DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims: Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration. 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, and the species of claim 1 (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 3/02/2026 is acknowledged. 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 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbonell et al (CA 1,336,077) in view of Lauber et al (US 2021/0138361) . Regarding Claim 1 : Carbonell teaches the multi-component chromatographic material comprising: a chromatographic core having an exterior surface (solid hydrophobic support, solids have exterior surfaces) (see pg. 6 lines 12-17) ; and at least two different hydrophobic ligands covalently bound to the exterior surface (covalently bonded to solid supports) (see pg. 8 lines 34-35) , wherein at least two different hydrophobic ligands comprise a first hydrophobic ligand (second hydrophobic group) selected from C 2 to C 4 phenyl alkyl moiety ( phenyl alkyl groups with two to four carbons) (see pg. 12 lines 34-pg. 13 lines 6) , and a second hydrophobic ligand selected from C 4 to C 30 alkyl moiety (C 8 octyl and C 18 octadecyl, “hydrophobic function group may be any of the hydrophobic functional groups noted with respect to silica particles above”) (see pg. 8 lines 27-33, pg. 9 lines 11-14) . Given that the prior art range of C 2 or C 4 phenyl alkyl moiety overlaps the claimed range of C 4 to C 30 at the endpoint a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use a C 4 phenyl alkyl moiety (see MPEP 2144.05). Carbonell does not explicitly teach wherein the total surface coverage of the at least two different hydrophobic ligands is less than 2.0 µ mol/m 2 . Carbonell teaches the surface coverage per milliliter (volume) of silica particles (see pg. 9 lines 2-7) not surface area. Lauber teaches a chromatographic cost having an exterior surface (silica chromatographic material) (see para. 0007) and a hydrophobic ligand (hydrophobic modifier) having a total surface coverage (surface concentration) of 0.2 to 5 micromole per square meter (see para. 0018). Given that the prior art range of 0.2 to 5 µ mol/m 2 overlap s the claimed range of 2.0 µ mol/m 2 an prima facie case of obviousness exists and it would have been obvious to ne skilled in the art to use a surface coverage of less than 2.0 µ mol/m 2 (see MPEP 2011.05) . Carbonell and Lauber are analogous inventions in the art of hydrophobic modified chromatographic materials. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a surface coverage of less than 2.0 µ mol/m 2 as disclosed by Lauber on the chromatographic core of Carbonell because it is within a range known to be for reveres phase chromatography (see Lauber para. 0043, 0018), which is the type of chromatography used in Carbonell (see Carbonell pg. 8 lines 34-37). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Regarding Claim 4: Carbonell, as modified, teaches the multi-component chromatographic material of claim 1, wherein the molar ratio of the first hydrophobic ligand to the second hydrophobic ligand is from about 2.5: 1.0 to about 1.0: 2.5 (about 1:1, provided as A-B-H where H is the first ligand and A is the second ligand) (see Carbonell pg. 12 line 31-pg. 13 line 9) . Regarding Claim 5: Carbonell, as modified, teaches the multi-component chromatographic material of claim 4. Carbonell does not teach the molar ratio of the first hydrophobic ligand to the second hydrophobic ligand is about 1.8: 1.0 . However, “ w here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the ratio of the first to second ligand and use a ratio of about 1.8:1. Regarding Claim 6: Carbonell, as modified, teaches the multi-component chromatographic material of claim 1, wherein the chromatographic core is porous and the average diameter of the pores of the chromatographic core is 60 to 4000 A (see Carbonell pg. 8 lines 22-26). Given that the prior art range of 60 to 4000 A overlaps the claimed range of less than 100 A a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have fount if obvious to use a core with a pore diameter within the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05) . Regarding Claim 7: Carbonell, as modified, teaches the reversed-phase liquid chromatography column comprising a multi- component chromatographic material of claim 1 (“typically columns…commercially available as reverse phase packings”) (see Carbonell pg. 8 lines 15-37) . Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbonell et al (CA 1,336,077) in view of Lauber et al (US 2021/0138361) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rainville et al (CN 112955239, English machine translation provided) . Regarding Claim 2: Carbonell, as modified, teaches the multi-component chromatographic material of claim 1, wherein the second hydrophobic ligand is C 18 alkyl moiety ( octadecyl ) (see Carbonell pg. 8 lines 27-33 ) . The combination does not teaches the first hydrophobic ligand is a phenylhexyl moiety. Rainville teaches a chromatographic material wherein the hydrophobic ligand is a phenylhexyl moiety (phenylhexyl functional group) (see pg. 3, 7 th paragraph). Carbonell, as modified, and Rainville are analogous inventions in the art of hydrophobic modified chromatographic materials. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the C4 phenyl group of Carbonell with the phenylhexyl moiety (phenylhexyl functional group) of Rainville because it is the simple substitution of one known hydrophobic moiety with another known hydrophobic moiety suitable for chromatography, obviously resulting in a hydrophobic functionalized material, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Regarding Claim 2: Carbonell, as modified, teaches the multi-component chromatographic material of claim 1, wherein the second hydrophobic ligand is C 8 alkyl moiety (oct yl ) (see Carbonell pg. 8 lines 27-33) . The combination does not teaches the first hydrophobic ligand is a phenylhexyl moiety. Rainville teaches a chromatographic material wherein the hydrophobic ligand is a phenylhexyl moiety (phenylhexyl functional group) (see pg. 3, 7 th paragraph). Carbonell, as modified, and Rainville are analogous inventions in the art of hydrophobic modified chromatographic materials. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the C4 phenyl group of Carbonell with the phenylhexyl moiety (phenylhexyl functional group) of Rainville because it is the simple substitution of one known hydrophobic moiety with another known hydrophobic moiety suitable for chromatography, obviously resulting in a hydrophobic functionalized material, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5133 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12 . 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 Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /CLAIRE A NORRIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 4/2/2026