DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 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 1-16 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.
Regarding All Claims:
The claims contain multiple reference to the same term without the use of definite article for the subsequent terms raising issues of indefiniteness related to if the elements are intended to be the same or not. Specific examples are identified below, however it is recommended that the applicant check the claims in full for antecedent basis issues.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8:
The claims state “in an endless form via pipes…from an upstream side to a downstream side…” It is not clear how an upstream side and downstream side can be identified when the columns are in an endless form and flow circulates. Specifically it is not clear if any location is considered downstream as the flow would return as it circulates through the system or if downstream and upstream are intended to be limited to specific locations.
The claims state “so that each section has at least one of the unit packed column”. It is not clear what “has at least” is limited to. Specifically it is not clear if each section is required to be in a separate column or part of at least one column. It also appears that “column” should be “columns”.
The claims state “which performance is intermediate”. It is not clear what an intermediate performance is or what is intended by this phrase.
The claims state “setting a blocked position to a position…” It is not clear how a position can be set to a position.
The claims refer to “the weakly adsorptive component-rich section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claims refer to “the intermediately adsorptive component-rich intermediately adsorptive fraction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claims refer to “the strongly adsorptive component-rich strongly adsorptive fraction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claims state “to a downstream side in accordance with…” It is not clear what downstream is limited to, both because it is not stated with it is downstream of and because the system is in an “endless form”.
The claims place the phrase “number of sections” in brackets. It is not clear what the brackets are intended for.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9:
The claims state “in an endless form via pipes…from an upstream side to a downstream side…” It is not clear how an upstream side and downstream side can be identified when the columns are in an endless form.
The claims state “so that each section has at least one of the unit packed column”. It is not clear what “has at least” is limited to. Specifically it is not clear if each section is required to be in a separate column or part of at least one column. It also appears that “column” should be “columns”.
The claims state “which performance is intermediate”. It is not clear what an intermediate performance is or what is intended by this phrase.
The claims state “setting a blocked position to a position…” It is not clear how a position can be set to a position.
The claims refer to “the weakly adsorptive component-rich section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claims refer to “the weakly adsorptive component-rich weakly adsorptive fraction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claims refer to “the intermediately adsorptive component-rich intermediately adsorptive fraction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claims state “sub-step (A2)…instead of supplying…”it is not clear if this step requires stopping the supply of the feed solution or not.
The claim states “shifting the blocked position to an upstream side”. It is not clear what the position is upstream of. Further it is not clear what “upstream” is limited to as the columns are in an “endless form”
The claims refer to “the strongly adsorptive component-rich strongly adsorptive fraction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claims state “sub-step (A4) of shifting…to a downstream side”. It is not clear what the side is downstream of or what “downstream” is limited to.
The claim state “separately extracting weakly of the weakly adsorptive fraction of strongly adsorptive fraction not extracted in step (A)…” This limitation renders the claims indefinite because step A requires extracting the weakly and strongly adsorptive fractions, therefore it is not clear which fractions would not have been extracted in step (A).
Regarding Claim 4:
The claim places the phrase “the number of section -2” and “the number of section” in brackets. It is not clear what is intended by the brackets.
Regarding Claims 5 and 13:
The claims state “using a circulation system” however claims 2 and 9, from which they depend already require a circulation system. It is therefore not clear if the claims are intended to further limit the circulation systems of claims 2 and 9 or require an additional circulation system.
The claims state “so that each section has at least one of the unit packed column”. It is not clear what “has at least” is limited to. Specifically it is not clear if each section is required to be in a separate column or part of at least one column. It also appears that “column” should be “columns”.
The claims state “wherein sub-steps (A1) to (A4) are sub-steps (A1-1) to (A4-1)”. It is not clear if these are additional steps applied to a different circulation system, if the steps are replaced, or if the steps are somehow intended to further limit the steps of claim 2.
The claims refers to “the section 1”, “the section 2”, “the section 3”, and “the section 4”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the first instance of all these terms.
The claim states “thereby most strengthening strongest desorption strength” multiple times. These limitations render the claim indefinite because it is not clear what this phrase means.
Line 11 of claim 5 states “supplying an eluent d-II”. The claims refer to “an eluent d-II” numerous times subsequent to line 11. It is not clear if every subsequent instance is a different eluent d-II or the same eluent. Subsequent instances of the same element within a claim should be preceded by a definite article (the or said). Numerous other eluents are referred to multiple times without the use of definite articles.
Sub-step (A3-1) refers to “an eluent supply port D-II” however sub-step (A2-1) already provides antecedent basis for eluent supply port D-II. There are also additional instances of reference to “an eluent supply port D-II” throughout the claims. The same issue applies to the other eluent supply ports referenced in the claims.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14:
The claims state “using a circulation system” however claims 2 and 9, from which they depend already require a circulation system. It is therefore not clear if the claims are intended to further limit the circulation systems of claims 2 and 9 or require an additional circulation system.
The claims state “so that each section has at least one of the unit packed column”. It is not clear what “has at least” is limited to. Specifically it is not clear if each section is required to be in a separate column or part of at least one column. It also appears that “column” should be “columns”.
The claims state “wherein sub-steps (A1) to (A4) are sub-steps (A1-2) to (A4-2)”. It is not clear if these are additional steps applied to a different circulation system, if the steps are replaced, or if the steps are somehow intended to further limit the steps of claim 2.
The claims refers to “the section 1”, “the section 2”, “the section 3”, and “the section 4”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the first instance of all these terms.
The claim states “thereby most strengthening strongest desorption strength” multiple times. These limitations render the claim indefinite because it is not clear what this phrase means.
Line 10 of claim 6 states “supplying an eluent d-II”. The claims refer to “an eluent d-II” numerous times subsequent to line 10. It is not clear if every subsequent instance is a different eluent d-II or the same eluent. Subsequent instances of the same element within a claim should be preceded by a definite article (the or said). Numerous other eluents are referred to multiple times without the use of definite articles.
Sub-step (A2-2) refers to “an eluent supply port D-II” however sub-step (A1-2) already provides antecedent basis for eluent supply port D-II. There are also additional instances of reference to “an eluent supply port D-II” throughout the claims. The same issue applies to the other eluent supply ports referenced in the claims.
Regarding Claim 12:
The claim places the phrase “the number of sections -2” in brackets. It is not clear what the brackets are intended to mean.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding Claims 5 and 13, which depend from claims 2 and 9 respectively, the claims state “wherein sub-steps (A1) to (A4) are sub-steps (A1-1) to (A4-1)”. This limitation does not contain all the limitations from the claims from which they depend because the required sub-steps of claims 2 and 9 are replaced with different sub-steps. Regarding Claims 6 and 14, which depend from claims 2 and 9 respectively, the claims state “wherein sub-steps (A1) to (A4) are sub-steps (A1-2) to (A4-2)”. This limitation does not contain all the limitations from the claims from which they depend because the required sub-steps of claims 2 and 9 are replaced with different sub-steps. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Prior Art
The claims contain extensive issues related to indefiniteness and 112 rejections, therefore detailed claim mapping with the prior art cannot be provided. However the limitations of the claims appear to be disclosed or would be rendered obvious by the prior art. See for example, Green (USPN 6,004,518), Moran (USPN 5,635,072), and Okada et al (WO 2020100471, English machine translation provided). The prior art teaches a simulated moving-bed type chromatographic separation method (see Okada: Abstract, Green: Abstract, Moran: col. 1 lines 9-14) with three or more packed columns divided into at least three section (four section) (see Okada pg. 9, Embodiment 1). The prior art teaches separation using an eluent, a weakly adsorptive component, a strongly absorptive component, and an intermediately (moderately) adsorptive component (see Okada, Abstract). The prior art further teaches blocking circulation of the circulation system (closing a valve) (see Okada pg. 3, last 2 paragraphs, Moran; Col. 2 lines 5-10) and controlling the supply of eluent (see Okada pg. 7 step (b)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 8/13/2026
Prosecution Insights