DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 21-24, 26, 30-32 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 21-24, 26, 30-32 are rejected.
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because it depends from claim 8, which is cancelled.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
113
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 1. Claim 1 recites a method of correcting a measurement in a sample analyzing system. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – First Prong. Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The recited device includes imaging a grid and determining validity of a weld location.
The scheme and/or concept embodied by the claims are similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts as abstract, such as certain methods of organizing human activity, and mathematical relationships and/or formulas (furthermore done in the mind). It is also noted that if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65 (1972) (finding a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form was directed to an abstract idea); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89 (1978) (finding a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit was an abstract idea); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 at 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding generating data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical formulas, and organizing this information into a new form were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A – Second Prong / Practical Application. Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether the judicial exception is incorporated into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the determining step.
Accordingly, additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong 2: YES).
Step 2B. Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claim recites no additional element(s)/limitation(s) beyond measuring a generic sample with an unspecified measuring system, and comparing a signal with an expected characteristic in an unspecified way.
Recitation of additional element(s) to implement the steps described above is not enough by itself to transform the exception into a patentable exception, because such elements do not amount to more than a mere vessel to implement the abstract idea upon, while performing no more than their basic detection function at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
PNG
media_image2.png
148
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
PNG
media_image3.png
151
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 21-24, 26, 30-32 is/are 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.
Claim 1 recites “comparing the measured first signal to an expected characteristic of the sample analyzing system to determine whether the measured first signal is not valid”. These limitations refer to a desired result (determining validity based on an unspecified characteristic) without clarifying how or what fields are selected in sufficient detail to recognize what is claimed. For instance, what characteristic(s) (m/z, distribution characteristics, intensity profiles, mass ranges, s/n ratios, etc) are being compared are not specified. How they are being matched to an “expected characteristic” is also not specified (e.g. combinations of characteristics via an algorithm; e.g. what the tolerance ranges are, etc). MPEP 2163.03 states “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).”
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 1 further recites “taking one or more corrective actions on one of the sample analyzer and the sample source” but it is not specified what the corrective action is, and covers ever and all types of corrective action, including e.g. restarting the machine, or human activity/mental processes such as an operator paying more attention to the analyzer.
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 1 recites “measuring a first signal for the received first sample to generate a measured first signal” but what the signal is has not been specified in the claim, and can read on not just an ion signal, but any signal of any kind generated by any instrument (or mental processing).
Claims 3-6, 9, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21-24, 26, 30-32 are rejected due to their dependency from claims 1, 17.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
PNG
media_image4.png
182
936
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
PNG
media_image5.png
176
936
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that 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.
Claim limitation “mass analysis device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “mass analysis” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 21-24, 26, 30-32 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
mass analysis device
[0010] of the PGPub and claim 32 state the mass analysis device comprises “at least one of a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS), a mass spectrometer (MS), and a DMS/MS“
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image6.png
120
1248
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image7.png
89
869
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 21-24, 26, 30-32 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim element " mass analysis device" is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
However, it is unclear whether the recited structure, material, or acts are sufficient for performing the claimed function because [0010] of the PGPub and claim 32 state the mass analysis device comprises “at least one of a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS), a mass spectrometer (MS), and a DMS/MS“ but it is unclear what else the device comprises.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 –
PNG
media_image8.png
281
1244
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by https://web.archive.org/web/20180909120146/https://www.wikihow.com/Measure-Liquids-without-a-Measuring-Cup.
Regarding claim 1, Wikihow teaches a method of correcting a measurement in a sample analyzing system, the method comprising:
receiving a first sample (ingredient) at an interface of the sample analyzing system (e.g. cup), the first sample being a portion of a sample source (group of ingredients);
measuring a first signal for the received first sample to generate a measured first signal (visual signal, see looking at cup);
comparing the measured first signal to an expected characteristic (“the right amount” set by visual aid) of the sample analyzing system to determine whether the measured first signal is not valid (stops when enough); and
when the measured first signal is determined not to be valid:
one of taking no corrective action and taking one or more corrective actions on one of the sample analyzer and the sample source (step 3, making adjustments as necessary);
receiving a second sample at the sampling interface (next ingredient, see tips when ingredients are in cups), the second sample being another portion of the sample source (ingredients); and
measuring a second signal for the received second sample to generate a measured second signal (see repeating process for next ingredient).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image9.png
158
934
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Datwani et al. (US 20210394171 A1) [hereinafter Datwani].
Regarding claim 1, Datwani teaches a method of correcting a measurement in a sample analyzing system, the method comprising:
receiving a first sample at an interface of the sample analyzing system (required for operation of system), the first sample being a portion of a sample source (implicit in sampling);
measuring a first signal for the received first sample to generate a measured first signal (e.g. droplet volume, [0211]);
comparing the measured first signal to an expected characteristic (see [0212]) of the sample analyzing system to determine whether the measured first signal is not valid (see [0212]); and
when the measured first signal is determined not to be valid:
one of taking no corrective action and taking one or more corrective actions on one of the sample analyzer and the sample source (see adjusting parameters, [0213]);
Datwani may fail to explicitly disclose receiving a second sample at the sampling interface, the second sample being another portion of the sample source; and measuring a second signal for the received second sample to generate a measured second signal. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to repeat the process at a later time for a different analysis, different experiments, and/or to validate results, rather than never using the machine again, as a routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Datwani teaches taking the one or more corrective actions comprises modifying an operating parameter of at least one of the sample source and the sample analyzing system by modifying at least one of: a volume of the second sample; a viscosity of the second sample; and an acoustic ejection energy for ejecting the second sample (see adjusting parameters in Datwani, [0213], which will naturally change the aforementioned options).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Datwani teaches measuring the second signal comprises automatically measuring the second signal when the measured first signal is determined not to be valid (see Datwani, [0213]; note measuring the second signal regardless of validity).
Claim(s) 3-6, 14, 17, 19, 21-24, 26, 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Datwani, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhang et al., Acoustic Ejection Mass Spectrometry for High-Throughput Analysis, Anal. Chem. 93,10850−10861 (2021) [hereinafter Zhang].
Regarding claim 3, Datwani may fail to explicitly disclose receiving the first sample at a sampling open port interface. However, the some kind of sample introduction mechanism would have been required for the intended operation of analysis, and the use of OPIs was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Zhang teaches a known effective sampling system using acoustic drop ejection and OPI that provides a minimalistic way to introduce samples while reducing ion suppression (see Zhang, p10851, col 1, last para), and enables high throughput chemical analysis (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Zhang in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would be motivated to try to enable the known effective sampling system and the advantageous OPI system, for high throughput chemical analysis, in the manner taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Datwani may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Zhang, for similar reasons as claim 3 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches receiving the first sample at the interface of the sample analyzing system comprises receiving the first sample at one of a matrix-assisted laser desorption interface and a pneumatic nebulizer interface (see Zhang, 10851, col 2, last para).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Datwani may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Zhang, for similar reasons as claim 3 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches measuring the first signal for the received first sample comprises measuring a signal indicative of a number of detected ions per second (see e.g. Zhang, fig 5,6 etc, which are implicitly a measurement of ions/sec, and alternately e.g. p10855, col 2, 10857, col 1, discussing throughput).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Datwani may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Zhang, for similar reasons as claim 3 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches measuring the first signal for the received first sample comprises measuring a signal peak corresponding to the received first sample by measuring at least one of a height of the signal peak, an area under the signal peak (see Zhang, e.g. p10857, col 1-col 2, para 1; fig 6; etc), and a full-width-half maximum of the signal peak, and wherein measuring the first signal for the received first sample further comprises determining an acoustic ejection energy of the received first sample (see selecting corrected energy, which requires determination of the energy, Datwani, [0213;122]). It is noted that determining acoustic ejection energy appears to refer to the same phenomenon as the determination of the applied energy to the sample, and inasmuch as the references address mathematical calculations of the same problem, using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Any equations/equalities themselves are not a patentable subject matter; as to the method steps utilizing particular equations, the use of particular mathematical means or mathematic basis would have accomplished the same result.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Datwani may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Zhang, for similar reasons as claim 3 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches ejecting the first sample from a well plate (see Zhang, p10851, col 2, para 2-3), the well plate comprising a plurality of wells (see same), the sample source being contained in one of the plurality of wells (see same); wherein an ejection energy of the first sample comprises an acoustic ejection energy (see ADE, e.g. 10851, col 1, para 2).
Regarding claim 17, Datwani teaches a sample analyzing system comprising:
a sample receiver (required for operation of system);
a processor (required for operation of system, e.g. [0186]) operatively coupled to the sample receiver and to the mass analysis device; and
a memory (required for intended operation of system, see e.g. [0138]) coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform a set of operations comprising:
receiving a first sample at an interface of the sample receiver (required for operation of system), the first sample being a portion of a sample source (implicit in sampling);
measuring, at the mass analysis device (e.g. droplet volume analysis, [0125]), a first signal for the received first sample to generate a measured first signal (e.g. droplet volume, [0211]);
comparing the measured first signal to an expected characteristic (see [0212]) of the sample analyzing system to determine whether the measured first signal is not valid (see [0212]); and
when the measured first signal is determined not to be valid:
one of taking no corrective action and taking one or more corrective actions on one of the sample analyzer and the sample source (see adjusting parameters, [0213]);
Datwani may fail to explicitly disclose receiving a second sample at the sampling interface, the second sample being another portion of the sample source; and measuring a second signal for the received second sample to generate a measured second signal. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to repeat the process at a later time for a different analysis, different experiments, and/or to validate results, rather than never using the machine again, as a routine skill in the art.
Datwani may fail to explicitly disclose a mass analysis device fluidically coupled to the sample receiver. However, it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to operate the system with a mass analysis device comprising a mass spectrometer. For example, Zhang teaches a known effective analysis system using acoustic drop ejection and an OPI, comprising a mass analysis device (MS) fluidically coupled to the sample receiver (see fig 1), that provides a minimalistic way to introduce samples while reducing ion suppression (see Zhang, p10851, col 1, last para), and enables high throughput chemical analysis (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Zhang in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would be motivated to try to enable the known effective sampling system and the advantageous OPI system, for high throughput chemical analysis, in the manner taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches the sample receiver comprises an open port interface (see Zhang, e.g. p10851, col 1, last para).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches a non- contact sample ejector (see ADE, Zhang, abstract, fig 1); wherein the set of operations comprises: receiving the first sample by introducing, with the non-contact sample ejector, the first sample from the well plate into the sample receiver (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches the non-contact sample ejector comprises an acoustic droplet ejector (see ADE, Zhang, abstract).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches at least one of: a matrix-assisted laser desorption interface; and a pneumatic nebulizer interface (see Zhang, 10851, col 2, last para).
Claim 24 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6, above.
Regarding claim 26, the combined teaching of Datwani may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Zhang, for similar reasons as claim 6 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches the first signal comprises an acoustic ejection energy of the received first sample (see selecting corrected energy, which requires determination of the energy, Datwani, [0213;122]), and wherein the set of operations comprises comparing the measured first signal to the expected characteristic of the sample analyzing system by: comparing the measured first signal to at least one of a predetermined signal intensity threshold (see [0212]), a predetermined signal intensity range, and a predetermined mass; and determining that the signal is invalid when at least one of: the signal is below the predetermined signal intensity threshold; the signal is outside of the predetermined signal intensity range (required for operation of system, see [0212]); and the acoustic ejection energy of the first sample is below the predetermined acoustic ejection energy threshold. The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose comparing the acoustic energy of the received first sample to a predetermined acoustic ejection energy threshold. However, it is noted that the alternative is not required for the operation of the subsequent determination under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and constitutes extra-solution activity that fails to further clarify the claim language beyond extraneous mathematical calculation. It is also noted that the determination of the energy may be read as an inferred or indirect determination that is congruent with the e.g. comparison in Datwani, [0213], and that, using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Any equations/equalities themselves are not a patentable subject matter; as to the method steps utilizing particular equations, the use of particular mathematical means or mathematic basis would have accomplished the same result.
Regarding claim 30, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches the set of operations comprises measuring the second signal by automatically measuring the second signal when the first signal is determined to be invalid (in both cases; alternately see Datwani, [0213]).
Regarding claim 31, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches an ionization element (see ESI, Zhang, fig 1, p10851, col 2, last para), wherein the set of operations further comprises ionizing the received first sample and the received second sample by the ionization element towards the mass analysis device (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 32, the combined teaching of Datwani and Zhang teaches the mass analysis device comprises at least one of a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS), a mass spectrometer (MS) (see Zhang, abstract), and a DMS/MS.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., Acoustic Ejection Mass Spectrometry for High-Throughput Analysis, Anal. Chem. 93,10850−10861 (2021) [hereinafter Zhang].
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches a sample analyzing system comprising:
a sample receiver (see fig 1: e.g. OPI);
a mass analysis device (e.g. mass spectrometer) fluidically coupled to the sample receiver;
a processor (required for operation of system) operatively coupled to the sample receiver and to the mass analysis device (see same); and
a memory (required for operation of system, note log, p10852, col 2, para 1) coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform a set of operations comprising:
receiving a first sample (see e.g. ADE samples, fig 1, p10852, col 1, para 2) at an interface of the sample receiver (see fig 1), the first sample being a portion of a sample source (see fig 1);
measuring, at the mass analysis device, a first signal for the received first sample to generate a measured first signal (see e.g. fig 1(b));
receiving, at the interface of the sample receiver, a second sample, the second sample being another portion of the sample source (repeating process, e.g. see p10852, col2, para 3); and
measuring, at the mass analysis device, a second signal for the received second sample to generate a measured second signal (during repeating analysis).
Zhang may fail to explicitly disclose comparing the measured first signal to an expected characteristic of the sample analyzing system to determine whether the measured first signal is not valid; and when the measured first signal is determined not to be valid: one of taking no corrective action and taking one or more corrective actions on one of the sample analyzer and the sample source.
However, the claims are broad enough to read on performing taking no corrective action regardless of the comparison results, so the comparison is extra-solution activity that is broad enough to read on e.g. a routine mental process of making sure the machine is actually turned on, that system logging the measured first signal has not crashed, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm 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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights