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 .
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.
Claims 16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0175757 A1 [Hanafusa].
Regarding Claim 16:
Hanafusa discloses a method of aseptically sampling a droplet of a fluid sample (abstract), the method comprising:
isolating, from a surrounding atmosphere, the fluid sample in a liquid container (Fig. 7 (90), para 92);
aligning a port of the liquid container with an open port interface (Fig. 7 – port is hole of needle (8) which is aligned with sample container (90));
sealingly engaging the port with the open port interface (Fig. 7 (90a), paras 92-93);
ejecting the droplet into the open port interface while maintaining the isolation of the fluid sample (para 92 –“imbibing of the sample”); and
after ejecting the droplet into the open port interface, maintaining the isolation of the fluid sample (abstract, paras 92-93).
Regarding Claim 18:
Hanafusa discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising penetrating the port with the open port interface. Para 92- The hole in the needle of (8) is an open port interface.
Regarding Claim 20:
Hanafusa discloses the method of claim 19, wherein sealingly engaging the port comprises penetrating at least one of a septum or positionable shutter with the open port interface. Para 92.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0109042 A1 [Ellson] in view of US 2022/0268778 A1 [Iannotti]
Regarding Claim 1:
Ellson teaches a method of sampling an ejection of a sample from a liquid container, the method comprising:
disposing the liquid container adjacent an interface (Fig. 8), wherein the liquid container comprises a well and a lid the defines a substantially closed interior volume (see Fig. 5b), and wherein the container lid defines a sampling port (see cover in Fig. 5a-b);
engaging the interface with the sampling port (Fig. 8);
ejecting the sample from the liquid container, through the sampling port, and into the open port interface (Fig. 8, paras 78-79); and
analyzing the sample (paras 47, 58, 87).
However, Ellson does not specify that the interface is an open port interface, or
that engaging the open port interface comprises penetrating the sampling port with the open port interface, or that the analysis is performed by a mass spectrometry device.
Iannotti teaches another sampling and analysis method (abstract), wherein
a sampling interface is an open port interface (Fig. 5),
wherein engaging the open port interface with a liquid container comprises penetrating the sampling port with the open port interface (Fig. 7, para 57), and
wherein the analysis is performed by a mass spectrometry device (paras 3-5, 60, 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to replace the interface of Ellson with the open port interface of Iannotti, and further to implement the probe insertion and analysis steps associated with that open port interface in Ellson. One would have been motivated to do so since this would provide a sample for analysis with reduced air bubbles and simplified sampling system construction. Iannotti para 10.
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 1, wherein engaging the open port interface with the sampling port comprises opening at least one shutter connected to the lid of the sampling port. As shown by the moving portion of the cover in Ellson Fig. 5a-b.
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 1, wherein engaging the open port interface with the sampling port comprises receiving the open port interface in the sampling port. Iannotti Fig. 7, para 57.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 1, wherein engaging the open port interface with the sampling port further comprises receiving the open port interface in the liquid container. Iannotti Fig. 7, para 57.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 16, 18, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claims 8-11, 13, and 15 have overcome the rejections of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, 13, and 15 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights