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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action /has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding limitations recited in claims 14 and 15, which are directed to a manner of operating the disclosed chemical ionization source and mass spectrometer, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2012/0025070 A1), in view of Puton et al. (Ion mobility spectrometers with doped gases, cited in IDS filed 05/09/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a chemical ionisation method, in particular an adduct ionisation method, for ionising a sample including analytes to be ionized (Figure 69),
wherein ligand compound ions formed from reactant ions ([0408]-[0408], see: plurality of NOx ion species, including NO3-, NO+; [0473]-[0474], see: ions of benzene) and a dopant substance ([0353], see: water and/or isopropanol) are made available in a reaction volume (Figure 69, see: Step 2180),
wherein said sample with said analytes is introduced into said reaction volume to react with said ligand compound ions to form adduct ions and a neutral byproduct ([0246], see: sarin gas, which comprises molecules containing acid), said adduct ions including ionised analytes being adducts of said reactant ions and the respective said analytes (Figure 69, see: Step 2182),
wherein said reactant ions and said dopant substance provide a higher binding energy when binding together to said ligand compound ions than a binding energy said reactant ions and a ligand forming substance provide when binding together, wherein said ligand forming substance is present at least in traces in said reaction volume when said sample with said analytes react with said ligand compound ions to form said adduct ions and said neutral byproduct (Regarding limitations directed to the specific properties of the dopant substance, reactant ions, and ligand compound ions, it is noted that the prior art discloses the same materials as instantly claimed and therefore would inherently display the recited properties. See MPEP 2112).
Miller does not explicitly disclose the said reactant ions are one of I-, Br-, Cl-, CF30-, acetate-, NH4+, amine+, ethanol+, and H3O+.
Puton teaches an analogous ion mobility spectrometry method comprising the use of a plurality of dopants on a plurality of reactant ions, there reactant ions including bromide and chloride reactant ions (pg. 985/3.2.1. Halide reactant ions), ammonium (pg. 983/3.1.3. Ammonia), alkanoamines (pg. 984/3.1.5. Higher ketons), and ethanol and hydronium (pg. 982/3.1.1. Acetone). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select use the IMS method and device disclosed by Millet, to ionize and analyze the reactant ions taught by Puton, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, Miller further discloses said sample includes at least traces of said ligand forming substance ([0246], see: sarin gas, which comprises molecules containing acid).
Regarding claim 3, Miller further discloses said sample consists of parts and includes at least one part of said ligand forming substance per 10,000,000 parts, wherein said parts are atoms or molecules ([0195], see: the invention is used for detecting trace amounts (parts per million (ppm)).
Regarding claim 4, Miller further discloses said ligand forming substance is one of water, ethanol, benzene, nitric acid and acetic acid or is any other molecule containing an acid, peroxide, alcohol or ketone moiety ([0246], see: sarin gas, which comprises molecules containing acid).
Regarding claim 6, Miller further discloses said dopant substance is a molecule ([0353], see: water and/or isopropanol).
Regarding claim 7, Miller further discloses said dopant substance is one of water, ethanol, methanol, benzene, acetone, acetonitrile, formic acid, lactic acid, nitric acid, or is any other molecule containing an acid, peroxide, alcohol or ketone moiety ([0353], see: water and/or isopropanol), and in that said dopant substance and said reactant ions provide said higher binding energy when binding together to said ligand compound ions than said binding energy said reactant ions and said ligand forming substance provide when binding together (Regarding limitations directed to the specific properties of the dopant substance, reactant ions, and ligand compound ions, it is noted that the prior art discloses the same materials as instantly claimed and therefore would inherently display the recited properties. See MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 8, Miller further discloses said reactant ions and said dopant substance provide a lower binding energy when binding together than a binding energy said reactant ions and any of said analytes to be analysed provide when binding together (Regarding limitations directed to the specific properties of the reactant ions, dopant substance, and analytes, it is noted that the prior art discloses the same materials as instantly claimed and therefore would inherently display the recited properties. See MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 9, Miller further discloses in said reaction volume a gas pressure in a range from 1 mbar to 1,000 mbar is maintained ([0264], see: pressures between about 0.2 and 0.9 atmospheres, which is 203 to 912 mbars).
Regarding claim 12, Miller discloses a method for mass analysing analytes in a sample including said analytes, wherein said sample including said analytes is ionised with the chemical ionisation method as claimed in claim1 (see: rejection of claim 1 above) and the resulting ions are transferred to a mass analyser and mass analysed with said mass analyser in order to mass analyse said analytes ([0030], see: mass spectrometer; [0182], see: plurality of analytical techniques, including MS, LCMS, TOF).
Regarding claim 16, Miller further discloses said sample consists of parts and includes at least one molecule of said ligand forming substance per 10,000,000 parts, wherein said parts are molecules ([0195], see: the invention is used for detecting trace amounts (parts per million (ppm)).
Regarding claim 17, Miller further discloses in said reaction volume a gas pressure in a range from 10 mbar to 1,000 mbar is maintained ([0264], see: pressures between about 0.2 and 0.9 atmospheres, which is 203 to 912 mbars).
Regarding claim 18, Miller further discloses in said reaction volume a gas pressure in a range from 20 mbar to 1,000 mbar is maintained ([0264], see: pressures between about 0.2 and 0.9 atmospheres, which is 203 to 912 mbars).
Regarding Claim 14, Miller discloses a chemical ionization ion source including an ion molecule reactor for ionising a sample including analytes to be ionised with a chemical ionisation method (Figure 63, Figure 64), said ion molecule reactor including:
a) a reaction volume adapted for ionising inside said reaction volume said sample including said analytes to be ionised by chemical ionization (Figure 63, see: ionization region 2026);
b) at least one sample inlet for introducing said sample including said analytes into said reaction volume (Figure 63, see: inlet 2020);
c) at least one reactant inlet for introducing at least one substance into said reaction volume for making ligand compound ions available inside said reaction volume, said ligand compound ions being formed from reactant ions and a dopant substance (Figure 63, see: dopant sources 2024); and
d) an outlet for letting out said adduct ions from said reaction volume (Figure 63, see: outlet 2032),
wherein in the chemical ionisation method, inside of said reaction volume, said ligand compound ions are made available and said sample with said analytes is introduced into said reaction volume to react with said ligand compound ions to form adduct ions and a neutral byproduct, said adduct ions including ionised analytes being adducts of said reactant ions and the respective said analytes, wherein said reactant ions and said dopant substance provide a higher binding energy when binding together to said ligand compound ions than a binding energy said reactant ions and a ligand forming substance provide when binding together, wherein said ligand forming substance is present at least in traces in said reaction volume when said sample with said analytes react with said ligand compound ions to form said adduct ions and said neutral byproduct, wherein said chemical ionisation ion source includes either a reactant ion ion source for ionising the reactant to reactant ions or a ligand compound ion ion source for ionising the ligand compound to ligand compound ions for making said ligand compound ions available in said reaction volume (the device disclosed by modified Miller is fully capable of performing the instantly claimed functions, see: rejection of claim 1 above).
Miller does not explicitly disclose the said reactant ions are one of I-, Br-, Cl-, CF30-, acetate-, NH4+, amine+, ethanol+, and H3O+.
Puton teaches an analogous ion mobility spectrometry method comprising the use of a plurality of dopants on a plurality of reactant ions, there reactant ions including bromide and chloride reactant ions (pg. 985/3.2.1. Halide reactant ions), ammonium (pg. 983/3.1.3. Ammonia), alkanoamines (pg. 984/3.1.5. Higher ketons), and ethanol and hydronium (pg. 982/3.1.1. Acetone). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select use the IMS method and device disclosed by Millet, to ionize and analyze the reactant ions taught by Puton, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 15, Miller discloses a mass spectrometer for mass analysing analytes in a sample including said analytes with a method for mass analysing said analytes in said sample including said analytes ([0030], see: mass spectrometer; [0182], see: plurality of analytical techniques, including MS, LCMS, TOF), wherein said sample including said analytes is ionised with a chemical ionisation method and the resulting ions are transferred to a mass analyser and mass analysed with said mass analyser in order to mass analyse said analytes (the device disclosed by Miller is fully capable of performing the instantly claimed functions, see: rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said mass spectrometer includes a chemical ionisation ion source for ionising said sample including said analytes to said resulting ions, said chemical ionisation ion source including an ion molecule reactor for ionising said sample including said analytes to be ionised with said chemical ionisation method (Figure 63, Figure 64), said ion molecule reactor including:
a) a reaction volume adapted for ionising inside said reaction volume said sample including said analytes to be ionised by chemical ionization (Figure 63, see: ionization region 2026),
b) at least one sample inlet for introducing said sample including said analytes into said reaction volume (Figure 63, see: inlet 2020);
c) at least one reactant inlet for introducing at least one substance into said reaction volume for making ligand compound ions available inside said reaction volume, said ligand compound ions being formed from reactant ions and a dopant substance (Figure 63, see: dopant sources 2024); and
d) an outlet for letting out said adduct ions from said reaction volume (Figure 63, see: outlet 2032),
wherein in the chemical ionisation method, said ligand compound ions are made available and said sample with said analytes is introduced into said reaction volume to react with said ligand compound ions to form adduct ions and a neutral byproduct, said adduct ions including ionised analytes being adducts of said reactant ions and the respective said analytes, wherein said reactant ions and said dopant substance provide a higher binding energy when binding together to said ligand compound ions than a binding energy said reactant ions and a ligand forming substance provide when binding together, wherein said ligand forming substance is present at least in traces in said reaction volume when said sample with said analytes react with said ligand compound ions to form said adduct ions and said neutral byproduct, wherein said chemical ionisation ion source includes either a reactant ion ion source for ionising the reactant to reactant ions or a ligand compound ion ion source for ionising the ligand compound to ligand compound ions for making said ligand compound ions available in said reaction volume (the device disclosed by modified Miller is fully capable of performing the instantly claimed functions, see: rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein said mass spectrometer includes a mass analyser for mass analysing said resulting ions in order to mass analyse said analytes, wherein said mass analyser is fluidly coupled to said chemical ionisation ion source for receiving the resulting ions ([0030], see: mass spectrometer; [0182], see: plurality of analytical techniques, including MS, LCMS, TOF).
Miller does not explicitly disclose the said reactant ions are one of I-, Br-, Cl-, CF30-, acetate-, NH4+, amine+, ethanol+, and H3O+.
Puton teaches an analogous ion mobility spectrometry method comprising the use of a plurality of dopants on a plurality of reactant ions, there reactant ions including bromide and chloride reactant ions (pg. 985/3.2.1. Halide reactant ions), ammonium (pg. 983/3.1.3. Ammonia), alkanoamines (pg. 984/3.1.5. Higher ketons), and ethanol and hydronium (pg. 982/3.1.1. Acetone). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select use the IMS method and device disclosed by Millet, to ionize and analyze the reactant ions taught by Puton, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2012/0025070 A1), in view of Puton et al. (Ion mobility spectrometers with doped gases, cited in IDS filed 05/09/2022), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee et al. (An Iodide-Adduct High-Resolution Time-of-Flight Chemical-Ionization Mass Spectrometer: Application to Atmospheric Inorganic and Organic Compounds, cited in IDS filed 05/09/2022).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 19-20, Miller further discloses diffusion and mobility constants generally depend on temperature, necessitating a temperature control system [0333]-[0334].
Modified Miller does not explicitly disclose the temperature in said reaction volume being constantly maintained within a bandwidth of 2 degrees Celsius, in a temperature range between 40° and 100°C, while executing said chemical ionization method.
Lee teaches an analogous method of chemical ionization comprising controlling an ion-molecule reaction region temperature within 0.2°C, at a 40°C set point (pg. 6310/2. EXPERIMENTAL SECTION). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the temperature of the device disclosed by modified Miller to within 0.2°C and at a 40°C set point, as taught by Lee, since such a modification would have provided for the tuning of diffusion and mobility constants, thereby improving analysis accuracy (Miller: [0333]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 12, and 14-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J EOM whose telephone number is (571)270-7075. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM).
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 5712721254. 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.
/ROBERT J EOM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights