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 (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation of “a liquid delivery device that performs continuous liquid delivery by complementarily interlocking a plurality of plunger pumps” however, it is not clear if this is step being performed within the method, or merely a feature of the liquid delivery device.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation of a liquid delivery device that “performs continuous liquid delivery by complementarily interlocking a plurality of plunger pumps” however, it is not clear if this is step being performed within a method, or merely a feature of the liquid delivery device in which case should be written as “configured to perform” or similar.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanai et al. US 2024/0360826.
Regarding claim 1, Kanai teaches a liquid delivery abnormality diagnosis method as seen in fig. 7 comprising:
a sealing step (S200) of sealing a flow path on an outlet side of a liquid delivery device that performs continuous liquid delivery by complementarily interlocking a plurality of plunger pumps (101, 106);
a liquid delivery step (S210) of causing the liquid delivery device to perform liquid delivery at a preset diagnostic flow rate after the sealing step so that each of the plurality of plunger pumps performs at least one discharge operation;
a recording step of recording behavior of liquid delivery pressure (S220 monitors the pressure increase) of the liquid delivery device while each of the plurality of plunger pumps executes the discharge operation during execution of the liquid delivery step (S210); and
a diagnosis step of diagnosing presence or absence of a liquid delivery abnormality during the discharge operation of each of the plurality of plunger pumps based on the behavior of the liquid delivery pressure recorded in the recording step (if pressure does not increase a failure is determined in the system paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 2, Kanai teaches performing liquid delivery until a pressure reaches an upper limit value as seen in fig. 8 (phase A).
Regarding claim 3, in Kanai the diagnostic flow rate is set before the step of liquid delivery as they would occur in that order.
Regarding claim 4, Kanai discloses in paragraphs 0079-0081, determining in the diagnosis step, presence of a liquid delivery abnormality (leakage) is during the discharge operation of a plunger pump having a lowest increase amount in the liquid delivery pressure during the discharge operation among the plurality of plunger pumps (pressure upstream or downstream of valve 104 is monitored to determine a leakage amount which would correspond to plunger pump 106 or 101 accordingly).
Regarding claim 5, Kanai discloses in paragraph 0081 the monitoring of pressure to determine leakage in the claimed manner since any pressure drop would indicate a leak.
Regarding claim 6, the method of Kanai would be performed multiple times over the usage of the device and as seen in the flowchart of fig. 7. Since the presence of a leak changes a pressure resistance in the plunger pump as it would allow for movement of the plunger and therefore a resistance of the pump would be correlated to the pressure measurement.
Regarding claim 7, Kanai teaches a liquid chromatograph comprising:
a liquid delivery device that includes a plurality of plunger pumps (101, 106) and a pressure sensor 105, performs continuous liquid delivery of a mobile phase by complementarily interlocking the plurality of plunger pumps, and detects liquid delivery pressure by the pressure sensor;
an opening and closing mechanism 120 for opening and closing a flow path on an outlet side of the liquid delivery device;
a controller 140 configured, when a diagnostic mode is selected, to bring a flow path on the outlet side of the liquid delivery device into a state of being closed by the opening and closing mechanism and to cause the liquid delivery device to perform liquid delivery at a preset diagnostic flow rate so that each of the plurality of plunger pumps performs at least one discharge operation, by controlling operations of the liquid delivery device and the opening and closing mechanism (see step 210, paragraph 0074); and
a recording part that records behavior of the liquid delivery pressure while each of the plurality of plunger pumps executes the discharge operation during the diagnostic mode (the controller records the pressure via pressure sensor 105 as seen in fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Kanai teaches performing liquid delivery until a pressure reaches an upper limit value as seen in fig. 8 (phase A).
Regarding claim 9, the flow rate in the system is set by a user at some point during the operation via the controller 140.
Regarding claim 10, Kanai discloses in paragraphs 0079-0081, determining in the diagnosis step, presence of a liquid delivery abnormality (leakage) is during the discharge operation of a plunger pump having a lowest increase amount in the liquid delivery pressure during the discharge operation among the plurality of plunger pumps (pressure upstream or downstream of valve 104 is monitored to determine a leakage amount which would correspond to plunger pump 106 or 101 accordingly).
Regarding claim 11, Kanai discloses in paragraph 0081 the monitoring of pressure to determine leakage in the claimed manner since any pressure drop would indicate a leak in the plunger pump (see abstract).
Regarding claim 12, the abstract of Kanai discloses that the leakage occurs in a flow path between the liquid delivery device and the opening and closing mechanism when the liquid pressure drops in the diagnostic mode.
Regarding claim 13, the method of Kanai would be performed multiple times over the usage of the device and as seen in the flowchart of fig. 7.
Regarding claim 14, the chromatograph of Kanai detects a pressure change based on the presence of a leak which changes a pressure resistance in the plunger pump as it would allow for movement of the plunger and therefore a resistance of the pump is correlated to the pressure measurement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Ogawa and Bierbaum references are provided as teachings of similar leak detecting systems and methods in a liquid chromatography system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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 Martin 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights