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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/11/2026 with the above RCE have been entered. Claims 6 and 20 have been canceled. New claims 21-22 have been added with support as indicated in Applicant’s remarks dated 06/11/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-22 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended limitation not present at the time of the Final Office Action dated 02/11/2026, hereinafter FOA0211. See below for a detailed discussion of amended claim limitations.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederin (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200103077 A1) in view of Schmucker (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20050037516 A1), Toms (USPN US 10514329 B1), and Vacic (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20180088141 A1).
Examiner notes that Schmucker and Toms are Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 12/15/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Wiederin teaches a system for automated handling of (Abstract; [0002]-[0004]; [0010]), comprising:
a fluid preparation system fluidically coupled with the container to receive the (See Figs. 1-3, items 118, ‘STANDARD’ connected to 308b ; Abstract; [0004]; [0010]; [0013]; [0015]; Examiner interprets the system leading to the ICP system as a fluid preparation system), the fluid preparation system including a valve system (See Figs. 1-3, items 114, 122, 316; Abstract; [0004]; [0010]; [0013]-[0022]) and one or more pumps configured to direct the (See Figs. 1-3, items 104, 112a-d, 310a-c; Abstract; [0004]; [0010]-[0013]; [0015]-[0021, and in particular [0013]]) to provide a mixed sample and (See Figs. 1 and 3; [0015]; [0018]).
Wiederin does not teach an agitator configured to mix a nanoparticle standard solution in a container to provide a mixed nanoparticle standard having a substantially homogenous distribution of nanoparticles, the agitator including a tray configured to support the container and to impart motion to the container to provide the mixed nanoparticle standard and the mixed nanoparticle standard (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Schmucker teaches an agitator configured to mix a nanoparticle standard solution in a container (Abstract; [0001]; [0011]-[0013]; [0029]-[0030]; [0074]; [0077]; [0080]; [0084]; [0086]-[0087]; [0090]; [0093]; [0095]; [0098]; Examiner notes that as discussed in FOA0211, the nanoparticle solutions of Schmucker have known concentrations and size distributions, thus satisfying the requirements of a ‘standard’) and the mixed nanoparticle standard (Abstract; [0001]; [0011]-[0013]; [0029]-[0030]; [0074]; [0077]; [0080]; [0084]; [0086]-[0087]; [0090]; [0093]; [0095]; [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiederin to include an agitator configured to mix a nanoparticle standard solution in a container and the mixed nanoparticle standard (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Schmucker.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to leverage the benefits of the use of nanoparticle standards for mass spectrometric analysis as discussed in [0017]-[0025].
Wiederin in view of Schmucker does not explicitly teach an agitator configured to mix a nanoparticle standard solution in a container to provide a mixed nanoparticle standard having a substantially homogenous distribution of nanoparticles, the agitator including a tray configured to support the container and to impart motion to the container to provide the mixed nanoparticle standard (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Toms teaches an agitator configured to mix a [sample] solution in a container to provide a mixed [sample solution] having a substantially homogenous distribution of (Col. 2, Lines 39-60; Col. 3, Line 32 – Col. 5, Line 47, and in particular Col. 4, Lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiederin in view of Schmucker to include an agitator configured to mix a [sample] having a substantially homogenous distribution of , as taught by Toms in order to achieve an agitator configured to mix a nanoparticle standard solution in a container to provide a mixed nanoparticle standard having a substantially homogenous distribution of nanoparticles (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by the combination of Wiederin, Schmucker, and Toms.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Toms, to ensure “uniformity of the sample composition, which in turn can provide for more accurate testing results” as Toms teaches “Uniformity throughout each sample can assist with providing more accurate test results by avoiding inaccuracies associated with concentration gradients within a sample.”
Vacic teaches an agitator configured to mix a [-containing] [solution] having a substantially homogenous distribution of [solution] (See Figs. 1, 6, 10, 13-15, items 400, 410, 420, 1300; [0011]; [0024]; [0072]; [0081]; [0085]-[0086]; [0107]-[0116]; [0120];[0138]; [0144]-[0146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiederin in view of Schmucker or Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms to include an agitator configured to mix a [-containing] [solution] having a substantially homogenous distribution of [solution], as taught by Vacic, in order to achieve an agitator configured to mix a nanoparticle standard solution in a container to provide a mixed nanoparticle standard having a substantially homogenous distribution of nanoparticles, the agitator including a tray configured to support the container and to impart motion to the container to provide the mixed nanoparticle standard (Emphasis added by Examiner), by the combination.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as agitator/shaker plates are well represented in the prior art and widely commercially available (see e.g., Thermo Fisher Scientific, heidolph, labortechnik, Labtron, Pipette.com, etc., each of which have various forms of shaker plates commercially available, some including customizable options), and Vacic teaches using such a typical technology according to its typical technique, which could be readily applied to the device of Wiederin in view of Schmucker or Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms with a reasonable expectation of success, as the means by which the agitation of a sample source occurs does not otherwise affect the device of Wiederin in view of Schmucker or Wiederin in view of Schmucker in view of Toms.
Regarding claim 2, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the system of claim 1.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the fluid preparation system further includes a ([0018]), wherein the valve system includes a load configuration configured to fluidically couple the container with the ([0018]-[0022]; Examiner interprets a configuration of the valves such that the standard is drawn into the loop as ‘a load configuration’).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach a/the nanoparticle standard loop, however, as discussed in regards to claim 1, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 3, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the system of claim 2.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the one or more pumps include a vacuum loader ([0019]), and wherein the valve system fluidically couples the vacuum loader with each of the (See Fig. 3, loader 310b coupled via valve 114 to standard loop 304 and ‘STANDARD’ via line 308b and valve 122; [0019]).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach the mixed nanoparticle standard and the nanoparticle standard loop, however, as discussed in regards to claim 1, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 4, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the system of claim 2.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the valve system includes an inject configuration configured to fluidically couple the ([0019]-[0022]; Examiner interprets a configuration of the valves such that the standard is drawn from the standard loop and mixed with the sample stream prior to the analysis system as ‘an inject configuration’).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach the nanoparticle standard loop, however, as discussed in regards to claim 1, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 5, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the system of claim 4.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the valve system includes a valve having a mixing port (See Fig. 3, items 122 and 312; [0021]-[0022]) that fluidically couples a fluid line configured to transfer the sample and standard fluid stream (See Fig. 3, the line connecting sample loop 302 to valve 122 and the line connecting standard loop 304 to valve 122, each of which are coupled to mixing port 312 to inline mix the standard and sample to be provided to valve 316 to the ICP 314; [0018]-[0022]).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach the mixed nanoparticle standard and the nanoparticle standard loop, however, as discussed in regards to claim 1, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 7, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the system of claim 4.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the valve system fluidically decouples the ([0019]-[0022]; Examiner interprets a configuration of the valves such that the standard is drawn from the standard loop and mixed with the sample stream prior to the analysis system as ‘an inject configuration’).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach the nanoparticle standard loop, however, as discussed in regards to claim 1, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 8, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the system of claim 4.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the one or more pumps include a pump fluidically coupled with a working fluid source ([0018]-[0022], and in particular [0020] describing working fluid supplied via syringe pump), the pump configured to introduce a working fluid from the working fluid source into the ([0018]-[0022], and in particular [0020]-[0021]).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach the nanoparticle standard loop and the mixed nanoparticle standard, however, as discussed in regards to claim 1, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 10, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the system of claim 1.
Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms does not explicitly teach wherein the agitator is configured to selectively mix individual nanoparticle standard solutions present in respective containers.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of conventional autosamplers, which are typically capable of being controlled to selectively sample solutions in respective containers, as this is their primary purpose. Thus, were the agitating autosampler of Toms applied to a conventional autosampler (i.e., such as that of Wiederin), it would naturally have the capability to selectively sample different solutions in respective their containers. Toms discloses (see cited portions of in rejection of claim 1) agitating solutions prior to or during aspiration of the autosampler disclosed therein.
As such, were the agitating autosampler of Toms applied to the system of Wiederin as modified by Schmucker, it would naturally have the capability to selectively sample respective solutions, and would thus naturally agitate the solutions prior to or during the sampling.
Accordingly, the combination of Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms discloses an arrangement which has the capability of selectively sampling and agitating solutions in respective containers, wherein the solutions are standards (Wiederin) and wherein the standards include nanoparticles (Schmucker), and thus, the combination reaches the requirements of the claim, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Wiederin teaches a method for automated handling of (Abstract; [0002]-[0004]; [0010]), comprising:
transferring, via a fluid line, the (See Figs. 1-3, items 118, ‘STANDARD’ connected to 308b ; Abstract; [0004]; [0010]; [0013]; [0015]; Examiner interprets the system leading to the ICP system as a fluid preparation system) including a valve system (See Figs. 1-3, items 114, 122, 316; Abstract; [0004]; [0010]; [0013]-[0022]) and one or more pumps (See Figs. 1-3, items 104, 112a-d, 310a-c; Abstract; [0004]; [0010]-[0013]; [0015]-[0021, and in particular [0013]]); and
directing, via the one or more pumps, the (See Figs. 1-3, items 104, 112a-d, 310a-c; Abstract; [0004]; [0010]-[0013]; [0015]-[0021, and in particular [0013]]) and provide a mixed sample and (See Figs. 1 and 3; [0015]; [0018]).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach mixing, via an agitator, a nanoparticle standard solution in a container to provide a mixed nanoparticle standard having a substantially homogenous distribution of nanoparticles, the agitator including a tray configured to support the container and to impart motion to the container to provide the mixed nanoparticle standard and the mixed nanoparticle standard (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Schmucker teaches mixing, via an agitator, a nanoparticle standard solution in a container (Abstract; [0001]; [0011]-[0013]; [0029]-[0030]; [0074]; [0077]; [0080]; [0084]; [0086]-[0087]; [0090]; [0093]; [0095]; [0098]; Examiner notes that as discussed above, the nanoparticle solutions of Schmucker have known concentrations and size distributions, thus satisfying the requirements of a ‘standard’) and the mixed nanoparticle standard (Abstract; [0001]; [0011]-[0013]; [0029]-[0030]; [0074]; [0077]; [0080]; [0084]; [0086]-[0087]; [0090]; [0093]; [0095]; [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiederin to include mixing, via an agitator, a nanoparticle standard solution in a container… and the mixed nanoparticle standard (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Schmucker.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to leverage the benefits of the use of nanoparticle standards for mass spectrometric analysis as discussed in [0017]-[0025].
Wiederin in view of Schmucker does not explicitly mixing, via an agitator, a nanoparticle standard solution in a container to provide a mixed nanoparticle standard having a substantially homogenous distribution of nanoparticles, the agitator including a tray configured to support the container and to impart motion to the container to provide the mixed nanoparticle standard (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Toms teaches mixing, via an agitator, a [sample] solution in a container to provide a mixed [sample] having a substantially homogenous distribution of (Col. 2, Lines 39-60; Col. 3, Line 32 – Col. 5, Line 47, and in particular Col. 4, Lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiederin in view of Schmucker to include mixing, via an agitator, a [sample] solution in a container to provide a mixed [sample] having a substantially homogenous distribution of , as taught by Toms in order to achieve mixing, via an agitator, a nanoparticle standard solution in a container to provide a mixed nanoparticle standard having a substantially homogenous distribution of nanoparticles (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by the combination of Wiederin, Schmucker, and Toms.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Toms, to ensure “uniformity of the sample composition, which in turn can provide for more accurate testing results” as Toms teaches “Uniformity throughout each sample can assist with providing more accurate test results by avoiding inaccuracies associated with concentration gradients within a sample.”
Vacic teaches mixing, via an agitator, a [-containing] [solution] having a substantially homogenous distribution of [solution] (See Figs. 1, 6, 10, 13-15, items 400, 410, 420, 1300; [0011]; [0024]; [0072]; [0081]; [0085]-[0086]; [0107]-[0116]; [0120];[0138]; [0144]-[0146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiederin in view of Schmucker or Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms to include mixing, via an agitator, a [-containing] [solution] having a substantially homogenous distribution of [solution], as taught by Vacic, in order to achieve mixing, via an agitator, a nanoparticle standard solution in a container to provide a mixed nanoparticle standard having a substantially homogenous distribution of nanoparticles, the agitator including a tray configured to support the container and to impart motion to the container to provide the mixed nanoparticle standard (Emphasis added by Examiner), by the combination.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as agitator/shaker plates are well represented in the prior art and widely commercially available (see e.g., Thermo Fisher Scientific, heidolph, labortechnik, Labtron, Pipette.com, etc., each of which have various forms of shaker plates commercially available, some including customizable options), and Vacic teaches using such a typical technology according to its typical technique, which could be readily applied to the device of Wiederin in view of Schmucker or Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms with a reasonable expectation of success, as the means by which the agitation of a sample source occurs does not otherwise affect the device of Wiederin in view of Schmucker or Wiederin in view of Schmucker in view of Toms.
Regarding claim 12, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the method of claim 11.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the fluid preparation system further includes a ([0018]), wherein the valve system includes a load configuration configured to fluidically couple the container with the ([0018]-[0022]; Examiner interprets a configuration of the valves such that the standard is drawn into the loop as ‘a load configuration’).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach a/the nanoparticle standard loop, however, as discussed in regards to claim 11, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 13, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the method of claim 12.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the one or more pumps include a vacuum loader ([0019]), and wherein the valve system fluidically couples the vacuum loader with each of the (See Fig. 3, loader 310b coupled via valve 114 to standard loop 304 and ‘STANDARD’ via line 308b and valve 122; [0019]).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach the mixed nanoparticle standard and the nanoparticle standard loop, however, as discussed in regards to claim 11, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 14, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the method of claim 12.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the valve system includes an inject configuration configured to fluidically couple the ([0019]-[0022]; Examiner interprets a configuration of the valves such that the standard is drawn from the standard loop and mixed with the sample stream prior to the analysis system as ‘an inject configuration’).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach the nanoparticle standard loop, however, as discussed in regards to claim 11, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 15, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the method of claim 14.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the valve system includes a valve having a mixing port (See Fig. 3, items 122 and 312; [0021]-[0022]) that fluidically couples a fluid line configured to transfer the (See Fig. 3, the line connecting sample loop 302 to valve 122 and the line connecting standard loop 304 to valve 122, each of which are coupled to mixing port 312 to inline mix the standard and sample to be provided to valve 316 to the ICP 314; [0018]-[0022]).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach the mixed nanoparticle standard and the nanoparticle standard loop, however, as discussed in regards to claim 11, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 16, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the method of claim 15.
Wiederin further teaches further comprising directing the mixed sample and standard fluid stream to the analysis system (See Fig. 3, line connecting 312 to 316; [0010]-[0011]; [0015]; [0018]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 17, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the method of claim 14.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the valve system fluidically decouples the ([0019]-[0022]; Examiner interprets a configuration of the valves such that the standard is drawn from the standard loop and mixed with the sample stream prior to the analysis system as ‘an inject configuration’).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach the nanoparticle standard loop, however, as discussed in regards to claim 11, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 18, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the method of claim 14.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the one or more pumps include a pump fluidically coupled with a working fluid source ([0018]-[0022], and in particular [0020] describing working fluid supplied via syringe pump), the pump configured to introduce a working fluid from the working fluid source into the ([0018]-[0022], and in particular [0020]-[0021]).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach the nanoparticle standard loop and the mixed nanoparticle standard, however, as discussed in regards to claim 11, the use of a nanoparticle standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Schmucker.
Regarding claim 21, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the method of claim 11.
Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic further teaches wherein the agitator includes a first tray configured to support the container and to impart motion to the container to provide the mixed nanoparticle standard (See Vacic Figs. 1, 10, showing plurality of sample agitator support trays 400/410/420, 1300; See also: Figs. 1, 6, 10, 13-15, items 400, 410, 420, 1300; [0011]; [0024]; [0072]; [0081]; [0085]-[0086]; [0107]-[0116]; [0120];[0138]; [0144]-[0146]), wherein the agitator includes a second tray configured to support a second container holding a second nanoparticle standard solution, and wherein the second tray is configured to impart motion to the second container to provide a second mixed nanoparticle standard having a substantially homogenous distribution of nanoparticles (See Vacic Figs. 1, 10, showing plurality of sample agitator support trays 400/410/420, 1300; See also: Figs. 1, 6, 10, 13-15, items 400, 410, 420, 1300; [0011]; [0024]; [0072]; [0081]; [0085]-[0086]; [0107]-[0116]; [0120];[0138]; [0144]-[0146]).
Regarding claim 22, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the method of claim 21.
Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic further teaches wherein the agitator is configured to impart motion to the container while simultaneously permitting the second container to remain idle (See Vacic Figs. 1, 10, showing plurality of sample agitator support trays 400/410/420, 1300; See also: Figs. 1, 6, 10, 13-15, items 400, 410, 420, 1300; [0011]; [0024]; [0072]; [0081]; [0085]-[0086]; [0107]-[0116]; [0120];[0138]; [0144]-[0146]; Examiner notes that each plate is disclosed as being individually controllable at same or different rates/conditions).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederin (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200103077 A1) in view of Schmucker (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20050037516 A1), Toms (USPN US 10514329 B1), and Vacic (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20180088141 A1), as evidenced by Badiei (US 20110210241 A1), Hutchinson (US 20110240839 A1), Nakano (US 20190013192 A1), Field (US 20210033631 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the system of claim 1.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the valve system includes a purge configuration configured to fluidically couple with a purge [fluid] source to direct purge [fluid] through at least a portion of the system ([0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0022]; Examiner interprets a configuration of the valves such that the sample loop is cleaned via the purge fluid as ‘a purge configuration’).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach wherein the valve system includes a purge configuration configured to fluidically couple with a purge gas source to direct purge gas through at least a portion of the system.
However, the use of a gas to purge fluid manipulation systems is well represented in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art of mass spectrometry and ICP systems would be reasonably apprised thereof (e.g., inert and/or noble gases such as N, Ar, etc.). See for example the prior art documents Badiei, Hutchinson, Nakano, and Field, each of which disclose using a purge gas in an ICP and/or MS system.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiederin to explicitly include the purge fluid being a purge gas via ordinary knowledge/skill in the art, as evidenced by the above prior art documents.
Doing so represents a mere application of ordinary skill/knowledge in the art being used in its conventional fashion in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Wiederin in view of Schmucker, Toms, and Vacic teaches the method of claim 11.
Wiederin further teaches wherein the valve system includes a purge configuration configured to fluidically couple with a purge [fluid] source to direct purge [fluid] through at least a portion of the system ([0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0022]; Examiner interprets a configuration of the valves such that the sample loop is cleaned via the purge fluid as ‘a purge configuration’).
Wiederin does not explicitly teach wherein the valve system includes a purge configuration configured to fluidically couple with a purge gas source to direct purge gas through at least a portion of the system.
However, the use of a gas to purge fluid manipulation systems is well represented in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art of mass spectrometry and ICP systems would be reasonably apprised thereof (e.g., inert and/or noble gases such as N, Ar, etc.). See for example the prior art documents Badiei, Hutchinson, Nakano, and Field, each of which disclose using a purge gas in an ICP and/or MS system.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiederin to explicitly include the purge fluid being a purge gas via use of ordinary knowledge/skill in the art, as evidenced by the above prior art documents.
Doing so represents a mere application of ordinary skill/knowledge in the art being used in its conventional fashion in order to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights