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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 are amended. Claims 3 and 5-15 are as previously presented. Claims 4 is cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites the limitation "polyetereterketon (PEEK)'' in line 2 of claim 1. However, it is suggested to amend to -polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
“An interface part” in line 8 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “part” coupled with functional language “configured to mechanically couple the assembly to the fraction collection unit” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A locking element” in line 2 of claim 5. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “configured to lock the nozzle assembly to the fraction collection unit” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A collector interface part” in line 2 of claim 6 and line 2 of claim 7. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “part” coupled with functional language “configured to be received by a recess of the fraction collection unit” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A gripping element” in line 2 of claim 8. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “configured to provide a secure grip for a user handling the nozzle assembly” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Attachment elements” in line 2 of claim 9. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “to releasably attach the nozzle body to the conduit adapter” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “An interface part” in line 8 of claim 1, because lines 3-10 on page 9 of the applicant’s specification states “In one further embodiment, the interface part 222 comprises a selection of any of a grip part 227 and a collector interface part 229. The grip part 227 is typically configured to provide a safe and secure grip of the nozzle body 220, when being held/handled by a user. E.g. when the user is mounting the nozzle body 220 into the fraction collection unit 120. The collector interface part 229 is typically configured to mechanically couple to the fraction collection unit 120. E.g. provided with a shape corresponding to a receiving compartment/recess of the fraction collection unit 120, such as a cylinder having a particular outer diameter,” and further states in line 4 of pg. 8 that “In one example, the grip part 212 is shaped like a ribbed cylinder.” The interface part is further shown as item 222 on fig 2B. The examiner will interpret this limitation as a portion of the nozzle assembly comprising a first cylinder (collector interface part) and second ribbed cylinder (grip part), or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A locking element” in line 2 of claim 5, because lines 12-15 on page 11 of the applicant’s specification states “In one embodiment, the locking element 510 is formed like a flap extending from the collector interface part 229 in a direction parallel to a centerline of the nozzle body, wherein the flap is provided with a locking lip at an end of the lip arranged furthest away from the collector interface part 229.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as a flap with a locking lip, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A collector interface part” in line 2 of claim 6 and line 2 of claim 7 because lines 6-10 on page 9 of the applicant’s specification states, “The collector interface part 229 is typically configured to mechanically couple to the fraction collection unit 120. E.g. provided with a shape corresponding to a receiving compartment/recess of the fraction collection unit 120, such as a cylinder having a particular outer diameter.” The examiner will interpret this limitation a cylindrical shape, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A gripping element” in line 2 of claim 8, because lines 30-31 on page 10 of the applicant’s specification states “In one embodiment, the interface part 222 further comprises a gripping element 227 configured to provide a secure grip for a user handling the nozzle assembly 200,” and Fig. 3A shows the gripping element as a flat surface. The examiner will interpret this limitation as a flat surface, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “Attachment elements” in line 2 of claim 9 because lines 1-3 on page 1 of the applicant’s specification states, “In one embodiment, the nozzle body and conduit adapter comprise attachment elements 216, 226 that are used to releasably attach the nozzle body to the conduit adapter. In one example the attachment elements 216, 226 are UNF 10-32 2B threads.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as threads, or equivalent thereof.
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 1-3, and 5-15 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein the tip of the nozzle part has a tip outer diameter and a tip inner diameter that are smaller than all other outer diameters and inner diameters of the nozzle assembly” in lines 14-16 of claim 1 was not described in the specification ipsis verbis. Furthermore, Para. 0060 and 0064-0065 and of Applicants PGPub US 2023/0258616 by reciting “The inner diameter of the fluid channel 2282 is 0.298 millimeters in a narrow part and 0.5 millimeters in a wider part of the fluid channel” (Para. 0060), “In one embodiment, an outer diameter of the tip 223 of the nozzle part 221 is in the range of 0.2-2 millimeters in diameter and more preferably in the range of 0.3-0.5 millimeters in diameter (Para. 0064),” and “In one embodiment, the inner diameter of the tip 223 of the nozzle part 221 is preferably in the range of 0.1-1 millimeters in diameter and more preferably in the range of 0.2-0.4 millimeters in diameter” which describes embodiments where the fluid channel (0.298 millimeters) has a smaller diameter than the outer diameter of the tip (0.2-2 millimeters), and where the fluid channel has a smaller diameter than the inner diameter of the tip (0.1-1 millimeters). Additionally, applicant’s specification does not give diameters for every structure in the claimed invention, such as the collector interface part, grip part, and locking element and thus applicants’ specification as a whole does not support “wherein the tip of the nozzle part has a tip outer diameter and a tip inner diameter that are smaller than all other outer diameters and inner diameters of the nozzle assembly” (underline for emphasis). Therefore, this limitation is new matter that 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-3 and 5-15 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2-3 and 5-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the inner diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is preferably in the range of 0.1 to 1 millimeters in diameter” in lines 2-3 of claim 3 and it is not clear if the claim requires the inner diameter of the tip of the nozzle part to be in the range of 0.1 to 1 millimeters in diameter.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the collector interface part" in line 2 of claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part” in line 2 of claim 13, but claim 1 recites the limitation “the tip of the nozzle part, and wherein the tip of the nozzle part has a tip outer diameter” in lines 13-14 of claim 13. It is unclear if there are separate “outer diameters” or if these are the same “outer diameter”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a nozzle fluid channel” in lines 2-3 of claim 13, but claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the nozzle assembly, when the conduit adapter is attached to the nozzle body, forms a fluid channel” in lines 10-11 of claim 1. It is unclear if there are separate “fluid channels” or if these are the same “fluid channel”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part” in line 2 of claim 13, but claim 1 recites the limitation “the tip of the nozzle part, and wherein the tip of the nozzle part has a tip outer diameter” in lines 13-14 of claim 13. It is unclear if there are separate “outer diameters” or if these are the same “outer diameter”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Webb (US 11,819,780).
Regarding claim 15, Webb discloses a nozzle assembly (Fig. {3a, 3b, 4, & 9-10}, All structural elements) comprising a nozzle body (Fig. 9-10, All structural elements except for 30-34) that is configured to be releasably attached (Col. 22: Ln. 23-33; The nozzle body and conduit are releasably attached via Fig. 9, 33 & 111) to a conduit adapter (Fig. {3a, 3b, 4, & 9-10}, 30-33).
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.
(Note 1: cross-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of explicit teaching in the primary reference; the limitation is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US 11,819,780).
Regarding claim 1, Webb discloses a nozzle assembly (Fig. {3a, 3b, 4, & 9-10}, All structural elements) for a fraction collection unit configured to collect one or more fluid samples, said nozzle assembly comprising:
a conduit adapter (Fig. {3a, 3b, 4, & 9-10}, 30-33) configured to fluidly couple to a conduit, and
a nozzle body (Fig. 9-10, All structural elements except for 30-34),
wherein the nozzle body comprises at least:
a nozzle part (Fig. 9-10, {17, 20-22, 40, & 42}) configured to form and release drops of the one or more collected fluid samples at a tip of the nozzle part (Annotated Fig. 10; Item 42 is an electrospray emitter as described in Col. 22: Ln. 54-56 and the electrospray emitter creates/forms droplets and emits/releases them at the tip as described in Col. 17: Ln. 38-43), and
an interface part (Annotated Fig. 9 per 112(f) interpretation above.) configured to mechanically couple the nozzle assembly to the fraction collection unit (The interface part is capable of mechanically coupling the nozzle assembly to the fraction collection unit because it meets all of the structural limitations per the 112(f) interpretation and thus can mechanically couple in the same way. Additionally, the fraction collection unit is not positively recited.),
wherein the nozzle assembly, when the conduit adapter is attached to the nozzle body, forms a fluid channel (Annotated Fig 10) within the nozzle assembly from an inlet of the conduit adapter to the tip of the nozzle part (Annotated Fig. 10),
wherein the nozzle part comprises a cylindrical part (Annotated Fig. 10) and a conical part (Annotated Fig. 10) comprising the tip of the nozzle part, and wherein the tip of the nozzle part has a tip outer diameter (Annotated Fig. 10) and a tip inner diameter (Annotated Fig. 10, Diameter of the fluid channel at the tip
Webb does not disclose wherein the tip outer diameter and the tip inner diameter are smaller than all other outer diameters and inner diameters of the nozzle assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize wherein the tip outer diameter and the tip inner diameter are smaller than all other outer diameters and inner diameters of the nozzle assembly for the nozzle assembly since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0010, 0035, 0037, 0048, 0050, 0054, 0060, and 0064-0065 of Applicants PGPub US 2023/0258616, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
1298
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1414
936
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Webb teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is in the range of 0.2 to 2 millimeters in diameter.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is in the range of 0.2 to 2 millimeters in diameter since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0010 & 0064 of Applicants PGPub US 2023/0258616, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Webb teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the inner diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is preferably in the range of 0.1 to 1 millimeters in diameter.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize wherein the inner diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is preferably in the range of 0.1 to 1 millimeters in diameter since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0011 & 0065 of Applicants PGPub US 2023/0258616, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Webb teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the interface part further comprises a gripping element (Annotated Fig. 9 of claim 1; The gripping element is interpreted per 112(f) above.) configured to provide a secure grip for a user handling the nozzle assembly.
Regarding claim 9, Webb teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the nozzle body and conduit adapter comprises attachment elements (Fig. 9, 33 & 111) that are used to releasably attach the nozzle body to the conduit adapter (Col. 22: Ln. 23-33).
Regarding claim 10, Webb teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the nozzle assembly is made at least partially from plastic (Col. 8: Ln. 37-51).
Regarding claim 11 Webb teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least one component thereof comprises polyetereterketon (PEEK) (Col. 8: Ln. 37-51).
Regarding claim 12, Webb teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the nozzle has a total internal volume of less than 10 µl (Fig. 10, {21, 40, 50} is 250 mm long [Col. 17: Ln. 36-54] with an internal diameter of 0.075 mm [Col. 7: Ln. 39-42] resulting in a volume of 1.11 µL; Fig. 3A, Item 14 has a height L of 1mm [Col. 20: Ln. 3-5], with an internal diameter M as 0.37 mm [Col. 19: Ln. 60-64] resulting in a volume of 0.11 µL. The combination results in an internal volume of 1.22 µL)
Regarding claim 13, Webb teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses the outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part (Annotated Fig. 10 of claim 1), a nozzle fluid channel (Fig. 10, {21, 40, 50}; Inner diameter of the capillary tubing), and a total volume (Fig. 10, {21, 40, 50} is 250 mm long [Col. 17: Ln. 36-54] with an internal diameter of 0.075 mm [Col. 7: Ln. 39-42] resulting in a volume of 1.11 µL).
Webb does not teach wherein: i) an outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is 0.4 mm and a nozzle fluid channel therein has an inner diameter of 0.3 mm with a total volume of 1 µl; or ii) the outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is 0.4 mm and the nozzle fluid channel therein is divided into two parts with a first part having an inner diameter of 0.3 mm and a second part having an inner diameter of 0.5mm, with a total volume of 1.6 µl.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is 0.4 mm and a nozzle fluid channel therein has an inner diameter of 0.3 mm with a total volume of 1 µl since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, Pg. 5: Ln. 28 to Pg. 6: ln. 2, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the nozzle body is configured to be releasably attached to the conduit adapter (Col. 22: Ln. 23-33; The nozzle body and conduit are releasably attached via Fig. 9, 33 & 111).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb in view of Nolte (US 8,864,049)
Regarding claim 5, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the interface part further comprises a locking element configured to lock the nozzle assembly to the fraction collection unit.
However, Nolte teaches a prior art comparable sprayer (100) comprising a part (Fig. 20A, 281) comprising a locking element (The locking element comprises a flap (Fig. 20A-B, 500) and a locking lip (Fig. 20B-D, 500’) per the 112(f) interpretation above.) configured to lock the nozzle assembly to the fraction collection unit (Col. 17: Ln. 31-60; The locking lip 500’ locks the part to a unit (400) as shown in Figs. 20C-D, and thus the locking element is capable of locking to the fraction collection unit, which is not positively recited).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a locking element as taught by Nolte with a known function of locking to another unit into the nozzle assembly disclosed Webb with the known function of emitting a fluid by known the known method of molding or machining and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, which yields the predictable result of emitting a fluid.
Regarding claim 6, Webb in view of Nolte teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 5.
Webb further discloses wherein the interface part further comprises a collector interface part (Annotated Fig. 9 of claim 1) configured to be received by a recess of the fraction collection unit.
Webb in view of Nolte does not explicitly disclose wherein the locking element is provided at one end of the collector interface part which is arranged adjacent to the nozzle part.
However, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts, such as relocating the locking element at one end of the collector interface part which is arranged adjacent to the nozzle part, requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, Pg. 11: Ln. 8-15 & Pg. 3 13-16, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Webb in view of Nolte teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 5.
Nolte further teaches wherein the locking element is a flap extending from in a direction parallel to a centerline of the nozzle body, wherein the flap is provided with a locking lip at an end of the lip.
Webb in view of Nolte teaches the nozzle assembly except for the flap extending from the collector interface part and the lip arranged furthest away from the collector interface part.
However, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts, such as relocating the locking element so that the flap extends from the collector interface part and the lip is arranged furthest away from the collector interface part, requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, Pg. 11: Ln. 13-16 & Pg. 3 13-16, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the 102 and 103 rejection on pages 5-6 of applicant’s argument, specifically that “Webb does not disclose a nozzle assembly having a fluid channel therein that extends from an inlet of a conduit adapter to the tip of the nozzle part as claimed,” the examiner respectfully disagrees because the tip of the nozzle part is the distal end of item 42 further shown in Annotated Fig. 10 on page 11 of the office action along. The cited portion of the text (Col. 22: Ln. 62 to Col. 23: Ln. 3) was to show the nozzle body forming a fluid channel. The channel in item 21 can be seen continuing through 42 to the tip fluid channel in Fig. 10.
The applicant further argues on page 6 that “Webb does not explicitly teach that the inner capillary tube 21 or a fluid channel extends through the electrospray emitter 42, nor is there any suggestion that such is the case. In fact, Webb specifically teaches that the inner capillary tube 21 and the electrospray emitter are two separate components or parts of the chromatography column 40 (see, e.g., col. 22, In. 45 to col. 23, In. 3), which further indicates that the fluid channel defined within the capillary tube 21 does not extend through the electrospray emitter.” However, as described above the channels in item 42 are part of the fluid channel as further evidenced in Col. 22: ln. 51-56 reciting “the chromatography column 40 comprises an integrated electrospray emitter 42 at the other end of the column 40 from the connector 10.” The applicant further cites MPEP 2112(V) regarding inherency, but no inherency is needed for this interpretation because the channels in 40 & 42 leading to the tip are shown in Fig. 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 18, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights