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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/16/2026 Claims 1-11 and 14-17 are pending. Claim 15 is withdrawn. Claims 12 and 13 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claims 1-11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0157061 to Datwani et al. in view of Wright (“The variation of
viscosity with temperature,” Phys. Educ. 12 323, 1977), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0364306 to Yang et al.
Datwani et al. teaches a system for transporting analytes to an analytical instrument (mass analyzer 170) that, as shown in Figs. 1A and 1B includes a reservoir (13) housing a fluid sample containing an analyte; an ejector (33) that ejects a droplet of the fluid sample from the fluid surface; and a continuous flow open port probe (51) spaced apart from the fluid surface that includes (i) a sampling tip (53) for receiving the ejected droplet of the fluid sample, (ii) a solvent inlet (57) for receiving a solvent from a solvent source, (iii) a solvent transport capillary (59) for transporting the solvent from the solvent inlet to the sampling tip, where the ejected droplet combines with the solvent to form an analyte-solvent dilution, (iv) a sample outlet (63) through which the analyte-solvent dilution is directed away from the OPP to an analytical instrument and (v) a sample transport capillary (73) for transporting the analyte-solvent dilution from the sampling tip to the sample outlet, wherein the sample transport capillary and the solvent transport capillary are in fluid communication at the sampling tip. [0101], [0109]-[0111]
Datwani et al. teaches a gas inlet 67 through which a nebulizing gas is configured to flow from a gas source to the sample outlet. Datwani et al. teaches that “The analyte-solvent dilution flow is then drawn upward through the sample transport capillary 61 by the pressure drop generated as the nebulizing gas passes over the sample outlet 63 and combines with the fluid exiting the sample transport capillary 61. A gas pressure regulator is used to control the rate of gas flow into the system via gas inlet 67.” [0110]
Datwani et al. teaches that “the flow rate of liquid within the sampling probe 51 can be adjusted based, for example, on suction/aspiration force generated by the interaction of the nebulizer gas and the analyte-solvent dilution as it is being discharged from the electrospray electrode 164 (e.g., due to the Venturi effect).” [0115].
Note applicant’s claiming that gas inlet through which a nebulizing gas “is configured” to flow from a gas source to the sample outlet so that the analyte-solvent dilution is drawn out of the sample outlet by the Venturi effect…and that the gas pressure regulator “is configured” to reduce the nebulizing gas flow as the solvent is heated by the heating element in order to maintain a constant flow of the analyte-solvent dilution through the sample transport capillary, are directed to how the elements of the system are used and do not limit the structural elements claimed.
The corresponding gas inlet, nebulizing gas and pressure regulated taught by Datwani et al. are capable of operating in the same manner as applicant’s claimed gas inlet, nebulizing has and pressure regulator. Therefore, Datwani et al. teaches applicant’s claimed gas inlet through which a nebulizing gas is configured to flow and gas pressure regulator operably connected to the gas inlet to control the nebulizing gas flow, wherein the gas pressure regulator is configured to reduce the nebulizing gas flow.
Datwani et al. does not teach a heating element that heats the solvent to a temperature above a threshold temperature in order to reduce a viscosity of the solvent below a threshold viscosity and maintain the viscosity of the solvent below the threshold viscosity as the analyte-solvent dilution is transported from the sampling tip to the sample outlet.
However, at [0086] Datwani et al. teaches that flow volume is proportional to pressure and inversely proportional to viscosity.
Wright teaches that it is well known that the viscosity of a liquid decreases when the liquid is heated. (page 324 “Ordinary liquids, highly compressed gases”)
Datwani et al. in view of Wright indicates that as a liquid is heated the flow volume or flow rate would increase as the viscosity decreases.
Yang et al. teaches a sampling probe that is shown in Fig. 3.
Yang et al. teaches that “During a sampling measurement, 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” an analytical instrument (mass spectrometer). [0043] The first and second capillaries are described in paragraph [0044].
Yang et al. teaches that a heating coil can be provided around the probe to heat up a solvent of a methanol/water mixture. [0086]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Datwani et al. to include a heating element to heat the solvent in view of Yang et al. teaching heating the solvent in a probe that uses solvent to collect analyte samples at the tip thereof. One skilled in the art would readily understand from the teachings of Datwani et al. and Wright that heating the solvent would lower the viscosity of the solvent and provide for control and improve flow of the solvent.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders all the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the heating element is located before, surrounding, or in line with the solvent inlet.
Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. does not teach that the heating element is located before, surrounding, or in line with the solvent inlet.
In Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide the heating element Yang et al. at any location at which the solvent can be heated, including before, surrounding or in line with the solvent inlet.
Therefore, Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the heating element is located before, surrounding, or in line with the solvent transport capillary.
Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. does not teach that the heating element is located before, surrounding, or in line with the solvent transport capillary.
In Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide the heating element Yang et al. at any location at which the solvent can be heated, including before, surrounding or in line with the solvent transport capillary.
Therefore, Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites a second heating element is located surrounding the sample transport capillary to maintain the viscosity of the solvent below the threshold viscosity as the analyte-solvent dilution is transported from the sampling tip to the sample outlet.
Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. does not teach second heating element is located surrounding the sample transport capillary to maintain the viscosity of the solvent below the threshold viscosity as the analyte-solvent dilution is transported from the sampling tip to the sample outlet.
In Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include a second heating element located at any location at which the solvent can be heated, including surrounding the sample transport capillary to maintain the viscosity of the solvent below the threshold viscosity as the analyte-solvent dilution is transported from the sampling tip to the sample outlet. Note, it has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B))
Therefore, Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites a solvent pump operably connected to and in fluid communication with the solvent inlet for controlling solvent flow rate within the solvent transport capillary.
Datwani et al. teaches a pump connected to and in fluid communication with the solvent inlet. [0021]
Therefore, Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the heating element is located in or surrounding the solvent pump.
Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. does not teach a heating element is located in or surrounding the solvent pump.
In Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide the heating element Yang et al. at any location at which the solvent can be heated, including in or surrounding the solvent pump.
Therefore, Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the solvent comprises water (H20).
The solvent recited in claim 7 does not further limit the structure of system of claim 1 and therefore is not afforded patentable weight.
Therefore, claim 7 is obvious over Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. as applied to claim 1.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the solvent comprises at least 50 percent water (H20).
The solvent recited in claim 8 does not further limit the structure of system of claim 1 and therefore is not afforded patentable weight.
Therefore, claim 8 is obvious over Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. as applied to claim 1.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that the solvent comprises isopropyl alcohol (IPA).
The solvent recited in claim 9 does not further limit the structure of system of claim 1 and therefore is not afforded patentable weight.
Therefore, claim 9 is obvious over Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. as applied to claim 1.
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the solvent comprises methanol (MeOH).
The solvent recited in claim 10 does not further limit the structure of system of claim 1 and therefore is not afforded patentable weight.
Therefore, claim 10 is obvious over Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. as applied to claim 1.
XI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that the solvent comprises acetonitrile (ACN).
The solvent recited in claim 11 does not further limit the structure of system of claim 1 and therefore is not afforded patentable weight.
Therefore, claim 11 is obvious over Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. as applied to claim 1.
XII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the threshold temperature is in the range of 50-60°C.
Claim 16 is directed to a manner of using the system of claim 1 and does not incorporate any additional structural elements that limit claim 1.
Therefore, Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 16 obvious via rendering claim 1 obvious.
XIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites that the threshold viscosity is 0.7mPa·s or less.
Claim 17 is directed to a manner of using the system of claim 1 and does not incorporate any additional structural elements that limit claim 1.
Therefore, Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders claim 17 obvious via rendering claim 1 obvious.
2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, claim 14 recites a method for transporting an analyte in a fluid sample to an analytical instrument and controlling the viscosity of the fluid sample, comprising: ejecting a droplet from a fluid surface of a fluid sample containing an analyte that is housed in a reservoir using an ejector; pumping a solvent from a solvent source into a solvent inlet of a continuous flow open port probe (OPP) spaced apart from the fluid surface using a solvent pump in order to transport the solvent from the solvent inlet to a sampling tip of the OPP through a solvent transport capillary of the OPP, receive the ejected droplet at the sampling tip where the ejected droplet is combined with the solvent to form an analyte-solvent dilution, and transport the analyte- solvent dilution from the sampling tip to a sample output of the OPP through a sample transport capillary of the OPP; and heating the solvent to a temperature above a threshold temperature using a heating element in order to reduce a viscosity of the solvent below a threshold viscosity and maintain the viscosity of the solvent below the threshold viscosity as the analyte-solvent dilution is transported from the sampling tip to the sample outlet.
Datwani et al. teaches a system in which analytes are transported to an analytical instrument (mass analyzer 170). As shown in Figs. 1A and 1B the system includes a reservoir (13) housing a fluid sample containing an analyte; an ejector (33) that ejects a droplet of the fluid sample from the fluid surface; and a continuous flow open port probe (51) spaced apart from the fluid surface that includes (i) a sampling tip (53) for receiving the ejected droplet of the fluid sample, (ii) a solvent inlet (57) for receiving a solvent that is pumped from a solvent source, (iii) a solvent transport capillary (59) for transporting the solvent from the solvent inlet to the sampling tip, where the ejected droplet combines with the solvent to form an analyte-solvent dilution, (iv) a sample outlet (63) through which the analyte-solvent dilution is directed away from the OPP to an analytical instrument and (v) a sample transport capillary (73) for transporting the analyte-solvent dilution from the sampling tip to the sample outlet, wherein the sample transport capillary and the solvent transport capillary are in fluid communication at the sampling tip. [0101], [0109]-[0111]
As noted above, Datwani et al teaches a gas inlet 67 through which a nebulizing gas is configured to flow from a gas source to the sample outlet. Datwani et al. teaches that “The analyte-solvent dilution flow is then drawn upward through the sample transport capillary 61 by the pressure drop generated as the nebulizing gas passes over the sample outlet 63 and combines with the fluid exiting the sample transport capillary 61. A gas pressure regulator is used to control the rate of gas flow into the system via gas inlet 67.” [0110]
Datwani et al. teaches that “the flow rate of liquid within the sampling probe 51 can be adjusted based, for example, on suction/aspiration force generated by the interaction of the nebulizer gas and the analyte-solvent dilution as it is being discharged from the electrospray electrode 164 (e.g., due to the Venturi effect).” [0115].
Datwani et al. does not teach a heating element that heats the solvent to a temperature above a threshold temperature in order to reduce a viscosity of the solvent below a threshold viscosity and maintain the viscosity of the solvent below the threshold viscosity as the analyte-solvent dilution is transported from the sampling tip to the sample outlet.
However, at [0086] Datwani et al. teaches that flow volume is proportional to pressure and inversely proportional to viscosity.
Wright teaches that it is well known that the viscosity of a liquid decreases when the liquid is heated. (page 324 “Ordinary liquids, highly compressed gases”)
Datwani et al. in view of Wright indicates that as a liquid is heated the flow volume or flow rate would increase as the viscosity decreases.
Yang et al. teaches a sampling probe that is shown in Fig. 3.
Yang et al. teaches that “During a sampling measurement, 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” an analytical instrument (mass spectrometer). [0043] The first and second capillaries are described in paragraph [0044].
Yang et al. teaches that a heating coil can be provided around the probe to heat up a solvent of a methanol/water mixture. [0086]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Datwani et al. to include a heating element to heat the solvent in view of Yang et al. teaching heating the solvent in a probe that uses solvent to collect analyte samples at the tip thereof. One skilled in the art would readily understand from the teachings of Datwani et al. and Wright that heating the solvent would lower the viscosity of the solvent and provide for control and improve flow of the solvent.
Adjusting the using the gas regulator in Datwani et al. in view of Yang et al. to reduce the nebulizing gas flow as the solvent is heated by the heating element in order to maintain a constant flow of the analyte-solvent dilution through the sample transport capillary as the solvent is heated by the heating element would have been obvious for purposes of compensating for viscosity changes of the solvent.
As noted Datwani et al. in view of Wright and Yang et al. renders all the limitations of claim 14 obvious.
Therefore, Datwani et al. in view of Yang et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11, 14, 16 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that relies upon Wright as a new prior art reference that teaches the viscosity of a liquid decreases with temperature, in combination with Datwani et al. teaching at [0086] that flow volume is proportional to pressure and inversely proportional to viscosity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Datwani et al. to include a heating element to heat the solvent in view of Yang et al. teaching heating the solvent in a probe for purposes of providing for control of viscosity and flow volume.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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 STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights