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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 08 November 2024 and 17 August 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figures 1-3 and 9-10: Blank reference boxes (200), (300), (400), (500), (600), (30), (40) should also be labeled with their representative structure in order to more easily identify the structure quickly that is utilized in the invention without having to read through the specification. For example, reference box (600), as shown in Figures 1-3, should also be labeled -- Detector --. See 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) below.
1.83 Content of drawing.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[31 FR 12923, Oct. 4, 1966; 43 FR 4015, Jan. 31, 1978; paras. (a) and (c) revised, 60 FR 20195, Apr. 25, 1995, effective June 8, 1995; para. (a) revised, 69 FR 56481, Sept. 21, 2004, effective Oct. 21, 2004; para. (a) revised, 78 FR 62368, Oct. 21, 2013, effective Dec. 18, 2013]
PLEASE NOTE THAT A REFERENCE NUMERAL IS NOT A LABEL.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference numeral “21” does not appear within Figure 3, as first suggested by the disclosure on page 26, page line 6.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference numeral “20a”, as shown in Figure 3, does not appear within the written specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, page line 22: A – comma – should be inserted after the abbreviation “e.g.”.
Page 7, page line 1: Should the term – nonpolar – replace the term “unipolar.”
Page 9, page line 25: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “example.”
Page 21, page line 15: The designation “1a” should be corrected to read -- 1 -- because only one figure 1 is provided.
Page 21, page line 18: The designation “2a” should be corrected to read -- 2 -- because only one figure 2 is provided.
Page 21, page line 20: The designation “3a” should be corrected to read -- 3 -- because only one figure 3 is provided.
Page 21, page line 22: The designation “4a” should be corrected to read -- 4 -- because only one figure 4 is provided.
Page 21, page line 24: The designation “5a” should be corrected to read -- 5 -- because only one figure 5 is provided.
Page 21, page line 26: The designation “6a” should be corrected to read -- 6 -- because only one figure 6 is provided.
Page 21, page line 28: The designation “7a” should be corrected to read -- 7 -- because only one figure 7 is provided.
Page 21, page line 30: The designation “8a” should be corrected to read -- 8 -- because only one figure 8 is provided.
Page 22, page line 1: The designation “9a” should be corrected to read -- 9 -- because only one figure 9 is provided.
Page 24, page lines 4, 6, and 21: A – comma – should be inserted after the abbreviation “e.g.”.
Page 24, page line 17: The phrase “of the” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-21 and 26-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 13, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recited the functionality/intended use of the system.
Re claim 26, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recited the functionality/intended use of the system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,093,921 (Gaisford et al.).
With respect to the limitation of claim 26, Gaisford et al. disclose a separation column for separating substances in a substance mixture (col. 1, lines 19-22), wherein said separation column comprises at least a first section wrapped around a central axis (column has an arbitrary first section that is wrapped around a central axis – Figure 17);
said first section comprises a first subsection and a second subsection (arbitrary labeling as to a first section of column broken down into further subsections – Figure 17); and
said first subsection is configured to receive electromagnetic radiation with a higher intensity than said second subsection (an antenna (330) with a varying diameter over its length causes a smaller interval between a first subsection and the radiation source/antenna (330) than a second interval between the antenna and the second subsection of the column, such that the intensity of the radiation at the first subsection is greater than the intensity experienced at the second subsection – Figure 17), so that said first subsection is heatable by said electromagnetic radiation more intensively than said second subsection (varying the diameter of the antenna (330) over its length causes a smaller interval between a first subsection and the radiation source/antenna (330) than a second interval between the antenna and the second subsection of the column, such that the intensity of the radiation at the first subsection is greater than the intensity experienced at the second subsection – Figure 17), wherein an interval between said first subsection and said central axis is smaller than an interval between said second subsection and said central axis (varying the diameter of the antenna (330) over its length causes a smaller interval between a first subsection and the radiation source/antenna (330) than a second interval between the antenna and the second subsection of the column – Figure 17).
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.
Claims 13-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,093,921 (Gaisford et al.) in view of US 5,808,178 (Rounbehler et al.).
With respect to the limitations of claim 13, Gaisford et al. disclose a system for separating substances in a substance mixture (microwave heating apparatus for gas chromatographic column – title), said system having a radiation source (antenna (330) – Figure 17) and a separation column (column – Figure 17), wherein:
said separation column comprises at least a first section, said first section comprising at least a first subsection and a second subsection (arbitrary labeling as to a first section of column broken down into further subsections – Figure 17);
said radiation source (330) is configured to radiate electromagnetic radiation in the direction of said first section to heat said first section (microwave radiation radiates from the antenna (330) in the direction of the first section of the column to heat the column – Figure 17 and col. 15 through col. 16); and
said electromagnetic radiation is receivable in said first subsection of said separation column with a higher intensity than in said second subsection of said separation column (varying the diameter of the antenna (330) over its length alters the temperature profile of the column at least over the length of the antenna (330) – Figure 17 and col. 16, lines 13-16), so that said first subsection is heatable more intensively than said second subsection and a temperature gradient can be formed along said first section of said separation column (different temperature profiles for different sections create a temperature gradient in the different subsections of the column), wherein said first section of said separation column surrounds said radiation source (column surrounds the antenna (330) – Figure 17), wherein said first section has a length along said separation column of at least 500 mm (common capillaries range in size from 4 to 60 meters in length – col. 2, lines 56-58) and said electromagnetic radiation is receivable in said first section of said separation column so that said temperature gradient is formed along said first section (different temperature profiles for different subsections create a temperature gradient in the different subsections of the column). Gaisford et al. fails to disclose that the electromagnetic radiation comprising infrared radiation.
Rounbehler et al. disclose high speed gas chromatography utilizing a gas chromatography column heated by infrared radiation (col. 13, lines 25-26). Modifying Gaisford et al. to utilize infrared heating would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as radiant heat transfer is virtually instantaneous and the only time delay associated with infrared heating involves heating the glass or quartz tubing of the column once the energy has been absorbed by a coating material (col. 13, lines 30-36).
With respect to the limitation of claim 14, the combination (Gaisford et al.) further discloses that an interval (s1) between said first subsection and said radiation source is smaller than an interval (s2) between said second subsection and said radiation source (varying the diameter of the antenna (330) over its length causes a smaller interval between a first subsection and the radiation source/antenna (330) than a second interval between the antenna and the second subsection of the column – Figure 17).
With respect to the limitation of claim 15, the combination (Gaisford et al.) further discloses that an interval between said separation column and said radiation source in said first section increases or decreases at least in sections (varying the diameter of the antenna (330) over its length causes intervals between the first section and the radiation source/antenna (330) to increase or decrease at least in sections – Figure 17).
With respect to the limitation of claim 16, the combination (Gaisford et al.) further discloses that the radiation source in said first section increases or decreases at least in sections over a length of said separation column of at least 100 mm (varying the diameter of the antenna (330) over its length causes increases or decreases at least in sections over a length of the column of at least some distance). The combination fails to expressly disclose that the length of increases or decreases of at least 100 mm; however, the Examiner argues that this limitation is a choice of design well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art and can be influenced by the size of the column as well as the size of the oven containing the column.
With respect to the limitation of claim 17, the combination (Rounbehler et al.) further disclose that the separation column is provided with a coating at least in sections, said coating affecting the intensity of the receivable electromagnetic radiation (column is coated with a material that absorbs a wavelength of infrared energy that is emitted by an infrared source – col.13, lines 26-28).
With respect to the limitation of claim 18, the combination (Gaisford et al.) further discloses that the radiation source comprising a first section and a second section, wherein said first section is configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in the direction of said first subsection with a higher intensity than said second section is configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in the direction of said second subsection (varying the diameter of the antenna (330) over its length causes a smaller interval between a first subsection and the radiation source/antenna (330) than a second interval between the antenna and the second subsection of the column, such that the intensity of the radiation at the first subsection is greater than the intensity experienced at the second subsection – Figure 17).
With respect to the limitation of claim 19, the combination (Gaisford et al.) further disclose a shield member (250) arranged between said radiation source (330) and said separation column, said shield member being configured to shield part of the electromagnetic radiation of said radiation source (dielectric (250) does not absorb microwave energy appreciably; however, it provides a shield for the column – Figure 17).
With respect to the limitation of claim 20, the combination (Gaisford et al.) discloses a temperature difference is at the temperature gradient but fails to expressly disclose a temperature difference of at least 0.5 degrees Celsius. The Examiner argues that creating a specific temperature difference is a matter of choice that is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as a means of controlling the separation/retention times of the components in the substance mixture to provide greater control over the separation.
With respect to the limitation of claim 21, the combination further disclose that
determining said temperature difference the temperature at a first position of said separation column is compared with a temperature at a second position of said separation column (different temperature profiles for different sections create a temperature gradient in the different subsections of the column) and between said first position of said separation column and said second position of said separation column there is a distance along said separation column of at least 500 mm (common capillaries range in size from 4 to 60 meters in length – col. 2, lines 56-58).
With respect to the limitation of claim 22, Gaisford et al. disclose a method for separating substances in a substance mixture, the method comprising the steps:
introducing said substance mixture to an inlet of a separation column (chromatography involves injecting a sample mixture through a chromatographic column – col. 1, lines 19-22);
radiating electromagnetic radiation emanating from a radiation source to at least a first section of said separation column to heat said first section (microwave radiation radiates from the antenna (330) in the direction of the first section of the column to heat the column – Figure 17 and col. 15 through col. 16), said separation column receiving said electromagnetic radiation in a first subsection of said first section with a higher intensity than in a second subsection of said first section, so that said first subsection is heated more intensively than said second subsection (varying the diameter of the antenna (330) over its length causes a smaller interval between a first subsection and the radiation source/antenna (330) than a second interval between the antenna and the second subsection of the column, such that the intensity of the radiation at the first subsection is greater than the intensity experienced at the second subsection – Figure 17) and a temperature gradient is formed along said first section of said separation column (different temperature profiles for different sections create a temperature gradient in the different subsections of the column), wherein said first section of said separation column surrounds said radiation source (column surrounds the antenna (330) – Figure 17 and col. 16, lines 13-16), wherein said first section of said separation column surrounds said radiation source (column surrounds the antenna (330) – Figure 17), wherein said first section has a length along said separation column of at least 500 mm (common capillaries range in size from 4 to 60 meters in length – col. 2, lines 56-58) and said electromagnetic radiation is receivable in said first section of said separation column so that said temperature gradient is formed continuously along said first section (different temperature profiles for different subsections create a temperature gradient in the different subsections of the column); and
deploying said separated substance mixture from an outlet of said separation column (after separation the individual mixture components are swept towards the column exit – col. 1, lines 28-31). Gaisford et al. fails to disclose that the electromagnetic radiation comprising infrared radiation.
Rounbehler et al. disclose high speed gas chromatography utilizing a gas chromatography column heated by infrared radiation (col. 13, lines 25-26). Modifying Gaisford et al. to utilize infrared heating would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as radiant heat transfer is virtually instantaneous and the only time delay associated with infrared heating involves heating the glass or quartz tubing of the column once the energy has been absorbed by a coating material (col. 13, lines 30-36).
With respect to the limitation of claim 23, the combination (Gaisford et al.) discloses a temperature difference is at the temperature gradient but fails to expressly disclose a temperature difference of at least 0.5 degrees Celsius. The Examiner argues that creating a specific temperature difference is a matter of choice that is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as a means of controlling the separation/retention times of the components in the substance mixture to provide greater control over the separation.
With respect to the limitation of claim 24, the combination further disclose that
determining said temperature difference the temperature at a first position of said separation column is compared with a temperature at a second position of said separation column (different temperature profiles for different sections create a temperature gradient in the different subsections of the column) and between said first position of said separation column and said second position of said separation column there is a distance along said separation column of at least 500 mm (common capillaries range in size from 4 to 60 meters in length – col. 2, lines 56-58).
With respect to the limitation of claim 25, the combination (Gaisford et al.) discloses a method of analyzing substances as recited in the base claim; and detecting, by a detector, substances in the separated substance mixture (after separation the individual mixture components are swept towards the column exit where they are detected and measured by a detector– col. 1, lines 28-31).
With respect to the limitation of claim 27, Gaisford et al. disclose all of the limitation of the base claim, but fail to disclose that the separation column is provided with a coating at least in sections, said coating affecting the intensity of the receivable electromagnetic radiation in said first subsection and/or said second subsection.
Rounbehler et al. disclose high speed gas chromatography utilizing a gas chromatography column heated by infrared radiation (col. 13, lines 25-26). The separation column is provided with a coating at least in sections, said coating affecting the intensity of the receivable electromagnetic radiation (col.13, lines 26-28). Modifying the column with a coating would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as radiant heat transfer is virtually instantaneous and the only time delay associated with infrared heating involves heating the glass or quartz tubing of the column once the energy has been absorbed by a coating material (col. 13, lines 30-36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art disclose a temperature gradient gas chromatograph utilizing a column and oven, whereby the column comprises multiple sections and subsections, and electromagnetic radiation source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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 Sweeney 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.
/DANIEL S LARKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights