DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f):
The remarks do not concede that the claims should be interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f). However provide no arguments to rebut the interpretation. This has not been found persuasive. 37 CRF 1.111(b) recites: “ In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. ”
Here, no specific supposed errors are pointed out. Therefore, this is not a fully responsive reply. However, MPEP 714.03 suggest that the amendment may be accepted as an adequate reply. Here, the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) still applies as there have been no specific supposed errors pointed out in the claim interpretation.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
By amendment to claim 9 the rejection under 112(b) has been overcome and is withdrawn. Specifically claim 9 now requires “the at least two different dissociation techniques include two or more of…” Since claim 1 requires the dissociation techniques to be “orthogonal”, the claim is clear that two or more of the listed techniques does not allow for two of the same dissociation techniques.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 103:
Page 11 of the remarks take the position that Blomfield does not teach using a first and second orthogonal dissociation techniques. This has not been found persuasive as Baba was relied upon for teaching the orthogonal dissociation techniques.
The remarks then take the position that the rejection does not teach first and second orthogonal dissociation techniques to corresponding DIA precursor mass section windows.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Bloomfield as relied upon for teaching two different dissociation techniques in a DIA experiment. Bloomfield only failed to disclose the dissociation techniques to be orthogonal. However, Baba teaches using orthogonal dissociation techniques where, as discussed in paragraph [0160]-[0161], the method of Baba is capable of fragmenting the same precursor ion using the two orthogonal dissociation techniques and that it was known that the CID and ExD data may be combined ([0073]).
That is, Bloomfield already discloses the claimed method with the exception of using two orthogonal techniques. Baba suggests an apparatus that is capable of using two orthogonal dissociation techniques to fragment the same precursor ion and combine that data. Therefore, individually attacking references is not sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection that is based on the combination.
The remarks continue by arguing that the modification of Bloomfield by Baba does not suggest the claimed DIA cycle structure of selecting, dissociating, and mass analyzing each window of both sets within the specified cycle time with resulting measurements combine and analyzed.
This has not been found persuasive because Bloomfield teaches each of these steps, including combining data ([0056]) from two different dissociation techniques (low and high energy CID, Non-Final Rejection of 28 May 2026, pages 11-13).
Baba teaches a reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use two orthogonal techniques (mainly to improve identification). Moreover, Baba is evidence that combining orthogonal dissociation data was known to the art ([0073]). Therefore, while Bloomfield teaches the combination of data is from two different parallel dissociation techniques (i.e. CID low energy and CID high energy), as evidenced by Baba, combining data from two different orthogonal techniques is within the skill of the art. Thus the modification to Bloomfield by Baba is not a change to the DIA framework of Bloomfield, but rather the orthogonal dissociation techniques.
Moreover, as discussed in the interview summary, Baba recognized that CID or ECD alone results in lost information and suggests that using both improves identification ([0021] and [0023]). Therefore, modifying the method of Bloomfield to use the orthogonal techniques suggested in Baba and combining data from such orthogonal techniques would have the advantage of improving identification in the method of Bloomfield.
The remarks again argue that the rejection does not suggest any teaching in Baba to processing corresponding DIA window of first and second sets within each cycle time. This has been unpersuasive as processing corresponding DIA windows of first and second sets within each cycle time is taught by the primary reference Bloomfield.
That is, Bloomfield teaches the entire method of claim 1 except the orthogonal dissociation techniques. Baba is evidence that using orthogonal dissociation techniques improves identification. While Bloomfield teaches the data combined is not from orthogonal dissociation techniques, it is combined over the same window during the same cycle. Baba is further evidence that combining data from two different orthogonal dissociation techniques were known to the art ([0073]). Therefore, because Bloomfield already discloses combining data from two different dissociation techniques over the same window and Baba is evidence that techniques to combine data from orthogonal dissociation techniques was known, the combination makes obvious the claimed invention.
The remarks continue that there is no motivation to modify the DIA framework of Bloomfield. This has not been found persuasive as the modification was not to change the DIA framework of Bloomfield. Instead it was to use orthogonal dissociation techniques as disclosed in Baba and that the combination step of Bloomfield was applicable with two different orthogonal dissociation techniques (Baba, paragraph [0073]). Therefore the remarks are unpersuasive.
The remarks then continue by suggesting the substitution would result in both CID and ExD for each specified cycle time is not disclosed in either reference.
This is a misrepresentation of the rejection. Specifically, Bloomfield does disclose two different types of dissociation in each specified cycle time.
Bloomfield is only silent on the point that the dissociation techniques are orthogonal. Therefore, the modification by Baba is only to the dissociation techniques to be orthogonal. Otherwise the DIA framework of Bloomfield would be unchanged.
Therefore the remarks are unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
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:
“one or more dissociation devices that perform at least two different orthogonal dissociation techniques” in claim 1.
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 § 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 1-4, 6-12 and 14-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomfield (US pgPub 2018/0012742) in view of Baba (WO 2019186322) (submitted with DIS of 03 May 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Bloomfield teaches a system (figs. 7-8) for performing at least two different dissociation techniques in a data-independent acquisition (DIA) mass spectrometry experiment ([0063] teaches a tandem mass spectrometry DIA experiment with different values for a fragmentation parameter. Paragraph [0061] teaches the fragmentation parameter provides increasingly more aggressive values such as RF excitation or increasingly more aggressive electron energies for ECD. The different fragmentation parameter values are interpreted to be two different dissociation techniques because the first parameter value fragments minimal amounts of ions of the ion beam, wherein the one or more additional values have increasingly aggressive values that produce increasingly more fragmentation of the ions in the ion beam ([0069]). In other words, the first fragmentation parameter is a different dissociation technique from the second fragmentation parameter because different RF excitation or electron energy results in increased fragmentation (i.e. first technique = minimal fragmentation, second technique = increased fragmentation). Note: under the BRI, the instant claims only require a single dissociation device, therefore changing the operational parameters to result in different quantities of product ions is within the scope of different dissociation techniques specifically because the claim does require how the techniques are different. Moreover, paragraph [0088] teaches the at least to different dissociation techniques performed by one or more dissociation devices include one or more of ExD…CID. That is, as understood by the instant specification different techniques may be the same dissociation technique (i.e. CID only different in some way, for instance the parameters of the dissociation).), comprising:
an ion source (710) device that ionizes compounds of a sample, producing an ion beam ([0065]); and
a tandem mass spectrometer (720) that includes:
a mass filter device ([0066] teaches the tandem mass spectrometer includes one or more physical mass filters),
one or more dissociation devices that perform at least two different dissociation techniques ([0070] teaches tandem mass spectrometer 720 performs fragmentation and paragraph [0069] teaches two or more values for a fragmentation parameter. Paragraph [0061] teaches fragmentation by CID or ECD, thus either a CID or ECD device, wherein the two different dissociation techniques are the varied fragmentation parameter), and
a mass analyzer (inherent to tandem MS) that: receives the ion beam from the ion source device (as seen in figure 7), and
a processor (730) in communication with tandem mass spectrometer that divides a specified precursor ion mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) range of the ion beam into a first set of two or more precursor ion mass selection windows and divides the precursor ion m/z range of the ion beam into a second set of two or more precursor ion mass selection windows ([0071] at step 810 in figure 8. Note while only one set of windows is shown, the instant published specification teaches at paragraph [0093] “first set 801 and second set 802 are actually the same set of three precursor ion mass selection windows. As a result, only one set of three precursor ion mass selection windows is actually used in this case”. Therefore, the first and second set are interpreted to be the same set shown in figure 8 of Bloomfield. Alternatively, interpreting the first four windows at 810 to be the first set and the subsequent two windows to be the second set),
wherein each precursor ion mass selection window of the first set corresponds to a respective precursor ion mass selection window of the second set (fig. 8 each window (810) comprises first set CE1 and second set CE2 that corresponds to each window) such that the corresponding precursor ion mass selection windows encompass a same precursor ion population (inherent because the each window is over the same m/z range, [0071])
wherein the processor (730) provides operational instructions to the tandem mass spectrometer ([0068]) which causes the tandem mass spectrometer to perform the DIA mass spectrometry experiment on the specified precursor ion m/z range ([0069]) by:
executing a series of cycles (fig. 8, 830 paragraph [0071] “In step 830, for each precursor ion isolation window of the two or more precursor ion isolation windows, tandem mass spectrometer 720 of FIG. 7 fragments the precursor ions in the precursor ion isolation window for each of the two or more values for the fragmentation parameter, producing a product ion spectrum for each value”. That is, each “CE1”-“CE3” is interpreted to be a cycle), each cycle having a cycle time ([0073] teaches for each of the two or more values for the fragmentation parameter “a time series of combined product ion spectra is produced”. That is each CE1-CE3 of figure 8 has a cycle time defined by windows at 810. See also figure 9, t1-Tn and paragraph [0074]), wherein the specified precursor ion m/z range is scanned each cycle (an m/z range is divided into two or more isolation windows in 810 and each window is fragmented at the different fragmentation energies [0071]) and each cycle corresponds to one of a plurality of portions of a retention time dimension (inherent as CE1-CE3 are sequentially performed, see also figure 9 t1-tn and time series. Note: LC is performed [0051] wherein sample introduction occurs over time thus each cycle corresponds to a retention time dimension of the LC), wherein each cycle of the series of cycles includes selecting, dissociating and mass analyzing each window of both the first and second set (since the first and second set are interpreted to be the same set (see above), each cycle (CE1-CE3) includes selecting dissociating and mass analyzing each window see paragraph [0071]. Alternatively, interpreting the first four windows to be the first set and the subsequent two windows to be the second set);
within each respective cycle of the series of cycles (cycle time is the divided windows of 810 over the m/z range—see also t1-tn in figure 9):
selecting each precursor ion mass selection window of the first set using the mass filter device (CE1 in figure 8 shows fragmentation of selected precursor ion mass selection windows divided in step 810.. Paragraph [0074] teaches mass filtering of the m/z range), dissociating precursor ions of the each window of the first set using a first dissociation technique of the at least two different dissociation techniques performed by the one or more dissociation devices (CE1 is the first fragmentation parameter (dissociation technique) resulting in less fragments as discussed above, CE1 performed for each window as seen in figure 8 and [0071]), and mass analyzing product ions generated using the first dissociation technique to produce first product ion intensity and m/z measurements for the each window of the first set (each product ion intensity/m/z measurement for each window for CE1 seen in figure 8, thus necessitating dissociation of each window of the first set of windows 810 and mass analyzing the product ions),
selecting each corresponding precursor ion mass selection window of the second set using the mass filter device (CE2 in figure 8 shows fragmentation of selected precursor ion mass selection windows divided in step 810.. Paragraph [0074] teaches mass filtering of the m/z range), dissociating precursor ions, of a same precursor ion population, of the each window of the second set using a second dissociation technique of the at least two different dissociation techniques (CE2 is the second fragmentation parameter (dissociation technique) resulting in more fragments as discussed above, CE2 performed for each window as seen in figure 8 and [0071]), and mass analyzing product ions generated using the second dissociation technique to produce second product ion intensity and m/z measurements for the each window of the second set (each product ion intensity/m/z measurement for each window for CE2 seen in figure 8, thus necessitating dissociation of each window of the first set of windows 810 and mass analyzing the product ions),
combining, for each pair of corresponding precursor ion selection windows, the first and second product ion intensity and m/z measurements to generate a combined fragmentation dataset for the same precursor ion population ([0056] teaches spectra of each of the three different energies can be combined over the isolation windows), and
analyzing the combined fragmentation dataset in a single identification or quantification process to identify or quantitate one or more compounds of the sample (paragraph [0004] teaches the product ion spectrum can be used to identify a molecule of interest and the intensity of one or more product ions can be used to quantitate the amount of the compound present in the sample).
While Bloomfield teaches any method of fragmentation may be used and calls out CID and ECD separately ([0061]), Bloomfield fails to disclose the two different dissociation techniques are orthogonal.
However, Baba teaches the two different dissociation techniques are orthogonal. (abstract note sample precursor ion is fragmented and analyzed twice).
Baba modifies Bloomfield by suggesting two fragmentations of a precursor ion by two different devices instead of using just CID or ECD as suggested in Bloomfield. In otherwords, during each specified cycle time the ions would undergo both CID and ECD. Note: Baba similar to Bloomfield suggests a mass filter (i.e. isolation device 115 in figure 14) that selects at least one precursor ion from an ion beam, fragments using the second fragmentation device 125 and mass analyzes the product. Then the mass isolation device again selects the at least one precursor ion for fragmentation via a first fragmentation device (see paragraphs [00160]-[00161]). In otherwords, Bloomfield teaches a number of cycles (CE1-CE3) which the precursor (mass window) is selected for increasing aggressive fragmentation. Baba also teaches the ability to select the same precursor for different types of fragmentation, thus suitable for the fragmentation method of Bloomfield (i.e. the only modification to the method of Bloomfield would be using different fragmentation techniques in CE1 and CE2 or as in Baba the same precursor ion(s) are twice fragmented by different fragmentation devices via action of the mass filter and processor control. Lastly, while Bloomfield does not combine data from two orthogonal dissociation devices, Baba is evidence that combining ExD and CID was known to the art ([0073]), therefore the combination would naturally result in using the combining of ExD and CID datasets in the combination of data in paragraph [0056] of Bloomfield).
Since both devices are directed towards fragmenting ions of a m/z ratio using different dissociation techniques, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CID and ExD devices of Baba to perform the first and second dissociation techniques of Bloomfield because combining the different dissociation techniques results in improved identification when glycoprotein identification is desired ([0024]) as compared with only using CID or ExD where glycan information is lost or there is an insufficient database to identify glycans using ExD ([0021] and [0023] respectively).
Regarding claim 2, Bloomfield teaches wherein the tandem mass spectrometer further, within the cycle time, selects the precursor ion m/z range using the mass filter device ([0074] teaches mass filtering of the m/z range for each time t1-tn (i.e. isolation windows)), transmits precursor ions of the precursor ion m/z range from the mass filter device to the mass analyzer using the one or more dissociation devices (Q1 to fragmentation or dissociation device to form product ion spectrum ([0074])), and mass analyzes the transmitted precursor ions using the mass analyzer, producing precursor ion intensity and m/z measurements for the precursor ion m/z range (fig. 9, intact precursor ion intensity traces [0076] at CE1, wherein CE1 causes minimal fragmentation see [0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Bloomfield teaches wherein the first set and the second set are the same set (810 see figure 8).
Regarding claim 4, Bloomfield teaches wherein the first set and the second set have different numbers of precursor ion mass selection windows (in the alternative interpretation above, first set has four windows, second set has two).
Regarding claim 6, Bloomfield teaches wherein windows of the first set have different m/z ranges than windows of the second set (in alternative interpretation, windows divided by m/z range ([0071]) thus second set has different m/z ranges than first set).
Regarding claim 7, Bloomfield teaches wherein each window of the first set is selected, dissociated, and mass analyzed before each window of the second set is selected, dissociated, and mass analyzed (in alternative interpretation first four windows are analyzed before the last two).
Regarding claim 8, Bloomfield teaches wherein at least one window of the second set is selected, dissociated, and mass analyzed after a first window of the first set is selected, dissociated, and mass analyzed and before a second window of the first set is selected, dissociated, and mass analyzed (interpreting every other window to belong to a different set).
Regarding claim 9, Bloomfield teach the at least two different dissociation techniques include ExD or CID ([0061]).
Regarding claim 10, Bloomfield teaches wherein the one or more dissociation devices comprise one dissociation device and the one dissociation device performs the first dissociation technique and the second dissociation technique (CID by changing fragmentation parameters or ECD by changing fragmentation parameters ([0061])).
Regarding claim 11, Bloomfield only discloses a single dissociation device and therefore fails to disclose wherein the one or more dissociation devices comprise a first dissociation device and a second dissociation device and the first dissociation device performs the first dissociation technique and the second dissociation device performs the second dissociation technique.
However, Baba teaches wherein the one or more dissociation devices comprise a first dissociation device and a second dissociation device and the first dissociation device performs the first dissociation technique and the second dissociation device performs the second dissociation technique (abstract note sample precursor ion is fragmented and analyzed twice).
Baba modifies Bloomfield by suggesting two fragmentations of a precursor ion by two different devices instead of using just CID or ECD as suggested in Bloomfield..
Since both devices are directed towards fragmenting ions of a m/z ratio using different dissociation techniques, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CID and ExD devices of Baba to perform the first and second dissociation techniques of Bloomfield because combining the different dissociation techniques results in improved identification when glycoprotein identification is desired ([0024]) as compared with only using CID or ExD where glycan information is lost or there is an insufficient database to identify glycans using ExD ([0021] and [0023] respectively).
Regarding claim 12, Bloomfield teaches wherein the product ion intensity and m/z measurements for the each window of the first set are analyzed separately from the product ion intensity and m/z measurements for the each window of the second set in order to identify or quantitate the compounds of the sample (each analysis at each fragmentation parameter occurs separately as indicated in figures 8-9 and combination to identify/quantitate as suggested in paragraph [0004] and [0056]).
Claim 14 is directed to the method of claim 1 and is commensurate in scope. Therefore, claim 14 is obvious for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 15 is directed to the method of claim 1 and is commensurate in scope. Therefore, claim 15 is obvious for the same reasons discussed above. Moreover, Bloomfield teaches a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory and tangible computer-readable storage medium whose contents include a program with instructions being executed on a processor ([0019]).
Claim 16 is broader in scope than claim 1 and taught as discussed herein above.
Regarding claim 17, Bloomfield teaches wherein the retention time dimension is defined by an elution separation system ([0051]).
Regarding claim 18, Bloomfield teaches wherein the elution separation system is liquid chromatography ([0051]).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomfield in view of Applicant admitted prior art (US pgPub 2023/005727 )
Regarding claim 5, Bloomfield fails to teach wherein windows of the first set have different windows widths than windows of the second set.
However, AAAPA teaches wherein windows of the first set have different windows widths than windows of the second set ([0028] note windows can have variable widths).
AAPA modifies Bloomfield by suggesting variable width windows.
Since both inventions are directed towards DIA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the variable length windows of AAPA in the device of Bloomfield because it AAPA is evidence that either the same width or variable widths will lead to predictable results ion mass selection or isolation window spans ([0028]). (Note MPEPE 2143 (I) (B)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170213713 to Green teaches switching between ETD and CID and creating windows via a filter (figs 1-2 and paragraphs [0167]-[0171])
JP2009068981 teaches sequential use of ECD and CID (see figure 1)
Data independent acquisition during a signal cycle is additionally known to at least:
US-20180240658—fig. 2, [0059]
WO-2017037563, WO2017033087—two or more mass selection windows during each cycle
US-20200234936—[0052] ion mass selection windows is selected than fragmented during each cycle.
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. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights