe is connected to the column cartridge by the upstream pipe movement mechanism thereafter (motors 41 and 43 may be used to cause the entrance connecting part and the exit concocting part to be close to or apart from the column, attachment and detachment is possible by only one of the motor 41 and the motor 43 when the column can move to right and left, see ¶22 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki and Nakagawa teach the chromatograph according to claim 1.
Yamazaki does not teach that the upstream pipe is connected to the column cartridge in association with the installation of the column cartridge at the column installation position via the insertion hole, and the downstream pipe is connected to the column cartridge by the downstream pipe movement mechanism thereafter.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein the upstream pipe is connected to the column cartridge in association with the installation of the column cartridge at the column installation position via the insertion hole, and the downstream pipe is connected to the column cartridge by the downstream pipe movement mechanism thereafter (motors 41 and 43 may be used to cause the entrance connecting part and the exit concocting part to be close to or apart from the column, attachment and detachment is possible by only one of the motor 41 and the motor 43 when the column can move to right and left, see ¶22 and Fig. 6).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (JP S 50-150497) in view of Nakagawa (US 2019/0317061) and further in view of Komori (JP 3-4165).
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki and Nakagawa teach the chromatograph according to claim 1.
Yamazaki does not teach wherein the column cartridge includes a handle that protrudes outward from the insertion hole of the cover in the state of being installed at the column installation position.
In a related field of endeavor, Komori teaches a gas chromatograph cassette (see ABS) teaches wherein the column cartridge (cassette 2) includes a handle (handle 34) that protrudes outward from the insertion hole of the cover in the state of being installed at the column installation position (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the column cartridge of Yamazaki by incorporating a handle as disclosed by Komori because it is the simple of a known handle device for the benefit of grasping when attaching and detaching the cassette (Komori, see ¶1).
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights