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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
With respect to claim 11, Applicant argues the phrase “based at least in part on” is clear when read in light of the specification because the specification expressly states that intensity may be based on one or more of peak height, peak width, and peak area. Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive. Applicant uses evidence from the specifications which is a restatement of the claim language. This restatement does not render the claim clear. It remains unclear if the phrasing “based at least in part on” is intended to describe an inherent property of convolved peak intensity, or that convolved peak intensity is calculated using peak area, height, or width. Further, applicant did not address the lack of clarity with regards to what peak the “a peak area, a peak height, and a peak width” refers to.
Rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
With respect to claim 13, applicant argues the claim is understandable in light of the specifications discussion of intensity being based on peak full-width half-maximum. Applicant arguments are not persuasive. As supported by Figures 3, 7, 8A and 8B, intensity is a value. As recited by claim 13, the intensity “comprises a peak full-width half maximum.” It is unclear how a value could comprise a “peak full-width half maximum.”
With regards to claim 14, applicant argues the relationship between the chemical property and the known peak shape is sufficiently described in the specifications and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand sample properties can affect the observed peak shape. Applicant remarks are not persuasive. It is not evident on the face of the claim what relationship is claimed between the sample and the known peak shape. It is unclear if claim 14 is directed at a step of obtaining the known peak shape or some other relationship between the sample and the known peak.
With regards to claim 15, applicant argues the claims recitation reasonably informs the skilled artisan of the system parameters that may be used in modeling the known peak shape. This argument is persuasive. However, the claim remains indefinite because it is unclear if the known peak shape is modeled on one, or all four of the transfer conduit geometry, an open port interface geometry, and a transport liquid property.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
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 11-16 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 11 discloses “wherein the convolved peak intensity is based at least in part on at least one of a peak area, a peak height, and a peak width.” It is unclear if the phrasing “based at least in part on” is intended to describe an inherent property of convolved peak intensity; or that convolved peak intensity is calculated using peak area, height, or width; or that convolved peak intensity is calculated using peak area, height, and width. Further, it is unclear what peak the “a peak area, a peak height, and a peak width” refers to.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the convolved peak intensity comprises a peak full-width half-maximum.” It is unclear how the intensity (interpreted to be a value) could comprise a peak full-width half maximum. For the purposes of examination claim 13 will be interpreted to mean the convolved peak comprises a peak full-width half maximum.
Claim 14 discloses “wherein the known peak shape is based at least in part on a chemical property of a sample in the sample well plate.” It is unclear if claim 14 is directed at a step of obtaining the known peak shape or some other relationship between the sample and the known peak.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the known peak shape is modeled based at least in part on a transport liquid flow rate, a transfer conduit geometry, an open port interface geometry, and a transport liquid property ” It is unclear if the known peak shape is modeled on one, or all four of the transfer conduit geometry, an open port interface geometry, and a transport liquid property.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights