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 .
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
The remarks on pg. 5 with regard to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are persuasive, as the amendment overcomes the indefiniteness rejections. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
In view of the amendment to claim 1, a new grounds of rejection is made over Gentalen (US 20170176386 A1) in view of Li (US 20070257190 A1) and Bajic, et. al. (US 20160225601 A1), hereinafter Bajic.
The remarks on pg. 7, third paragraph, to pg. 8, third paragraph, directed to the previous grounds of rejection, assert that the combination of Li and Gentalen alters the principle of operation of Li .
The remarks are found to be unpersuasive because the incorporation of the teachings of Gentalen with Li do not change the principle of operation of Li. Li teaches a substrate with many of the claimed structural features, but the fluid channel of Li does not comprise a separation channel configured to perform an isoelectric focusing or electrophoretic separation of the sample. In Li, isoelectric focusing or electrophoretic separation occurs prior to reaching the microfluidic chip (see 2 and 3 in Fig. 1 of Li). Gentalen teaches electrophoretic separation such as isoelectric focusing occuring on the substrate in fluid channels 116 and 124. The combination of Li with Gentalen suggests and motivates one of orinary skill in the art to modify Li with the teachings of Gentalen to include fluid channels comprising a separation channel configured to perform isoelectric focusing or electrophoretic separation of a sample on the substrate rather than prior to the microfluidic chip. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The remarks on pg. 8-9, fourth paragraph, to the top of pg. 9 assert that it is improper to modify Li by incorporating the flow teachings of Bajic because routine optimization only applies in the same technological context and Bajic does not recognize gas-to-liquid ratio as result-effective for nanoflow operation or nanoscale droplet formation in microfluidic ESI. The remarks are directed to amended subject matter. The remarks are found to be unpersuasive because Bajic is directed to the same technological context of electrospray ionization. The claim recites the nanoscale droplet formation as a functional limitation that is a consequence of the claimed structure. The claim merely requires the structure that enables the nano-scale droplet formation. See the rejection below.
The remarks on pg. 9, fifth to sixth full paragraphs, assert that the drawings may not be relied upon to supply precise numerical limitations when the specification is silent. These arguments are found to be persuasive. A new grounds of rejection is made, see the rejections below.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 15-16, 18-21, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentalen (US 20170176386 A1) in view of Li (US 20070257190 A1) and Bajic, et. al. (US 20160225601 A1), hereinafter Bajic.
Regarding claim 1, Gentalen teaches a microfluidic chip comprising: a substrate having at least a first edge and a second edge (Fig. 1, [0039], microfluidic network 100 on substrate 102), wherein the substrate comprises:
i) a fluid channel (channel 124, Fig. 1, [0041]) comprising a distal end that is in fluid communication with an electrospray ionization orifice wherein the electrospray ionization orifice is disposed on the second edge of the substrate (end of 124 where it meets at confluence 126 on edge of 102 as seen in Fig.1), wherein the fluid channel comprises a separation channel configured to perform an isoelectric focusing or electrophoretic separation of a sample comprising a mixture of analytes in the fluid channel ([0045] teaches channel 124 can be used to separate or enrich an analyte via isoelectric focusing); and
ii) a gas channel comprising a distal end that is in fluid communication with a gas outlet orifice disposed on the second edge of the substrate adjacent to the electrospray ionization orifice (channels 106 and 140 for providing nebulizing gas, [0057], as seen in Fig. 1);
wherein the gas outlet orifice is configured to perform nebulization of the separated sample expelled from the electrospray ionization orifice without the use of an external nebulizer ([0057]-[0058], Fig. 1).
Although Gentalen shows the the distal end of the fluid channel and the distal end of the gas channel having an angle between them (see angle between distal end of 106 or 140 and 126 in Fig. 1), Gentalen does not specify the angle, and therefore does not teach this angle as being between 0 degrees and 30 degrees.
Li teaches wherein an angle between the distal end of the fluid channel and the distal end of the gas channel ranges from about 0 degrees to about 30 degrees ([0037], Fig. 2 teaches the gas channels 17 and 19 being parallel to the fluid channel 15 at the distal end, where parallel means an angle of 0°).
Li modifies Gentalen by suggesting that the angle between the distal end of the gas channel and the distal end of the fluid channel is within the claimed range.
Li renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Although Gentalen teaches that the device is controlled ([0117] controlled through software), demonstrating the ability of being controlled, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein a flow rate of gas in the gas channel and flow rate of liquid in the fluid channel can be controlled such that a ratio of volumetric flow rates for the gas and liquid ranges from 1000:1 to 1,000,000:1
Li teaches that each of the channels may be designed for carrying various volumes, flow rates and pressures, and that these parameters can be further designed and improved based on the samples that are employed. See [0037] of Li.
Bajic teaches a ratio of volumetric flow rates for the gas and liquid ranges from 1000:1 to 1,000,000:1 ([0042] teaches a liquid flow rate of > 200 µL/min (which, in converted units is > 0.012 L/Hr) and a nebulizer gas flow rate in the range 80-150 L/Hr. These flow rates give ratios (6,667:1 to 12,500:1) that are within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I. which recites “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bajic because setting the flow rates as suggested by Bajic allows a mass spectrometer to be used in an optimum manner and with optimum sensitivity by an inexperienced user, (Bajic, [0044]).
Since Gentalen already exhibits the capability of being controlled, Li demonstrates that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the flow rates of the various channels. Bajic, directed to electrospray ionization with a nebulizing gas, demonstrates that a ratio of the volumetric flow rate of the nebulizing gas and the liquid within the claimed range is known in the art.
The flow rates are shown by both Li and Bajic to be result-effective variables. Consequently, optimizing the gas and liquid flow rates and resulting flow rate ratio is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Li teaches that the flow rates can be improve based on what sample is being employed. This demonstrates that the type of sample affects what flow rate will work best. Bajic teaches that a liquid flow rate > 200 uL/min and a gas flow rate in the range 80-150 L/Hr, allows the mass spectrometer to be used in an optimum manner with optimum sensitivity by an inexperienced user. As such, Bajic identifies the gas and liquid flow rates and their relative values as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimum sensitivity. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the gas and liquid flow rates in Li to meet the ratio of volumetric flow rates for the gas and liquid ranges from 1000:1 to 1,000,000:1 since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Additionally, note that the limitation merely requires the capability of controlling the ratio of volumetric flow rates for the gas and liquid to be within the range (“can be controlled such that…”). The combination of Li and Bajic with Gentalen has shown that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the gas and liquid flow rates in the respective channels to be capable of being controlled to achieve the claimed ratio since Li and Bajic teach the flow rates as result-effective variables that have an effect on the resulting sensitivity in analysis.
The claim further requires “wherein the relative orientation of the distal end of the fluid channel and the distal end of the gas channel together with the volumetric flow rates enables nanoflow or nanoscale droplet formation, and wherein the nanoflow or nanoscale droplet formation during electrospray ionization is characterized by a standard error fluctuation in total mass spectrometric signal intensity of less than 1.0%.” This claim limitation is functional. MPEP 2114 II states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Since the structure of the claim is rendered obvious by the combination, as shown above, the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the prior art apparatus. The prior art has taught the “relative orientation of the distal end of the fluid channel and the distal end of the gas cahnnel”, the angle between these ends being within the claimed range, as discussed above. The prior art has also taught ‘the volumetric flow rates’, as discussed above. Although the prior art apparatus does not explicitly teach nanospray capabilities, “"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.” See MPEP 2112 I.
Regarding claim 4, Gentalen teaches wherein the substrate comprises two or more gas channels (channels 106 and 140, Fig. 1, [0057] each of which comprises a distal end that is in fluid communication with a gas outlet orifice (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Gentalen teaches wherein the two or more gas outlet orifices are disposed adjacent to and symmetrically about the electrospray ionization orifice (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid channel has a width ranging from about 20 µm to about 600 µm.
Li teaches wherein the fluid channel has a width ranging from about 20 µm to about 600 µm ([0044] teaches dimensions of the analyte channel between 10 to 200 µm). Li renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 16, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid channel has a depth ranging from about 10 µm to about 100 µm.
Li teaches wherein the fluid channel has a depth ranging from about 10 µm to about 100 µm ([0044] teaches dimensions of the analyte channel between 10 to 200 µm). Li renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 18, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the electrospray ionization orifice has a substantially square, rectangular, circular, ovoid, or lozenge-shaped cross-section.
Li teaches wherein the electrospray ionization orifice has a substantially square, rectangular, circular, ovoid, or lozenge-shaped cross- section (spray tip 10 has a square cross-section as seen in Fig. 2). Changing the cross-section of the electrospray ionization orifice of Gentalen to be substantially square, as suggested by Li, is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” Absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape, the prior art renders obvious the claim. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Regarding claim 19, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the electrospray ionization orifice has a maximum cross-sectional dimension ranging from about 10 µm to about 100 µm.
Li teaches wherein the electrospray ionization orifice has a maximum cross-sectional dimension ranging from about 10 µm to about 100 µm ([0044] teaches dimensions of the analyte channel between 10 to 200 µm). Li renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 20, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the gas channel has a width ranging from about 20 µm to about 200 µm.
Li teaches wherein the gas channel has a width ranging from about 20 µm to about 200 µm ([0044] teaches dimensions of the gas channel ranging from 10 µm to 200 µm). Li renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 21, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the gas channel has a depth ranging from about 10 µm to about 100 µm.
Li teaches wherein the gas channel has a depth ranging from about 10 µm to about 100 µm ([0044] teaches dimensions of the gas channel ranging from 10 µm to 200 µm). Li renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 23, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the gas outlet orifice has a substantially square, rectangular, circular, ovoid, or lozenge-shaped cross-section.
Li teaches wherein the gas outlet orifice has a substantially square, rectangular, circular, ovoid, or lozenge-shaped cross-section (see Fig. 2 which shows cross-section of gas outlet orifice having substantially ovoid or rectangular shape). Changing the cross-section of the gas outlet orifice of Gentalen to be substantially rectangular or ovoid, as suggested by Li, is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” Absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape, the prior art renders obvious the claim. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Regarding claim 24, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the gas outlet orifice has a maximum cross-sectional dimension ranging from about 10 µm to about 50 µm.
Li teaches wherein the gas outlet orifice has a maximum cross-sectional dimension ranging from about 10 µm to about 50 µm ([0044] teaches cross-sectional dimension of the end of the gas channel of around 10 µm). Li renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 25, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the gas outlet orifice is disposed within 100 µm of the electrospray ionization orifice.
Li teaches wherein the gas outlet orifice is disposed within 100 µm of the electrospray ionization orifice ([0044] teaches the gas channel places 20 to 500 µm behind the end of the analyte channel). Li renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 26, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the gas outlet orifice is disposed within 50 µm of the electrospray ionization orifice.
Li teaches wherein the gas outlet orifice is disposed within 50 µm of the electrospray ionization orifice ([0044] teaches the gas channel places 20 to 500 µm behind the end of the analyte channel). Li renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 27, Gentalen does not explicitly teach wherein the gas outlet orifice is disposed within 15 µm of the electrospray ionization orifice.
Li teaches/renders obvious wherein the gas outlet orifice is disposed within 15 µm of the electrospray ionization orifice (Claims 1 and 2 and [0019] teach the gas channels adjacent to the spray tip, with “adjacent” meaning contacting. Additionally, [0044] teaches the gas channel is placed 20 to 500 µm behind the end of the analyte channel. The dimension of 20 µm is similar to 15 µm such that the claimed dimension is obvious (See MPEP 2144.05 I). Further, in Fig. 2, the horizontal distance between the gas outlet orifice and electrospray ionization orifice appears to be smaller than the distance that the gas outlet orifice is behind the electrospray ionization orifice. Consequently, Fig. 2 shows that this horizontal dimension could be less than 20µm based on the description and figure.) Li renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 28, Gentalen teaches the substrate is fabricated from glass, silicon, a polymer, or any combination thereof ([0040]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentalen (US 20170176386 A1), Li (US 20070257190 A1) and Bajic (US 20160225601 A1), further in view of Wen, et. al. (Wen, J., Lin, Y., Xiang, F., Matson, D.W., Udseth, H.R. and Smith, R.D. (2000), Microfabricated isoelectric focusing device for direct electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry. ELECTROPHORESIS, 21: 191-197. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2683(20000101)21:1<191::AID-ELPS191>3.0.CO;2-M)
Regarding claim 17, Gentalen, Li and Bajic do not explicitly teach wherein the fluid channel has a length ranging from about 0.25 cm to about 30 cm.
Wen teaches wherein the fluid channel has a length ranging from about 0.25 cm to about 30 cm (16 cm long, Abstract and pg. 192, section 2.2).
Wen modifies the combination by suggesting the fluid channel has a length within the claimed range.
Wen renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 6-7 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentalen (US 20170176386 A1), Li (US 20070257190 A1) and Bajic (US 20160225601 A1), further in view of Muller, et. al. (WO 2015071681 A1), hereinafter Muller.
Regarding claim 6, Gentalen and Bajic do not explicitly teach wherein the angle ranges from about 10 degrees to about 20 degrees.
Muller teaches wherein the angle ranges from about 10 degrees to about 20 degrees (See Fig. 1c, See 9th paragraph of section “Spray Formation”, and 12th paragraph of section “Spray Formation, which states, “In one embodiment, the gas flow channels and outlets are arranged to provide a gas flow at an angle of at most 60°, at most 70°, or at most 80° relative to the fluid flow direction at the fluid flow outlet”).
Muller modifies the combination by suggesting an angle within the claimed range.
Muller renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Additionally, one could achieve the claimed range through routine experimentation since Li teaches in [0037] that “various number and channels with differing orientations, designs, volumes and valves may also be employed in accordance with the invention”, “these parameters can be further designed and improved based on the samples that are employed”, “the channels end at first end 9 to define spray tip 10. The diagram shows each of the channels being oriented parallel to each other. This is not a requirement of the invention. In other embodiments or designs the channels may be non-parallel…” See MPEP 2144.05 II, which teaches “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
These statement by Li suggests that the angle between the fluid and gas channel is a variable that can be altered and experimented with to achieve desired effects and to be appropriate for the sample being employed. Consequently, the prior art shows the orientation and angle between the distal end of the fluid channel and the distal end of the gas channel as being a results-effective variable such that the claimed range could be achieved via routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, Gentalen and Bajic do not explicitly teach wherein the angle ranges from about 10 degrees to about 20 degrees.
Muller teaches wherein the angle is about 15 ± 5 degrees (See Fig. 1c, See 9th paragraph of section “Spray Formation”, and 12th paragraph of section “Spray Formation, which states, “In one embodiment, the gas flow channels and outlets are arranged to provide a gas flow at an angle of at most 60°, at most 70°, or at most 80° relative to the fluid flow direction at the fluid flow outlet”).
Muller modifies the combination by suggesting an angle within the claimed range.
Muller renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Additionally, one could achieve the claimed range through routine experimentation since Li teaches in [0037] that “various number and channels with differing orientations, designs, volumes and valves may also be employed in accordance with the invention”, “these parameters can be further designed and improved based on the samples that are employed”, “the channels end at first end 9 to define spray tip 10. The diagram shows each of the channels being oriented parallel to each other. This is not a requirement of the invention. In other embodiments or designs the channels may be non-parallel…” See MPEP 2144.05 II, which teaches “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
These statement by Li suggests that the angle between the fluid and gas channel is a variable that can be altered and experimented with to achieve desired effects and to be appropriate for the sample being employed. Consequently, the prior art shows the orientation and angle between the distal end of the fluid channel and the distal end of the gas channel as being a results-effective variable such that the claimed range could be achieved via routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 22, Gentalen, Li, and Bajic do not explicitly teach wherein the gas channel has a length ranging from about 0.2 cm to about 20 cm.
Muller teaches wherein the gas channel has a length ranging from about 0.2 cm to about 20 cm (See Figure 1. Based on the scale bar showing 200 µm, the length of the gas channel is within the claimed range because the scale bar fits along the gas channel between 10 and 1,000 times to make up the length of the gas channel depicted (0.2 cm is 10 x 200 µm, and 20 cm is 1,000 x 200 µm)).
Muller modifies the combination by suggesting the gas channel has a length within the claimed range.
Muller renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Staats (US 20020100714 A1) teaches microfluidic device capable of nanospray. See Fig. 14, and [0124]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E GOURLIE
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
