DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-26 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-26 is/are rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim(s) 1-26 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of US11961729B2 (hereinafter patent ’729). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the omission of the longitudinal movement resistance and liquid being water would still have rendered the instant claims obvious in view of the 729 patent.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites “the at least one handling section is substantially longer than the cleaning sections combined” but it is unclear to what degree is “substantially” longer. The limitation is read to mean “the at least one handling section is longer than the cleaning sections combined”.
Claims 21-22 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 20.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 14-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 20100163074 A1) in view of TripleTOF® 4600 System System User Guide (July 2014), https://sciex.jp/content/dam/SCIEX/pdf/customer-docs/user-guide/4600-system-user-guide-en.pdf [hereinafter Sciex].
Regarding claim 1, Hansen teaches a cleaning device for cleaning
at least two substantially longitudinal cleaning sections (see fig 7 or 8: 2,3, [0084]), comprising:
a first substantially longitudinal cleaning section (see e.g. 2) having a liquid absorbing material for absorbing (see [0083]) a first liquid (e.g. cleaning liquid, see [0024]); and
a second substantially longitudinal cleaning section (see e.g. 3) having a liquid absorbing material for absorbing (see [0083]) a second liquid (see e.g. cleaning liquid, [0024])
at least one handling section (see left part of 1) extending axially from the at least one cleaning section (see fig 7); and
at least one direction section extending axially from the at least one cleaning section (see fig 7), wherein the at least one cleaning section has a larger cross section than the at least one handling section (see [0083]), and wherein the at least one direction section is arranged to allow a longitudinal movement of the cleaning device in a first axial direction (see [0041,83]).
Hansen fails to explicitly disclose cleaning multiple elongate electrodes of an ion optical multipole device.
However, the recitation has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Hansen may fail to explicitly disclose the second liquid is different from the first liquid.
However, it is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the first liquid may be a different liquid comprising the second liquid e.g. consisting of used up and contaminated cleaning liquid, or a different cleaning solution used at e.g. a different time/cleaning cycle. For example, Sciex teaches utilizing one of a number of cleaning solutions (methanol, isopropanol, acetonitrile solutions) to use with swabs for cleaning mass spectrometers (see Sciex, p91-92). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Sciex in the system of Hansen to enable the ability to clean mass spectrometers while providing the advantages of the swab system of Hansen (e.g. enabling use of detachable parts, reducing uncontrolled spraying, [0010-11], easier insertion and contaminant collection, etc, [0083-84]). It is also noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section has a substantially polygonal cross-sectional shape, such as square, hexagonal or octagonal (see rectangular shape in Hansen, fig 7: 2).
Regarding claim 3, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section has a substantially circular cross-sectional shape (see Hansen, [0082]). Note also the obviousness of adjusting the shape of the cross section to match the shape of the instrument channel (see [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Hansen fails to explicitly disclose at least one cleaning section has a substantially elliptical cross-sectional shape. However, Hansen teaches the shape of the cleaning section can be adjusted based on instrument channel size (see Hansen, [0041]), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the shape, including providing an elliptical cross-section (also note cross section of cylindrical shape is elliptical) as a routine skill in the art to match an instrument channel. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Hansen teaches at least two cleaning sections (see Hansen, fig 8: 2, 3), wherein two cleaning sections have different cross-sectional shapes and/or different cross-sectional dimensions (see fig 8, [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, Hansen teaches at least two cleaning sections (see Hansen, fig 7: 2), wherein two cleaning sections have identical cross-sectional shapes and/or cross-sectional dimensions (see fig 7, obvious variation to make some sections the same size or different sizes, [0083-84]).
Regarding claim 7, Hansen teaches two or more cleaning sections (see Hansen, fig 7: 2) separated by at least one spacing section (see portions of 9 between 2), wherein the at least one spacing section has a smaller cross section than the cleaning sections (see fig 7; alternately see fig 8).
Regarding claim 8, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section comprises a series of cleaning elements protruding from a body (see Hansen, fig 6,7, cleaning element, 2, protruding from threads, 8).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen teaches the cleaning elements comprise cleaning flanges (see Hansen, fig 7: 10, having flange shape, advantageously skims liquid out of instrument channel, [0083]).
Regarding claim 10, Hansen teaches at least some cleaning flanges protrude from the body substantially perpendicularly (see Hansen, fig 7: 10).
Regarding claim 12, Hansen teaches at least some cleaning flanges are substantially planar (see Hansen, fig 7: 10).
Regarding claim 14, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section is arranged to be compressible (see Hansen, [0084]).
Regarding claim 15, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section is capable of absorbing and releasing a cleaning liquid (see Hansen, claim 8).
Regarding claim 16, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section comprises cellulose, natural or artificial sponge (see Hansen, [0037]), leather and/or cloth.
Regarding claim 17, Hansen teaches three cleaning sections separated by spacing sections (see Hansen, fig 7: 2, separated by sections of 9, note [0037]).
Regarding claim 18, Hansen teaches the direction section comprises at least one flexible element protruding from the body (see e.g. Hansen, fig 7 or 8: 2) and at least one blocking element (e.g. fig 9: 12, alternately see 3) arranged adjacent the flexible element for blocking any bending of the flexible element in the direction of the blocking element (see 12, blocking motion into directions towards 12, [0085]).
Regarding claim 19, Hansen teaches the flexible element comprises a flange (see e.g. Hansen, fig 7: 10 and/or 2) having a larger cross section than the blocking element (see fig 7, 9: 11,12).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex may fail to explicitly disclose the at least one handling section is substantially longer than the cleaning sections combined. However, Hansen teaches adjusting dimensions of the cleaning portion based on instrument dimensions and operator hand ergonomics (see Hansen, [0074]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the relative lengths of the cleaning and holding sections as a routine skill in the art for a given instrument. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, Hansen teaches the handling section comprises a substantially stiff rod (see Hansen, [0041]).
Regarding claim 22, Hansen teaches the handling section comprises a substantially flexible element, such as a cord or rope (see Hansen, elastic material, [0041]).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex teaches two handling sections (e.g. left and right of 9 on Hansen, fig 7, under 3). It is unclear wherein one handling section at one end of the cleaning sections is at least five times as long as the other handling section at the opposite end of the one or more cleaning sections, preferably at least ten times as long. However, Hansen teaches adjusting dimensions of the cleaning portion based on instrument dimensions and operator hand ergonomics (see Hansen, [0074]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the relative lengths of the cleaning and holding section lengths as a routine skill in the art for a given instrument. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious for similar reasons as claim 20 above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the length of the handling and cleaning sections, including a configuration where at least one handling section has a length exceeding the length of the electrodes to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 25, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex teaches at least one cleaning section has a cross- section exceeding the inscribed diameter of the electrodes to be cleaned (see Hansen, [0027]).
Regarding claim 26, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex teaches a method of cleaning electrodes of an ion optical multipole device (see Sciex, p91-92), the method comprising the use of a cleaning device according to claim 1 (see Hansen, abstract).
Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen and Sciex, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cantel (DE 202016005151 U1).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex may fail to explicitly disclose at least some cleaning flanges protrude from the body at an acute angle. However, Cantel provides a system to use angled flanges (see Cantel, fig 1: 2) to provide more effective cleaning and prevents getting stuck in a channel (see Cantel, [0003,08]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Cantel in the system of flanges of the combined prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve effectiveness of the cleaning and prevent problems with being stuck in the device, in the manner taught by Cantel.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Cantel, for similar reasons as claim 11 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Hansen, Sciex, and Cantel teaches at least some cleaning flanges are curved (see Cantel, fig 1:2; also note during compression the flanges curve and change shapes, see e.g. [0010], Hansen, [0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights