DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24-27 and 34-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted during the interview of 11 September 2026 (mailed 15 September 2026), the applicant’s representative expressed that an operational parameter is not data output from the mass spectrometer. However, new claim 35 and 38 expressly recite “the operational parameter…comprises at least one of spectrographic data generation process”. Therefore, even as amended Datwani anticipates the claim as discussed herein below as data output from a mass spectrometer according to acoustic coupling is an operational parameter as discussed in the Final Rejection of 20 March 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 34-39 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 34 lacks written description for reciting “adjust at least one operational parameter of the mass analysis instrument based upon one or more analysis instructions associated with at least one identifier which is interpretable by the controller”
Claim 37 lacks written description for reciting “wherein the at least one identifier is enables the controller to generate signals that cause at least one component of the system to perform at least one sample capture, sample transfer, dilution, dissolution, or mass analysis operation based on at least one of the plurality of analysis instructions while the sample capture probe is capturing one of the subset of the plurality of samples… adjust at least one operational parameter of the mass analysis instrument based upon one or more of the plurality of analysis instructions associated with the at least one identifier”
Specifically, the instant specification is devoid of:
1) any instructions associated with the with the first identifier associated with the first sample
2) performing a mass analysis operation specific to the first sample based upon above instructions
3) adjusting at least one operational setting of the mass analysis instrument based upon the instructions in (2) above
MPEP 2161.01 (I) recites:
“ The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172; Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1083-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Computer-implemented inventions are often disclosed and claimed in terms of their functionality. For computer-implemented inventions, the determination of the sufficiency of disclosure will require an inquiry into the sufficiency of both the disclosed hardware and the disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of computer hardware and software. The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682. 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356 (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. V. Eli Lilly & Co, 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ”
In the instant case, the instant application teaches in paragraph [0006] of the published application “the systems and methods further provide for: identifying at least one analysis instruction associated with the plurality of samples; and, performing at least one of the capturing, diluting, transporting, or mass analyzing based on the at least one analysis instruction. In some aspects, the identifying is performed by an indicia physically associated with the plurality of samples, and wherein the indicia is accessed by the system to locate the associated analysis instruction corresponding to the plurality of samples”.
Similarly, language exists in paragraphs [0012], [0014] and [0074].
However, these paragraphs are merely a repetition of the desired claim result of generating instructions to perform mass analysis or adjust an operational parameter, without any disclosure as to what those instructions are, how they are associated with first or second identifiers nor how the operational parameters are adjusted based on said instructions associated.
Paragraph [0073] of the instant specification teaches “ identifier interpretable by the controller 130, 135, 145, by example through use of a machine reading device 65 such as a bar code or QR code reader, and configured to enable the controller to generate signals configured for causing at least one component 70, 80, 90, 95, 105, 100 of the system 1000 to perform at least one sample capture, sample transfer, dilution, dissolution, or mass analysis operation specific to the sample associated with the identifier”
Additionally, paragraph [0056] of the published application suggests a barcode is scanned and passed to the controller so as to cause settings to change. However, there is no disclosed criteria as to under what basis the mass spectrometer settings are changed based on an identified barcode.
That is, at best the specification provides a means for identifying some indicia by a controller, however is devoid of any suggestion as to how the controller achieves the claimed result associating some instructions with a particular identifiers associated with a first sample and second sample and then either performing mass analysis or adjusting an operational parameter based on the instructions. The specification only indicates there is some identifier that is interpretable by the computer and indicates some instruction to either adjust some operational parameter or initiate some analysis operation. Except for the general disclosure of operational parameters and mass analysis, the specification is completely silent with respect to any algorithm, steps, flow chart, prose to suggest what and how the instructions are implemented for mass analysis and adjustment. There is not even a single example of the procedure conducted.
MPEP 2161.01(I) further recites:
“It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ”
Here, the specification does not disclose how the claimed result is achieved, therefore fails to demonstrate the possession of the claimed invention. In other words, the specification is devoid of any algorithm, flow chart, prose, etc…that demonstrate of the identifiers are associated with particular instructions to either perform mass analysis on a first sample or adjust operational parameters of the mass analysis of the second sample. Indeed, the adjusting operational parameters of the second sample suggests the operational parameters associated with the first sample are not adequate for analysis of the second sample. This would necessitate at the very least some discussion of which those operational settings are changed and how they are changed so as to instruct the mass analysis instrument to change those parameters to perform the mass analysis operation on the second sample. However, instead the specification is silent with respect to any “second sample” and merely vaguely discusses association between identifiers and instructions. Therefore, while QR codes, barcodes, readers and associating instructions with identifiers may have been within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, these are not instructions per se, but instead specific analysis instructions associated with specific samples and specific adjustment instructions associated with operational settings for a second sample. Indeed the claim is clear that the mass analysis operation is “specific to the first sample” suggesting that it would be different from the mass analysis operation of the second sample, however any means of determining a specific mass analysis operation to a first sample is absent from the instant disclosure. As there is no disclosure as to what operational parameters for the second sample are adjusted, how instructions are determined and how they are implemented, this amounts to a lack of written description as to how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function and therefore fails to satisfy the written description requirement under 35 USC § 112(a).
Claims 24-27, 35-36 and 38-39 fail to meet the written description requirement by virtue of their dependencies on respective rejected claims 34 and 37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Datwani et al. (US 2019/0157061)(submitted with IDS) (first interpretation interpreting operational parameter to be of the data generated from the mass analyzer as now supported by new claims 35 and 38)1.
Regarding claim 34, Datwani teaches a system for analyzing collections of substance samples (fig. 1a-1b), the system comprising at least one of each of:
a sample handler ([0092], “ a positioning means is incorporated in order to move a substrate containing the reservoirs (which may be positioned on a movable stage, for instance) relative to the acoustic ejector)”);
a sample capture device (51);
a mass analysis instrument (as seen in figure 1B); and
a controller (180), the controller operative, in accordance with instructions received from at least one of an operator input device and machine-interpretable instructions stored in memory accessible by the controller, to generate signals (inherent in order to control the acoustic droplet injection device and generate mass spectra seen in figures 4-9) configured to:
cause the sample handler to collectively retrieve from a sample source a plurality of samples of one or more substances (paragraph [0144] expressly teaches a 384-well plate and source plate mounted to motorized stage. Moreover, paragraph [0144] teaches fluid samples were loaded into wells. Thus the motorized stage collectively retrieve samples from the sample source (i.e. source of fluid samples that are loaded into well). Paragraph [0114] teaches the controller is coupled to the acoustic droplet injector device and is configured to operate any aspect of the acoustic droplet injection device, including “automation means for positioning one or more reservoirs into alignment with the acoustic radiation generator. Since the wells are mounted to a stage for loading the sample and the controller positions the reservoirs (i.e. wells see paragraph [0038]), the controller collectively retrieves the samples loaded from sample source via controlling the motorized stage ([0144] and [0114]) delivers the collected samples to the sample capture device ([0114], i.e. positioning near acoustic radiation generator 11 causes droplets 49 to be ejected to sample capture device or flow probe 51 see paragraph [0100] and figures 1a-1b)),and
cause the sample capture device to independently capture at least one of the collectively retrieved samples delivered by the sample handler ([0114] and [0100], note figure 1A shows 49 ejected toward the flow sampling probe), and
transfer the at least one captured sample to a mass analysis instrument (inherent to figure 1b showing MS downstream of acoustic droplet ejection device 11);
adjust at least one operational parameter of at least one of the mass analysis instrument based upon one or more analysis instructions associated with at least one identifier which is interpretable by the controller (data output from the MS based upon whether or not the OPI is acoustically coupled to a well, which requires some sort of identifier that is interpretable by the controller in order for the probe to acoustically couple to the sample) and
cause the mass analysis instrument to ionize and detect one or more particles of the transferred sample (inherent since the controller controls device 11 and 11 supplies sample to be ionized and analyzed by MS).
wherein the sample capture device is configured, in accordance with signals generated by the at least one controller, to add to the at least one independently captured sample at least one of a dilutant and a solvent (via solvent inlet 57), prior to transferring the at least one captured sample to the mass analysis instrument (as indicated by arrows from 57, see paragraph [0119]).
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) 34-39 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datwani et al. (US 2019/0157061)(submitted with IDS) (second interpretation interpreting operational parameter to be of the MS itself and not data generated therefrom) in view of Vestal (US pgPub 2016/0291047).
Regarding claim 34, Datwani teaches a system for analyzing collections of substance samples (fig. 1a-1b), the system comprising at least one of each of:
a sample handler ([0092], “ a positioning means is incorporated in order to move a substrate containing the reservoirs (which may be positioned on a movable stage, for instance) relative to the acoustic ejector)”);
a sample capture device (51);
a mass analysis instrument (as seen in figure 1B); and
a controller (180), the controller operative, in accordance with instructions received from at least one of an operator input device and machine-interpretable instructions stored in memory accessible by the controller, to generate signals (inherent in order to control the acoustic droplet injection device and generate mass spectra seen in figures 4-9) configured to:
cause the sample handler to collectively retrieve from a sample source a plurality of samples of one or more substances (paragraph [0144] expressly teaches a 384-well plate and source plate mounted to motorized stage. Moreover, paragraph [0144] teaches fluid samples were loaded into wells. Thus the motorized stage collectively retrieve samples from the sample source (i.e. source of fluid samples that are loaded into well). Paragraph [0114] teaches the controller is coupled to the acoustic droplet injector device and is configured to operate any aspect of the acoustic droplet injection device, including “automation means for positioning one or more reservoirs into alignment with the acoustic radiation generator. Since the wells are mounted to a stage for loading the sample and the controller positions the reservoirs (i.e. wells see paragraph [0038]), the controller collectively retrieves the samples loaded from sample source via controlling the motorized stage ([0144] and [0114]) delivers the collected samples to the sample capture device ([0114], i.e. positioning near acoustic radiation generator 11 causes droplets 49 to be ejected to sample capture device or flow probe 51 see paragraph [0100] and figures 1a-1b)),and
cause the sample capture device to independently capture at least one of the collectively retrieved samples delivered by the sample handler ([0114] and [0100], note figure 1A shows 49 ejected toward the flow sampling probe), and
transfer the at least one captured sample to a mass analysis instrument (inherent to figure 1b showing MS downstream of acoustic droplet ejection device 11);
adjust at least one operational parameter of at least one of the sample handler, sample capture device, or mass analysis instrument (Paragraph [0080] further teaches active flow control during use to maintain optimal terminal flow pattern. Paragraph [0107] teaches dynamic feedback and active flow control to obtain the desired supercritical shaped vortex from flow probe 51 (i.e. catcher or capture device). Thus adjust an operational parameter of the sample capture device 51 (see paragraph [0118] teaching active flow control of probe variables))) based upon one or more analysis instructions associated with at least one identifier which is interpretable by the controller ([0125] teaches ”active feedback mechanism maintains the configuration of the sampling tip in a preferred flow pattern configuration. The active feedback mechanism generally comprises monitoring the flow pattern at the sampling tip, determining whether the flow pattern deviates from the desired flow pattern, if the flow pattern deviates from the desired flow pattern by more than a predetermined amount, adjusting at least one parameter to conform the flow pattern to the desired flow pattern”. That is, based on one or more analysis instructions (i.e. has the flow pattern deviated from a desired flow pattern by more than a predetermined amount) associated with at least one identifier (desired flow pattern), interpretable by a controller (adjust parameter when greater than a predetermined amount). Note as discussed above Paragraph [0114] teaches the controller is coupled to the acoustic droplet injector device and is configured to operate any aspect of the acoustic droplet injection device. Paragraph [0115] teaches controller controls the flow rates, thus the active feedback control of paragraph [0125]) and
cause the mass analysis instrument to ionize and detect one or more particles of the transferred sample (inherent since the controller controls device 11 and 11 supplies sample to be ionized and analyzed by MS).
wherein the sample capture device is configured, in accordance with signals generated by the at least one controller, to add to the at least one independently captured sample at least one of a dilutant and a solvent (via solvent inlet 57), prior to transferring the at least one captured sample to the mass analysis instrument (as indicated by arrows from 57, see paragraph [0119]).
While Datwani teaches adjusting other operational parameters based on an identifier, Datwani fails to disclose adjust one operational parameter of the mass analyzer based upon one or more analysis instructions associated with at least one identifier which is interpretable by the controller.
However, Vestal teaches adjust one operational parameter of the mass analyzer based upon one or more analysis instructions associated with at least one identifier which is interpretable by the controller (paragraph [0030] teaches “the sample plates 256 are labeled by a bar code that is read by mass spectrometer 212 to correlate the sample plate with instructions 244. Database 240 is queried by computer 222 to determine the mass spectrometer settings that are required to execute instructions 244 and those settings are downloaded to mass spectrometer 212 to analyze the sample”. That is, settings (operational parameter) of the mass spectrometer are determined (i.e. adjusted) based upon one or more instructions 244 associated with the labeled bar code on sample plate).
Vestal modifies Datwani by suggesting the automation of the setting of the mass spectrometer according to a labeled bar code on a sample plate.
Since both devices are directed towards an automated mass spectrometer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the adjustment step of Vestal via a barcode and controller in the controller of Datwani because it would require little or no training experience on the part of the operator to run the mass spectrometer ([0017]).
Regarding claim 24, Datwani et al. teach wherein the sample capture probe comprises a sample ejector (fig. 1a, 11).
Regarding claim 25, Datwani et al. teach wherein the sample capture probe comprises a sample ejector configured to independently eject a selected sample from the plurality of samples for capture by the sample capture probe ([0098]).
Regarding claim 26, Datwani et al. teach a sample staging device for positioning the selected sample for ejection by the sample ejector ([0098], substrate positioning means).
Regarding claim 27, Datwani et al. teach wherein the sample staging device is further operative to position a next selected sample for ejection by the sample ejector ([0098]) and optionally wherein the controller is further operative to coordinate the ejector to eject a plurality of selected samples before positioning a next sample relative to the sample ejector (optional is not required by the claim and thus not considered).
Regarding claim 35, Datwani et al. in view of Vestal teach wherein the at least one operational parameter of the mass analysis instrument comprises at least one of a spectrographic data generation process and a spectrographic data storage process (Vestal [0030] teaches determining settings of the MS, since the settings of the MS are part of the data generation process, they are interpreted as an spectrographic data generation process).
Regarding claim 36, Datwani et al. in view of Vestal teach wherein the at least one operational parameter of the mass analysis instrument comprises a spectrographic analysis parameter (MS settings in Vestal [0030]).
Regarding claim 37, Datwani teaches a system for analyzing collections of substance samples (fig. 1a-1b), the system comprising at least one of each of:
a sample handler ([0092], “ a positioning means is incorporated in order to move a substrate containing the reservoirs (which may be positioned on a movable stage, for instance) relative to the acoustic ejector)”);
a sample capture device (51);
a mass analysis instrument (as seen in figure 1B); and
a controller (180), the controller operative, in accordance with instructions received from at least one of an operator input device and machine-interpretable instructions stored in memory accessible by the controller, to generate signals (inherent in order to control the acoustic droplet injection device and generate mass spectra seen in figures 4-9) configured to:
cause the sample handler to collectively retrieve from a sample source a plurality of samples of one or more substances (paragraph [0144] expressly teaches a 384-well plate and source plate mounted to motorized stage. Moreover, paragraph [0144] teaches fluid samples were loaded into wells. Thus the motorized stage collectively retrieve samples from the sample source (i.e. source of fluid samples that are loaded into well). Paragraph [0114] teaches the controller is coupled to the acoustic droplet injector device and is configured to operate any aspect of the acoustic droplet injection device, including “automation means for positioning one or more reservoirs into alignment with the acoustic radiation generator. Since the wells are mounted to a stage for loading the sample and the controller positions the reservoirs (i.e. wells see paragraph [0038]), the controller collectively retrieves the samples loaded from sample source via controlling the motorized stage ([0144] and [0114]) delivers the collected samples to the sample capture device ([0114], i.e. positioning near acoustic radiation generator 11 causes droplets 49 to be ejected to sample capture device or flow probe 51 see paragraph [0100] and figures 1a-1b))
wherein at least one of the plurality of collected samples is associated with an identifier interpretable by the controller ([0098] teaches substrate positioning means acoustically couples the ejector to each of a series of fluid reservoirs in rapid succession, thereby allowing fast and controlled ejection of fluid sample droplets from different reservoirs. In order to acoustically couple each reservoir in rapid succession the controller of [0114] must inherently interpret where each reservoir is located, this is interpreted to be the identifiers of the series of reservoirs)
wherein the at least one identifier is associated with data representing a plurality of analysis instructions ([0098] via positioning to acoustically couple the process of sampling, ionization and mass spectrometry commences controlled by the controller), and wherein one of the plurality of analysis instructions is associated with a subset of the plurality of samples (after the completion of analysis of some of the wells, the remaining wells to be analyzed are a subset of the whole, the locations (i.e. identifiers inherent to acoustically couple) of the remaining wells are used to control the device of figure 1B to analyze the substrate), and wherein the at least one identifier enables the controller is operative to perform at least one of the sample capture, sample transfer, dilution, dissolution, or mass analysis operation based on at least one of the plurality of analysis instructions while the sample capture probe is capturing one of the subset of the plurality of samples (controller 180 to perform the sample collection and analysis of figure 1B via acoustic coupling).
cause the sample capture device to independently capture at least one of the collectively retrieved samples delivered by the sample handler ([0114] and [0100], note figure 1A shows 49 ejected toward the flow sampling probe), and
transfer the at least one captured sample to a mass analysis instrument (inherent to figure 1b showing MS downstream of acoustic droplet ejection device 11);
and
cause the mass analysis instrument to ionize and detect one or more particles of the transferred sample (inherent since the controller controls device 11 and 11 supplies sample to be ionized and analyzed by MS).
While Datwani teaches adjusting other operational parameters based on an identifier, Datwani fails to disclose adjust one operational parameter of the mass analyzer based upon one or more analysis instructions associated with at least one identifier which is interpretable by the controller.
However, Vestal teaches adjust one operational parameter of the mass analyzer based upon one or more analysis instructions associated with at least one identifier which is interpretable by the controller (paragraph [0030] teaches “the sample plates 256 are labeled by a bar code that is read by mass spectrometer 212 to correlate the sample plate with instructions 244. Database 240 is queried by computer 222 to determine the mass spectrometer settings that are required to execute instructions 244 and those settings are downloaded to mass spectrometer 212 to analyze the sample”. That is, settings (operational parameter) of the mass spectrometer are determined (i.e. adjusted) based upon one or more instructions 244 associated with the labeled bar code on sample plate).
Vestal modifies Datwani by suggesting the automation of the setting of the mass spectrometer according to a labeled bar code on a sample plate.
Since both devices are directed towards an automated mass spectrometer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the adjustment step of Vestal via a barcode and controller in the controller of Datwani because it would require little or no training experience on the part of the operator to run the mass spectrometer ([0017]).
Claims 38 and 39 are commensurate in scope with claim 35 and 36 and are rejected as discussed herein above.
Note to applicant:
During the updated NPL search, it was found the applicants Chang Liu and Thomas Covey presented or were listed on a number of posters during the 67th ASMS and 66Th ASMS conferences on mass spectrometry. The subject matter appears particularly relevant to the claimed invention and not part of the file wrapper.
The examiner was unable to obtain them to for the purposes of examination. In order to provide a more complete record, it is noted that these posters exist and may be available as prior art. Making these posters or any presented content part of the record would make the record more complete. The list of titles are provided below:
“Acoustic-OPP-MS: The Next Generation BioAnalytical Platform for Drug Discovery with Ultra-High Throughput”
Acoustic-Open Port-Mass Spectrometry (AOMS) Enabled HTS: Assay Development for Choline Transporter (CHT) Uptake Function Assessment
A High-Throughput Mass Spectrometry Plate-Reader: Acoustic Droplet Ejection to an Open-Port Probe Sampling Interface
Acoustic-Open Port-Mass Spectrometry (AOMS): A New Platform for Ultrafast, Direct Human PK Analysis without Sample Preparation
Development and Optimization of a High-Throughput Open-Port Sampling Interface for Drug Discovery LC MS/MS Analysis;
A New Platform for High-Throughput Mass Spectrometry: Acoustic Droplet Ejection with an Open Port Probe Sampling Interface
Development and Optimization of a High-Throughput Open-Port Sampling Interface for Drug Discovery LC MS/MS Analysis
Acoustic-Droplet-Ejection to the Open-Port Probe Sampling Interface of MS (ADE-OPP-MS) - the Automated High-Throughput Bioanalysis Platform for Drug Discovery
Next Generation Sample Introduction for High Throughput Mass Spectrometry: Acoustic Droplet Ejection with an Open Port Probe
Drug Discovery Applications of ADE-OPP-MS (Acoustic-Droplet-Ejection coupled Open-Port-Probe Mass Spectrometry) Platform;
High-Throughput Analysis of Synthetic Samples from High-Density Microplates with ESI-MS Enabled by the Acoustic-Droplet-Ejection to the Open-Port Probe sampling interface
High-Throughput Analysis of Synthetic Samples from High-Density Microplates with ESI-MS Enabled by the Acoustic-Droplet-Ejection to the Open-Port Probe sampling interface
Relevant art of interest to the applicant:
US pgPub 2004/0026615 teaches an acoustic mist ionization mass spectrometry device.
Mason (US pgPub 2022/0170895) teaches a similar acoustic mist ionization mass spectrometry device as discussed above with respect to Sinclair.
Sinclair references a 2016 publication that teaches similar subject matter, see reference 19.
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 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 the remaining claims except for claims 36 and 39 may be anticipated by Datwani, however as the intent was to differentiate the operational parameter from data output, the additional rejections are not applied herein.
Prosecution Insights