DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 1-6 and 9-12; and addition of new claim 13 are noted.
The claim amendments overcome the objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant disagrees with the office’s position that the part of the device marked up in the previous office action functions as a heat sink. Applicant argues that the gas flow 141 is ambient air not a warm gas flow and that it is clear in Kearsley that warming is from below the plate and the air flow is only for helping to remove gaseous mixture rising from the samples.
This argument is not found persuasive. As a preliminary note, the office respectfully clarifies that the position in the previous office action was not that “a heat sink is not explicitly shown in Kearsley”, as stated by Applicant, but rather that it is not explicitly recited. The office is of the position that it is in fact shown in in Kearsley, as represented in the marked up drawing.
While the office agrees that the fan pulls in ambient air (through slot 142), it is noted that this ambient air mixes with gaseous mixture rising from the samples (comprising drying gas and evaporated solvent). This gaseous mixture is at an elevated temperature due to the heating of the wells below, thus the temperature after mixing with the air pulled in is above ambient (i.e., warm) (see col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 10). Heat exchange as this gas mixture flows over the nozzles 121 in the gap 143 is therefore inherent. Furthermore, such heat exchange occurs on the nozzles before the drying gas is injected in the wells (i.e., upstream). Accordingly, the office maintains that the area marked up functions as a heat sink and the instant embodiment, as claimed, is indistinguishable from the disclosure of Kearsley.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the system is configured such that warm air does not decrease the effectiveness of the drying gas by diluting it before it contacts the sample/avoiding mixture with and dilution of the inert drying gas) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kearsley et al (US 6,357,141).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kearsley discloses an evaporator 100 comprising (see Abstract; col. 1, lines 6-10; Fig. 3, 5, 6, 9):
a plate holder (locators 110) arranged for rigidly holding a multiwell plate 111 such that a horizontal upper surface thereof is vertically positioned at a desired level (see col. 3, lines 10-15; col. 4, lines 10-20);
at least one gas heating and injecting manifold 120 arranged above the plate holder and having at least one injection nozzle 121 positionable approximately at the desired level, wherein each nozzle is adapted to inject inert drying gas into a corresponding well of the multiwell plate (see col. 4, lines 33-41); and
a heat sink integrated into the at least one manifold (see marked-up reproduction of Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While not explicitly recited in the reference, the office notes that the highlighted portion of the marked up figure above represents a heat sink which would function to warm injection gas in the nozzles, given that warmed gas flow 141 is flowing through the gap 143 and passes over the inert gas injection nozzles, such that heat transfer is inherent (see col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 10). Accordingly, the structural features of the apparatus in Kearsley are considered to fully teach the structural features required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Kearsley is considered to teach the structural features of the claimed apparatus, as discussed above. The manner in which the apparatus is intended to be operated as recited in the claim does not structurally distinguish over the cited prior art. MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the arrangement depicted in the marked up version of Fig. 9 (above) is considered to be equivalent to a pin cooler (i.e., the injection nozzles are flared pins).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kearsley discloses the evaporator being connected with a liquid chromatography apparatus (see col. 1, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 11, Kearsley discloses the evaporator being used for solvent exchange of liquid samples and/or for drying an analyte (see col. 1, lines 5-18; col. 3, lines 10-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6-9 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearsley.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Kearsley discloses the apparatus as described above in the rejection of claim 1, equally applicable herein. Kearsley discloses using the apparatus in a method of evaporating a solvent using an inert gas, wherein the inert gas is injected into the wells of the plate. As discussed above, heat transfer from the heated gas stream 141 flowing through gap 143 to the injection nozzles is inherent (see col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 10), i.e., preheated inert gas. Determining the time at which to start the heat sink (i.e., the flow of warmed gas at a pre-selected temperature into the evaporator of Kearsley) amounts to nothing more than routine experimentation and would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Kearsley discloses the evaporator being connected with a liquid chromatography apparatus (see col. 1, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 8, Kearsley discloses wherein the inert gas is nitrogen gas (see col. 5, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 12, Kearsley discloses the evaporator being used in the process for solvent exchange of liquid samples and/or for drying an analyte (see col. 1, lines 5-18; col. 3, lines 10-20).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights