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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The amendment submitted 7/1/2024 has been considered and entered. Claims 5-7, 10, 13, 15, 20, 22, 22, 26-28, 32 is amended. Claims 3-4, 9, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 23-25, 29 are cancelled. No new claims are added. Thus, claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, 20-22, 26-27, 30-33 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 is not listed as a cancelled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US 2008/0237458 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al discloses a method for detecting a signal measurement error in one or more samples (paragraph [0054]), the method comprising: providing a well plate comprising a plurality of wells (between 0 and 9) (See Figs. 2A and 2B, paragraph [0048])), the plurality of wells including error correction wells (wells for the standards) and sample wells (paragraph [0048]), each sample well including a single sample, and each error correction well including a mixture of samples (i.e. mixture standards) (paragraph [0048]) identical to the single samples in two or more of the sample wells (m/z value closest to sample) (paragraph [0051]); receiving at least one aliquot from each of the plurality of wells at a sample receiver; measuring a signal for the received at least one aliquot (350) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0054]); calculating an expected signal for each of the error correction wells (360) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0054]; comparing the measured signal to the calculated expected signal for each error correction well (370); determining, based on the comparison, whether an error exists in the signal of at least one of the sample wells (Step 370) (See Fig. 3); and when the error exists, correlating the error to one or more of the sample wells (measurement process repeated) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al discloses wherein measuring the signal comprises measuring at least one of a height of a peak of the signal, an area under the peak of the signal, and a full-width-half maximum of the peak of the signal (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 5 Wang et al discloses wherein calculating the expected signal for each error correction well is performed based on the measured signals from each sample well containing samples present in the error correction well (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang et al discloses wherein calculating the expected signal for each correction well comprises performing a sum of the signals measured for each sample well containing a sample present in the error correction well (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al discloses further comprising introducing a plurality of aliquots from the well plate into the sample receiver (Step 350) (See Fig. 3) and wherein a rate of introducing the aliquots into the sample receiver is higher than a base-line full width of the measured signal (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al discloses wherein correlating (calibration) the error to the one or more sample wells comprises identifying one or more sample wells for which the signal is in error (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al disclose wherein further comprising correcting the error in the one or more sample wells, and wherein correcting the error comprises at least one of: measuring another signal from the one or more sample wells at a slower rate; changing parameters in a deconvolution of the measured signal; and changing measurement settings (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al discloses further comprising inputting one of the measured signal or the corrected signal for one of the sample wells in a deconvolution algorithm of the measured signal (Step 390) (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Wang et al discloses wherein calculating the expected signal for each correction well comprises performing a sum of previously known signals for the sample wells for each sample present in the error correction well (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 18, Wang et al discloses a mass analyzer (26) comprising: a sample receiver; a mass analysis device (10) (paragraph [0043]) fluidically coupled to the sample receiver; a processor (16) operatively coupled to the sample receiver and to the mass analysis device (paragraph [0044]); and a memory (36) coupled to the processor (paragraph [0046]), the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform a set of operations comprising: providing a well plate comprising a plurality of wells (between 0 and 9) (See Figs. 2A and 2B, paragraph [0048])), the plurality of wells including error correction wells (wells for the standards) and sample wells (paragraph [0048]), each sample well including a single sample, and each error correction well including a mixture of samples (i.e. mixture standards) (paragraph [0048]) identical to the single samples in two or more of the sample wells (m/z value closest to sample) (paragraph [0051]); receiving, at the sample receiver, at least one aliquot from each of the plurality of wells; measuring a signal for the received at least one aliquot with the mass analysis device (350) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0054]); calculating, via the processor, an expected signal for each of the error correction wells (360) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0054]; comparing, via the processor, the measured signal to the calculated expected signal for each error correction well (360) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0054], determining, via the processor, whether an error exists in the signal of at least one of the sample wells based on the comparison; and when the error exists, correlating, via the processor, the error to one or more sample wells (measurement process repeated) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 30, Wang et al discloses a sample detection system comprising: a sample receiver; a detection device (28) operatively coupled to the sample receiver (20) (See Fig. 1); a processor (34)(36) operatively coupled to the sample receiver and to the detection device (paragraph [0046]); and a memory (36) coupled to the processor (paragraph [0046]), the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform a set of operations comprising: providing a repository comprising a plurality of sample repositories (wells for the standards) (paragraph [0048]), the plurality of sample repositories (between 0 and 9) (See Figs. 2A and 2B, paragraph [0048])), including error correction repositories (360) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0054]) and individual sample repositories, each sample repository including a mixture of samples (i.e. mixture standards) (paragraph [0048]) identical to the single samples in two or more of the individual sample repositories (m/z value closest to sample) (paragraph [0051]); receiving at the sample receiver, at least one aliquot from each sample repository; measuring a signal for the received at least one aliquot with the detection device (350) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0054]); calculating, via the processor, an expected signal for each of the error correction repositories; comparing, via the processor, the measured signal to the calculated expected signal for each error correction repository (measurement process repeated) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0012]); determining, via the processor, whether an error exists in the signal of at least one of the individual sample repositories based on the comparison; and when the error exists, correlating, via the processor, the error to one or more individual sample repositories (Step 370) (See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 31, Wang et al discloses wherein the detection device is a light detection device or a radiation device (See Abstract and paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 32, Wang et al discloses wherein the measured signal is a light intensity (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 33, Wang et al discloses wherein the measured light intensity comprises a UV light intensity (mass spectrometry) (See Abstract).
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(s) 20-22, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2008/0237458 A1) in view of Hattingh et al (US 2014/0283628 A1).
Regarding claims 20-21, Wang et al discloses all of the limitations of claim 20 as describes supra, however Wang et al is silent with regards to a non-contact sample ejector (i.e. an acoustic droplet ejector). Hattingh et al discloses a method and apparatus for mixing droplets of liquid sample and droplets of a diluent and/or a standard produced by droplet-on-demand generators for use with an analysis device comprising: a non-contact sample ejector comprises an acoustic droplet ejector (paragraph [0053]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Wang et al with the teaching of Hattingh et al, so as to minimize cross-contamination and enable high precision.
Regarding claim 22, Wang et al discloses introducing a plurality of aliquots from the well plate into the sample receiver (Step 350) (See Fig. 3) and wherein a rate of introducing the aliquots into the sample receiver is higher than a base-line full width of the measured signal (paragraph [0057]). Wang et al is silent with regards to a non-contact sample ejector (i.e. an acoustic droplet ejector). Hattingh et al discloses a method and apparatus for mixing droplets of liquid sample and droplets of a diluent and/or a standard produced by droplet-on-demand generators for use with an analysis device comprising: a non-contact sample ejector comprises an acoustic droplet ejector (paragraph [0053]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Wang et al with the teaching of Hattingh et al, so as to minimize cross-contamination and enable high precision.
Regarding claim 26, Wang et al discloses wherein the mass analysis device comprises a mass spectrometer (MS) (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 27, Hattingh et al discloses wherein a sample receiver comprises an open port interface (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 28, Wang et al discloses plurality of wells (between 0 and 9) (See Figs. 2A and 2B, paragraph [0048]), the plurality of wells including error correction wells (wells for the standards) and sample wells (paragraph [0048]), each sample well including a single sample, and each error correction well including a mixture of samples (i.e. mixture standards) (paragraph [0048]). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange wells in a 4 x 4 array wherein eleven wells of total are sample wells and remaining are error correction wells, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
324
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olney et al (US 2014/0306106 A1) discloses a method for automated checking and adjusting of mass spectrometer calibration comprising: a method for automatically checking and adjusting a calibration of a mass spectrometer having a first quadrupole (Q1), a fragmentation cell and a mass analyzer comprises: introducing a sample having at least one known chemical entity; decreasing a kinetic energy so as to prevent fragmentation of ions in the fragmentation cell; optionally applying a drag field to the fragmentation cell; ionizing the at least one known chemical entity sample to generate a set of ions; performing a mass scan of the set of ions using Q1; transmitting the scanned ions through Q1 to and through the fragmentation cell; detecting the scanned and transmitted ions by a detector of the mass analyzer; and comparing the results with expected results. Embodiments may include automatic recalibration or notification of possible errors, need for further data processing or an analysis of system performance.
PNG
media_image3.png
734
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884