DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks take the position that by clarifying the claim to requiring the triangle to comprise an apex and the apex is opposite the opening overcomes the prior art rejections. This has not been found persuasive. Initially, triangle seen in figure 11 does not exist, but is rather drawn. Van Berkle also teaches an apex of a triangle between “a” and “b” below that is opposite the opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
171
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
That is, the claim does not require any structural component to have an apex, therefore is insufficient to overcome the rejection in view of Van Berkle.
Moreover, the remarks do not address the interpretation in view of Roach. Lastly, upon further search and consideration, US pgPub 2021/0325351 to Fang teaches an inverted triangle to form an apex of a probe (see figure 6 and paragraph [0110]). Therefore, just as in the instant application a triangle may be formed (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
257
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since such a channel 3 port allows for high spatial resolution imaging ([0072]), it is interpreted to have a height substantially equal to the width of the channels. As discussed in the last office action:
Paragraph [0087] of the instant published application recites:
“ In preferred embodiments for producing maximum signal, the height of the triangle abc shown in FIG. 11 is near to or approximately equal to the width of the channels. For example, in FIG. 11, the width 1003 of the solvent channel and the width of the spray channel are 30 μm and the height 1005 of the triangle abc is 30 μm. This design provided the best mass spectra in terms of the SIN ratio”
That is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is any height and width near to or approximately equal to the width of the channels and forms a triangle is sufficient to teach this limitation.
With respect to “about equal”, the instant specification teaches in paragraph [0087] (prior to the usage of the word about) that “In order to minimize the effect of the shape of the sample probe on shear force a sample probe tip cross-section of about 40 μm or below is preferred but larger tips may be used at the expense of spatial resolution…The ability to control the size of the liquid bridge formed by the sample probe to the sample surface is a major contribution of the systems and methods described herein and provides a mass spectrum with a high signal to noise ratio and signal stability. The two channels comprising the sample probe produce a liquid bridge between the solvent flowing inside the device and sample surface. The size of the liquid bridge is controlled by the size of the channels forming the liquid bridge and the flow rate of the solvent through the device.” Therefore, the claimed “about equal” is interpreted to be close enough to provide a high spatial resolution or signal to noise ratio and signal stability. Here, Fang teaches high spatial resolution ([0072]) and high stability ([0089]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the widths of the capillaries to be “about” the height because the high spatial resolution is achieved.
MPEP 2111 recites “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.”
Here the ordinary meaning of “about” is indefinite unless a standard for measuring that term of degree is disclosed in the specification (see MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Since the specification provides conditions (i.e. high spatial resolution or high S/N and stability) for about equal, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand about equal width to height of a triangle to be one where either high spatial resolution or high S/N and stability are achieved ([0087] of the published application). Since Fang teaches high spatial resolution and a triangle can be drawn on the probe, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the height to width of the channels are sufficient to meet the requirement for “about equal”.
Lastly, MPEP 2111.01 (II) recites:
“"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”
Here, the claimed probe is not required to have an apex that forms one of the vertices of the claimed triangle, therefore it would be improper to read the apex into the claim.
Therefore, the remarks are unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
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 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Berkel (USPN 9,064,680) in view of Timperman (US pgPub 2006/0285999) ) and further in view of Laskin et al. (US pgPub 2018/0033597) in view of Gratz et al. (DE4040786) as evidenced by Javid (submitted with the office action of 21 June 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Van Berkel teaches a system for ionizing a sample (various embodiments seen in figures. Col. 2, lines 43-56 teach a system for analyzing samples), the system comprising:
a probe (probe, see abstract) comprising a primary channel (solvent delivery conduit fig. 4b, 166 for example, wherein the sample conduit is arranged on probe at different positions throughout figures) and a spray channel (liquid extraction channel, for example 174 in figure 4b) intersecting at a fixed orientation relative to each other (as seen in figure 4b, different orientations seen in other figures) at an opening in a tip (170) of the probe (154 see figure 4a)
wherein a width of the primary channel, a width of the spray channel, and a width of the opening form a triangle comprising an apex and a height of the triangle is about equal to the width of each of the primary channel, and the spray channel (see annotated figures below);
PNG
media_image3.png
287
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
219
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
wherein the probe is operable to create a liquid bridge at the opening between the primary channel, the spray channel, and a surface that comprises a sample (78, liquid micro junction is equivalent to the bridge, see col. 4, lines 33-38) when the opening is located proximal to the surface that comprises the sample (as seen in figure 2 for instance) and a liquid is flowed through the primary channel into the spray channel across the opening (col. 4, lines 33-38) and wherein the apex is opposite the opening (see annotated figure above); and
a nanospray emitter (fig. 2b, 86, note col. 6, lines 31-48 teach reducing the channel dimensions of each succeeding flow channel, the electrospray emitter channel is reduced from the dimensions of the nip channel which are reduced from the liquid extraction channel and the channels having a width of 10-1000nm, thus the electrospray emitter has a nano-dimensioned width and therefore interpreted as a nanospray emitter (i.e. nm is size and emitting a spray)) in fluid communication with the opening via the spray channel (as seen in figure 2b) a point between the opening and the nanospray emitter (anywhere along 74 which starts at claimed opening and ends at emitter 86)
wherein the primary channel and the spray channel are integrally formed within the body of the probe (as seen in figure 2b, probe comprises primary channel 66 and spray channel 74, thus integrally formed)
Berkel fails to disclose wherein the probe further comprises a makeup solvent channel in fluid communication with the spray channel.
However, Timperman teaches wherein the probe further comprises a makeup solvent channel in fluid communication with the spray channel (fig. 1, make-up flow channel in communication with main channel 25 which extends from reservoir 15 (i.e. opening) to a spray capillary 29).
Timperman modifies Van Berkel by suggesting a make-up flow channel attached to the main channel of an electrospray ionization device.
Since both inventions are directed towards flowing samples to an electrospray ionization device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach a make-up flow channel to the liquid extraction channel 74 of Van Berkel (i.e. equivalent to the main channel of Timperman because it extends from a sample inlet to an ESI emitter tip) because the make-up solution adjusts the flow rate to the ESI tip to optimize flow rate and stability of the electrospray ([0049] and [0052] of Timperman).
The combined device fails to disclose one or more shear force detection sensors integrated into a body of the probe that allow for maintaining a desired distance between the primary channel and the spray channel and the surface.
However, Laskin et al. teach one or more shear force detection sensors (fig. 1, 48b, paragraph [0045] discloses a piezoelectric device as the sensor 48b, thus a shear force detection sensor as disclosed in the instant specification) integrated into a body of the probe (48b integrated into probe body 40) that generates data that is processed by a controller that then provides for maintaining a desired distance between the primary channel and the spray channel and the surface ([0052] teaches vibratory variation detected with sensor 48b is a measure of shear force variation with distance separating probe tip from surface, paragraph [0053] teaches output of lock-in amplifier 114 corresponds to the vibratory response level of sensor 48b, paragraph [0054] teaches output of lock-in amplifier 114 is conditioned by signal conditioning circuitry 116, the resulting digital signal is applied to controller logic 82 to determine the relative separation distance between probe tip and sample face. Paragraph [0055] teaches controller 80 including logic 82 maintains an approximately constant separation distance between tip and uneven surface 100 of the sample) ) wherein the one or more shear force detection sensors are one or more piezoelectric devices proximate a tip of the probe (sensor 48b is proximate the tip relative to sensor 48a, paragraph [0048] teaches “stimulator 48a being located farther away from tip 43 than sensor 48b”).
Laskin modifies the combined device by teaching a means to maintain a constant separation distance between the tip and an uneven surface.
Since both inventions are directed towards combined topography and mass spectrometry of a sample, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the sensing and agitator features of Laskin on the combined because it would allow for the capture of detailed 3D information about a sample and its composition even for uneven surfaces ([0004] and [0058]).
While Laskin suggests a mechanical fixing of the piezoelectric device to the probe, the combined device fails to identify they type of piezoelectric device used, thus fails to disclose the piezoelectric device is a piezoelectric disc and the piezoelectric device is integrally formed within the body of the probe.
However, Gratz et al. teach measuring with a piezoelectric disk (see page 5, last sentence of first paragraph) and the piezoelectric device is integrally formed within the body of the probe (see page 5, last sentence of first paragraph teaches piezoelectric disk built into the probe base body).
Gratz et al. modifies the combined device in view of Laskin by suggesting the type of piezoelectric device to use as a sensor.
Since both inventions are directed towards measuring with a probe, it would have been obvious to select the piezoelectric disk as discussed in Gratz et al. as the type of piezo in Laskin because it would resolve the problem of which type of piezoelectric to use. That is, the piezoelectric disk is suitable for the intended purpose of Laskin. Lastly, as evidenced by Javid, piezoelectric discs in probes offer a cost effective alternative (see abstract and page 14, section 2.2.3). Moreover, building the disk into the probe base body would resolve how the piezo device of the combined device is mechanically fixed to the probe.
Regarding claim 10, Van Berkel teaches wherein the spray channel is from about 1 micron in cross-sectional width (col. 6, lines 43-45 teaches 1000 nm thus 1 micron).
Regarding claim 11, Van Berkel teaches wherein the opening is from 1 micron to about 600 microns wide (col. 6, lines 43-45, since each channel can be 1 micron and the channels intersect as shown in the annotated figure above, the opening larger than 1 micron).
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 7, 14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US pgPub 2016/0168617) in view of (a) Van Berkel or (b) Roach et al. (Roach et al. “molecular characterization of organic aerosols using nanospray desorption electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry”, analytical chemistry 2010) or (c) Fang (US pgPub 2021/0325351) and further in view of Campbell or Timperman and further in view of Laskin et al. (US pgPub 2018/0033597) (note: in this interpretation, claim 2 is interpreted to be the same sensor as the sensor of claim 1 (i.e. “a sensor” in claim 2 is “a shear force detection sensor” of claim 1 as apparent from the instant specification)) in view of Gratz et al. as evidenced by Javid.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a system (fig. 4 or fig. 26a and [0106]) for ionizing a sample, the system comprising:
a probe (440) comprising a primary channel (solvent supplying groove 446 (channel when binding 2 silicon wafers)) and a spray channel (sampling groove 444 to nanoESI emitter 454) intersecting at a fixed orientation relative to each other at an opening in a tip of the probe (444 and 446 intersect as seen in figure 26b. Formed by bound silicon wafers thus in a fixed orientation), wherein the probe is operable to create a liquid bridge at the opening between the primary channel, the spray channel ([0106] openings 450 and 454 are in fluid communication via groove 444, thus a liquid bridge required between 446 and 444), and a surface that comprises a sample ([0051] teaching conventional nano-DESI recites “ a solvent (e.g., a methanol/water solution) is supplied through one capillary. The solvent dissolves the analytes on a small spot of the sample surface at the junction of the tips of the two capillaries. The solution containing the dissolved analytes is then collected at the tip of the second capillary and is transported through the second capillary to a narrowed orifice at an emitter end where the solution is ionized into charged droplets at an inlet of a mass spectrometer in a similar way of a conventional nano-spray ionization source”. Paragraph [0052] teaches the novel disclosed single probe where the two capillaries have been integrated into an integral unit. Thus various embodiments including 26a show the same process disclosed in fig. 1 and associated text) when the opening is located proximal to the surface that comprises the sample ([0051]) and a liquid is flowed through the primary channel into the spray channel across the opening ([0051]); and
a nanospray emitter in fluid communication with the opening via the spray channel (454 in figure 26a is in communication with 450 via 444, see nanospray emitter in figure e26a and not paragraphs [0052]-[0053] as discussed above. Further note there are various embodiments disclosed by Yang that read on the claimed invention. Figure 26a is used as the example) a point between the opening and the nanospray emitter (anywhere along sampling groove 444 which starts at claimed opening and ends at emitter “Nano-ESI emitter”, see figure 26a)
wherein the primary channel and the spray channel are integrally formed within the body of the probe (as seen in figure 4 or 26a, probe comprises primary channel 446 and spray channel 44, thus integrally formed).
While Yang teaches a concave or scooped tip which may enable the liquid junction to be more stably sustained resulting in better sampling stability (see figure 26(b) and paragraph [0107]), Yang fails to expressly teach wherein a width of the primary channel, a width of the spray channel, and a width of the opening form a triangle and a height of the triangle is about equal to the width of each of the primary channel, and the spray channel.
However, Van Berkle teaches wherein a width of the primary channel, a width of the spray channel, and a width of the opening form a triangle comprising an apex and a height of the triangle is about equal to the width of each of the primary channel, and the spray channel and wherein the apex is opposite the opening (see annotated figures below);
PNG
media_image3.png
287
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
219
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Van Berkel modifies Yang by suggesting the shape of the channels with respect to the tip.
Since both inventions are directed towards establishing a liquid bridge, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to the art before the effective filing date to adopt the geometry suggested in Van Berkel in the device of Yang because it would resolve the problem as to how to arrange the channels with respect to the tip to establish a liquid bridge.
Alternatively, Roach teaches wherein a width of the primary channel, a width of the spray channel, and a width of the opening form a triangle comprising an apex and a height of the triangle is about equal to the width of each of the primary channel, and the spray channel and wherein the apex is opposite the opening(see figure 1, primary capillary tip contacting spray capillary (i.e. forming an apex) at a single point forming an opening for a solvent bridge, wherein the three sides form a triangle with its height approximately equal to the widths of the two capillaries).
Roach modifies Yang by suggesting the position of the channels with respect to liquid bridge.
Since both inventions are directed towards maintaining a stable MS signal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the channels of Yang in the orientation suggested by Roach because it would predictably maintain the stable MS signal as desired by Yang (see paragraph bridging left and right columns on page 7980 of Roach).
Alternatively, Fang teaches wherein a width of the primary channel, a width of the spray channel, and a width of the opening form a triangle comprising an apex and a height of the triangle is about equal to the width of each of the primary channel, and the spray channel and wherein the apex is opposite the opening (see annotated figure below and paragraph [0110]).
PNG
media_image5.png
347
692
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fang modifies Yang by suggesting the position of the channels with respect to liquid bridge.
Since both inventions are directed towards maintaining a stable MS signal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the channels of Yang in the orientation suggested by Fang because it would predictably maintain the stable MS signal as desired by Yang
Yang has the same deficiencies as Van Berkel above. However, when modified in the same way by Campbell or Timperman results in the claimed invention. See above for teaching of the make-up channel in each reference and rational to combine.
The combined device fails to disclose one or more shear force detection sensors integrated into a body of the probe that allow for maintaining a desired distance between the primary channel and the spray channel and the surface.
However, Laskin et al. teach one or more shear force detection sensors (fig. 1, 48b, paragraph [0045] discloses a piezoelectric device as the sensor 48b, thus a shear force detection sensor as disclosed in the instant specification) integrated into a body of the probe (48b integrated into probe body 40) that generates data that is processed by a controller that then provides for maintaining a desired distance between the primary channel and the spray channel and the surface ([0052] teaches vibratory variation detected with sensor 48b is a measure of shear force variation with distance separating probe tip from surface, paragraph [0053] teaches output of lock-in amplifier 114 corresponds to the vibratory response level of sensor 48b, paragraph [0054] teaches output of lock-in amplifier 114 is conditioned by signal conditioning circuitry 116, the resulting digital signal is applied to controller logic 82 to determine the relative separation distance between probe tip and sample face. Paragraph [0055] teaches controller 80 including logic 82 maintains an approximately constant separation distance between tip and uneven surface 100 of the sample) ) wherein the one or more shear force detection sensors are one or more piezoelectric devices proximate a tip of the probe (sensor 48b is proximate the tip relative to sensor 48a, paragraph [0048] teaches “stimulator 48a being located farther away from tip 43 than sensor 48b”).
Laskin modifies the combined device by teaching a means to maintain a constant separation distance between the tip and an uneven surface.
Laskin modifies Yang by providing a sensor and actuator to the primary channel.
Since both inventions are directed towards nano-DESI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the sensing and agitator features of Laskin on the device of Yang because in addition to mass analysis the sensor and agitator allow for 3D shape of the sample surface.
While Laskin suggests a mechanical fixing of the piezoelectric device to the probe, the combined device fails to identify they type of piezoelectric device used, thus fails to disclose the piezoelectric device is a piezoelectric disc and the piezoelectric device is integrally formed within the body of the probe.
However, Gratz et al. teach measuring with a piezoelectric disk (see page 5, last sentence of first paragraph) and the piezoelectric device is integrally formed within the body of the probe (see page 5, last sentence of first paragraph teaches piezoelectric disk built into the probe base body).
Gratz et al. modifies the combined device in view of Laskin by suggesting the type of piezoelectric device to use as a sensor and building the sensor into the body of the probe.
Since both inventions are directed towards measuring with a probe, it would have been obvious to select the piezoelectric disk as discussed in Gratz et al. as the type of piezo in Laskin because it would resolve the problem of which type of piezoelectric disk to use. That is, the piezoelectric disk is suitable for the intended purpose of Laskin. Lastly, as evidenced by Javid, piezoelectric discs in probes offer a cost effective alternative (see abstract and page 14, section 2.2.3). Moreover, building the disk into the probe base body would resolve how the piezo device of the combined device is mechanically fixed to the probe.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Yang in view of Laskin teach a sensor (fig. 1, 48b) and an agitator (fig. 3, 48a, [0045] of Laskin) operable to move the tip of the probe perpendicularly relative to the surface (Laskin, [0052]) as the probe translates across the surface (Laskin, fig. 6 occurs for a x, y position and at the end of routine, figure 6 returns to figure 5 for next position ([0056]), thus agitating as probe translates across the surface (i.e. translate a coordinate perform height determination routine, advance to next position), moreover the xyz states seen in figure 1 would allow for agitation as the probe translates); and a computer (80) comprising a non-transitory tangible memory (82a) and a processor (82) in communication with the sensor (48a) and the agitator (48) and operable to control the agitator based on a signal received from the sensor ([0052] “oscillator 112 provides a time-varying single, the frequency of which is set by the controller…The response detected with sensor 48b varies with distance D between a probe tip 46a and uneven surface” paragraph [0053] comparison of oscillator single with sensed signal, paragraph [0055] teaches the conditional test for changing height between sample, thus the processor 82 (which performs the steps of figure 6) controls the agitator by moving the sample stage height based on a signal form the sensor).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Yang in view of Laskin teach a lock-in amplifier (fig. 3, 114) in in communication with the computer (since 114 is part of 80, and in communication with processor 82 it is in communication with the computer. Moreover, figure 9 shows an embodiment where 114 is in communication with computer 680 with the functionality of figures 1-6 see paragraph [0061]); the computer operable to detect vibration of the tip and move the tip relative to the sample to maintain a desired amplitude of tip vibrations. ([0052]-[0055] teaches 114 provides a way to compare AC oscillator signal with detected signal, paragraph [0054] teaches output of 114 to 116 applied to control logic 82 to determine separation and paragraph [0055] teaches logic 82 maintains approximately constant separation between tip and uneven surface by adjusting the stage. Since a difference in resonant vibration amplitude occurs when the distance between probe tip 46a and surface 100 changes ([0052]) and the computer controls the height of the stage in response, the controller detects vibrations (via receiving input from 114) and moves the stage such that the tip relative the sample maintains a desired amplitude of vibration).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches an electrode ([0051] teaches inlet of a mass spectrometer. A mass spectrometer inherently has electrodes, one of the electrodes is interpreted to be the claimed electrode) operably coupled to the probe (via inlet see paragraph [0051]); and an ion analysis device that comprises a mass analyzer ([0051] and [0066]); wherein the system is configured such that the probe is at atmospheric pressure ([0005] note ambient desorption/ionization techniques), the mass analyzer is under vacuum (mass analyzers inherently operate under vacuum in order to reduce the change of ions colliding with other molecules), and the nanospray emitter points in a direction of an inlet of the ion analysis device such that ions expelled from the tip of the probe are received to the inlet of the ion analysis device (as seen in figures 4, 13, 15,16).
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches solvent delivery device (fig. 4, 108) that is operably coupled to the probe such that solvent from the solvent delivery device is supplied to the tip of the probe via the primary channel (via plunging the syringe, solvent is supplied to 106).
Claim 14 is commensurate in scope with claim 1 and thus taught as discussed in the citations above. In addition Yang teaches contacting the sample with the probe ([0066] note “the sharp tip can be inserted into a single cell”, [0068] “single-probe was inserted into cells”) applying a voltage to the probe ([0069] teaches sample ionization a the nanospray emitter end of the probe, therefore inherently requiring a voltage), thereby generating ions of the analyte at the nanospray emitter ([0069]); and transferring the ions into a mass spectrometer to thereby analyze the ion ([0051]).
Regarding claim 19, Yang in view of Laskin teach plotting a series of analyte data obtained from the mass analyzer by location of the opening relative to the sample during desorption of the analyte to create an image of analyte distribution in the sample (Laskin, 0060, opening between probe 40 and 50 in figure 2. For each of the regions, causing one or more corresponding regional sample analytes to be extracted in response to the fluid agent ([0032])).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Berkel, Campbell, Laskin1 in view of Gratz et al. as evidenced by Javid and further in view of Kitamura et al. (USPN 5,939,715)
Regarding claim 3, the combined device fails to disclose a sensor and an agitator operable to move the tip of the probe perpendicularly relative to the surface as the probe translates across the surface; and a computer comprising a non-transitory tangible memory and a processor in communication with the sensor and the agitator and operable to control the agitator based on a signal received from the sensor.
However, Kitamura et al. teach a sensor (fig. 3, 7) and an agitator (16) operable to move the tip of the probe perpendicularly relative to the surface (col. 1, lines 60-63 teach piezo vibrating the cantilever and col. 2, lines 8-18 teach feedback loop to correct distance between tip and sample) as the probe translates across the surface (col. 2, lines 21-23); and a computer (controller 14) comprising a non-transitory tangible memory and a processor (inherent to create a topographic image and display, col. 2, lines 19-23) in communication with the sensor and the agitator and operable to control the agitator based on a signal received from the sensor (fig. 3 shows 14 in communication with scan driver 13 to control the agitator by adjustment in the z direction based on the signal received from error amplifier which receives information from detector 7).
Kitamura modifies Van Berkel by teaching the measurement and vibration in an AFM.
Since both inventions are directed towards AFMs, it would have been obvious to use the method of correcting distances of Kitamura et al. in the device of Van Berkel because it would resolve how to perform the topographic imaging via AFM.
Regarding claim 4, Van Berkel in view of Kitamura et al. teach a lock-in amplifier (Kitamura et al, fig. 3m 9) in in communication with the computer (with control device 14 via error amp 10); the computer operable to detect vibration of the tip and move the tip relative to the sample to maintain a desired amplitude of tip vibrations (col. 2, lines 8-18).
Relevant art:
Datwani (US pgPub 2019/0157061). teaches a system for analyzing a sample (fig. 1a and 1b), the system comprising: a probe (fig. 1, 51) comprising a primary channel (59) and a spray channel (61) intersecting at a fixed orientation relative to each other at an opening in a tip (fig. 1a, 59 opening at bottom of probe 51).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 note: in this interpretation, claim 2 is interpreted to be a different sensor than the sensor of claim 1