DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-8 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 the limitation "the previous second electrophoresis" in line 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites a first energization check step comprises…. a measurement value, the measurement value being based on……. the current being based on the potential difference generated between the two ends of the capillary by applying a voltage to at least one of the electrophoresis buffer solutions by the power supply, or a measurement value, the measurement value being based on the potential difference between the two ends of the capillary, is equal to or smaller than a first value is detected….. The limitation as written as indefinite and vague because it is unclear to the examiner what is “a first value” since there are no steps provided in the method to determine “first value”, thus step of a first warning step is also indefinite. Furthermore, applicant disclosure also does not teach what is a “first value” and how it is determined. Additionally, the first energization check step as written is vague because it is unclear if the first energization check step is determining the status of the electrophoresis medium remained in the capillary or the level of the electrophoresis buffer solution.
Claim 4 recites “a second energization check step of detecting whether the measurement value is equal to or smaller than a second value”. The limitation as written as indefinite and vague because it is unclear to the examiner what is “a second value” since there are no steps provided in the method to determine “second value”, thus step of a third warning step is also indefinite. Furthermore, applicant disclosure also does not teach what is a “second value” and how it is determined
Claim 6 recites “a third energization check step of detecting whether the measurement value is equal to or smaller than a third value”. The limitation as written as indefinite and vague because it is unclear to the examiner what is “a third value” since there are no steps provided in the method to determine “third value”, thus step of a fourth warning step is also indefinite. Furthermore, applicant disclosure also does not teach what is a “third value” and how it is determined
Claim 8 recites “a fourth energization check step of detecting whether the measurement value is equal to or smaller than a fourth value”. The limitation as written as indefinite and vague because it is unclear to the examiner what is “a fourth value” since there are no steps provided in the method to determine “fourth value”, thus step of a fifth warning step is also indefinite. Furthermore, applicant disclosure also does not teach what is a “fourth value” and how it is determined
Claims 2-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claims 1, 4 and 6 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7895. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/GURPREET KAUR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759