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 § 112
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 19 is 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 19 recites “a third end of the coupling tube.” Neither claim 19 or previous claims from which claim 19 dependents on (claims 14 and 18) defines “a first/second end” of the coupling tube, and a tube would ordinarily be understood as having two ends. Therefore, it is unclear what structure is being referenced by the “third end” of the coupling tube.
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.
Claims 1, 9-13, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Autrique, D., et al., (2008). Design analysis of a laser ablation cell for inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry by numerical simulation. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 63(2), 257–270 [hereinafter Autrique].
Regarding Claim 1:
The specification defines “stretchable elastomeric material” as “In one specific example, the coupling tube may be made of a fluoropolymer elastomer… Other materials that may be used include but are not limited to latex, silicone, flexible and stretchable PVC tubing (e.g., Tygon), EPDM, AFLAS, Nitrile, Neoprene, Fluorosilicone, Chemraz (FFKM), or any combination thereof of any of the possible materials listed” (See Spec. para. [0038]). Therefore, the claimed “stretchable elastomeric material” is interpreted as including fluoropolymer elastomer, as well as any one of the listed exemplary materials in the specification.
Autrique teaches a system (LA-ICP-MS system) comprising:
a laser ablation source (Page 6-S4.1: “A brass sample (Cu 60.6%, Zn 39.4%) was placed in an ablation cell and material was removed from it using a fs-laser)”);
an injector configured to operably couple the laser ablation source to an inductively coupled plasma chamber (Page 11-S5.3: “the masses of the particles that reached the injector side (i.e., the entrance to the ICP) were summed”); and
a coupling tube configured to operably couple the laser ablation source to the injector for transferring a plurality of ablation plumes from the laser ablation source to the injector (Page 6-S4.1: “The ablated material was transported from the cell via a 40 cm long Tygon tube (inner diameter: 4 mm) into the ICP (HP4500, Agilent)”, wherein:
the coupling tube comprises a stretchable elastomeric material (Tygon is listed in the specification as one of the examples of stretchable elastomeric material), and
the coupling tube is characterized by a first inner diameter in a range from 0.3 mm to 6.0 mm (expressly teaches the inner diameter of the Tygon tubing is 4 mm).
Regarding Claim 13:
Autrique teaches an apparatus (apparatus used in the LA-ICP-MS system) comprising:
an inductively coupled plasma chamber (“ICP (HP4500, Agilent)”);
an injector configured to operably couple the inductively coupled plasma chamber to a laser ablation source (Page 11-S5.3: “the masses of the particles that reached the injector side (i.e., the entrance to the ICP) were summed”); and
a coupling tube configured to operably couple the laser ablation source to the injector for transferring a plurality of ablation plumes from the laser ablation source to the injector (Page 6-S4.1: “The ablated material was transported from the cell via a 40 cm long Tygon tube (inner diameter: 4 mm) into the ICP (HP4500, Agilent)”, wherein:
the coupling tube comprises a stretchable elastomeric material (Tygon is listed in the specification as one of the examples of stretchable elastomeric material), and
the coupling tube is characterized by a first inner diameter in a range from 0.3 mm to 6.0 mm (expressly teaches the inner diameter of the Tygon tubing is 4 mm).
Regarding Claim 25:
Autrique teaches a method (method operating the LA-ICP-MS system) comprising: method comprising:
ablating, by a laser, a sample to form an ablation plume (Page 6-S4.1: “A brass sample (Cu 60.6%, Zn 39.4%) was placed in an ablation cell and material was removed from it using a fs-laser)”);
laminarly flowing the ablation plume from the sample to an injector through a coupling tube (Page 6-S4.1: “The ablated material was transported from the cell via a 40 cm long Tygon tube (inner diameter: 4 mm) into the ICP (HP4500, Agilent)”,
wherein:
the coupling tube comprises a stretchable elastomeric material (Tygon is listed in the specification as one of the examples of stretchable elastomeric material), and
the coupling tube is characterized by a first inner diameter in a range from 0.3 mm to 6.0 mm (expressly teaches the inner diameter of the Tygon tubing is 4 mm);
analyzing the ablation plume using an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer coupled to the injector (Page 13-S6: “Computational fluid dynamics was used to analyze the transport of near infrared femtosecond (fs) laser generated brass aerosols during sample introduction for ICP-MS analysis”).
Regarding Claim 9:
Autrique teaches the system of claim 1. Autrique further teaches the system comprises the inductively coupled plasma chamber (Page 6: “The ablated material was transported from the cell … into the ICP (HP4500, Agilent)”).
Regarding Claims 10 and 22:
Autrique teaches the system of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 13, respectively. Autrique further teaches a mass spectrometer configured to analyze plasma products in the inductively coupled plasma chamber (Autrique uses ICP-MS, the ablated material is transported into the ICP of HP4500, Agilent instrument, and Cu/Zn isotopes are measured).
Regarding Claims 11 and 23:
Autrique teaches the system of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 13, respectively. Autrique further teaches wherein the laser ablation source comprises: a sample holder, a laser source, and a configuration of optics to direct a laser from the laser source to the sample holder (Page 13-S6: “analyze the transport of near infrared femtosecond (fs) laser generated brass aerosols during sample introduction for ICP-MS analysis… The modelled ablation setup including the sample chamber, sample holder,” and also necessarily requires optics to direct/docus the laser onto the sample).
Regarding Claims 12 and 24:
Autrique teaches the system of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 13, respectively. Autrique further teaches a gas supply source operably coupled to the laser ablation source (Page 6-S4.1 “Helium or argon were used as transport gases,” with additional Ar added via a Y-connector before the ICP torch).
Regarding Claim 21:
Autrique teaches the apparatus of claim 13. Autrique further teaches the laser ablation source (fs-laser source for ablation).
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.
Claims 2 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Autrique in view of Agilent 5100 ICP-OES Consumables Ordering Guide (2014, Version 1.1) [hereafter Agilent 2014]
Regarding Claims 2 and 26:
Autrique teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 25, respectively. However, Autrique does not specially note wherein the stretchable elastomeric material comprises fluoroelastomers. Agilent 2014 teaches the stretchable elastomeric material comprises fluoroelastomers (Page 14: teaches using Viton tubing as ICP sample introduction tube material, specially for use with volatile organic solvents).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use make Autrique’s stretchable coupling tube from Viton/fluor elastomer because Viton is a known ICP tubing material suitable for chemically resistant sample/gas transport, and applicant’s own specification also identifies Viton as a fluroroelastomer material for the claimed coupling tube.
Claims 3- 4, 8, 20, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Autrique in view of US 2001/0033380 A1 [hereinafter Colon].
Regarding Claim 3:
Autrique teaches the system of claim 1. However, Autrique does not specially note a junction assembly comprising a barbed fitting configured to cooperate with at least one end of the coupling tube. Colon teaches a junction assembly comprising a barbed fitting configured to cooperate with at least one end of the coupling tube (Fig. 3 and paras. [0028, 0031]: “a flow cytometer…includes an inner channel 86 … includes a first inlet end 88 having a corresponding barbed fitting 90 that is received by tubing 82,” the tubing 82 is silicon tubing).
As such, modify Autrique’s with Colon entails Colon’s barbed fitting used at the end of Autrique’s Tygon coupling tube so the barbed fitting cooperates with and mechanically secures the flexible coupling tube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to secure Autrique’s flexible Tygon transfer tube using Colon’s barbed fitting, because a barbed fitting provides a simple, known way to attach flexible tubing to a flow channel while maintaining a sealed connection and reducing the risk that the tube disconnects during gas/aerosol transport.
Regarding Claim 4:
Autrique in view of Colon teaches the system of claim 3. Colon further teaches wherein the barbed fitting comprises a taper that reduces diameter leading to the coupling tube (a barbed fitting commonly includes a tapered barb profile for insertion into flexible tubing, and Fig. 3 shows the barbed fitting 90 tapered toward tubing 82).
As such, modify Autrique’s with Colon would allow Colon’s tapered barbed fitting to provide the claimed taper leading to the coupling tube.
Regarding Claims 8 and 20:
Autrique teaches the system of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 13, respectively.
Autrique teaches transporting ablated material from the laser ablation cell through a Tygon tube having 4mm ID into the ICP, e.g., HP 4500 Agilent, as discussed in claim 1. According to Agilent’s ICP-MS primer/manual, their ICP-MS torch injector tubes commonly have smaller IDs, including 1.0 mm or 1.5 mm for reduced plasma loading, and the largest injector diameter used in that ICP-MS context is 2.5mm (see Page 15 Agilent Primer).
However, Autrique does not specially note that a junction assembly between the coupling tube and the injector, wherein a taper occurs at the junction assembly that reduces diameter leading to the injector.
Colon teaches using a barbed fitting to taper a flexible/stretchable tubing, as discussed.
As such, modify Autrique with Colon entails using a tapered secure fitting to provide a tapered transition reducing the flow-path diameter leading to the injector, as recited in claims 8 and 20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Colon’s tapered barbed fitting at Autrique’ s coupling tube/injector connection because Autrique’s 4mm Tygon tube delivers ablated plumes into the ICP which has a smaller injector passage by design, and thus using Colon’s tapered fitting would gradually transition the flow into the injector, reduce abrupt diameter change, dead volume/turbulence, and maintain a secure sealed connection.
Regarding Claim 27:
Autrique in view of Colon teaches the system of claim 25. The combined references further teach flowing the ablation plume through a barbed fitting of a junction assembly before or after flowing the ablation plume through the coupling tube (As discussed in claim 3, placing a barb fitting with taper before the coupling tube would allow the ablation plumes to flow through the barbed fitting before the ablation plume through the coupling tube).
Claims 5-7, 14-17, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Autrique in view of WO 2020055813A1 [hereinafter Sandkuijl]
Regarding Claim 5, 14, and 28:
Autrique teaches the system of claim 1, apparatus of claim 13 and method of claim 25, respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
249
857
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Autrique further teaches a rigid tubing configured to operably couple to the coupling tube (as shown in annotated Fig. 2(b), a glass sampling tube connects the ablation cell and the Tygon tube), wherein:
the rigid tubing comprises a first end operably coupled to the laser ablation source; and the rigid tubing comprises a second end operably coupled to the coupling tube (see annotated Fig. 2(b) above);
However, Autrique does not specially note that the rigid tubing is characterized by a second inner diameter at the first end that is larger than the first inner diameter of the coupling tube, the rigid tubing is characterized by a third inner diameter at the second end; and the second inner diameter is larger than the third inner diameter
Sandkuijl teaches in an LA-ICP-MS system, “a transfer conduit (also referred to as an injector) forms a link between the laser ablation sampling system and the ionisation system, and allows the transportation of plumes of sample material, generated by the laser ablation of the sample, from the laser ablation sampling system to the ionisation system” and “The injector may be rigid” (P44, para. 5; P. 53 para. 4). Specifically, Sandkuijl teaches:
the rigid tubing comprises a first end operably coupled to the laser ablation source; and the rigid tubing comprises a second end operably coupled to the coupling tube (Page 54, para.2: the rigid transfer conduit/injector has an “end proximal to the plasma” (“second end”) and an end “away from the plasma” (“first end”));
the rigid tubing is characterized by a second inner diameter at the first end; the rigid tubing is characterized by a third inner diameter at the second end; and the second inner diameter is larger than the third inner diameter (Page 54, para. 2: “Extending away from the plasma, the injector may be of a different diameter, for example a wider diameter, wherein the difference in diameter is achieved through a stepped increase in diameter or because the injector is tapered along its length”, i.e., the inner diameter of the LA source end (“second inner diameter”) is greater than the inner diameter of the ICP side (“third inner diameter”)).
As such, in the modified system, the second inner diameter is also larger than the first inner diameter of the coupling tube, because if the rigid tube is intentionally tapered down at its downstream to a smaller diameter, the connected coupling tube should also be sized to match or at least be no larger than the narrowed end so the plume flow does not suddenly expand, recirculated, or create dead volume/turbulence at the joint.
Autrique teaches a larger upstream rigid sampling tube and a smaller Tygon transfer tube for transporting ablated material into the ICP. Sandkuijl provides a known tapered rigid-tube configuration for achieving that diameter reduction gradually rather than abruptly. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the rigid tube of Sandkuijl as the sampling tube of Autrique, since using the tapered rigid tube would provide a smoother transition from the larger sampling/rigid tube to the smaller coupling tube, reducing turbulence, dead volume, and plume broadening during LA-ICP-MS transport.
Regarding Claim 6, 16, and 29:
Autrique in view of Sandkuijl teach the system of claim 5, apparatus of claim 14 and method of claim 28, respectively. Sandkuijl further teaches wherein the second inner diameter is in a range from 1.5 mm to 2.0 mm (P44. Para. 5. “The transfer conduit sometimes has an inner diameter in the range 0.2 mm to 3 mm”).
Regarding Claim 7, 17, and 30:
Autrique in view of Sandkuijl teach the system of claim 5, apparatus of claim 14 and method of claim 28, respectively. Sandkuijl further teaches wherein the rigid tubing comprises a taper configured to narrow the third inner diameter at the second end leading to the coupling tube in a range from 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm (Page 54, para. 2: “The diameter of the injector refers to the internal diameter of the injector at the end proximal to the plasma…the injector is tapered along its length… the internal diameter of the injector can be …between 900μm and 300μm in diameter, between 900μm and 400μm in diameter, for example around 850μm in diameter”). Although Sandkuijl does not specifically note that taper is 10 degrees, it would be obvious to implement a 10-degree taper since the 10-degree taper angle is a result-effective parameter. The taper angle directly affects the flow transition between the larger rigid tubing and the smaller downstream passage, and thus once Sandkuijl teaches using a tapered rigid tube to reduce diameter, selecting an appropriate taper angle such as 10 degrees would have been an obvious optimization of a known geometry to obtain smooth plume transport.
Regarding Claim 15:
Autrique in view of Sandkuijl teach the apparatus of claim 14. Sandkuijl further teaches:
wherein the laser ablation source comprises a sampling cone (Page 49, para.3: “The sample cone is therefore adapted to capture a plume of material ablated from a sample in the laser ablation sampling system… the sample cone is positioned operably proximate to the sample”)
the sampling cone is operably coupled to the first end of the rigid tubing, and the sampling cone is tapered to have a smaller diameter proximate to the first end of the rigid tubing compared to distal to the first end of the rigid tubing (Page 49, para. 3: “plumes of ablated sample material enter the transfer conduit through an aperture at the narrow end of the sample cone”).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Autrique in view of Sandkuijl, further in view of Colon.
Regarding Claim 18:
Autrique in view of Sandkuijl teach the apparatus of claim 14. Autrique teaches a larger diameter rigid sampling tube is connected to a smaller diameter Tygon transfer tube. However, the combined references do not specially note that a junction assembly between the rigid tubing and the coupling tube, wherein a taper occurs at the junction assembly that reduces diameter leading to the coupling tube. Colon teaches a tapered barbed fitting received by flexible tubing to reduce diameter leading to the flexible tube, as discussed in claim 3. As such, implement the tapered barbed fitting of Colon as a junction assembly between the rigid sampling tube and the Tygon transfer tube of Autrique would reduce the diameter leading to the Tygon transfer tube, as recited in claim 18.
Autrique teaches the LA-ICP-MS transfer system with a flexible Tygon coupling tube has a smaller inner diameter than the rigid sampling tube. Colon teaches a barbed fitting connecting to a flexible tubing and taper the flexible tubing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Colon’s tapered bared junction at the rigid-tube/Tygon-tube interface because flexible tubing conventionally requires a secure fitting, and a tapered/barbed junction provides a sealed machinal connection while gradually transitioning the flow path to reduce disconnection risk, dead volume, and flow disturbance.
Regarding Claim 19:
Autrique in view of Sandkuijl teach the apparatus of claim 14. However, the combined references do not specially note wherein the junction assembly comprises a barbed fitting configured to cooperate with a third end of the coupling tube, and wherein the barbed fitting comprises the taper that reduces the diameter leading to the coupling tube.
Claim 19 recites substantially identical elements as claims 3 and 4. Since Autrique in view of Colon teaches claims 3-4, the combined references also teach the additional elements recited in claim 19, as discussed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights