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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the reference asserted by the Patent Office does not disclose or render obvious the special technical feature of the present claims. This is not found persuasive because the claim states that “an array of clocking feature interfaces disposed in the repository plate configured to guide clocking features of each of the array of Taylor cone emitter devices into predetermined radial orientations,” and this recitation does not specify how the repository plate guides the clocking features and as this limitation is a functional limitation (MPEP § 2114), as long as the device of Marcos can be used to guide the clocking features, Marcos would read on the instant claims. In this case, as the applicant has pointed out, the Taylor cone emitter devices are only able to be inserted in a precise radial orientation, means that it can only be inserted in certain directions and therefore is considered to “guide” the clocking features.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marcos, Tascon et al., “High-Throughput Screening and Quantitation of Target Compounds in Biofluids by Coated Blade Spray-Mass Spectrometry”, Analytical Chemistry, vol. 89, no. 16, 17 July 2017, pages 8421-8428, hereinafter Marcos.
Regarding claim 1, Marcos teaches a Taylor cone emitter device repository (abstract), comprising: a repository plate (figure 2B); a repository wall (the walls holding the plate as shown in figure 2D) extending from the repository plate and peripherally surrounding a substrate chamber (figure 2D); an array of orifices (figure 2c) disposed in the repository plate (figure 2), each configured to receive and retain a substrate and a receptacle mount of one of an array of Taylor cone emitter devices (figure 2); and an array of clocking feature interfaces disposed in the repository plate configured to guide clocking features of each of the array of Taylor cone emitter devices into predetermined radial orientations such that the array of clocking feature interfaces fixes each of the array of Taylor cone emitter devices in the predetermined radial orientations (figure 2, the flat surface have two orientations and therefore guide in a predetermined radial orientation), wherein: the substrate chamber is configured to at least partially receive a microtiter array tray and to accept the substrate of each of the array of Taylor cone emitter devices with the substrate and a tapering tip extending from the substrate being remote from contact with the repository wall or any adjacent of the array of Taylor cone emitter devices disposed in the Taylor cone emitter device repository (lowering the blades into the microtiter plate labeled extraction in figure 2C); and the array of orifices disposed in the repository plate is distributed in alignment with the microtiter array tray such that each of the array of Taylor cone emitter devices, when the microtiter array tray is at least partially received by the substrate chamber, is disposed within a separate well of the microtiter array tray (figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Marcos teaches wherein the array of orifices includes 96 orifices in an 8x12 matrix (page 8423, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 4, Marcos teaches wherein the repository wall is configured to fit over the microtiter array tray in peripheral contact with a peripheral surface of the microtiter array tray (figure 2C).
Regarding claim 5, Marcos teaches further including a repository base (the bottom of where the walls holding the plate as shown in figure 2D) having a cavity configured to receive the microtiter array tray (figure 2D), wherein the repository wall is configured to engage with the repository base (figure 2), defining the substrate chamber in conjunction with the repository plate (figure 2), with the microtiter array tray being disposed entirely within the substrate chamber (figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Marcos teaches further including a repository cover (the structure holding the array of Taylor cone emitter devices), wherein the repository cover is configured to mount over the repository plate so as to secure the array of Taylor cone emitter devices within the array of orifices (figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, the Taylor cone emitter device is not positively claimed and therefore any limitation on the Taylor cone emitter device has minimal patentable weight (MPEP § 2115). The claim is therefore taught by Marcos. Further, this limitation is taught in figure 2A.
Regarding claim 8, Marcos teaches wherein the receptacle mount is a pipette tip receptacle mount (figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcos in view of United States Patent No. 6,066,848, hereinafter Kassel.
Regarding claim 2, Marcos teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Marcos fails to teach the array of orifices includes 48 orifices in a 6x8 matrix.
Kassel teaches a device which utilizes microtiter plates with either 96 wells or 48 wells (6x8 array) (Kassel, column 24, lines 24-33).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., an array with 48 orifices) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., an array with 96 orifices) with other component(s) (i.e., an array with 48 orifices), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., an array with 96 orifices with one of 48 orifices), and the results of the substitution (i.e., holding fluid) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute an array with 96 orifices of reference Marcos with an array with 48 orifices of reference Kassel, since the result would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights