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 Amendment filed 09/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 15-19 remain pending in the application. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/08/2026. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 6-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schiavinato et al. (US 20220196697 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schiavinato teaches a sample probe (Fig. 14) for an autosampler system (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 14 and paragraph [0146] teaches a probe for a system that is automated) comprising:
a tube (Fig. 14, interpreted as the tube and 3D printed tip, which are both tubular shaped; Fig. 14, left side shows a tube enclosing three conduits, i.e. conduits 1, 2, and 3) enclosing at least a portion of a plurality of lumens (Fig. 14 and [0143] teaches a tube and printed tip, where the tube enclosing three conduits, i.e. lumens); and
a controller (Fig. 14, “MCU”; [0039], “control system”; [0129] teaches controlling the valves of each conduit with a microcontroller) communicatively coupled with a fluid handling system to introduce or draw one or more fluids through a corresponding one or more lumens among the plurality of lumens (Fig. 14 and [0039] teaches the control system controls solvent flow through a first conduit, gas supply through the second conduit, and sample flow through the third conduit), wherein during a droplet purge operation, the controller is configured to expel a gas from a tip of one of the lumens to purge a droplet of fluid from the tip (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 14 and [0039] teaches the control system controls gas supply through the second conduit, therefore, the controller is capable of expelling gas from the tip of the conduit tube to purge a droplet of fluid from the tip of the probe as claimed),
wherein a tip of one or more lumens among the plurality of lumens and a tip of the tube together form a beveled-shaped tip or a conical-shaped tip (Fig. 14 left picture shows the tips of conduits 1, 2, and 3 and the end tip of the tube together form a conical-shaped tip).
Regarding claim 6, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more fluids is a liquid (Fig. 14 and [0039],[0041] teaches the control system controls solvent flow through a first conduit, wherein the solvent is water or an aqueous mixture, i.e. liquid).
Regarding claim 7, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the one or more fluids includes at least one of: a diluent, a chemical standard, a reactive additive, a surfactant additive, a matrix modifier fluid, or a sample matrix additive (Fig. 14 and [0016],[0039],[0041] teaches the control system controls solvent flow through a first conduit, wherein the solvent is water, and/or an aqueous mixture including ethanol; wherein the solvent including water, and/or an aqueous mixture including ethanol is interpreted as a diluent, a chemical standard, a reactive additive, a surfactant additive, a matrix modifier fluid, or a sample matrix additive).
Regarding claim 8, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more fluids is a gas (Fig. 14 and [0039],[0143] teaches the control system controls gas supply through the second conduit to the probe tip).
Regarding claim 9, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the gas includes at least one of: a diluent, a chemical standard, a reactive additive, a surfactant additive, a matrix modifier fluids, or a sample matrix additive (Fig. 14 and [0039],[0143] teaches the gas includes N2 or CO2, which are interpreted as a diluent, a chemical standard, a reactive additive, a surfactant additive, a matrix modifier fluids, or a sample matrix additive).
Regarding claim 10, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each lumen among the plurality of lumens is fluidly coupled to a respective one or more fluid sources (Fig. 14 teaches a first conduit fluidly coupled to a water source, a second conduit fluidly coupled to a gas source; Fig. 14 and [0036],[0110] teaches a third conduit is fluidly coupled to a fluid sample, i.e. fluid source, where a fluid sample is collected by the probe for analysis by the mass spectrometer).
Regarding claim 12, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a tip of one or more lumens among the plurality of lumens (Fig. 14, tips of the conduits) is offset from a tip of the tube (Fig. 14, tips of the conduits 1, 2, and 3, are offset from the bottom tip of the tube that contacts the sample).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiavinato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 20180153530 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Schiavinato fails to teach: the system of claim 1, further comprising a sheath disposed between at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens and the tube.
Johnson teaches a probe (abstract; Figs. 1-7) comprising lumens (118, 144) for sample acquisition ([0002]). Johnson teaches a portion of a sheath extending proximally from the ultrasound transducer may include a braided material, such as carbon fiber, which provides enhanced stiffness (e.g., pushability) and torqueability during actuating ([0025]). Johnson teaches an exterior tube comprising interior lumens, where the lumens are designed to resist bending and/or kinking, and the tube can include one or more braided materials, such as carbon fiber, to provide enhanced stiffness, torqueability and/or flexibility along all (or a portion of) the exterior tube ([0029]).
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 the system of Schiavinato to incorporate Johnson’s teachings of a carbon fiber sheath and a tube including braided materials such as carbon fiber ([0025],[0029]) to provide: the system of claim 1, further comprising a sheath (i.e. carbon fiber sheath) disposed between at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens and the tube. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving at least stiffness of the system, therefore improving resistance to bending and kinking. Additionally, providing the sheath between at least one lumen and the tube as claimed would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts, since the particular placement of the sheath is an obvious matter of design choice in view of Johnson’s teachings of a sheath with carbon fiber materials and a tube having braided materials such as carbon fiber (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the sheath is made of a carbon fiber material (see above claim 3; Schiavinato in view of Johnson provides a carbon fiber sheath).
Regarding claim 5, modified Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the sheath resists bending of the plurality of lumens (interpreted as a functional limitation of the sheath, see MPEP 2114; see above claim 3; Schiavinato in view of Johnson provides a carbon fiber sheath as claimed, therefore would structurally be capable of resisting bending of the lumens to improve stiffness of the system).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiavinato et al. (US 20220196697 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 20180153530 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Schiavinato teaches a sample probe (Fig. 14) for an autosampler system (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 14 and paragraph [0146] teaches a probe for a system that is automated):
a tube (Fig. 14, interpreted as the tube and 3D printed tip, which are both tubular shaped; Fig. 14, left side shows a tube enclosing three conduits, i.e. conduits 1, 2, and 3) enclosing at least a portion of a plurality of lumens (Fig. 14 and [0143] teaches a tube and printed tip, where the tube enclosing three conduits, i.e. lumens), a tip of the tube and one or more tips corresponding to the one or more plurality of lumens together forming a conical-shaped tip (Fig. 14 left picture shows the conduits 1, 2, and 3 and the end tip of the tube form a conical-shaped tip); and
a controller (Fig. 14, “MCU”; [0039], “control system”; [0129] teaches controlling the valves of each conduit with a microcontroller) communicatively coupled with a fluid handling system to introduce or draw one or more fluids through a corresponding one or more lumens among the plurality of lumens (Fig. 14 and [0039] teaches the control system controls solvent flow through a first conduit, gas supply through the second conduit, and sample flow through the third conduit), the one or more fluids being at least one of a liquid or a gas (Fig. 14 and [0039],[0041] teaches a liquid solvent and gas), wherein during a droplet purge operation, the controller is configured to expel a gas from a tip of one of the lumens to purge a droplet of fluid from the tip (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 14 and [0039] teaches the control system controls gas supply through the second conduit, therefore, the controller is capable of expelling gas from the tip of the conduit tube to purge a droplet of fluid from the tip of the probe as claimed),
wherein a tip of one or more lumens among the plurality of lumens and a tip of the tube together form a beveled-shaped tip or a conical-shaped tip (Fig. 14 left picture shows the tips of conduits 1, 2, and 3 and the end tip of the tube together form a conical-shaped tip).
Schiavinato fails to teach: a carbon fiber sheath disposed between the tube and at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens, the carbon fiber sheath configured to resist bending of the plurality of lumens.
Johnson teaches a probe (abstract; Figs. 1-7) comprising lumens (118, 144) for sample acquisition ([0002]). Johnson teaches a portion of a sheath extending proximally from the ultrasound transducer may include a braided material, such as carbon fiber, which provides enhanced stiffness (e.g., pushability) and torqueability during actuating ([0025]). Johnson teaches an exterior tube comprising interior lumens, where the lumens are designed to resist bending and/or kinking, and the tube can include one or more braided materials, such as carbon fiber, to provide enhanced stiffness, torqueability and/or flexibility along all (or a portion of) the exterior tube ([0029]).
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 the system of Schiavinato to incorporate Johnson’s teachings of a carbon fiber sheath and a tube including braided materials such as carbon fiber ([0025],[0029]) to provide: a carbon fiber sheath disposed between the tube and at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens, the carbon fiber sheath configured to resist bending of the plurality of lumens. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving at least stiffness of the system, therefore improving resistance to bending and kinking. Additionally, providing the sheath between at least one lumen and the tube as claimed would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts, since the particular placement of the sheath is an obvious matter of design choice in view of Johnson’s teachings of a sheath with carbon fiber materials and a tube having braided materials such as carbon fiber (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 09/08/2026, with respect to drawing objections and interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections and interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of 06/08/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 09/08/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, specifically regarding amended claims 1 and 19, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Schiavinato fails to teach “wherein a tip of one or more lumens among the plurality of lumens and a tip of the tube together form a beveled-shaped tip or a conical-shaped tip” as recited in claims 1 and 19 (Remarks, pages 6-7), the examiner disagrees. Specifically, applicant argues that Schiavinato’s conical probe tip that includes conduits 1, 2, and 3 that conjoin forms conduit 4 within the conical probe tip; and only a tip of the tube forms a conical-shaped tip while conduits 1, 2, 3 combine within the conical probe tip to form conduit 4, which as no conical features (Remarks, page 7, second paragraph). The examiner disagrees. Schiavinato’s teaching of conduits 1, 2, and 3 and the end tip of the tube together form a conical-shaped tip reads on the BRI of “wherein a tip of one or more lumens among the plurality of lumens and a tip of the tube together form a beveled-shaped tip or a conical-shaped tip”. As shown in Fig. 14, left picture, the tips of conduits 1, 2, 3 and the end tip of the tube that includes conduit 4 within the tip together or in combination form the conical-shaped tip that contacts tissue. The end tips of conduits 1, 2, and 3 and end tip of the tube that includes conduit 4 are part of the conical-shaped tip and therefore forms the conical-shaped tip as shown in Fig. 14; and therefore reads on “together form a beveled-shaped tip or a conical-shaped tip”. Note that the individual tips or ends of the one or more lumens or the tip or end of the tube are not claimed to be conical or beveled shape; rather, the claimed beveled-shaped or conical-shaped tip is formed by the tip of the lumens and tube together, i.e. combination of the tips of the lumens and tube. 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).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 09/08/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically regarding amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed above regarding Schiavinato.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Giannuzzi (Remarks, page 8) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Giannuzzi for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Keast et al. (US 20100312141 A1) teaches a sampling probe (abstract). Keast teaches the tip can include a straight conical, angled conical, curved, or beveled shape ([0053]).
Giannuzzi (US 20190017904 A1) teaches a probe for sample extraction (abstract; [0013]). Giannuzzi teaches a need for manipulating samples during extraction ([0011]). Giannuzzi teaches the probe includes a beveled tip shape at the end of a conical probe to detach a sample from a bulk material for investigation (Fig. 6A-6C; [0015]-[0016],[0036]). Giannuzzi teaches the beveled probe tip allows for easily lifting out of a specimen ([0041]).
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 HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
