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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 16-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badu-Tawiah, et. al. (WO 2020223341 A1), hereinafter Tawiah, in view of Paradis, et. al. (US 20140160477 A1), hereinafter Paradis.
Regarding claim 1, Badu-Tawiah teaches a method (methods and systems for ionizing organic compounds, Abstract) comprising:
providing a material in a chamber defining an inlet and an outlet (ionization chamber 201 with enclosed vessel 202 defining a headspace 203, and inlet 204 and outlet 205, Fig. 2, pg. 8, lines 9-12);
supplying a direct current voltage to an electrode proximate to the material to generate ions in the air-tight chamber (ionization using the conventional contact mode nESI source at an applied voltage of 2 kV, pg. 16, lines 12-14; supplying a direct current (DC) voltage to an ESI electrode proximate to the composition, pg. 20, line 20);
introducing a carrier gas to the air-tight chamber at the inlet (inert carrier gas, pg. 7, lines 4-9); and
collecting the carrier gas and the ions at the outlet (inert carrier gas, pg. 7, lines 4-9, Figs. 2-3).
Badu-Tawiah does not explicitly disclose that the chamber is an air-tight chamber.
Paradis teaches wherein the chamber is an air-tight chamber (The detector unit 200 includes an airtight housing 210 having a plurality of internal chambers and passageways, [0039]).
Paradis modifies Badu-Tawiah by suggesting that the chamber be an air-tight chamber.
Since Paradis is similarly directed to ionization in a system for detection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Paradis because an air-tight chamber mitigates contamination risks, (Paradis, [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Badu-Tawiah teaches wherein the method further comprises performing a mass spectrometry analysis on the ions collected at the outlet (mass spectrometer to analyze, pg. 7, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Badu-Tawiah teaches further comprising characterizing, based on the mass spectrometry analysis, an elemental composition and structure of the material (structures and identities of compounds confirmed using MS, pg. 14, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 6, Badu-Tawiah teaches wherein the material comprises small organic compounds (small molecule organic compounds, pg. 6, lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 7, Badu-Tawiah teaches further comprising determining a chemical composition of the small organic compounds (pg. 14, lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 8, Badu-Tawiah teaches wherein the small organic compounds comprises an illicit drug (cocaine, pg. 10, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 16, Badu-Tawiah teaches a system for performing direct analysis of a material (Title, Abstract), the system comprising:
an air-tight chamber defining an inlet and an outlet, wherein the air-tight chamber is configured to hold the material (ionization chamber 201 with enclosed vessel 202 defining a headspace 203, and inlet 204 and outlet 205, Fig. 2, pg. 8, lines 9-12), wherein the inlet is configured to introduce a gas into the air-tight chamber, and wherein the outlet is configured to collect gasses and ions from the air-tight chamber (inert carrier gas, pg. 7, lines 4-9, Figs. 2-3); and
an electrode positioned inside the air-tight chamber and configured to configured to be proximate to the material to generate ions in the air-tight chamber when a direct current voltage is applied to the electrode (ionization using the conventional contact mode nESI source at an applied voltage of 2 kV, pg. 16, lines 12-14; supplying a direct current (DC) voltage to an ESI electrode proximate to the composition, pg. 20, line 20).
Regarding claim 17, Badu-Tawiah teaches wherein the system is configured to output the ions collected at the outlet to a mass spectrometer (pg. 7, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Badu-Tawiah teaches wherein the mass spectrometer is configured to characterize, based on an output of the mass spectrometer, an elemental composition and structure of the material (structures and identities of compounds confirmed using MS, pg. 14, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 21, Badu-Tawiah teaches wherein the material comprises small organic compounds (small molecule organic compounds, pg. 6, lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 22, Badu-Tawiah teaches wherein the system is configured to determine a chemical composition of the small organic compounds (pg. 14, lines 17-20).
Claims 4-5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badu-Tawiah (WO 2020223341 A1) and Paradis (US 20140160477 A1), in view of Amiruddin, et. al. (US 20120107680 A1), hereinafter Amiruddin.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Badu-Tawiah and Paradis does not explicitly teach further comprising determining a chemical composition of solid electrolyte interphase generated from a Lithium-Ion battery.
Amiruddin teaches determining a chemical composition of solid electrolyte interphase generated from a Lithium-Ion battery ([0048], [0164], Table 5, [0117]).
Amiruddin modifies the combination by suggesting determining a chemical composition of solid electrolyte interphase generated from a Lithium-Ion battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Amiruddin for the purpose of analyzing electrode material as it is being deposited (Amiruddin, [0088]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Badu-Tawiah and Paradis does not explicitly teach wherein the material comprises a thin-film organic-based magnetic material.
Amiruddin teaches wherein the material comprises a thin-film organic-based magnetic material ([0164], Table 5, [0088]).
Amirudin modifies the combination by suggesting the material comprises a thin-film organic-based magnetic material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Amiruddin for the purpose of analyzing electrode material as it is being deposited (Amiruddin, [0088]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Badu-Tawiah and Paradis does not explicitly wherein the mass spectrometer is configured to determine a chemical composition of solid electrolyte interphase generated from a Lithium-Ion battery.
Amiruddin teaches the mass spectrometer is configured to determine a chemical composition of solid electrolyte interphase generated from a Lithium-Ion battery ([0048], [0164], Table 5, [0117]).
Amiruddin modifies the combination by suggesting the mass spectrometer is configured to determine a chemical composition of solid electrolyte interphase generated from a Lithium-Ion battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Amiruddin for the purpose of analyzing electrode material as it is being deposited (Amiruddin, [0088]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Badu-Tawiah and Paradis does not explicitly teach wherein the material comprises a thin-film organic-based magnetic material.
Amiruddin teaches wherein the material comprises a thin-film organic-based magnetic material ([0164], Table 5, [0088]).
Amirudin modifies the combination by suggesting the material comprises a thin-film organic-based magnetic material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Amiruddin for the purpose of analyzing electrode material as it is being deposited (Amiruddin, [0088]).
Claims 14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badu-Tawiah (WO 2020223341 A1) and Paradis (US 20140160477 A1), in view of Dulay, et. al. (US 20220181136 A1), hereinafter Dulay, as evidenced by Cooks, et. al. (WO 2012167126 A), hereinafter Cooks.
Regarding claim 14, Badu-Tawiah in view of Paradis does not teach wherein the electrode comprises a triangular tip.
Dulay teaches wherein the electrode comprises a triangular tip (sample support 804 having support substrate 808 connected to alligator clip, [0071], with support substrate being electrically conductive, [0058], Fig. 1A, Fig. 8).
Dulay modifies the combination by suggesting the electrode has a triangular tip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dulay because a sharp point, such as the point of a triangle is known to generate a high electric field and allow formation of a Taylor cone and generation of ions, (Cooks, pg. 32, lines 15-17; pg. 1, lines 26-28; pg. 21, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 27, Badu-Tawiah in view of Paradis does not teach wherein the electrode comprises a triangular tip.
Dulay teaches wherein the electrode comprises a triangular tip (sample support 804 having support substrate 808 connected to alligator clip, [0071], with support substrate being electrically conductive, [0058], Fig. 1A, Fig. 8).
Dulay modifies the combination by suggesting the electrode has a triangular tip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dulay because a sharp point, such as the point of a triangle is known to generate a high electric field and allow formation of a Taylor cone and generation of ions, (Cooks, pg. 32, lines 15-17; pg. 1, lines 26-28; pg. 21, lines 17-19).
Claims 15 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badu-Tawiah (WO 2020223341 A1) and Paradis (US 20140160477 A1), in view of Dulay, et. al. (US 20220181136 A1), hereinafter Dulay, as evidenced by Cooks, et. al. (WO 2012167126 A), hereinafter Cooks.
Regarding claim 15, Badu-Tawiah in view of Paradis does not teach wherein the material is triangular.
Dulay teaches wherein the material is triangular ([0053] teaches a reservoir 106 on support substrate 102 holding the spray solvent such that this material is in a triangular shape, as seen in Figs. 1 and 8).
Dulay modifies the combination by suggesting the material is triangular.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dulay because the triangular shape of the reservoir allows it to fit on the triangular support substrate, ([0062]Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 28, Badu-Tawiah in view of Paradis does not teach wherein the material is triangular.
Dulay teaches wherein the material is triangular ([0053] teaches a reservoir 106 on support substrate 102 holding the spray solvent such that this material is in a triangular shape, as seen in Figs. 1 and 8).
Dulay modifies the combination by suggesting the material is triangular.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dulay because the triangular shape of the reservoir allows it to fit on the triangular support substrate, ([0062]Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights