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 8/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not identified a materially different process. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as a process that does not require the particulars of collecting ions generated from the Taylor cone emitter device through the sample inlet of the analytical instrument and analyzing the collected ions with the analytical instrument and ananlyzing the collected ions and removing the Taylor cone emitter device from the sample loading antechamber.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez-Rioz (US 2021/0055192) in view of Jost (US 2007/0178016).
Regarding claim 1, Gomez-Rioz teaches a microextraction device comprising an actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator (100), including a shaft (103); an emplacement (104) disposed at an end of the shaft (103), the emplacement (104) being configured to removably engage a receptacle mount (210) of a Taylor cone emitter device (600); an ejector (107) configured to dismount the receptacle mount of the Taylor cone emitter device (600); and a clocking feature (305) interface configured to guide a clocking feature of the Taylor cone emitter device (600) into a predetermined radial orientation and fix the Taylor cone emitter device in the predetermined radial orientation.
Gomez-Rioz fails to teach a first actuator configured to horizontally actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator; a second actuator configured to vertically actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator; and a third actuator configured to rotationally actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator between a vertical orientation and a horizontal orientation and wherein the Taylor cone emitter device automated handler is configured to mount the Taylor cone emitter device in the vertical orientation, rotate the Taylor cone emitter device to the horizontal orientation, and present the Taylor cone emitter device to an analytical instrument.
Jost teaches a device for examining liquids comprising a first actuator (10) configured to horizontally actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator; a second actuator (10) configured to vertically actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator; and a third actuator (10) configured to rotationally actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator between a vertical orientation and a horizontal orientation and wherein the Taylor cone emitter device automated handler is configured to mount the Taylor cone emitter device in the vertical orientation, rotate the Taylor cone emitter device to the horizontal orientation. In the abstract, Jost discloses “that the tilting unit (8) comprises actuators (10) for individual pointing of the functional ends (22) of the functional elements (2) in relation to a Z axis (11) perpendicular to the working field (5), and a control unit (17) to electrically drive the actuators (10), whereby each of the functional elements (2) can be tilted individually and independently of the X and Y orientation of the working field (5). The device (1) is preferably attached to a robot arm (6) intended to move the functional element (2) in at least one section (7) of the working field (5) and at least on the Z axis. In this case the control unit (17) is intended to coordinate control of the movement of the robot arm (6) and the change in position of the functional ends (22) of the functional elements (2) in relation to a Z axis (11) perpendicular to the working field (5).”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automated handler device of Gomez-Rioz to include a first actuator configured to horizontally actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator; a second actuator configured to vertically actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator; and a third actuator configured to rotationally actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator between a vertical orientation and a horizontal orientation and wherein the Taylor cone emitter device automated handler is configured to mount the Taylor cone emitter device in the vertical orientation, rotate the Taylor cone emitter device to the horizontal orientation, and present the Taylor cone emitter device to an analytical instrument as disclosed in Jost in order to eliminate the use error and fully automate the device.
Regarding claim 2, the emplacement (104) is a pipettor tip emplacement configured to removably engage a pipette tip receptacle mount as the receptacle mount. ([0022])
Regarding claim 3, the Taylor cone emitter device is a coated blade spray device. ([0003])
Regarding claims 4-6, Gomez-Rioz fails to teach a fourth actuator configured to rotationally actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator about an axis along the shaft.
Jost teaches a fourth actuator (9) configured to rotationally actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator about an axis along the shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Gomez-Rioz a fourth actuator configured to rotationally actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator about an axis along the shaft in order to eliminate user error and fully automate the device of Gomez-Rioz.
Regarding claim 7, to align a predetermined well of a microtiter array tray. ([0006])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-18 are allowed. Prior art fails to teach a sample loading antechamber mounted to the analytical instrument such that the sample inlet of the analytical instrument is covered by the sample loading antechamber, the sample loading antechamber including a gas purge configured to fill the sample loading antechamber with an inert atmosphere; a sample aperture configured to receive a Taylor cone emitter device; and a high voltage power electrode disposed within the sample loading antechamber and configured to contact the Taylor cone emitter device when the Taylor cone emitter device is in a predetermined position and orientation relative to the sample inlet of the analytical instrument; and a Taylor cone emitter device automated handler, comprising: an actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/JYOTI Mutreja/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights