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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The invention is directed to a Taylor Cone emitter device. Baocheng Ji et al, “Generating Electrospray Ionization on Ballpoint Tips”, 25 April 2016, Analytical Chemistry. 88 (10), 5072-5079, hereinafter referred to as Ji, is the closest prior art. Ji teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, except “wherein the substrate includes a rounded discoid portion having: a pair of opposing sides having circular, elliptical or oval perimeters; and a third side connecting the pair of opposing sides; and wherein: the sorbent layer and the reservoir surface are at least partly disposed on at least one side of the pair of opposing sides; and the Taylor cone emitter portion is the third side.” Such a shape for a Taylor Cone emitter, with a reservoir surface and sorbent layer disposed at least partially on one side of the pair of opposing sides, with the emitter portion on the third side, is neither taught nor suggested in the prior art.
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, 3-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baocheng Ji et al, “Generating Electrospray Ionization on Ballpoint Tips”, 25 April 2016, Analytical Chemistry. 88 (10), 5072-5079, hereinafter referred to as Ji, and in further view of Paulo C. Lozano (US 20240082858 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lozano.
Regarding claim 1, Ji teaches a Taylor cone emitter device, comprising: a substrate (fig. 3 as annotated below);
a sorbent layer disposed on at least a portion of the substrate ((For analysis of solid samples (e.g., powder samples), the tiny metal ball in the socket was first prewetted with MeOH/H2O/FA 50/50/0.1 directed by syringe pump, and then touched on the sample surface with the tip end for several seconds until the constituents of the solid sample were extracted. Moreover, fine ground powder (such as herbal medicines) could be added into the BP socket, followed by a subsequent auxiliary solvent (MeOH/H2O/FA 50/50/0.1) to actualize online extraction and electrospray ionization (para. [0006]))
a reservoir surface configured to retain a liquid (fig. 3 as annotated below);
and a Taylor cone emitter portion extending from the substrate, wherein: the reservoir surface is configured to feed the liquid to the Taylor cone emitter portion while a Taylor cone is emitted from the Taylor cone emitter portion (fig. 3 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image1.png
313
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the Taylor cone emitter portion is free of sharp features having an edge or point with a radius of curvature of less than 250 µm (fig. 3 as annotated below);
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
419
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ji fails to teach and the Taylor cone emitter portion includes a broadly curved surface having a radius of curvature of at least 300 µm from which the Taylor cone emanates.
However, Lozano teaches the Taylor cone emitter portion includes a broadly curved surface having a radius of curvature of at least 300 µm from which the Taylor cone emanates (fig. 9b as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
460
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Ji, to include the teachings of Lozano, by making the radius of the Taylor cone emitter portion 50 microns larger, to be 300 microns. Doing so improves durability of the emitter portion and “promote[s] the formation of a stable liquid meniscus (Lozano; para [0073])”
Regarding claim 3, Ji teaches the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 1, wherein the reservoir surface includes at least one flow-disrupting surface feature (fig. 3 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 4, Ji teaches the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 1, wherein the reservoir surface includes at least one liquid-channeling groove (fig. 3 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
189
874
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ji teaches the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 1, wherein the broadly curved surface is curved in two dimensions (fig. 3 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 6, Ji teaches the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 1, wherein the broadly curved surface is curved in three dimensions (fig. 3 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
394
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 7, Ji teaches the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 1, wherein an electrical surface charge is evenly distributed along the broadly curved surface (commercial ballpoint pens typically consist of a metal socket embedded with a metal ball (0.5 mm o.d.) (para. [0005])).
Ji uses a conductive sphere as a Taylor cone emitter. When a potential is applied to a conductive metal sphere, the charges will evenly conjugate along the surface of the sphere and producing a charge distribution with zero electric field within (Libre texts. (2026, January 18). 1.6b: Spherical Charge Distributions. Physics Libre Texts. https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electricity_and_Magnetism/Electricity_and_Magnetism_(Tatum)/01:_Electric_Fields/1.06:_Electric_Field_E/1.6B:_Spherical_Charge_Distributions).
Regarding claim 8, The Taylor cone emitter device of claim 1, wherein a specific region of the broadly curved surface from which the Taylor cone emanates is determined by a relative orientation of the broadly curved surface to an electrical-field coupled sample inlet (The BP-ESI method generated ions without gas assistance, and thus, a close interface distance (0.5–3 mm) between the tip end and the MS inlet was chosen to optimize signal intensity and lower its fluctuations (para. [0007])).
Regarding claim 12, Ji teaches the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 1, wherein the substrate includes a spheroid portion or frustrospheroid portion as the Taylor cone emitter portion (fig. 3 as annotated below) and the sorbent layer ((For analysis of solid samples (e.g., powder samples), the tiny metal ball in the socket was first prewetted with MeOH/H2O/FA 50/50/0.1 directed by syringe pump, and then touched on the sample surface with the tip end for several seconds until the constituents of the solid sample were extracted. Moreover, fine ground powder (such as herbal medicines) could be added into the BP socket, followed by a subsequent auxiliary solvent (MeOH/H2O/FA 50/50/0.1) to actualize online extraction and electrospray ionization (para. [0006])) and the reservoir surface are at least partly disposed on the spheroid portion or the frustrospheroid portion (fig. 3 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
236
912
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The sorbent layer is added to the spheroid portion (tiny metal ball) and as shown in figure 3 above, the reservoir surface overlaps with the spheroid portion.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji and Lozano, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Pawliszyn (US20150318160), hereinafter referred to as Pawliszyn.
Regarding claim 2, Ji does not explicitly teach the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 1, wherein the broadly curved surface of the Taylor cone emitter portion has a radius of curvature of at least 50% of a thickness of the substrate.
However, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the broadly curved surface of the Taylor cone emitter portion has a radius of curvature of at least 50% of a thickness of the substrate (The solid substrate preferably has a thickness of about 500 μm or less (para. [0008])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Ji, to include the teachings of Pawliszyn such that the substrate is 500 microns thick to allow for increased durability. Pawliszyn clearly presents further benefits of this modification: “The thicker the solid substrate, the greater the chance of irreproducible results between substrates. The thinner the solid substrate, the greater the chance that the solid substrate will be damaged. A solid substrate with a thickness of about 300 μm to about 500 μm provides operational benefits in view of these drawbacks (para. [0008]).”
With this modification, along with the modification of claim 1 that incorporate the teachings of Lozano to make the radius of curvature of the broadly curved surface 300 micron, the broadly curved surface of the Taylor cone emitter portion has a radius of curvature of at least 50% of a thickness of the substrate.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji and Lozano, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and in further view of Louis Perna et al. (US 20200373141), hereinafter referred to as Perna.
Regarding claim 9, Ji fails to teach the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 1, wherein the substrate includes a rounded rectangular cuboid portion having: a first pair of opposing sides having a first surface area; a second pair of opposing sides having a second surface area; and a third pair of opposing sides having a third surface area, wherein: the first surface area is larger than the second surface area and is larger than the third surface area;
However, Perna teaches wherein the substrate includes a rounded rectangular cuboid portion having: a first pair of opposing sides having a first surface area; a second pair of opposing sides having a second surface area; and a third pair of opposing sides having a third surface area, wherein: the first surface area is larger than the second surface area and is larger than the third surface area (fig. 5b as annotated below);
PNG
media_image7.png
328
512
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Perna teaches “In a second specific example, the emitter shape can depend on the emitter porosity (e.g., pore density, pore size, pore distribution, etc.). In a third specific example, the emitter shape can depend on the desired working material emission properties (e.g., uniformity, spread, etc.) (para. [0031]).” Changing the shape of the emitter, as explained by Perna, can depend on predictable variables such as emission properties and pore density. These changes can then yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Ji to include the teachings of Perna such that the substrate includes a 3-dimensional rounded rectangular cuboid portion.
Ji however, does teach, the sorbent layer substrate ((For analysis of solid samples (e.g., powder samples), the tiny metal ball in the socket was first prewetted with MeOH/H2O/FA 50/50/0.1 directed by syringe pump, and then touched on the sample surface with the tip end for several seconds until the constituents of the solid sample were extracted. Moreover, fine ground powder (such as herbal medicines) could be added into the BP socket, followed by a subsequent auxiliary solvent (MeOH/H2O/FA 50/50/0.1) to actualize online extraction and electrospray ionization (para. [0006]))
and the reservoir surface are at least partly disposed on at least one side of the first pair of opposing sides (fig. 3 as annotated below);
and the Taylor cone emitter portion is one side of the second pair of opposing sides or the third pair of opposing sides (fig. 3 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image8.png
170
865
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Ji fails to teach the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 9, wherein the rounded rectangular cuboid portion has a stadium cross section bisecting the first pair of opposing sides.
However, Perna teaches, the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 9, wherein the rounded rectangular cuboid portion has a stadium cross section bisecting the first pair of opposing sides (The shape of the emitter along a transverse cross section (e.g., in a plane parallel to the emitter base, in a plane parallel to the substrate, etc.) can be … stadium). – 20200373141
Perna teaches “In a second specific example, the emitter shape can depend on the emitter porosity (e.g., pore density, pore size, pore distribution, etc.). In a third specific example, the emitter shape can depend on the desired working material emission properties (e.g., uniformity, spread, etc.) (para. [0031]).” Changing the shape of the emitter, as explained by Perna, can depend on predictable variables such as emission properties and pore density. These changes can then yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Ji to include the teachings of Perna such that the rounded rectangular cuboid portion has a stadium cross section bisecting the first pair of opposing sides.
Regarding claim 11, Ji fails to teach the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 9, wherein the rounded rectangular cuboid portion has a rounded rectangular cross section bisecting the first pair of opposing sides.
However, Perna teaches the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 9, wherein the rounded rectangular cuboid ((e.g., as shown in FIG. 5E), a rectangular cuboid (para. [0033])) portion has a rounded rectangular cross section bisecting the first pair of opposing sides (The shape of the emitter along a longitudinal cross section … rectangular (e.g., with serrations or crenates along the top)…or have any other suitable shape (para. [0033])).
See obviousness statement for claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 13, Ji fails to teach the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 12, wherein the substrate includes a hemispheroid portion as the frustospheroid portion.
However, Perna teaches the Taylor cone emitter device of claim 12, wherein the substrate includes a hemispheroid portion as the frustospheroid portion (The apex 124 is preferably characterized by a rounded end (e.g., hemispherical, semioval, parabolic, with one or more apex radii of curvature, etc.)(para. [0034])).
Perna teaches “In a second specific example, the emitter shape can depend on the emitter porosity (e.g., pore density, pore size, pore distribution, etc.). In a third specific example, the emitter shape can depend on the desired working material emission properties (e.g., uniformity, spread, etc.) (para. [0031]).” Changing the shape of the emitter, as explained by Perna, can depend on predictable variables such as emission properties and pore density. These changes can then yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Ji to include the teachings of Perna such that the substrate includes a hemispheroid portion.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji, in further view of Lozano.
Regarding claim 15, Ji teaches a Taylor cone analysis system, comprising: an analytical instrument having a sample inlet (The BP tip was held and positioned parallel to the MS inlet (para. [0007])) -NPL;
at least one electric field lens (d is the distance from capillary tip to the counter electrode (page 5075, para [0001]))
and a Taylor cone emitter device including: a substrate (fig. 3 as annotated below);
a sorbent layer disposed on at least a portion of the substrate (For analysis of solid samples (e.g., powder samples), the tiny metal ball in the socket was first prewetted with MeOH/H2O/FA 50/50/0.1 directed by syringe pump, and then touched on the sample surface with the tip end for several seconds until the constituents of the solid sample were extracted. Moreover, fine ground powder (such as herbal medicines) could be added into the BP socket, followed by a subsequent auxiliary solvent (MeOH/H2O/FA 50/50/0.1) to actualize online extraction and electrospray ionization (para. [0006]));
a reservoir surface configured to retain a liquid (fig. 3 as annotated below);;
and a Taylor cone emitter portion extending from the substrate, wherein: the reservoir surface is configured to feed the liquid to the Taylor cone emitter portion while a Taylor cone is emitted from the Taylor cone emitter portion (fig. 3 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image1.png
313
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the Taylor cone emitter portion is free of sharp features having an edge or point with a radius of curvature of less than 250 µm (fig. 3 as annotated below);
and the at least one electric field lens is configured to tune Taylor cone generation from the Taylor cone emitter portion (counter electrode (page 5075, para [0001])).
PNG
media_image2.png
419
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ji fails to teach the Taylor cone emitter portion includes a broadly curved surface having a radius of curvature of at least 300 µm from which the Taylor cone emanates;
However, Lozano teaches the Taylor cone emitter portion includes a broadly curved surface having a radius of curvature of at least 300 µm from which the Taylor cone emanates (fig. 9b as annotated below);
PNG
media_image3.png
460
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Ji to include the teachings of Lozano by making the radius of the Taylor cone emitter portion 50 microns larger to be 300 micron. Doing so improves durability of the emitter portion and “promote[s] the formation of a stable liquid meniscus (Lozano; para [0073])”
Regarding claim 20, Ji teaches the Taylor cone analysis system of claim 15, wherein the Taylor cone emitter device produces a stable Taylor cone with a voltage of less than 5 kV being applied to the Taylor cone emitter device (The nanospray emitter and the BP tip were both held and positioned parallel to the MS inlet. Both setups attained their highest operating efficiency under the optimum ionization voltages of 3 kV for nano-ESI and 2.5 kV for BP-ESI (para. [0008])).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji and Lozano as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Eric Yeatman et al. (GB 2422951), hereinafter referred to as Yeatman.
Regarding claim 16, Ji fails to explicitly teach the Taylor cone analysis system of claim 15, wherein the at least one electric field lens includes a lens disposed between the Taylor cone emitter portion and the sample inlet during Taylor cone generation, the lens being configured to aim a Taylor cone generated from the Taylor cone emitter portion toward the sample inlet.
However, Yeatman teaches the Taylor cone analysis system of claim 15, wherein the at least one electric field lens includes a lens disposed between the Taylor cone emitter portion and the sample inlet during Taylor cone generation, the lens being configured to aim a Taylor cone generated from the Taylor cone emitter portion toward the sample inlet (fig. 1 as annotated below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sample inlet)]
PNG
media_image9.png
493
624
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Although Ji does not teach an electric field lens disposed between the Taylor cone emitter portion and the sample inlet, Ji does teach a counter electrode (page 5075, para [0001])). Placing the counter electrode between the Taylor Cone emitter portion and the sample inlet, closer to the emitter portion, is a known technique in the art that yields the predictable result of generating the electric field required for spraying. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Ji to include the teachings of Yeatman such that the counter electrode is placed between the cone emitter portion and the sample inlet, closer to the emitter portion.
Regarding claim 17, Ji fails to explicitly teach The Taylor cone analysis system of claim 15, wherein the at least one electric field lens includes a lens disposed at an equal distance from the sample inlet as the Taylor cone emitter portion is disposed during Taylor cone generation or at a greater distance from the sample inlet as the Taylor cone emitter portion is disposed such that the Taylor cone emitter portion is between the lens and the sample inlet during Taylor cone generation, the lens being configured to suppress secondary Taylor cone formation, arcing, corona discharge, or combinations thereof.
However, Yeatman teaches the Taylor cone analysis system of claim 15, wherein the at least one electric field lens includes a lens disposed at an equal distance from the sample inlet as the Taylor cone emitter portion is disposed during Taylor cone generation or at a greater distance from the sample inlet as the Taylor cone emitter portion is disposed such that the Taylor cone emitter portion is between the lens and the sample inlet during Taylor cone generation (counter-electrodes (7) & (8)), the lens being configured to suppress secondary Taylor cone formation, arcing, corona discharge, or combinations thereof (In particular, the distance between the nozzle (9) and the counter-electrodes (7) & (8) should be such that the onset potential is easily achieved to ensure reproducible and stable Taylor cones (page 12, lines 6-9)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Ji by replacing the counter electrode (page 5075, para [0001]) with counter-electrodes (7) and (8), taught by Yeatman. Doing so achieves reproducible and stable Taylor cones (page 12, lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 18, Ji fails to explicitly teach the Taylor cone analysis system of claim 15, wherein the at least one electric field lens has a toroidal or annular lens shape.
However, Yeatman teaches the Taylor cone analysis system of claim 15, wherein the at least one electric field lens has a toroidal or annular lens shape (ring electrodes (7) & (8)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Ji to include the teachings of Yeastman, such that the counter electrode, taught by Ji, is annular (ring shaped). Annular counter electrodes are a known technique in the art to reduce ion loss and improve ion focusing.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji and Lozano, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Keqi Tang et al. (US 7671344), hereinafter referred to as Tang.
Regarding claim 19, Ji fails to teach the Taylor cone analysis system of claim 15, wherein the at least one electric field lens includes a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens, each having a different voltage potential.
However, Tang teaches the Taylor cone analysis system of claim 15, wherein the at least one electric field lens includes a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens, each having a different voltage potential (fig. 2b as annotated below).
PNG
media_image10.png
513
615
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Ji to include the teachings of Tang by replacing the counter electrode taught by Ji, with the Grid electrodes taught by Tang. Applying a different potential to multiple electric field lenses is a known technique in the art that produces the predictable result of rapidly pushing ions through the ion guide and therefore, improving transmission.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KENTARO KOBAYASHI et al. (AU 2010229384 A1) is relevant to claims 1-20 because it teaches a round discharge electrode.
DAU VAN THANH et al. (AU 2014206265 A1) is relevant to claims 1-20 because it teaches a curved spray electrode with a radius of curvature of 0.4 mm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881