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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11-12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailey et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0023455).
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 20, Bailey discloses (Figs. 1-7) a connector 22 (i.e. conductive union: see par. [0029]) configured to fluidically couple a first conduit 30 [0030] and a second conduit 25 [0030] (as shown in Fig. 2) to enable flow therethrough of a mobile phase for liquid chromatography [0003], the connector 22 comprising an electrically-conductive junction 22 [0029] for providing, when the electrically-conductive junction 22 is electrically connected with a power source [0029], an electrospray voltage [0031] to the mobile phase, the electrically-conductive junction 22 comprising:
a first receptacle 720/730 [0039] for receiving a distal end of the first conduit 30 ([0039]; Fig. 2), the first receptacle 720/730 comprising a first sealing surface (inner surface of 720/730) that interfaces with the mobile phase and fluidically seals with the distal end of the first conduit 30 ([0039]; Fig. 2);
a second receptacle 701/710 [0039] for receiving a proximal end of the second conduit 25 ([0039]; Fig. 2), the second receptacle 701/710 comprising a second sealing surface (inner surface of 701/710) that interfaces with the mobile phase and fluidically seals with the proximal end of the second conduit 25 ([0039]; Fig. 2), wherein a distal end of the second conduit 25 (i.e. the spraying/emitting end shown on the left side in Figs. 1-2) is fluidically coupled with a capillary of a non-conductive emitter (i.e. the conduit/emitter 25 is made of fused silica: [0031], which is not conductive); and
a through-hole 715 [0039] extending from the first receptacle 720/730 to the second receptacle 701/710 (as shown in Figs. 7E-F);
wherein the first sealing surface (inner surface of 720/730) and the second sealing surface (inner surface of 701/710) each comprise an electrochemical corrosion-resistant material (i.e. made of/plated with stainless steel, gold, titanium, platinum: [0039]).
Regarding claim 16, Bailey further discloses a system for analyzing a sample by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry [0003], the system comprising: an electrospray ionization (ESI) emitter [0013]-[0017], wherein the ESI emitter is a non-conductive emitter (i.e. the conduit/emitter 25 is made of fused silica: [0031], which is not conductive); and the connector 22 enables flow of a mobile phase to the ESI emitter (see pars. [0013]-[0017] and [0043]).
The apparatus of Bailey, as applied above in the rejection of claims 1 and 16, would be made by the method of claim 20 (and meets the limitations of said claim).
Regarding claim 2, Bailey discloses (Figs. 1-7) the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material (stainless steel, gold, platinum: [0039]) has a standard reduction potential that is greater than a reduction potential of a standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) – (i.e. is an inherent property of these materials: see the cited table of Standard Reduction Potentials of various materials).
Regarding claim 3, Bailey discloses (Figs. 1-7) the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material (stainless steel, gold, platinum: [0039]) has a standard reduction potential that is greater than the standard reduction potential of titanium (i.e. is an inherent property of these materials: see the cited table of Standard Reduction Potentials of various materials).
Regarding claim 4, Bailey discloses (Figs. 1-7) the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises a noble metal (i.e. gold, platinum: [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Bailey discloses (Figs. 1-7) the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises gold [0039].
Regarding claim 9, Bailey discloses (Figs. 1-7) the electrically-conductive junction 22 comprises a first material (stainless steel: [0039]) and a second material comprising a coating on the first material (gold, titanium, platinum: [0039]) at the first sealing surface (inner surface of 720/730) and the second sealing surface (inner surface of 701/710), the second material comprising the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material (gold, titanium, platinum: [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, Bailey discloses (Figs. 1-7) the electrically-conductive junction 22 further comprises the second material (gold, titanium, platinum: [0039]) on the first material [0039] on an inside surface of the through-hole 715 [0039].
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.
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 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0023455) in view of ATI (ATI technical data sheet for 904L stainless steel, Allegheny Technologies Inc., 2012, available at: https://www.nickel-systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ati_904l_tds_en_v1.pdf).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 8, Bailey is applied as above, but does not disclose the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises a metal alloy that includes greater than about twenty percent (20%) nickel by mass; and the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises a metal alloy that includes less than about one percent (1%) iron by mass; and the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises a 904L stainless steel.
ATI discloses the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises a metal alloy (stainless steel: see Composition, p. 1) that includes greater than about twenty percent (20%) nickel by mass (Composition, p. 1); and the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises a metal alloy that includes less than about one percent (1%) iron by mass (Composition, p. 1); and the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises a 904L stainless steel (ATI, p. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bailey’s connector so that the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises a metal alloy that includes greater than about twenty percent (20%) nickel by mass; and the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises a metal alloy that includes less than about one percent (1%) iron by mass; and the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material comprises a 904L stainless steel, as taught by ATI.
Such a modification would improve the corrosion resistance of the connector (ATI, bottom p. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0023455) in view of Wagner et al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0186497).
Regarding claim 10, Bailey is applied as above, but does not disclose the first material comprises titanium (since claim 9 requires that the first material be coated with a second).
Wagner discloses the first material comprises titanium (Wagner, [0064], claim 9 – the body of the seal is a metal coated with gold: see Wagner pars. [0062] and [0064] and claim 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 Bailey’s connector so that the first material comprises titanium, as taught by Wagner.
Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0023455) in view of Bohne (U.S. Patent 3,623,968).
Regarding claims 13-15, Bailey discloses (re. claim 15) the electrically-conductive junction 22 comprises a first material (stainless steel: [0039]) and a second material comprising a coating on the first material [0039] at the first sealing surface and the second sealing surface ([0039]; see Figs. 7E-F).
Regarding claims 13-15, Bailey does not disclose the electrically-conductive junction further comprises a sacrificial electrode interfacing with the mobile phase and configured to preferentially corrode relative to the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material of the first sealing surface and second sealing surface; and the sacrificial electrode comprises a metal having a lower standard reduction potential than the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material; and the electrically-conductive junction comprises a first material and a second material comprising a coating on the first material at the first sealing surface and the second sealing surface, the sacrificial electrode comprising the first material and the second material comprising the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material.
Bohne discloses (Figs. 1-2) the electrically-conductive junction further comprises a sacrificial electrode (sacrificial anode: col. 1, lines 51-52) interfacing with the mobile phase and configured to preferentially corrode relative to the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material of the first sealing surface and second sealing surface (col. 1, lines 55-65; col. 2, lines 32-43); and the sacrificial electrode comprises a metal (col. 2, line 73) having a lower standard reduction potential than the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material (i.e. is an inherent property of these materials: see the cited table of Standard Reduction Potentials of various materials); and the sacrificial electrode comprising the first material (col. 2, lines 32-43) and the second material comprising the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material (when combined with the teachings of Bailey, see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bailey’s connector so that the electrically-conductive junction further comprises a sacrificial electrode interfacing with the mobile phase and configured to preferentially corrode relative to the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material of the first sealing surface and second sealing surface; and the sacrificial electrode comprises a metal having a lower standard reduction potential than the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material; and the electrically-conductive junction comprises a first material and a second material comprising a coating on the first material at the first sealing surface and the second sealing surface, the sacrificial electrode comprising the first material and the second material comprising the electrochemical corrosion-resistant material, as taught by Bohne.
Such a modification would be the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results – MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0023455).
Regarding claim 17, Bailey is applied as above, but does not disclose a chromatographic column comprising a stationary phase.
However, although Bailey does not disclose the system includes a chromatographic column comprising a stationary phase, the Examiner takes official notice that a chromatographic column comprising a stationary phase was well-known in the art at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP 2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bailey’s system to include a chromatographic column comprising a stationary phase.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Bailey is applied as above, but does not disclose the chromatographic column is positioned upstream/downstream of the connector such that an outlet/inlet of the chromatographic column is fluidically coupled with the first/second conduit.
However, such a modification would be “obvious to try” since there are only two possibilities (i.e. the connector 22 is either upstream or downstream of the LC column).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bailey’s system so that the chromatographic column is positioned upstream/downstream of the connector such that an outlet/inlet of the chromatographic column is fluidically coupled with the first/second conduit – see MPEP 2144.03(I)(E).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06-30-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Specifically, Bailey discloses: wherein a distal end of the second conduit 25 (i.e. the spraying/emitting end shown on the left side in Figs. 1-2) is fluidically coupled with a capillary of a non-conductive emitter (i.e. the conduit/emitter 25 is made of fused silica: [0031], which is not conductive) – note that in the above rejection, the first and second conduits 25/30 have been swapped with the way they were applied in the Non-Final, so that Bailey is still considered to anticipate the amended claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
