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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The arguments are directed towards the Wurgler and Prausnitz references, and the combination thereof, which are no longer relied upon for the rejection and therefore the arguments are moot. The rejection that follows is based on Burnett GB 2526394 which teaches the claimed invention, including the newly added limitations in independent claim 1 and is detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The final line of the claim appears to be a repeat of the previous line, and should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett GB 2526394 A.
Regarding claim 1, Burnett teaches a needle for use in a fractioning apparatus (abstract) as seen in Fig. 4 which includes a needle 50 comprising a channel 56 extending through the needle, wherein the needle comprises a needle tip 60 with an opening at the needle tip (fig. 6A), wherein the needle defines an axial direction (along the longitudinal length of the needle, wherein the axial direction defines a distal direction and a proximal direction (left and right side of fig. 4), wherein the needle tip is a distal portion of the needle. Fig. 6A illustrates the needle tip, wherein the needle tip comprises a first surface section and a second surface section (shown below), wherein the first surface section is arranged at a first angle with respect to the axial direction (dotted line) and the second surface section is arranged at a second angle with respect to the axial direction, wherein the first angle is different than the second angle and wherein the first surface section is the most distal portion of the needle as shown. Burnett does not explicitly teach the first angle as being in the range of 85 to 95 degrees as claimed. Burnett does in claim 7, disclose an embodiment in which the endface 60 is “perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the fluid channel of the needle tip,” however. Since Fig. 5 illustrates the endface (needle tip 60) as being generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied the same teachings to the needle tip of fig. 6A which shows a surface perpendicular to the longitudinal channel at the distal end, therefore being in the range of 85 to 95 degrees as claimed in order to help reduce the formation of droplets at the end of the needle (paragraph 0032).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, as illustrated above, the first and second surfaces of Burnett comprise borders forming straight lines as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Burnett discloses pressure in the system as being a few hundred PSI in paragraph 0033 which is exceeding the 10 bar claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Burnett comprises surface sections which form planes that intersect such that the opening of the channel lie within the planes as seen above.
Regarding claim 6, Burnett discloses the use of a coating on the needle (paragraph 0036) which coats the needle and the needle tip, and describes selectively coating the needle parts and coating “most” of the needle tip but does not explicitly teach the distal portion of the needle as not comprising the coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have formed the coating on any portion of the needle and needle tip in order to ensure that the liquid droplet exits the needle without sticking (paragraph 0037) since Burnett teaches both coated and uncoated needle tips and a combination would be an obvious variant thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Burnett teaches the coating as being diamond like carbon (paragraph 0040) as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, the diameter of the needle of Burnett is 0.63mm (paragraph 0034) which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, the diameter of the channel of Burnett is 0.18mm (paragraph 0034) which is within the range claimed.
Regarding claim 10, the analytical system of Burnett can be a liquid chromatography system as claimed (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, in use, the pressure in the system would exceed 10 bar as claimed (paragraph 0033 discloses the pressure in the system as being a few hundred PSI).
Regarding claim 13, the needle tip of Burnett comprises a channel opening that lies wholly in the plane formed by the second surface as claimed.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of and Shah US 2016/0338734.
Regarding claim 12, Burnett teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the first surface section comprises an area such that during bottom detection, the mechanical tension is smaller than a yield point of the material to avoid large and/or critical plastic deformations. Shah is analogous art in the field of needles and discloses in paragraph 0074 a needle structure which is resistance to plastic deformation during use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Shah with those of Burnett in order to provide a needle which does not buckle. In such an instance, the mechanical tension would be smaller than a yield point of the material in order to ensure the plastic deformation does not occur.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Sekikawa WO 2016/132577.
Regarding claim 14, Burnett discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the needle as comprising a transition section with a chamfer. Sekikawa discloses, as seen in fig. 4 and described in the abstract, a needle with a tip portion comprising a chamfer surface 36. The chamfer would be considered to exist in a “transition section” as it is at a portion of the tip where the surface is changing or transitioning. Since Sekikawa is analogous art in the area of needle tips, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of the chamfered surface to the needle of Burnett in order to adapt the needle to effectively puncture the surface being used since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, in combination with Burnett, the needle tip of Sekikawa teaches multiple surfaces and multiple chamfers 36, 37, 38. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the chamfered surfaces taught by Sekikawa with Burnett in order to adapt the needle to effectively puncture the surface being used since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Feng US 2020/0132571.
Regarding claims 16-18, Burnett discloses the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the needle as comprising a transition section with a rounding. Feng discloses, as seen in fig. 5, a needle for sampling with a tip portion comprising a rounding 1313. The rounding would be considered to exist in a “transition section” as it is at a portion of the tip where the surface is changing or transitioning. Since Feng is analogous art in the area of needle tips, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of the rounding to any portion of the needle of Burnett where there exists a sharp transition, in order to adapt the needle for smoothly puncturing the surface being used since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), and since
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/ SPE, Art Unit 2855