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 2-26 and 53 are pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 2-23 and 53 in the reply filed on 03 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 24-26 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 2-4, 18-23, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhirani et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2012/0056632) in view of Wu et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, 2018, 353, 519-532), hereinafter “Dhirani” and “Wu”.
With respect to claims 2-4, Dhirani teaches a method of monitoring a separation process (“chemical process”) in a column apparatus (Paragraph [0029]) using a conductance measurement system (Paragraph [0029]); the column apparatus configured to contain a solid stationary phase having affinity for sample carried by the mobile phase (see HPLC column with stationary phase discussed in Figs. 5, 9; Paragraphs [0078, 0132, 0145]), receive a liquid mobile phase comprising sample (Paragraphs [0142, 0143]), and enable flow of the mobile phase through the stationary phase in a flow direction (Paragraph [0125, 0128]); however, Dhirani does not teach that the measurement system comprises a set of electrodes arranged at a sensing location of the column apparatus, instead, the conductance detector 74 is downstream from the column 68 comprising stationary phase (see Fig. 5; Paragraphs [0132, 0133, 0145]). Dhirani teaches varying the composition of a mobile phase through the column in Paragraph [0143], “causing a first liquid mobile phase to flow through the stationary phase in a flow direction; causing a second liquid mobile phase to flow through the stationary phase in the flow direction”), as well as applying a voltage (“an electrical stimulation”) to the set of electrodes in the conductance detector; receiving an electrical signal from the set of electrodes as current; and determining one or more characteristics of a transition between the first liquid mobile phase and the second liquid mobile phase by processing the electrical signal received from the set of electrodes (see Paragraph [0143, 0147]; Fig. 10a,b, which discusses that the changing mobile phase gives rise to a changing background in data from the conductance detector as methanol accumulates on the conductance sensor’s surface as discussed in Paragraph [0143]); however, the electrodes are not specifically disclosed to be on the column itself at sensing locations.
Wu teaches a plurality of electrodes spaced circumferentially around a column comprising stationary phase (see Figs, 4, 8; Pages 524-525: “Experimental description”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Dhirani with the circumferentially arranged electrodes disclosed by Wu because Wu teaches that the electrodes allow for determination of real-time mobile phase distribution through the column as well as if any liquid mobile phase is being held up in the stationary phase (Abstract). The ordinary artisan would have recognized that these advantages would aid in determining the mobile phase distribution in the column of Dhirani, which employs a gradient elution technique.
With respect to claim 18, Dhirani in view of Wu teaches applying time-dependent voltages and receiving timed signals within a first and second period of time, in order to determine how the composition of mobile phase is changing between the first and second periods of time (see Dhirani: Paragraphs [0143, 0147]).
With respect to claims 19, 20, and 22, Dhirani in view of Wu teaches adjusting separation parameters based on the data in real time to improve separation or to optimize separation time or abort if the separation is not desirable in order to save resources (see Dhirani: Paragraph [0160]).
With respect to claim 21, Dhirani in view of Wu teach determining a spatial distribution of the mobile phase (see Wu: Abstract, and see Paragraphs [0143,0147] of Dhirani which tracks the distribution of varying composition of the mobile phase as discussed above), wherein controlling the separation process comprises adjusting an end time to improve separation (see Paragraph [0160] of Dhirani).
With respect to claims 23 and 53, Dhirani in view of Wu teaches a frequency of conductance measurements of the mobile phase over time, and with respect to the sample species within the mobile phase and its separation profile over time (see Paragraph [0160], “interaction between solid stationary phase and mobile phase component” as recited in claim 53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as Dhirani in view of Wu does not disclose first and second sets of electrodes that are spaced apart from one another in a flow direction as recited in claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 18 August 2026
Prosecution Insights