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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an oscillation generating part” in claims 21-36 & 38-41, “a friction part” in claim 25, “a pushing part which presses the first fixing member onto the probe” in claim 27, and “a liquid feeding device which feeds a liquid to the probe” in claims 32-41.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 31 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 31 recites “portions of the light emitting part and the light receiving part which portions are closer to a tip end of the probe being positioned rearward of the tip end of the probe”. It is unclear whether “which portions are closer to a tip end of the probe being positioned rearward of the tip end of the probe” refers to the “portions of the light emitting part and the light receiving part” as a whole or portions of the “portions of the light emitting part and the light receiving part”.
Claim 31 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 31 recites “portions are closer to a tip end of the probe”. The term “closer” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 35 recites “a part of the flow passage in the probe has the filter part incorporated thereinto.” This is in direct conflict with the parent claim, claim 33, which requires the filter part to be upstream of the probe (see “the filter part being disposed between the electrode part and the probe”). If applicant intends the filter to have two parts, one between the electrode part and the probe and another incorporated into the probe, they should refer to the parts using separate terms, such as “a first filter part” and “a second filter part”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 36 & 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 36 recites “a part of the flow passage in the probe is filled with micro particles serving as the filter part.” This is in direct conflict with the parent claim, claim 33, which requires the filter part to be upstream of the probe (see “the filter part being disposed between the electrode part and the probe”). Claims 38-40 depend from claim 36. If applicant intends the filter to have two parts, one between the electrode part and the probe and another incorporated into the probe, they should refer to the parts using separate terms, such as “a first filter part” and “a second filter part”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 27, 30, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0067935 (Gomez-Casado et al.).
The following annotated figure from Gomez-Casado et al. is referenced:
PNG
media_image1.png
404
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Gomez-Casado et al. discloses an oscillation device that oscillates a probe which is cantilevered, the oscillation device comprising:
a probe having an axis direction (multiple figures, element 11);
first and second fixing members between which the probe is sandwiched and supported in a first direction which is orthogonal to the axis direction (multiple figures, elements 46 & 48); and
an oscillation generating part which gives oscillation to at least one of the first and second fixing members (fig. 1, element 4),
the first fixing member having a recessed part formed entirely in a portion of the first fixing member which portion extends along the axis direction with the probe being sandwiched between the first and second fixing members, the probe being disposed over the entire recessed part, the recessed part working with the first fixing member to restrict movement of the prove in a second direction which is orthogonal to the axis direction and the first direction (see annotated figure above, note that though the annotated figure is the embodiment of figure 3, the same recessed part can be found in the first fixing member of figures 2-5 & 7-11).
Regarding claim 22, Gomez-Casado et al. discloses the oscillation device according to claim 21, wherein:(i) both the first and second fixing members have permanent magnets or (ii) one of the first and second fixing members has a permanent magnet and the other of the first and second fixing members has a magnetic substance (multiple figures, elements 30 & 32).
Regarding claim 23, Gomez-Casado et al. discloses the oscillation device according to claim 21, wherein: the recessed part is formed in the first fixing member in advance (see annotated figure above, note that though the annotated figure is the embodiment of figure 3, the same recessed part can be found in the first fixing member of figures 2-5 & 7-11).
Regarding claim 24, Gomez-Casado et al. discloses the oscillation device according to claim 23, wherein: the recessed part has a shape having a rectangular cross section (see annotated figure above, note that though the annotated figure is the embodiment of figure 3, the same recessed part can be found in the first fixing member of figures 2-5 & 7-11); and the probe disposed in the recessed part is in contact with one wall of the recessed part (true for all of figure 2-5 & 7-11).
Regarding claim 27, Gomez-Casado et al. discloses the oscillation device according to claim 21, further comprising: a pushing part which presses the first fixing member onto the probe (“According to an embodiment of the invention, the non-magnetic bias element may be selected from the group consisting of a mechanical spring (for example a coil spring, see FIG. 10), a hydraulic bias element and a pneumatic bias element (see FIG. 11).” P 40).
Regarding claim 30, Gomez-Casado et al. discloses an oscillation system comprising:
an oscillation device recited in claim 21 (as above); and
an oscillation measurement part which outputs a signal for feedback control of oscillation of the probe (fig. 1, element 10),
the oscillation measurement part including a light emitting part and a light receiving part receiving light which exits from the light emitting part and with which information regarding oscillation of the probe has been read (fig. 1, elements 2 & 10),
the light exiting from the light emitting part being emitted to the probe, and the light emitted to the probe entering the light receiving part (fig. 1, elements 13 & 3).
Regarding claim 42, Gomez-Casado et al. discloses an oscillation method that oscillates a probe which is cantilevered, the oscillation method comprising the steps of:
sandwiching and supporting the probe between two fixing members so that the probe is disposed in an entire recessed part of at least one of the two fixing members with the probe being sandwiched between the two fixing members (“two opposing fixing bodies of the fixing device, between which the measuring probe is arranged” P 39), the recessed part being formed entirely in a portion of the at least one of the two fixing members which portion extends in an axis direction of the probe and corresponds to the probe in position (see annotated figure above); and
giving oscillation to one of the two fixing members (“the measuring probe 11 is brought into motion via an actor 4” P 56).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0219916 (Kitajima et al.).
Regarding claim 28, Kitajima et al. discloses an oscillation device that oscillates a probe which is cantilevered, the oscillation device comprising:
a probe (multiple figures, element 5);
two fixing members between which the probe is sandwiched and supported (fig. 2-4, elements 11 & 13, fig. 9-10, elements 11 & 41); and
an oscillation generating part which gives oscillation to at least one of the two fixing members (fig. 1, element 21),
at least one of the two fixing members having a recessed part in which the probe is disposed with the probe being sandwiched between the two fixing members, the recessed part being formed in a portion of the at least one of the two fixing members which portion corresponds to the probe in position (element 13 or 41 forms a recess),
at least one of the two fixing members having a resin part in a surface of the at least one of the two fixing members which surface faces the probe, and the recessed part being formed in the resin part (“Therefore, when pressed by the pressing means, the holding member is deformed in accordance with small recesses and projections of the surface of the main body portion and an outer shape of the main body portion.” P 20).
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.
Claim(s) 25 & 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez-Casado et al. as applied to claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 25, Gomez-Casado et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a friction part in a surface of the second fixing member which surface faces the probe, the friction part being configured to be in contact with the probe to restrict movement of the probe by friction force.
Friction parts are known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Gomez-Casado et al. by placing a friction part on the surface of the second fixing member which surface faces the probe to provide better adherence of the fixing member to the probe.
Regarding claim 31, Gomez-Casado et al. discloses an oscillation system comprising:
an oscillation device recited in claim 21 (as above); and
an oscillation measurement part which outputs a signal for feedback control of oscillation of the probe (fig. 1, element 10),
the oscillation measurement part including
a light emitting part (fig. 1, element 2),
a light receiving part receiving light which exits from the light emitting part and with which information regarding oscillation of the probe has been read (fig. 1, element 14), and
a mirror (fig. 1, element 14),
portions of the light emitting part and the light receiving part which portions are closer to the tip end of the probe being positioned rearward of the tip end of the probe (fig. 1, as a whole),
the light exiting from the light emitting part being emitted to the probe, the light emitted to the probe being reflected by a mirror so as to enter the light receiving part (“the electromagnetic secondary beam 3 may in particular be redirected by means of a redirecting mirror 14 or another optical redirecting element to the position sensitive detector 10” P 56).
Gomez-Casado et al. does not disclose an additional mirror(s) placed so that the light exiting from the light emitting part being emitted to the probe via at least one mirror. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include such a mirror if needed for the light to reach the probe at the desired angle.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. as applied to claim 28 above.
Regarding claim 29, Kitajama et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the resin part being detachable from the at least one of the two fixing members having the resin part. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make the resin part detachable so that the recessed part could be easily replaced to accommodate different probes.
Claim(s) 21, 23-27, 30-32, & 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0155148 (Kyogaku et al.) in view of US 2019/0272985 (Krummen et al.).
Regarding claim 21, Kyogaku et al. discloses an oscillation device that oscillates a probe which is cantilevered, the oscillation device comprising: a probe having an axis direction (multiple figures, element 3); and an oscillation generating part which gives oscillation to the probe (“Alternatively, a mechanical unit such as a piezoelectric element may be used to vibrate the probe 3.” P 103).
Kyogaku et al. does not disclose first and second fixing members between which the probe is sandwiched and supported in a first direction orthogonal to the axis direction, the first fixing member having a recessed part formed entirely in a portion of the first fixing member which portion extends along the axis direction with the probe being sandwiched between the first and second fixing members, the probe being disposed over the entire recessed part, the recessed part working with the first fixing member to restrict movement of the prove in a second direction which is orthogonal to the axis direction and the first direction.
Krummen et al. disclose first and second fixing members between which a flow passage is sandwiched and support in a first direction orthogonal to the axis direction (fig. 2 & 4, elements 3 & 5), the first fixing member having a recessed part formed entirely in a portion of the first fixing member which portion extends along the axis direction with the flow passage being sandwiched between the first and second fixing members (fig. 4, element 25), the flow passage being disposed over the entire recessed part, the recessed part working with the first fixing member to restrict movement of the flow passage in a second direction which is orthogonal to the axis direction and the first direction (“Also shown are smaller threaded holes 24, that receive screws (not shown) securing the plate 5 that holds the capillary 2 in place. Along the lower part 3, there is also a groove 25, for holding the capillary 2 in place.” P 76).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the fixing members of Krummen et al. to support the probe of Kyogaku et al. because the probe will require support against gravity to achieve the position as shown in the figures of Kyogaku et al.
Regarding claim 23, Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose the oscillation device according to claim 21, wherein: the recessed part is formed in the first fixing member in advance (Krummen et al., fig. 3, element 25).
Regarding claim 24, Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose the oscillation device according to claim 23, wherein: the recessed part has a shape having a cross section; and the probe disposed in the recessed part is in contact with one wall of the recessed part (Krummen et al., “Also shown are smaller threaded holes 24, that receive screws (not shown) securing the plate 5 that holds the capillary 2 in place. Along the lower part 3, there is also a groove 25, for holding the capillary 2 in place.” P 76).
Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen does not disclose whether the cross section is rectangular. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a rectangular cross-section as a matter of design choice, as applicant has not stated that this shape solves any particular problem and it appears that any shape capable of accommodating the probe would work just as well.
Regarding claim 25, Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a friction part in a surface of the second fixing member which surface faces the probe, the friction part being configured to be in contact with the probe to restrict movement of the probe by friction force.
Friction parts are known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. by placing a friction part on the surface of the second fixing member which surface faces the probe to provide better adherence of the fixing member to the probe.
Regarding claim 26, Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose the oscillation device according to claim 21, wherein: the probe has a flow passage which is provided inside the probe and through which a liquid passes (“The probe 3 has a flow path inside,” P 29).
Regarding claim 27, Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a pushing part which presses the first fixing member onto the probe. Pushing parts are well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute such pushing members for the fastening screws of Krummen because both function to press the first and second fixing members together.
Regarding claim 30, Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose an oscillation system comprising:
an oscillation device recited in claim 21 (see above); and
an oscillation measurement part which outputs a signal for feedback control of oscillation of the probe (fig. 8, element 400),
the oscillation measurement part including a light emitting part and a light receiving part receiving light which exits from the light emitting part and with which information regarding oscillation of the probe has been read (fig. 8, elements 401 & 402),
the light exiting from the light emitting part being emitted to the probe, and the light emitted to the probe entering the light receiving part (“In the displacement measuring unit 400 using the applied optical lever method, a laser beam emitted from a light irradiation device 401 irradiates the probe 3 on the back side, and reflected light is detected by an optical detector 402 so that the warp amount of the probe 3 is detected from a displacement of a position of the light detected by the optical detector 402.” P 101).
Regarding claim 31, Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose an oscillation system comprising:
an oscillation device recited in claim 21 (see above); and
an oscillation measurement part which outputs a signal for feedback control of oscillation of the probe (fig. 8, element 400),
the oscillation measurement part including
a light emitting part (fig. 8, element 401)
a light receiving part receiving light which exits from the light emitting part and with which information regarding oscillation of the probe has been read (fig. 8, 402), and
a plurality of mirrors (“Further, it is possible to arrange a reflection mirror (not shown) on an optical path in order to facilitate optical path adjustment.” P 101),
portions of the light emitting part and the light receiving part which portions are closer to the tip end of the probe being positioned rearward of the tip end of the probe (fig. 8, as a whole)
the light exiting from the light emitting part being emitted to the probe via at least one of the plurality of mirrors, and the light emitted to the probe entering the light receiving part (“In the displacement measuring unit 400 using the applied optical lever method, a laser beam emitted from a light irradiation device 401 irradiates the probe 3 on the back side, and reflected light is detected by an optical detector 402 so that the warp amount of the probe 3 is detected from a displacement of a position of the light detected by the optical detector 402.” P 101).
Regarding claim 32, Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose an extraction-ionization system comprising:
an oscillation device recited in claim 21 (as above);
a liquid feeding device which feeds a liquid to the probe (multiple figures, element 4); and
an electrode which charges the liquid (multiple figures, element 6),
the probe having a flow passage which is provided inside the probe and through which the liquid passes (“The probe 3 has a flow path inside,” P 29), and
the liquid feeding device being connected to an end of the probe (“The solvent is continuously supplied to the probe 3 from a liquid supply unit 4 through a connection pipe 5 and a conductive pipe 6.” P 29).
Regarding claim 41, Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose a mass spectrometry system comprising: an extraction-ionization system recited in claim 32 (as above); and a mass spectrometer (multiple figures, element 200).
Claim(s) 21, 23-27, 30-34, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High Spatial Resolution Multimodal Imaging by Tapping-Mode Scanning Probe Electrospray Ionization with Feedback Control (Otsuka et al.) in view of US 2019/0272985 (Krummen et al.).
Regarding claim 21, Otsuka et al. discloses an oscillation device that oscillates a probe which is cantilevered, the oscillation device comprising: a probe having an axis direction (“glass capillary probe”); a probe holder which supports the probe in a first direction which is orthogonal to the axis direction (“The probe was fixed onto the homemade holder which was fixed to the piezo actuator to realize the stable vibration.” Where figure 1 shows the orthogonal directions); an oscillation generating part which gives oscillation to the holder holder (“The probe was fixed onto the homemade holder which was fixed to the piezo actuator to realize the stable vibration.”), the probe holder restricting movement in a second direction which is orthogonal to the axis direction and the first direction (clear from the fact it’s cantilevered).
Otsuka et al. does not specify the form of the holder so it cannot be determined whether the holder comprises first and second fixing members between which the probe is sandwiched in the first direction, the first fixing member having a recessed part formed entirely in a portion of the first fixing member which extends along the axis direction with the probe being sandwiched between the first and second fixing members, the probe being disposed over the entire recessed part, the recessed part working the first fixing member to restrict movement in the second direction.
Krummen et al. discloses first and second fixing members between which a flow passage is sandwiched and support in a first direction orthogonal to the axis direction (fig. 2 & 4, elements 3 & 5), the first fixing member having a recessed part formed entirely in a portion of the first fixing member which portion extends along the axis direction with the flow passage being sandwiched between the first and second fixing members (fig. 4, element 25), the flow passage being disposed over the entire recessed part, the recessed part working with the first fixing member to restrict movement of the flow passage in a second direction which is orthogonal to the axis direction and the first direction (“Also shown are smaller threaded holes 24, that receive screws (not shown) securing the plate 5 that holds the capillary 2 in place. Along the lower part 3, there is also a groove 25, for holding the capillary 2 in place.” P 76).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the fixing members of Krummen et al. for the unspecified probe holder of Otsuka et al. because it achieves the needed holding function.
Regarding claim 23, Otsuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose the oscillation device according to claim 21, wherein: the recessed part is formed in the first fixing member in advance (Krummen et al., fig. 3, element 25).
Regarding claim 24, Otsuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose the oscillation device according to claim 23, wherein: the recessed part has a shape having a cross section; and the probe disposed in the recessed part is in contact with one wall of the recessed part (Krummen et al., “Also shown are smaller threaded holes 24, that receive screws (not shown) securing the plate 5 that holds the capillary 2 in place. Along the lower part 3, there is also a groove 25, for holding the capillary 2 in place.” P 76).
Otsuka et al. in view of Krummen does not disclose whether the cross section is rectangular. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a rectangular cross-section as a matter of design choice, as applicant has not stated that this shape solves any particular problem and it appears that any shape capable of accommodating the probe would work just as well.
Regarding claim 25, Otsuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a friction part in a surface of the second fixing member which surface faces the probe, the friction part being configured to be in contact with the probe to restrict movement of the probe by friction force.
Friction parts are known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person Otsuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. by placing a friction part on the surface of the second fixing member which surface faces the probe to provide better adherence of the fixing member to the probe.
Regarding claim 26, Otsuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose the oscillation device according to claim 21, wherein: the probe has a flow passage which is provided inside the probe and through which a liquid passes (“glass capillary probe”).
Regarding claim 27, Kyogaku et al. in view of Krummen et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a pushing part which presses the first fixing member onto the probe. Pushing parts are well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute such pushing members for the fastening screws of Krummen because both function to press the first and second fixing members together.
Regarding claim 30, Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. discloses an oscillation system comprising:
an oscillation device recited in claim 21 (as above); and
an oscillation measurement part which outputs a signal for feedback control of oscillation of the probe (“To measure the vibration amplitude of the probe, a laserbeam was irradiated onto the capillary probe and the transmitted light was detected with a four-segment photodiode (S5981, Hamamatsu Photonics, Japan).”),
the oscillation measurement part including a light emitting part and a light receiving part receiving light which exits from the light emitting part and with which information regarding oscillation of the probe has been read (“To measure the vibration amplitude of the probe, a laserbeam was irradiated onto the capillary probe and the transmitted light was detected with a four-segment photodiode (S5981, Hamamatsu Photonics, Japan).”),
the light exiting from the light emitting part being emitted to the probe, and the light emitted to the probe entering the light receiving part (“A laser beam illuminated the side of the capillary probe, and the transmitted light was detected by a quadrant photodiode to measure the probe vibrations”).
Regarding claim 31, Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. discloses an oscillation system comprising:
an oscillation device recited in claim 21 (as above); and
an oscillation measurement part which outputs a signal for feedback control of oscillation of the probe (“To measure the vibration amplitude of the probe, a laserbeam was irradiated onto the capillary probe and the transmitted light was detected with a four-segment photodiode (S5981, Hamamatsu Photonics, Japan).”),
the oscillation measurement part including
a light emitting part (“A laser source (TC20, Neoark, Japan) was controlled with a power supply (DPS-5004, Neoark, Japan).”),
a light receiving part receiving light which exits from the light emitting part and with which information regarding oscillation of the probe has been read (“To measure the vibration amplitude of the probe, a laserbeam was irradiated onto the capillary probe and the transmitted light was detected with a four-segment photodiode (S5981, Hamamatsu Photonics, Japan).”),
the light exiting from the light emitting part being emitted to the probe, and the light emitted to the probe entering the light receiving part (“A laser beam illuminated the side of the capillary probe, and the transmitted light was detected by a quadrant photodiode to measure the probe vibrations”),
portions of the light emitting part the light receiving part which portions are closer to the tip end of the probe being positioned rearward of the tip end of the probe (fig. 1).
Otsuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. does not disclose a plurality of mirrors, the light exiting from the light emitting part being emitted to the probe via at least one of the plurality of mirrors, the light emitted to the probe being reflected by at least one of the plurality of mirrors so as to enter the light receiving part. Mirrors are very well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include a plurality of mirrors to perform the reflections claimed to redirect the light so that the detector and laser could be placed in different locations as desired.
Regarding claim 32, Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. discloses an extraction-ionization system comprising:
an oscillation device recited in claim 21 (as above);
a liquid feeding device which feeds a liquid to the probe (“The working solvent was supplied using a syringe pump (Legato 101, KD Scientific).”); and
an electrode which charges the liquid, the probe having a flow passage which is provided inside the probe and through which the liquid passes, and the liquid feeding device being connected to an end of the probe (“The PEEK tube and the emitter were connected via a metal union, which was biased by the high-voltage source (HSX-10R1.5-10, Matsusada Precision, Inc., Japan).”).
Regarding claim 33, Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. discloses an extraction-ionization system comprising:
an oscillation device recited in claim 26 (as above);
a liquid feeding device which feeds a liquid to the probe (“The working solvent was supplied using a syringe pump (Legato 101, KD Scientific).”);
an electrode part which charges the liquid (“The PEEK tube and the emitter were connected via a metal union, which was biased by the high-voltage source (HSX-10R1.5-10, Matsusada Precision, Inc., Japan).”); and
a filter part which removes a foreign substance contained in the liquid, the filter part being disposed between the electrode part and the probe (“The PEEK filter (A356, IDEX) was connected between the metal union and the syringe to remove particles in solvent.”).
Regarding claim 34, Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. discloses the extraction-ionization system according to claim 33, wherein: the filter part and the probe are connected to each other (“The PEEK filter (A356, IDEX) was connected between the metal union and the syringe to remove particles in solvent.”).
Otsuka in view of Krummen et al. does not specify whether the connection is via a tube, but it would have been obvious to form a direct connection without a tube if no tubing was desired.
Claim(s) 35-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of US 2011/0162527 (Gibson et al.).
Regarding claim 35, Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the filter part being incorporated into a part of the flow passage. Gibson et al. discloses an extraction-ionization system wherein: a part of the flow passage in the probe has a filter part incorporated thereinto (“As noted above, a frit as described herein may also be used as a nanoelectrospray emitter (e.g., for mass spectrometry), if the end of the MSF from which the sample exits, after passing through the fit, is of a suitable length to perform as an emitter.” P 38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the extraction-ionization system of Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. to include the incorporated filter of Gibson to further reduce clogging, as disclosed in Gibson et al (“In general, a frit as exemplified by the embodiments described herein is easily produced, has high reproducibility, is inexpensive, long lasting, able to resist clogging, and has low back pressure relative to a conventional frit (e.g., made from sintered glass particles).” P 39).
Regarding claim 36, Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a part of the flow passage in the probe is filled with micro particles serving as the filter part. Gibson et al. discloses an extraction-ionization system wherein: a part of the flow passage in the probe is filled with micro particles serving as a filter part (“The resulting column could be directly packed with ODS-functionalized silica beads, leaving a MSF as the column end, which shares the same O.D. as a conventional capillary.” P 48).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the extraction-ionization system of Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. to include the micro particle filter of Gibson to further reduce clogging, as disclosed in Gibson et al (“In general, a frit as exemplified by the embodiments described herein is easily produced, has high reproducibility, is inexpensive, long lasting, able to resist clogging, and has low back pressure relative to a conventional frit (e.g., made from sintered glass particles).” P 39).
Regarding claim 37, Ostuka et al. discloses an extraction-ionization system, comprising:
an oscillation device which oscillates a probe that is cantilevered (“The probe was fixed onto the homemade holder which was fixed to the piezo actuator to realize the stable vibration.”);
a liquid feeding device which feeds a liquid to the probe (“The working solvent was supplied using a syringe pump (Legato 101, KD Scientific).”); and
an electrode which charges the liquid (“The PEEK tube and the emitter were connected via a metal union, which was biased by the high-voltage source (HSX-10R1.5-10, Matsusada Precision, Inc., Japan).”),
the oscillation device including:
a probe having a flow passage which is provided inside the probe and through which the liquid passes (“a glass capillary”); a probe holder that supports the probe (“The probe was fixed onto the homemade holder”); and
an oscillation generating part which gives oscillation to the probe holder (“The probe was fixed onto the homemade holder which was fixed to the piezo actuator to realize the stable vibration.”),
the extraction-ionization system further comprising: a filter part which removes a foreign substance contained in the liquid, the filter part being disposed between the electrode and the probe (“The PEEK filter (A356, IDEX) was connected between the metal union and the syringe to remove particles in solvent.”).
Otsuka et al. does not disclose two fixing members between which the probe is sandwiched; at least one of the two fixing members having a recessed part in which the probe is disposed with the probe being sandwiched between the two fixing members, the recessed part being formed in a portion of the at least one of the two fixing members which portion corresponds to the probe in position, or a part of the flow passage in the probe being filled with isolated micro particles.
Krummen et al. discloses two fixing members between which the probe is sandwiched and supported (fig. 2 & 4, elements 3 & 5); at least one of the two fixing members having a recessed part in which the probe is disposed with the probe being sandwiched between the two fixing members (fig. 4, element 25), the recessed part being formed in a portion of the at least one of the two fixing members which portion corresponds to the probe in position (“Also shown are smaller threaded holes 24, that receive screws (not shown) securing the plate 5 that holds the capillary 2 in place. Along the lower part 3, there is also a groove 25, for holding the capillary 2 in place.” P 76).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the fixing members of Krummen et al. for the unspecified probe holder of Otsuka et al. because it achieves the needed holding function.
Gibson et al. discloses an extraction-ionization system wherein: a part of the flow passage in the probe is filled with micro particles serving as a filter part (“The resulting column could be directly packed with ODS-functionalized silica beads, leaving a MSF as the column end, which shares the same O.D. as a conventional capillary.” P 48).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the extraction-ionization system of Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. to include the micro particle filter of Gibson to further reduce clogging, as disclosed in Gibson et al (“In general, a frit as exemplified by the embodiments described herein is easily produced, has high reproducibility, is inexpensive, long lasting, able to resist clogging, and has low back pressure relative to a conventional frit (e.g., made from sintered glass particles).” P 39).
Regarding claim 38, Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. and Gibson et al. discloses the extraction-ionization system according to claim 36, wherein: the micro particles have a chemical bond with a surface of the flow passage (“The resulting column could be directly packed with ODS-functionalized silica beads, leaving a MSF as the column end, which shares the same O.D. as a conventional capillary.” P 48, where functionalization causes chemical bonding).
Regarding claim 39, Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. and Gibson et al. discloses the extraction-ionization system according to claim 36, wherein the micro particles have, on a surface thereof, a functional group (“The resulting column could be directly packed with ODS-functionalized silica beads, leaving a MSF as the column end, which shares the same O.D. as a conventional capillary.” P 48). Gibson is silent as to whether the functional group is an amino group, however functionalizing micro particles with amino groups for filtering is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use an amino group if the solvent was likely to include foreign particles that would be attracted to amino groups.
Regarding claim 40, Ostuka et al. in view of Krummen et al. and Gibson et al. discloses the extraction-ionization system according to claim 39, wherein: a base material of the micro particles is silica gel (“Capillary columns were prepared by packing ODS-functionalized silica beads (3 µm) with a slurry-packing technique. A slurry was first prepared by mixing the ODS beads with acetonitrile (5 mg/mL) and sonicating for 30 min to thoroughly wet their surface and prevent agglomeration.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights