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 Interpretation
Claims 1-5 have been examined based on the Preliminary Amendment filed on 12/15/2023.
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.
Claims 1-5 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.
In independent claim 1, the claim is ambiguous, since it is unclear what is meant by “except a nonpolar compound and a slightly polar compound” (is the claim reciting a negative limitation excluding any use of or method step employing any nonpolar or slightly polar compound;
the claim is also ambiguous since it is unclear what is meant by “polarity value of 440 or greater” since no constants or expressions of what such value represents is present in the claim.
In each of claims 2-4, the terms “medium polarity”, “high polarity”, “higher polarity”, respectively, are indefinite, relative terms, since the claim doesn’t state any criteria or standards for characterizing polarity of a polar column, in terms of “medium”, “high” and “higher”. Also in each of claims 2, 3 and 4, it is unclear what is meant by “higher” polarity, the term being ambiguous (“higher than medium polarity”?, “higher than high polarity?)
In claim 2, the claim is also ambiguous since it is unclear what is meant by “polarity value of 700 or greater” since no constants or expressions of what such value represents is present in the claim.
In claim 3, the claim is also ambiguous since it is unclear what is meant by “polarity value of 1550 or greater” since no constants or expressions of what such value represents is present in the claim.
In claim 4, “a liquid phase of the polar compound” (i.e. a type of “liquid”) is inconsistent with succeeding recitation of “is an ionic liquid column” (inherently a solid material of the column construction), thus (“a liquid phase of the polar column…is an ionic liquid” is suggested).
In claim 5, it is unclear whether “an oil and/or a fat” in line 3 of the claim refers back to the same “oil and/or fat” which are introduced in line 1 of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Escapenet English translation of Patent Publication WO2019167390 (publication ‘390) in view of the Archivio et al Non-Patent Literature publication “Characterisation of Gas-Chromatographic Poly(Siloxane) Stationary Phases by Theoretical Molecular Descriptors and Prediction of McReynolds Constants (Archivio). Paragraph numbers of the applied Escapenet English translation are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, publication ‘390 discloses: “A method for separating and quantifying saturated and unsaturated dialkyl ketones, the method comprising quantifying a dialkyl ketone-containing sample (DAKs) by a gas chromatograph (GC) using a column ([0004-0006 and 0013 re quantifying DAKs by GC], and [0012-0013 re use of a measurement capillary GC column for quantifying the oils and fats present].
Claim 1 differs by explicitly reciting the column used to be polar compound, and the polar compound having a polarity value of 440 or greater.
Publication ‘390 further discloses use of packing material for the GC column of dimethylpolysiloxane and diphenyl-dimethylpolysiloxane and similar materials [0012].
Archivio teaches to quantify the retention of analytes in separation chromatographic systems (1. Introduction) , and teaches that selectivity, intermolecular interactions with the chromatographic phases and retention of specific molecules are greatly affected by column polarity (page 2, 1st through 3rd full paragraphs), and
teaches that polarity and selectivity of GC columns can be widely tuned by varying kinds and content of functional groups, with polarity of polysiloxane columns being characterized by McReynolds constants (paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 and Table 1-2), such McReynolds constants varying generally between 200 and 900 and being as high as 942, thus correlating to a “polarity value of greater than 440”.
In addition, the chromatography column parameter of the column having a polarity of 440 or greater is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize efficiency and completeness of separation and quantification of the dialkyl ketones present in the analyte in the column, while maintaining sufficient flow rates of analyte through the column.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separating and quantifying dialkyl ketones, to have modified the method disclosed by ‘390, by selecting the disclosed polysiloxane column packing material such that the column has a high polarity value, characterized as having a value of 440 or greater, as taught or suggested by Archivio. It would have been obvious to have made such method step modification in order to optimize selectivity of the GC column , intermolecular interactions with the chromatographic phases and retention of specific molecules being separated and quantified, and to have optimized efficiency and completeness of separation and quantification of the dialkyl ketones present in the analyte in the column, while maintaining sufficient flow rates of analyte through the column.
Claim 2 differs by explicitly reciting the column used to be polar compound, and the polar compound having a polarity value of 700 or greater.
For claim 2, Publication ‘390 and Archivio together cumulatively suggest the polar compound having a polarity value of 700 or greater; Publication ‘390 disclosing use of packing material for the GC column of dimethylpolysiloxane and diphenyl-dimethylpolysiloxane and similar materials [0012]; and, Archivio teaching polarity of polysiloxane columns being characterized by McReynolds constants (paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 and Table 1-2), such McReynolds constants varying generally between 200 and 900 and being as high as 942, thus correlating to a “polarity value of greater than 700”.
Again, claimed recitation of the chromatography column parameter of the column having a polarity of 700 or greater is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize efficiency and completeness of separation and quantification of the dialkyl ketones present in the analyte in the column, while maintaining sufficient flow rates of analyte through the column.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have thus been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separating and quantifying dialkyl ketones, to have modified the method disclosed by ‘390, by selecting the polysiloxane column packing material such that the column which has a high polarity value, characterized as having a value of 700 or greater, as taught or suggested by Archivio. It would have been obvious to have made such method step modification in order to further optimize selectivity of the GC column , intermolecular interactions with the chromatographic phases and retention of specific molecules being separated and quantified tailored to molecules requiring such high polarity value, and to have optimized efficiency and completeness of separation and quantification of the dialkyl ketones present in the analyte in the column, while maintaining sufficient flow rates of analyte through the column.
Claim 3 differs by explicitly reciting the column used to be polar compound, and the polar compound having a polarity value of 1550 or greater.
For claim 3, Publication ‘390 and Archivio together cumulatively suggest the polar compound having a high polarity, although not teaching the claimed polarity value of 1550 or greater; Publication ‘390 disclosing use of packing material for the GC column of dimethylpolysiloxane and diphenyl-dimethylpolysiloxane and similar materials [0012]; and, Archivio teaching polarity of polysiloxane columns being characterized by McReynolds constants (paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 and Table 1-2), such McReynolds constants varying generally between 200 and 900 and being as high as 942, thus approaching and suggesting of a “polarity value of greater than 1550”.
Again, recitation in claim 3 of the chromatography column parameter of the column having a polarity of 1550 or greater is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize efficiency and completeness of separation and quantification of the dialkyl ketones present in the analyte in the column, while maintaining sufficient flow rates of analyte through the column.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have thus been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separating and quantifying dialkyl ketones, to have modified the method disclosed by ‘390, by selecting the polysiloxane column packing material such that the column which has a high polarity value, characterized as having a value of 1550 or greater, as taught or suggested by Archivio. It would have been obvious to have made such method step modification in order to further optimize selectivity of the GC column , intermolecular interactions with the chromatographic phases and retention of specific molecules being separated and quantified tailored to molecules requiring such high polarity value, and to have optimized efficiency and completeness of separation and quantification of the dialkyl ketones present in the analyte in the column, while maintaining sufficient flow rates of analyte through the column.
For claim 5, Publication ‘390 further discloses a method for producing a chemical transesterified oil and/or fat [0001-0003 concerning quantifying and separating of such materials] ,
comprising separating and quantitatively analyzing saturated and unsaturated dialkyl ketones in the oil and fat using the method described in claim 1.
Regarding the method described in claim 1, publication ‘390 discloses: “A method for separating and quantifying saturated and unsaturated dialkyl ketones, the method comprising quantifying a dialkyl ketone-containing sample (DAKs) by a gas chromatograph (GC) using a column ([0004-0006 and 0013 re quantifying DAKs by GC], and [0012-0013 re use of a measurement capillary GC column for quantifying the oils and fats present]).
Claim 5 again differs by explicitly requiring the method 1 step of the column used being a polar compound, and the polar compound having a polarity value of 440 or greater.
Publication ‘390 further discloses use of packing material for the GC column of dimethylpolysiloxane and diphenyl-dimethylpolysiloxane and similar materials [0012].
Archivio teaches to quantify the retention of analytes in separation chromatographic systems (1. Introduction) , and teaches that selectivity, intermolecular interactions with the chromatographic phases and retention of specific molecules are greatly affected by column polarity (page 2, 1st through 3rd full paragraphs), and
teaches that polarity and selectivity of GC columns can be widely tuned by varying kinds and content of functional groups, with polarity of polysiloxane columns being characterized by McReynolds constants (paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 and Table 1-2), such McReynolds constants varying generally between 200 and 900 and being as high as 942, thus correlating to a “polarity value of greater than 440”.
In addition, the chromatography column parameter of the column having a polarity of 440 or greater is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize efficiency and completeness of separation and quantification of the dialkyl ketones present in the analyte in the column, while maintaining sufficient flow rates of analyte through the column.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separating and quantifying dialkyl ketones, to have modified the method disclosed by ‘390, by selecting the polysiloxane column packing material so that the column which has a high polarity value, characterized as having a value of 440 or greater, as taught or suggested by Archivio. It would have been obvious to have made such method step modification in order to optimize selectivity of the GC column , intermolecular interactions with the chromatographic phases and retention of specific molecules being separated and quantified, and to have optimized efficiency and completeness of separation and quantification of the dialkyl ketones present in the analyte in the column, while maintaining sufficient flow rates of analyte through the column.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Escapenet English translation of Patent Publication WO2019167390 (publication ‘390) in view of the Archivio et al Non-Patent Literature publication “Characterisation of Gas-Chromatographic Poly(Siloxane) Stationary Phases by Theoretical Molecular Descriptors and Prediction of McReynolds Constants (Archivio), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Naughton et al PGPUBS Document US 2002/0155541 (Naughton). Paragraph numbers of the applied Escapenet English translation and of the applied PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 4 further differs by requiring wherein the liquid phase of the polar compound is an ionic liquid column.
Naughton teaches chromatographic separation of compounds of numerous types of organic compounds, including ketones (see [0053 regarding monitoring or measuring of chemical groups of a biomolecule using spectroscopy including ketone groups], and [0106 regarding the spectroscopic monitoring being a follow-up step to chromatographic separation of the biomolecules in chromatographic columns [0103, 0104 and 0106-0108].
Naugton teaches employment of ionic liquid phases with the chromatography columns , in the form of ion exchange media [0104] and/or ionic chromatographic resin (“resin” being generally understood in the material science arts as optionally comprising highly viscous liquids).
Naughton suggests that such use of an ionic liquid column enhances selective binding and retention of biomolecules of interest, containing the above chemical groups [0106 and 0107].
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separating and quantifying dialkyl ketones, to have modified the method disclosed by ‘390, by utilizing an ionic chromatographic resin or highly viscous liquid in the disclosed chromatographic column such that the column is an ionic column, as taught by Naughton, so as to enhance selective binding and retention of ketone-containing chemical groups, thus aiding in separation of the ketones.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest , Rossiter et al patent 5,262,052 concerns a chromatographic column having a stationary phase of a polysiloxane, containing pendant cyano-substituted biphenyls. The cited Publication by Sidisky et al entitled “Temperature Dependence of Equivalent Chain Length Values on Capillary Columns of Different Polarity” concerns separation and quantification of fatty acid ester compounds in a chromatographic column, using stationary phases of varying polarity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
02/03/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773