DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 01/02/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/02/2025, hereinafter NFOA1002.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in NFOA1002.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in NFOA1002.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art Schmucker, which was applied in NFOA1002 to teach the limitations ‘an agitator configured to mix a nanoparticle standard solution in a container’ and ‘mixing, via an agitator, a nanoparticle standard solution in a container’, does not sufficiently teach the limitations alleged.
Applicant first references their specification at [0016] for discussion of nanoparticle standards, and their specification at [0017] and [0019] for discussion of mixing of the nanoparticle standards.
Applicant argues that “Nowhere does Schmucker disclose that the nanoparticles used to facilitate matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) are part of a nanoparticle standard solution or a mixed nanoparticle standard. In contrast, Schmucker utilizes the nanoparticles as binding surfaces, not as reference materials…” (Emphasis added by Applicant), and cites [0023] and [0029] of Schmucker. These cited portions discuss the nanoparticles of Schmucker being equipped with a variety of surface modifications, which permit binding via a particulate binding matrix (having a core with functional groups on the surface) to different proteins to allow for direct investigation of functional groups of complex mixtures to be directly investigated. In other words, these sections discuss the intended use of the nanoparticles of Schmucker.
However, whether or not Schmucker explicitly discloses the nanoparticle solutions as being ‘standards’ is irrelevant to whether the solutions can be considered ‘standards’. The nanoparticle solutions are or are not standards depending on the definition of ‘standards’ and whether the nanoparticle solutions of Schmucker meet that definition, not whether Schmucker explicitly discloses them as being such, nor whether Schmucker discloses additional functionality or an alternative purpose for such nanoparticle solutions.
In response to applicant's argument that Schmucker does not explicitly disclose the use of their nanoparticle solutions as a standard, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant thus appears to be relying on the term ‘standard’ to differentiate over the teachings of Schmucker here. The term ‘standard’ is not defined by the claim, however, Applicant’s specification at [0016] gives a working definition of such ‘nanoparticle standards or reference materials’, namely, that “the standard suspensions include nanoparticles having a known concentration and size or size distribution”. Accordingly, the term ‘nanoparticle standard solution’ requires a solution having nanoparticles of known concentration and size or of known concentration and size distribution, as the other description of such solutions amounts to mere intended use that does not further limit the solutions themselves.
The nanoparticle solutions of Schmucker have known concentration and size distributions, and thus satisfy the requirements of a ‘nanoparticle standard solution’ as disclosed by the working definition of Applicant’s specification. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the nanoparticle solutions of Schmucker are not ‘standard’ is not convincing.
Furthermore, because the nanoparticle solutions of Schmucker have known concentration and size distributions, after the functional groups isolate the desired proteins from their parent complex mixtures and MALDI-TOF MS is performed to investigate these proteins, the signal of the nanoparticle solutions and the target proteins can be differentiated in the resultant spectra. The fact that the nanoparticle solutions of Schmucker have additional functionality does not preclude them from reading on the required nanoparticle standard solutions.
Applicant further argues against the nanoparticles of Schmucker by referencing paragraphs [0075]-[0098] of Schmucker, which describe one to three hours of mixing of the nanoparticles depending on the desired functionalized surface, and referencing their own specification which states that prolonged mixing of the nanoparticle standards can break down the nanoparticles into uncalibrated sizes/shapes. However, the claims require no limitation on the time of mixing, and the intended use of Schmucker does not change whether the nanoparticle solution can be considered ‘standard’, as discussed above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the mixing time of the nanoparticle solutions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this argument is not convincing, as the claim merely requires ‘an agitator configured to mix a nanoparticle standard solution in a container to provide a mixed nanoparticle standard…’, but does not provide any limitation on the process of mixing.
Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Wiederin discloses the use of a standard, and merely lacks disclosure of the standard being a nanoparticle standard, and the mixing thereof. Schmucker discloses a nanoparticle solution of known concentration and size distribution, which meets the working definition of the nanoparticle solution being ‘standard’, and further discloses the mixing thereof. Applicant has not specifically disputed the combination of these references, and as such, the combination is maintained as proper.
For completeness, Examiner notes that the use of nanoparticle standard solutions, such as Applicant’s disclosed example of gold nanoparticles in solution, is disclosed in the prior art elsewhere as well. For example, the prior art Wang (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20190341240 A1) discloses the use of gold nanoparticle standard solutions in [0036] for the determination of transport efficiency and other parameters. Wang also separately discloses the use of agitation and sonication, albeit not for mixing the standard, but for dislodging nanoparticles of a sample into solution. Other prior art cited below similarly recite the use of nanoparticle standard solutions, including some of which that also disclose mixing such solutions.
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 1-8, 10-18, and 20 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) and Toms (USPN US 10514329 B1).
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 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 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 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 (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.”
Regarding claim 2, Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms 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 and Toms 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 and Toms 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 and Toms 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 6, Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms teaches the system of claim 5.
Wiederin further teaches further comprising the analysis system ([0009]-[0011]; [0015]), wherein the valve system is configured to direct the mixed sample and standard fluid stream to the analysis system (See Fig. 3, line connecting 312 to 316; [0010]-[0011]; [0018]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms 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 and Toms 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 and Toms 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 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 (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.”
Regarding claim 12, Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms 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 and Toms 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 and Toms 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 and Toms 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 and Toms 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 and Toms 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, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms 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 20, Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms teaches the method of claim 11.
Wiederin in view of Schmucker and Toms does not explicitly teach further comprising selectively mixing individual nanoparticle standard solutions present in respective containers with the agitator.
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.
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) and Toms (USPN US 10514329 B1), 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 and Toms 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 and Toms 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang (US 20190341240 A1);
Li (CN 106018536 A);
Du (CN 111060583 A);
Nardini (US 20230352289 A1);
Chiang (DOI: 10.1016/j.nano.2010.01.006).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881