DETAILED ACTION
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
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 Objections
Claims 2 – 20 and 22 – 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 2 – 20 and 22 – 38, the preamble should refer back to the apparatus or method and utilize a transitional phrase before reciting any new limitations.
Regarding Claims 12, 14, 30, 36, any periods should only be present only after the final word of the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, “cross” should read “across”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 38 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.
The claim(s) are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “a sample introduction system”. It is unclear as to what elements are required to constitute such a system, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “a solvent/solution mixing and transferring system”. It is unclear as to what elements are required to constitute such a system, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “achieve the function of chemical separation of an ultra-high performance liquid chromatography”. It is unclear as to what “chemical separation of an ultra-high performance liquid chromatography” is and how it differs from chemical separation achieves in chromatography, thus rendering the claim indefinite
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “all major components”. It is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of major components are, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “at least 15000 psi with the range from 8000 psi to 20000 psi”. It is unclear how the apparatus must stand a pressure of at least 15000 psi when the range permits 8000 – 14999 psi, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear as to if the degas device is part of the sample introduction system or additional structure, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear as to if the valve is a part of the solvent/solution mixing and transferring system or additional structure and if the LC column is the same as that of Claim 1 or an additional column, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear as to if the valve is a portion of the sample introduction system or additional structure thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the elution motor design". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “broad range of mobile phase input”. It is unclear as to what range can be considered broad, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “to keep the mobile phase stable”. It is unclear as to how stability of the mobile phase is determined and what constitutes a stable mobile phase, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “combination of linear motors”. First it is unclear as to if these linear motors are supposed to limit the linear step motors, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Second, Claim 5 recites a single motor while the present claim recites a plurality of motors. As such, it is unclear as to how many motors are in the claimed invention, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites a “combination of linear motors”. It is unclear as to how the motors are combined, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites a “combination of linear motors to give the elution”. It is unclear as to how motors can give the elution anything, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “achieve the capability”. It’s unclear how capability can be achieved thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “any commercially available column”. It is unclear as to what columns are available commercially and what constitutes as commercially available, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claims 7 – 9, 18, 19, 25 – 27, 36, and 37 the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the silica surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 8 - 10, the claim recites “the spectrum meter detector”. It is unclear as to if this detector is the same as that of claim 1 or some other detector.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “rare gas”. It is unclear as to what constitutes a “rare gas” thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “absorption measurement is used as quantitative determination”. It is unclear how a measurement is used as a quantitative determination and what the determination is of, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “can be easily removed”. It is unclear how ease of removability is determined and what structural limitations are imported by the phrase, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites “high reflection”. It is unclear as to at what point reflection can be considered “high”, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites “absorption measurements”. It is unclear as to what is being absorbs by what, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 12, the phrase "but preferred to be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites a “long optical path”. It is unclear as to at what point an optical path can be considered long, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sample input". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the autosampler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “easily connected or disconnected”. It is unclear how ease of connection or disconnection is determined and what structural limitations are imported by the phrase, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 14 - 16 recite the limitation "UPLC". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “both UPLC and autosampler are portable”. It is unclear as to what structure makes the UPLC and autosampler portable, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitation "the original spectrum/LED/Diode laser". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, the claim recites “can be used”. It is unclear as to if the apparatus is actually used to perform some function or if it is configured in some manner to perform the function, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites “a laboratory UPLC”. It is unclear as to what constitutes a UPLC and what makes it a laboratory type, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites “trace chemicals”. It is unclear as to at what point a chemical can be considered a “trace” chemical, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites “chemical modifications”. It is unclear as to with respect to what standard is the modification done, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites “is capable to do”. It is unclear as to if the apparatus is actually used to perform some function or if it is configured in some manner to perform the function, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites “illegal drugs”. It is unclear as to what basis illegality is determined, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites “is used”. It is unclear as to if the apparatus is actually used to perform some function or if it is configured in some manner to perform the function, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites both “sample introduction process” and “solvent/solution mixing and transferring processes”. It is unclear as to what steps are required as part of each process, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the apparatus". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites “an ultra-high performance liquid chromatography”. It is unclear as to what elements must be present so that the process can be considered “an ultra-high performance liquid chromatography”, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 22, it is unclear as to if the degas device is part of the sample introduction process or additional process, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 22, it is unclear as to if the valve is a part of the solvent/solution mixing and transferring process or additional process and if the LC column is the same as that of Claim 21 or an additional column, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 22, it is unclear as to if the valve is a portion of the sample introduction process or additional process thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the elution motor design". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites “broad range of mobile phase input”. It is unclear as to what range can be considered broad, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites “to keep the mobile phase stable”. It is unclear as to how stability of the mobile phase is determined and what constitutes a stable mobile phase, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites “combination of linear motors”. First it is unclear as to if these linear motors are supposed to limit the linear step motors, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Second, Claim 23 recites a single motor while the present claim recites a plurality of motors. As such, it is unclear as to how many motors are in the claimed invention, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites a “combination of linear motors”. It is unclear as to how the motors are combined, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites a “combination of linear motors to give the elution”. It is unclear as to how motors can give the elution anything, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites “achieve the capability”. It’s unclear how capability can be achieved thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites “any commonly used column”. It is unclear as to what constitutes commonly used, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the silica surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 26 - 28, the claim recites “the spectrum meter detector”. It is unclear as to if this detector is the same as that of claim 1 or some other detector.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites “rare gas”. It is unclear as to what constitutes a “rare gas” thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites “absorption measurement is used as quantitative determination”. It is unclear how a measurement is used as a quantitative determination and what the determination is of, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 28, the claim recites “can be easily removed”. It is unclear how ease of removability is determined and what structural limitations are imported by the phrase, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim recites “high reflection”. It is unclear as to at what point reflection can be considered “high”, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim recites “absorption measurements”. It is unclear as to what is being absorbs by what, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 30, the phrase "but preferred to be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 31, the claim recites a “long optical path”. It is unclear as to at what point an optical path can be considered long, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the sample input". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the autosampler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "UPLC". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 33 and 34 recite the limitation "the original spectrum/LED/Diode laser". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 35, the claim recites “can be analyzed”. It is unclear as to if the compounds are actually analyzed, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 35, the claim recites “a laboratory UPLC”. It is unclear as to what constitutes a UPLC and what makes it a laboratory type, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 36, the claim recites “trace chemicals”. It is unclear as to at what point a chemical can be considered a “trace” chemical, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 36, the claim recites “chemical modifications”. It is unclear as to with respect to what standard is the modification done, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 37, the claim recites “illegal drugs”. It is unclear as to what basis illegality is determined, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Conclusion
A proper search and determination of allowable subject matter was not possible due to the many 112(b) Rejections of the claims outlined above. Upon applicant's amendment to overcome the rejections raised by the Examiner and upon the Examiner's better understanding of the invention a comparison of the prior art to the claims will again be made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855