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
Claims 1-10 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.
As to claim 1, “switching to a second configuration” (line 13) is confusing because “assuming a first configuration” (italics added, line 2) is indefinite. Is there a first configuration, or isn’t there; and if so, what is it? How can there be a second configuration, when it’s not clear at all if a first configuration is part of this claim?
As to claim 1, this is a method claim, and such requires clear steps. As such, it’s not clear which of lines 3-11 are steps, and which defines the assumed first configuration. The “method further comprising” (Italics added, line 12) seems to suggest that some of lines 3-11 are steps, but which of those lines are steps? Lines 8-11 appeared as providing 3 steps because the verbs “determining” (line 8), “determining” (line 9) and “setting” (line 11) appear to initiate a step (an action), but lines 3-7 are indefinite because the “is fluidly connected” (line 3), “fluidly connected” (line 4), “pump providing” (line 6) and “pump providing” (line 7) could are not positively expressed as steps, and possibly describe/define either the (“assumed”) “first configuration” or a mere state (that’s not of the first configuration).
As to claim 1, the phrase “in the first configuration: “ (line 5) is confusing because (1) lines 6-11 do NOT appear as an assumed “first configuration” because lines 8-10 appear as steps, while lines 6-7 may or may not be attributed to the first configuration.1 Note that the colon ( “ : “ ) is troubling, because even if the first configuration is only that of lines 3-4 (and stops at the colon), that leaves lines 6-11 which includes totally uncertain lines 6-7 (as one can not tell if they define first configuration (state, if you will) or steps), and lines 9-11 which appear to be more steps than first configuration (state).
As such, it’s not clear what defines the assumed “first configuration”, and similarly unclear what action/verb steps actually define the steps in this method claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9,10 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. Each of claim s 9 and 10 effectively removes all of the actual steps of method claim 1. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witt 2013/167193.
Reference Witt WO 2013/167193 (listed 1449) teaches a method for operating a chromatography system, the method comprising:
the system assuming a first configuration (dashed lines 260 in valve 218), wherein
a first pump 202 is fluidly connected to a first separation column; and
a second pump 206 is fluidly connected to a second separation column 208; in the first configuration:
the first pump 202 providing a fluid to the first separation column 204;
the second pump 206 providing a fluid to the second separation column 208;
determining a second pump 206 target pressure (pressure sensor located at the lowest position marked X in valve 218 or part of pump 206 per Para 114);
determining a first
setting the first pump 202 to provide fluid at the first pump
the system switching to a second configuration (solid lines 271,271), wherein the first pump 202 is fluidly connected to the second separation column 208, while the first pump 202 provides fluid at the first pump
The pressure sensor provides feedback to the control unit 70 to maintain the pressure value between column 204 and column 208 at a constant value (Para 113), and does so by controlling the pumps 202,206 to control pressure (Para 113).
The Reference does not state that the pressure of the first pump 202 is adjusted as a function of the pressure sensor value measured at the X.
As to claims 1,5,7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the controller 70 would vary the pressure of pump 202 in response to the pressure at X because Para 113 suggest that the constant pressure (between 204 and 208) may be controlled by varying the pump 202, and that the pressure sensor adjacent pump 306 provides a variable in determining to what extent the pressure of pump 202 need be varied.
As to claim 2, the second pump 206 operates at significantly higher flow rate as compared to the first pump 202 per Para 99.
As to claim 4, the pressure sensor is always operating, and the a properly operating system suggest any flow is desired.
As to claim 8, lines 14-17 of p. 29 suggests that any change will be small.
As to claim 9, the controller 70 will control the device, such that the method is carried out.
As to claim 10, the controller is a microprocessor or CPU, an either such operates per instructions, or in the alternative, the most effective controllers do so operate, suggestive of utilizing such.
Reference Cited; not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vorih 5,340,381 teaches a method for operating a chromatography system, the method comprising:
the system assuming a first configuration, wherein
a first pump (AIR PUMP) is fluidly connected to a first separation column 20; and
a
the first pump providing a fluid to the first separation column 20;
the
determining a
determining a first
setting the first pump to provide fluid at the first
the system switching (“switched”, line 63, col. 3) to a second configuration, wherein the first pump is fluidly connected to the second separation column, while the first pump provides fluid at the first pump
Reference Guo CN 111948300 teach a first column 4 that receives fluid from one pump 6 in configuration of Figure 1b, and subsequently from pump 1 in second configuration of Figure 1b; and a second column 8 that receives a fluid from pump 6 in configuration of Figure 1b, and subsequently from the same pump 6 in the configuration of Figure 1a. However, “from the same pump 6” does not suggest - - from pump 1 - - as called for in Applicant’s claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Lines 3-4 may potentially be attributed to defining the first configuration too, but lines 3-4 do NOT follow the “in the first configuration:” (line 5) phrase which adds to the uncertainty.
Prosecution Insights