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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to previously recited claim 1, now incorporated into claims 2, 5 and 5, overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), since, allegedly, “a” mobile phase is recited for each of the respective forms, thus allegedly confirms that the same mobile phase is not necessarily present in each form. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited “a mobile phase” for each of the forms may, in fact, be the same mobile phase, or a different mobile phase for each of the forms, thus the claim is indefinite, since it does not clearly state the mobile phases are different or not the same. The Examiner strongly suggests that the Applicant amend each of the instances of “a mobile phase” to a “first,” “second,” third” and/or “fourth” mobile phase associated with each of the recited forms, or in some other manner of wording to clearly establish the differences between the mobile phases associated with the respective forms, all of which must comport with the instant disclosure, thus clearly differentiating the recited mobile phases to overcome the indefinite rejections.
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 2-14 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. Instant independent claims 2, 4 and 5 each repeatedly recite “a mobile phase.” It is unclear if the same mobile phase is being employed, or a different mobile phase is being recited, rendering the claims indefinite. All other claims are similarly rejected due to their dependency.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is U.S. 10,662,384 to Rovani, Jr. et al., which discloses a liquid chromatography system employ multiple mobile phases and columns wherein the mobile phase is directed to the multiple columns in different directions to analyze for saturates, aromatics, resins/polars, highly alkyl substituted pericondensed aromatics, pericondensed aromatics and pre-coke aromatics (see Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights