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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 06/20/2024 have been entered. Claims 1-9 and 16-18 have been canceled. Claims 10-15 and 19-29 are now pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29 recites “said two compounds”; While definite in context, the claim previously recites “at least two of the plurality of compounds”, and thus, Examiner believes the claim should read ‘said at least two compounds’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification makes no explicit reference to the limitations ‘five of the most abundant isotopologues in increasing order of said mass standard are utilized representing five concentrations in increasing order of said mass standard, respectively’. The specification does not make any reference to placing data in a particular ordering, and does not disclose what would be required by ‘are utilized’ (see 112(b) section below), which does not contain any description in the specification in this context.
The only pertinent disclosure which could reasonably be viewed as supporting this limitation is Fig. 4B, wherein a graphical representation similar to the limitation ‘representing five concentrations in increasing order of said mass standard’, however, there is no disclosure toward a method of ‘utilizing five of the most abundant isotopologues in increasing order’ for any such representation (see also 112(b) section below). Additionally, ‘utilizing’ is clearly broader than ‘representing graphically’. It appears the specification only supports ‘representing graphically’ some portion of the data, and no any other reasonable interpretation of ‘utilizing’ is supported by Applicant’s specification. Examiner notes, however, that an ordinary skilled artisan would also understand that the graphical representation of five concentrations would be directly related to the data of the abundances. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to provide adequate written description for the claimed subject matter. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the mass standard comprises at least five isotopologues, the method further comprising graphically representing the abundances of five isotopologues of said mass standard as five corresponding concentrations in increasing order’.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20 and 26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites “…wherein five of the most abundant isotopologues in increasing order of said mass standard are utilized representing five concentrations…”, however, the claims previously only require ‘a mass standard comprising a plurality of natural isotopologues’. Accordingly, the claims previously allow for as few as two natural isotopologues in the mass standard, in which case ‘five of the most abundant’ does not make sense. Additionally, it is not clear how many elements would be included in ‘the most abundant isotopologues’, as the claim does not require the five most abundant isotopologues, but just five of the most abundant isotopologues. Accordingly, even in the case of the plurality having five or more isotopologues, it is unclear which group of isotopologues the five that are utilized are chosen from (i.e., five of the eight most abundant isotopologues, five of the ten most abundant isotopologues, five of the 20 most abundant isotopologues, etc.) In other words, it is not clear ‘how far off’ the most abundant isotopologue the utilized isotopologues can be. Additionally, it is not clear what is required by ‘is utilized’, and as discussed above, no instruction is present in the disclosure. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as indicated above.
Claim 26 recites “…wherein the tuning or evaluating or adjusting the precision and the accuracy of a mass spectrometric system includes monitoring one or more of retention times, peak-to-peak resolution, peak shape and peak intensity of said plurality of natural isotopologues through a liquid chromatograph of said LC-MS system.” However, the claim does not previously require performing liquid chromatography, and thus it is unclear what is required by ‘monitoring one or more of [parameters] of said plurality of natural isotopologues through a liquid chromatograph of said LC-MS system’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein said using said mass spectrometric system to generate the mass spectrum of said mass standard further comprises generating a liquid chromatograph with the LC-MS system; and wherein the tuning or evaluating or adjusting the precision and the accuracy of a mass spectrometric system includes monitoring one or more of retention times, peak-to-peak resolution, peak shape and peak intensity of said plurality of natural isotopologues via the liquid chromatograph of said LC-MS system.’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10-15, 20-21, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.03.
Under step 1, claim 10 is directed toward a process, and thus, fits into one of the four eligibility categories.
Under step 2A, prong one, the claim recites a judicial exception, namely, ‘utilizing mass peak data to perform any of tuning, evaluation and adjusting the precision and the accuracy of said mass spectrometric system’. This is a mental process judicial exception because at least one of tuning, evaluation, and adjusting of precision and accuracy of a mass spectrometer using mass peak data can be performed in the mind of an ordinarily skilled artisan. For example, an ordinary skilled artisan, using only the human mind, is readily capable of ‘utilizing mass peak data’, e.g., by looking at the data. Furthermore, an ordinary skilled artisan, using only the human mind, is readily capable of evaluating the precision and the accuracy of the mass spectrometric system, e.g., by judging/changing parameters of the MS, by evaluating either or both of whether the data corresponds to expected results and the parameters previously used, or by adjusting parameters of the MS, respectively).
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements, namely, the injecting the mass standard and generating mass spectrum data steps, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to extra-solution activity and/or mere data gathering. Injecting a mass standard into a mass spectrometer and generating a mass spectrum including a plurality of mass peaks therefrom is well represented in the prior art (see IDS prior art and Applicant’s background), and represents conventional techniques. Loading a sample and taking a measurement thereof amounts to mere data gathering and cannot reasonably be considered an integration into a practical application.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements beyond the sample injection step, the sample measurement step, and the judicial exception step. Taken as a whole, the claim clearly pertains primarily to the judicial exception, and thus, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11-15, 20-21 recite further recitations of the judicial exception (11-12, 21, 24-27), links to a particular technological environment (13-14, 24), further details of the extra-solution activity steps (15, 19-20), and thus, do not ameliorate the issues of claim 1 with respect to patentability, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes that claim 24 recites ‘assessment or adjusting’, and the human mind is not capable of adjusting the operating parameters of the DMS-MS system, however, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) does not require adjusting, and the human mind is capable of assessing one or more operating parameters.
Examiner further notes that claim 22 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, as it requires a tangible action be taken in the system as a result of the tuning or evaluating or adjusting.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons to claim 1, and is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 29 recites a further recitation of links to a particular technological environment and further details of the extra-solution activity steps, and thus, does not ameliorate the issues of claim 28 with respect to patentability, and is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-14, 19-20, and 22-23, 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grebe (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20230204544 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Grebe teaches a method of tuning or evaluating or adjusting a precision and an accuracy of a mass spectrometric system (Title; Abstract; [0002]), comprising:
injecting a mass standard into a mass spectrometric system, wherein said mass standard comprises a plurality of natural isotopologues of at least one compound, said natural isotopologues being present in different natural abundances in said mass standard ([0003]; [0005]; [0055]-[0060] [0097]; [0102]; [0113]);
using said mass spectrometric system to generate a mass spectrum of said mass standard, wherein said mass spectrum comprises a plurality of mass peaks corresponding to said natural isotopologues ([0003]; [0055]-[0060]; [0085]-[0088]; [0097]; [0102]; [0113]); and
utilizing said plurality of mass peaks to perform any of tuning, evaluation and adjusting the precision and the accuracy of said mass spectrometric system ([0055]-[0073]; [0106]-[0119]; Examiner notes that the comparison of the calibration to real/expected data disclosed is interpreted under the BRI as reading on ‘any of tuning, evaluation and adjusting the precision and the accuracy of said mass spectroscopic system).
Regarding claim 11, Grebe teaches the method of Claim 10.
Grebe further teaches further comprising utilizing said mass peaks to generate calibration data ([0055]-[0060]; [0106]-[0119]).
Regarding claim 12, Grebe teaches the method of Claim 11.
Grebe further teaches wherein the step of utilizing said mass peaks to generate said calibration data comprises determining a response or an area under at least one of said mass peaks corresponding to at least one of the natural isotopologues and correlating said response or mass peak area to the natural atomic abundance of said at least one of the natural isotopologues ([0055]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 13, Grebe teaches the method of Claim 10.
Grebe further teaches wherein said mass spectrometric system comprises an LC-MS system ([0003]).
Regarding claim 14, Grebe teaches the method of Claim 10.
Grebe further teaches wherein said mass spectrometric system comprises any of a time-of-flight (ToF) mass analyzer, a quadrupole mass analyzer, and combinations thereof ([0026]).
Regarding claim 19, Grebe teaches the method of claim 10.
Grebe further teaches wherein said plurality of natural isotopologues are present in said mass standard at relative concentrations corresponding to their natural atomic abundances (See Fig 1; [0003]-[0008], and in particular [0004] which would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that natural abundances are used).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Grebe teaches the method of claim 19.
Grebe further teaches wherein[ the mass standard comprises at least five isotopologues, the method further comprising graphically representing the abundances of] five [as] five [corresponding ]concentrations in increasing order (See Figs. 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11, 13, showing various graphical representations of abundances/concentrations, including those having five in increasing order).
Regarding claim 22, Grebe teaches the method of claim 10.
Grebe further teaches wherein the tuning or evaluating or adjusting the precision and the accuracy of a mass spectrometric system comprises adjusting one or more operating parameters of said mass spectrometric system ([0026]-[0027]; [0055]-[0073]; [0087]-[0088]; [0098]-[0102]; [0106]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 23, Grebe teaches the method of claim 22.
Grebe further teaches wherein the one or more operating parameters is selected from detector voltage, resolution, mass offsets, declustering potential, and collision energy ([0026]-[0027]; [0055]-[0073]; [0087]-[0088]; [0098]-[0102]; [0106]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 26, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Grebe teaches the method of claim 13.
Grebe further teaches wherein the tuning or evaluating or adjusting the precision and the accuracy of a mass spectrometric system includes monitoring one or more of retention times, peak-to-peak resolution, peak shape and peak intensity of said plurality of natural isotopologues through a liquid chromatograph of said LC-MS system ([0026]-[0027]; [0086]-[0087]; [0098]-[0102]; [0106]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 27, Grebe teaches the method of claim 10.
Grebe further teaches further comprising evaluating a mass response of the mass spectrometric system at a specific molecular weight using the mass standard ([0055]-[0060]; [0079]).
Regarding claim 28, Grebe teaches a method of tuning or evaluating or adjusting a precision and an accuracy of a mass spectrometric system (Title; Abstract; [0002]), comprising:
injecting a mass standard into a mass spectrometric system, wherein said mass standard comprises a plurality of compounds having differing masses, wherein each compound comprises a plurality of natural isotopologues that are present in the mass standard at relative concentrations ([0003]-[0005]; [0055]-[0060] [0097]; [0102]; [0113]);
using said mass spectrometric system to generate a mass spectrum containing each of said compounds, wherein said mass spectrum comprises a plurality of mass peaks corresponding to each of said natural isotopologues of each of said compounds ([0003]; [0055]-[0060]; [0085]-[0088]; [0097]; [0102]; [0113]), and
utilizing said plurality of mass peaks to perform any of tuning, evaluation, and adjustment of the precision and the accuracy of said mass spectrometric system ([0055]-[0073]; [0106]-[0119]; Examiner notes that the comparison of the calibration to real/expected data disclosed is interpreted under the BRI as reading on ‘any of tuning, evaluation and adjusting the precision and the accuracy of said mass spectroscopic system).
Regarding claim 29, Grebe teaches the method of claim 28.
Grebe further teaches wherein a difference in masses exists between at least two of the plurality of compounds, wherein a difference in masses for the at least two compounds is sufficiently large that there exists a mass difference between a heaviest isotope of one of said two compounds and a lightest isotope of the other of said two compounds (See Fig. 13; [0004]-[0025]; [0074]-[0084]; Examiner notes that the disclosed compounds have a difference in mass between a heaviest isotope of one and a lightest isotope of the other, as they have different isotope distributions).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20230204544 A1) in view of March (DOI: 10.1016/j.ijms.2017.01.016).
Examiner notes that March is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 06/20/2024.
Regarding claim 15, Grebe teaches the method of Claim 10.
Grebe does not explicitly teach wherein said at least one compound comprises any of Reserpine, m-dPEG36-amine, and Triacetyl-β-cyclodextrin.
However, in [0020], Grebe discloses “…In some embodiments, the calibrator for the analyte is a polypeptide, a protein, a peptide, a small molecule, a polysaccharide, a lipid, a glycan, a dendrimer, or a nucleic acid. In some embodiments, the calibrator for the analyte is a steroid. In some embodiments, the calibrator for the analyte is a drug.”, in [0021] recites “In some embodiments, the calibrator for the analyte is a variant of the analyte.”, in [0022] recites “In some embodiments, the calibrator for the analyte has similar physical and/or chemical properties as the analyte. In some embodiments, the calibrator for the analyte has similar ionization properties as the analyte.”, and in [0023] recites “In some embodiments, the calibrator for the analyte is a polypeptide, and the analyte is a polypeptide. In some embodiments, the calibrator for the analyte is a single amino acid variant of the analyte.”
These combined teachings in context would clearly indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the at least one compound is dependent on the analyte or application desired, and would be adjusted as necessary.
March teaches wherein said at least one compound comprises any of Reserpine, m-dPEG36-amine, and Triacetyl-β-cyclodextrin (See Section 1.1 describing prior art Nikolaev, cited below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grebe to explicitly include wherein said at least one compound comprises any of Reserpine, m-dPEG36-amine, and Triacetyl-β-cyclodextrin, as taught by March.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as the fine structure of isotopic peak clusters in mass spectra of reserpine is known, Grebe discloses modifying the calibrator in relation to the particular conditions necessary for the particular application, and the use of reserpine would have predictable results, since the expected responses/peaks/concentrations are known.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20230204544 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Grebe teaches the method of claim 10.
Grebe further teaches wherein utilizing said plurality of mass peaks to perform any of tuning, evaluation and adjusting the precision and the accuracy of said mass spectrometric system comprises:
utilizing a first mass peak, among the plurality of mass peaks, corresponding to a first natural isotopologue with the highest relative concentration among the plurality of natural isotopologues to perform any of tuning, evaluation and adjusting the precision and the accuracy of ([0055]-[0073]; [0106]-[0119]; Examiner notes that the highest relative concentration is utilized under the BRI, in at least evaluation); and
utilizing a second mass peak, among the plurality of mass peaks, corresponding to a second natural isotopologue with the lowest relative concentration among the plurality of natural isotopologues to perform any of tuning, evaluation and adjusting the precision and the accuracy of ([0055]-[0073]; [0106]-[0119]; Examiner notes that the lowest relative concentration is utilized under the BRI, in at least evaluation),
Grebe does not explicitly teach performing the technique on two different mass spectrometric (MS) systems with different sensitivities.
However, Grebe discloses using each of the peaks to form such a functionality under the BRI, and discloses the use of individual peaks for evaluation and/or tuning and/or adjusting the precision and accuracy of an MS.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the use of tandem MS systems employing multiple MS systems (for example, see Grebe [0026]-[0027]).
Furthermore, Grebe explicitly discloses changing the resolution of the MS technique depending on the compound ([0027], and discloses the use of multiple calibrators ([0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also be reasonably apprised of changing the resolution/sensitivity of different MS systems for different purposes (such as when compounds/ions with different or partially overlapping detection ranges are to be detected in two detector ranges), and would be reasonably apprised that those different purposes would require their own respective calibrations that would be calibrated to operate in the respective target ranges.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could readily apply the technique of Grebe to different MS systems, each having their own sensitivity/resolution.
Additionally, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the isotopologue with the highest relative concentration would inherently require a lower relative sensitivity of the MS calibrated therefor, while the isotopologue with the lowest relative concentration would inherently require a higher relative sensitivity of the MS calibrated therefor. Accordingly, the requirement that ‘the first mass spectrometric system has a lower sensitivity as compared to the second mass spectrometric system’ would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as corresponding the functionality achieved by the previous two clauses of the claim (i.e., utilizing the highest relative concentration mass peak results in a lower sensitivity MS system relative to that utilizing the lowest relative concentration mass peak.
In other words, Grebe discloses performing a technique(s) suitable to teach each of the utilizing steps and separately teaches adjusting sensitivity depending on the compound. Furthermore, the use of plural MS systems having different sensitivities is known in the art.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grebe to include utilizing a first mass peak…to perform any of tuning, evaluation and adjusting the precision and the accuracy of a first mass spectrometric system; and utilizing a second mass peak…to perform any of tuning, evaluation and adjusting the precision and the accuracy of a second mass spectrometric system, wherein the first mass spectrometric system has lower sensitivity as compared to the second mass spectrometric system (Emphases added by Examiner), in view of the teachings of Grebe and the knowledge/abilities of an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements and techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as the utilizing steps are known, the use of plural MS systems with different sensitivities is known, one of ordinary skill in the art would know such systems would need individual calibration and would know that the MS should be calibrated to operate in the target range, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the technique as such to achieve required sensitivities for the respective target ranges, and applying the combination would achieve predictable results, as the technique would operate in the same fashion as disclosed by Grebe.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20230204544 A1) in view of Miller (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20060289745 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Grebe teaches the method of claim 10.
Grebe does not explicitly teach wherein the mass spectrometric system comprises a differential mobility mass spectrometer system (DMS-MS system) and wherein the tuning or evaluating or adjusting the precision and the accuracy of the mass spectrometric system includes assessment or adjusting of one or more operating parameters of said DMS-MS system (Emphases added by Examiner).
However, the teachings of Grebe apply generally to MS systems, and DMS-MS systems are generally known in the prior art.
Miller teaches a mass spectrometric system comprising a differential mobility mass spectrometer system (Abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grebe to explicitly include wherein the mass spectrometric system comprises a differential mobility mass spectrometer system (DMS-MS system) and wherein the tuning or evaluating or adjusting the precision and the accuracy of the mass spectrometric system includes assessment or adjusting of one or more operating parameters of said DMS-MS system (Emphases added by Examiner).
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Grebe discloses the techniques therein as valid for arbitrary MS system, and Miller discloses such a system which the techniques could be applied to with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 25, Grebe in view of Miller teaches the method of claim 24.
Grebe further teaches wherein the one or more operating parameters is selected from the group consisting of compensation voltage, peak-to-peak resolution, peak shape, and peak intensity ([0026]-[0027]; [0055]-[0073]; [0087]-[0088]; [0098]-[0102]; [0106]-[0114]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nikolaev (DOI: 10.1007/s13361-011-0125-9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights