DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-14, 16, 18-19 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13-14, 16 and 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al. (US pgPub 2017/0336355) in view of Gillig et al. (US pgPub 2019/0162698).
Regarding claim 13, Ibrahim et al. teach an ion mobility spectrometer (fig. 13a-13E) comprising:
a chamber (region enclosing ion compressors and IMS separator) housing a drift region (IMS separator), a first deflection region (downstream Ion compressor disclosed to reverse ions see paragraph [0063]), and a second deflection region (upstream compressor disclosed to repeat reversal ([0063] and figures 13d-13E)) within a single cavity defined by the chamber (cavity enclosing ion compressors and separators, in order for ions to be cycled forwards and backwards through the device repeatedly), the drift region axially extending between a first end and a second end (IMS between ion compressors) the first deflection region being positioned adjacent to the first end of the drift region (downstream compressor adjacent to first end) and the second deflection region being contiguous with positioned adjacent to the second end of the drift region (upstream compressor adjacent second end) the first deflection region comprising ion optics to change the direction of ions passing through the deflection region (reverse direction, inherently requiring ion optics see paragraph [0063]); and
the drift region is arranged to receive sample ions introduced to the chamber (as seen in figure 13a), the sample ions including an ion for analysis (inherent to IMS), the drift region arranged such that the sample ions pass on a drift trajectory through the drift region and separate according to their ion mobility as they pass through the drift region ([0063] “pulsed ions are introduced into an IMS where they are then separated) and
the first deflection region is arranged to receive sample ions from the drift region to travel on a deflection trajectory through the first deflection region (reversal of ions is a change of direction in downstream compressor ([0063])), and the ion optics are configured to change the direction of the sample ions on the deflection trajectory to travel towards the second deflection region through the same drift region or a further drift region (return through the same drift region to upstream compressor see figures 13B-13C and paragraph [0063]); and
the ion optics are further configured to accelerate the sample ions upon entry to the first deflection region ([0063] teaches reversal at first ion compression region. Since acceleration is a vector, the ions experience an acceleration by the change of direction), wherein the ion optics are configured to accelerate the sample ions to an energy greater than kT, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is temperature, but below the fragmentation energy of the sample ions (since voltages are applied to the electrodes (i.e. ion optics) of the compressor region (see paragraph [0042] [0061] and [0063]) and the amplitude of the electric field may be increased ([0021]), the ion optics are capable of being configured to accelerate the ion in the claimed manner. MPEP 2114 recites “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. ” Here since all structural elements are taught the manner of operating the ion optics does not distinguish the claimed invention over Ibrahim).
Ibrahim fails to specifically describe the chamber the electrodes are in; therefore fails to disclose a pump connected to the chamber for maintaining the drift region, the first deflection region and the second deflection region at a pressure that is substantially homogeneous throughout the single cavity, the pressure being such that the mean free path of the ion for analysis is greater than the length of the deflection trajectory, and less than the length of the drift trajectory.
However, Gillig teaches a pump (16 is a vacuum region, thus requiring a pump see paragraph [0067]), connected to the chamber for pumping the drift region, the first deflection region and the second deflection region (to maintain a pressure from 2-4 Torr ([0067])) at a pressure that is substantially homogeneous throughout the chamber (2-4 Torr are substantially homogenous as understood by the instant specification1), the pressure being such that the mean free path of the ion for analysis is greater than the length of the deflection trajectory, and less than the length of the drift trajectory (inherent, the pressure is substantially the same, with a longer length drift region than deflection region, thus the result is the same).
Gillig modifies Ibrahim by teaching a chamber suitable for ion mobility separation.
Since both inventions are directed towards ion mobility separators, it would have been obvious to place the device of Ibrahim in a chamber attached to a pump as suggested in Gillig because it would provide the suitable pressures such that IMS may be achieved. Specifically, Ibrahim and Gillig both recognize that at higher gas pressure the IMS suffers problems of a long analysis time and limited number of ions per analysis ([0003] of Gillig) and significant loss of ions and increase of drift voltage (0006 of Ibrahim). Therefore, placing the IMS of Ibrahim in a pumped chamber as suggested by Gillig would remediate these problems.
Regarding claim 14, Ibrahim in view of Gillig teaches wherein the pump is arranged so that in use the highest pressure region of the chamber is no more than 10 times the lowest pressure region of the chamber (Gillig, see discussion above in claim 13), wherein the pump is arranged to pump the drift region and the first deflection region and the second deflection region simultaneously (Gillig, as seen in figure 3, 16).
Regarding claim 16, Ibrahim fails to disclose the dimensions of electrodes.
However, Gillig teaches wherein the drift region is defined within the volume of the chamber such that the drift region has a greater extension in a first direction orthogonal to the direction of the drift trajectory than compared to a second direction orthogonal to the direction of the drift trajectory, wherein the first and second direction are orthogonal to each other (as seen in figure 2, the orthogonal direction along the y is shorter than the orthogonal direction along the z).
Gillig modifies Ibrahim by suggesting dimensions of the electrodes.
Since both inventions are directed towards IMS, it would have been obvious to use the electrode geometry of Gillig in the device of Ibrahim because it would allow for a high capacity ion mobility separator.
Regarding claim 18, Ibrahim in view of Gillig teaches wherein the chamber houses a first and second drift region (Gillig, fig. 3, first and second regions in housing ) and wherein the first deflection region (Gillig, transfer or connection region between electrodes 9/10) is arranged to receive sample ions from the first drift region (Gillig, transfer or connection region between 9/10 receives ions from first region between electrodes 8/9 as seen in figure 2b), and the ion optics are configured to change the direction of the sample ions on the deflection trajectory to travel towards the second drift region (Gillig, as indicated by arrow in figure 2b).
Regarding claim 19, Ibrahim teaches wherein, in use the chamber is filled with a buffer gas ([0006]).
Regarding claim 21, Ibrahim teaches wherein the ion optics of the first deflection region comprises a first set of electrodes for changing the direction of ions passing through the first deflection region and a second set of electrodes for accelerating the sample ions upon entry to the first deflection region ([0021] teaches the reversing step includes increasing the amplitude of the electric field, figure 1 shows the stuttering tw wave (ion compression) thus requiring a number of electrodes in the ion compressor, the first set is the set of electrodes that results in reversal and the second set is the set that slow the ions until reversal is possible).
Relevant Art of interest to the applicant
Bateman (USPN 8,546,755) cited in IDS also a teaches a multistage IMS system where ions are deflected between stages and held at a gas pressure (see figure 3 and col. 18, lines 17-28)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 The instant application defines substantially homogeneous as the highest pressure no more than 10 times the lowest pressure ([0027] of the instant published application). Gillig teaches a pressure of the vacuum region 16 to be 2-4 Torr, thus the highest pressure is not greater than 10 times the lowest pressure, therefore “substantially homogenous” in light of the instant specification.