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 .
Corrected Office Action
In the previous Final Rejection field 1/20/2026, Examiner indicated claims 18-20 as being allowable as dependent on allowed claim 5. However, claims 18-20 were actually dependent on rejected claim 10 instead. Therefore, since claims 18-20 were not found to be allowable upon review, new grounds of rejection are set forth in this action for claims 18-20. No other changes have been made to the text of the previous Final Rejection.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The Amendment filed 8/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending on the application. Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 5-15 in the reply filed on 5/8/2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and the Claims have overcome each and every objection to the Specification and the Claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6/5/2025.
Applicant argues:
The Office Action relies on Damoc to cure this deficiency, asserting that Damoc teaches a second gas "in order to provide a buffer gas for increasing the resolution of the analysis." However, Damoc's paragraph 74 explicitly states that when "a high-resolution analysis is selected, the control process progresses to Step S240 where a light weight buffer gas, for example, helium (He) or hydrogen (H.sub.2), from the gas supply 185 is selected, which reduces trapping efficiency in the C-trap 140, decreasing signal intensity, and reduced fragmentation efficiency in the HCD collision cell 145, but slows transient decay in the mass analyzer 165, increasing resolution." This passage confirms that Damoc's gas selection occurs during analysis - not "at a time of non-measurement" as claim 5 recites.
Furthermore, Damoc's entire control scheme is designed for optimizing measurement
performance. As described in paragraph 7, Damoc's controller sets "a property of the first gas on the basis of a characteristic of the analysis to be performed by the mass spectrometer." Paragraphs 62-75 detail how different gases are selected based on expected mass ranges and desired resolution - all for optimizing the ongoing analysis. Damoc never mentions or suggests any operation performed "at a time of non-measurement."
Even if Takahashi and Damoc were combined as proposed by the Office Action, the resulting system would merely provide options for different gases during measurement operations. The combination would not result in a control unit configured to perform a "second operation of introducing the second gas into the inside of the reaction chamber at a time of non- measurement" as claim 5 explicitly recites.
The distinction between operations performed "during measurement" versus "at a time of non-measurement" represents a fundamental structural and operational difference. Claim 5's control unit is configured to perform two temporally distinct operations - one during active sample analysis and another when no measurement is occurring. Neither Takahashi nor Damoc, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests this dual-mode operational capability.
The Office Action's proposed modification to add Damoc's gas selection to Takahashi would, at best, provide multiple gas options for the measurement operation. It would not result in the claimed control unit configuration that performs distinct operations at different operational times - specifically, one "during measurement of the sample component" and another "at a time of non-measurement.”
For reasons elaborated on in the reasons for allowance, this argument is found persuasive, as Applicant’s amendments have placed claim 5 in condition for allowance. As such, Applicant’s subsequent arguments regarding the dependent claims are moot, as dependent claims 6-9 and 16-17 are allowable by virtue of being dependent on independent claim 5.
Without knowledge of electrode surface materials or their oxide decomposition characteristics, Takahashi cannot anticipate or render obvious the specific material limitation requiring "a metal whose oxide has a thermal decomposition temperature of 500°C or lower."
The Office Action relies on Baba's teaching that "it is effective for highly efficient injection of ions and stable monitoring of electron intensity to make the wall electrode 106 chemically stable by plating with gold graphite particle and the like and avoid a change of the surface caused by electron irradiation." However, Baba addresses an entirely different technical field and problem than the claimed invention.
Baba describes electron capture dissociation devices where electrodes are subjected to electron irradiation, not radical-based oxidation. The gold plating serves to provide chemical stability and prevent surface changes during electron bombardment. Critically, Baba provides no teaching regarding thermal decomposition temperatures, heating operations, or oxide removal. The reference mentions no temperatures, thermal effects, or decomposition processes whatsoever. Baba's gold plating maintains chemical stability during operation, whereas the claimed invention requires specific thermal decomposition properties for maintenance heating operations.
Baba describes electron capture dissociation devices operating in a fundamentally different technical environment than the claimed invention. The reference at paragraph [0081 ] states that "it is effective for highly efficient injection of ions and stable monitoring of electron intensity to make the wall electrode 106 chemically stable by plating with gold graphite particle and the like and avoid a change of the surface caused by electron irradiation." This teaching addresses maintaining electrode stability during electron bombardment in electron capture dissociation processes.
The claimed invention, by contrast, operates in an environment where Claim 10 recites oxidation reactant introduction unit configured to introduce a gas or a radical having oxidizing ability into an inside of the reaction chamber." The specification explains at paragraph [0021 ]that "while analysis of introducing a gas or a radical having oxidizing ability into the reaction chamber to generate product ions is repeatedly performed, surfaces of the electrode disposed in the reaction chamber are oxidized." The technical problem addressed involves oxidative degradation from repeated radical exposure, not electron-induced surface changes.
Claim 10 recites "an electrode...having a surface formed of a metal whose oxide has a thermal decomposition temperature of 500°C or lower" and "a heating unit configured to heat the electrode to the thermal decomposition temperature." These limitations require knowledge of specific thermal properties and decomposition behavior of metal oxides.
Baba provides no teaching regarding thermal decomposition temperatures, heating operations, or temperature-related properties of electrode materials. The reference mentions gold plating solely for "chemical stability" purposes during electron irradiation. Baba contains no disclosure of temperature values, thermal effects, decomposition processes, or heating-related electrode maintenance. The reference operates entirely within the context of preventing surface changes during operation, not removing already-formed surface layers through thermal treatment.
In other words, Baba's gold plating serves to "make the wall electrode chemically stable “and "avoid a change of the surface caused by electron irradiation" during ongoing analytical operations This represents a preventive approach during normal operation to maintain surface integrity under electron bombardment conditions.
The claimed invention's approach, as described in the specification at paragraph [0022], involves using "a metal whose oxide has a thermal decomposition temperature of 500°C or lower" to enable "removal of the oxide without causing expansion or distortion in the electrode." This represents a corrective maintenance approach using specific thermal properties to restore electrode performance after oxidative degradation has occurred. Baba mentions gold plating without any teaching about thermal decomposition properties, temperature thresholds, or thermal maintenance considerations. The reference provides no technical basis for understanding why specific thermal decomposition temperatures would be relevant to electrode design or operation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to consider Baba's electron-stability gold plating when addressing the different problem of thermal oxide removal in oxidizing radical environments. The references address distinct technical challenges through different mechanisms and would not naturally suggest combination.
Examiner notes that the reason to modify the primary reference does not need to be the same as that of having a feature in the instant invention. If there is an independent reason to modify the primary reference to have gold plated electrodes, then the modified primary reference would satisfy the limitation of the electrode surface being formed of a metal whose oxide has a thermal decomposition temperature of 500 C or lower. Gold oxide has a thermal decomposition temperature of 500 C or less (NPL Higo pg. 3 par. 1: “The Au 4f and O 1s spectra of the gold oxides that were heated at 250, 300, 400, and 500 °C for 3 h in a high vacuum also showed complete decomposition of the oxides”).
The independent reason in this case is that gold is a chemically stable element, which enables the electrode to resist chemical alteration during operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that gold is a chemically stable element in general which would work for resisting chemical changes from radicals as well.
Hull (US 4135094 A) confirms this (C4L12-16: This sputtering electrode 50 may be in the form of a small support disc 46 with a coating of any suitable metal, preferably a relatively high electrical conductivity metal such as gold which is generally stable and nonreactive).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the measurement operation” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 19 is interpreted as reciting “a measurement operation”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (WO 2018186286 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS of 3/16/2022, translation copy provided by Examiner and relied upon in Office Action filed 6/5/2025) in view of Baba (US 20060169892 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi teaches an ion analyzer configured to generate product ions from precursor ions derived from a sample component, and analyze the product ions, the ion analyzer comprising (abstract: Provided is an ion analyzer for generating product ions from specimen component-derived precursor ions, and analyzing such product ions):
a reaction chamber into which the precursor ions are introduced (Fig. 8: reaction chamber 2);
an oxidation reactant introduction unit configured to introduce a gas or a radical having oxidizing ability into an inside of the reaction chamber (Fig. 8: gas supply source 52; pg. 3 last par.: …when air is used; NOTE: air contains oxygen, which has oxidizing ability and produces oxygen radicals);
an electrode disposed in the reaction chamber and/or in a space communicating with the reaction chamber (Fig. 8: electrodes 21, 22, 24), and
a heating unit configured to heat the electrode to the temperature (Fig. 8: ceramic heater 28) but does not teach
the electrode having a surface formed of a metal whose oxide has a thermal decomposition temperature of 500 C or lower.
Takahashi teaches electrodes but does not teach what material forms the surfaces of the electrodes.
Baba teaches a mass spectrometer involving electrodes for ion generation (abstract: An electron capture dissociation device to implement a combination of electron capture dissociation and collision dissociation and a mass spectrometer with the use thereof are provided. This device includes a linear ion trap provided with linear multipole electrodes…). Baba teaches wherein the electrodes are gold plated in order to chemically stabilize them which is advantageous for ion injection efficiency and the stable monitoring of electron intensity (par. 81: In addition, it is effective for highly efficient injection of ions and stable monitoring of electron intensity to make the wall electrode 106 chemically stable by plating with gold graphite particle and the like and avoid a change of the surface caused by electron irradiation).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrodes of Takahashi to be gold plated, as taught by Baba, in order to increase the efficiency of the ion injection and promote stable monitoring of the electron intensity within a mass spectrometer.
According to Applicant’s Specification par. 22, gold has a thermal decomposition temperature of 500 C or lower and according to Applicant’s Specification par. 132, gold’s thermal decomposition temperature is 200 C or lower. Takahashi’s heater can heat up to temperatures of 300 C, so it would be capable of heating the gold to its thermal decomposition temperature (pg. 8 par. 1: Although there is no particular upper limit of the heating temperature, it is considered that the reactive gas is almost completely removed by heating the ion trap to about 300 ° C).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi modified Baba teaches the ion analyzer according to claim 10, as set forth above, and teaches further comprising a control unit configured to control operations of the oxidation reactant introduction unit and the heating unit, the control unit being configured to perform a first operation of introducing a gas or a radical having oxidizing ability into the inside of the reaction chamber (pg. 4 par. 1: flow path for supplying a raw material gas from the raw material gas supply source 52 to the radical generation chamber 51 is provided, and a valve 56 for adjusting the flow rate of the raw material gas is provided on the flow path; pg. 4 par. 5: Thereafter, the valve 56 of the radical irradiation unit 5 is opened, and a gas containing radicals generated in the radical generation chamber 51 is ejected from the nozzle 54. The gas molecules are removed by the skimmer 55 positioned in front of the jet flow, and radicals that have passed through the openings of the skimmer 55 are formed into a narrow beam shape, and the radical particle inlet 26 formed in the ring electrode 21. Pass through. This radical is introduced into the ion trap 2) and a second operation of heating the electrode to the thermal decomposition temperature (NOTE: According to Applicant’s Specification par. 22, gold has a thermal decomposition temperature of 500 C or lower and according to Applicant’s Specification par. 132, gold’s thermal decomposition temperature is 200 C or lower. Takahashi’s heater is taught to heat up to temperatures of 300 C, so it would be capable of heating the gold to its thermal decomposition temperature (pg. 8 par. 1: Although there is no particular upper limit of the heating temperature, it is considered that the reactive gas is almost completely removed by heating the ion trap to about 300 ° C; see Fig. 8 wherein control unit 8 is connected to heater 28).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi modified by Baba teaches the ion analyzer according to claim 10, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the thermal decomposition temperature of the oxide of the metal is 200°C or lower (see gold plating modification in claim 10 rejection; according to Applicant’s Specification par. 132: Examples of the metal having a thermal decomposition temperature of the oxide of 200 C or lower include gold, platinum, iridium, palladium, and silver in the ion analyzer of the clause).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi modified by Baba teaches the ion analyzer according to claim 10, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the metal is gold, platinum, iridium, palladium, or silver (see Baba modification in claim 10 rejection).
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi modified by Baba teaches the ion analyzer according to claim 10, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the gas or the radical having oxidizing ability is any of an oxygen gas (Fig. 8: gas supply source 52; pg. 3 last par.: …when air is used; NOTE: air contains oxygen), an oxygen radical, an hydroxyl radical, an ozone gas, and a carbon monoxide gas.
Regarding claim 18, Takahashi modified by Baba teaches the ion analyzer according to claim 11, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the first operation is a measurement operation comprising introducing the radicals into the reaction chamber to generate the product ions from the precursor ions (abstract: Provided is an ion analyzer for generating product ions from specimen component-derived precursor ions, and analyzing such product ions; pg. 4 par. 5: Thereafter, the valve 56 of the radical irradiation unit 5 is opened, and a gas containing radicals generated in the radical generation chamber 51 is ejected from the nozzle 54. The gas molecules are removed by the skimmer 55 positioned in front of the jet flow, and radicals that have passed through the openings of the skimmer 55 are formed into a narrow beam shape, and the radical particle inlet 26 formed in the ring electrode 21. Pass through. This radical is introduced into the ion trap 2; NOTE: since the first operation is part of a larger measurement operation, it is interpreted to be a measurement operation).
Regarding claim 19, Takahashi modified by Baba teaches the ion analyzer according to claim 11, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the second operation is a maintenance operation comprising heating the electrode to thermal decomposition temperature to remove metal oxide formed during the first operation and prevent deterioration of detection sensitivity and mass accuracy of the product ions, (See Baba modification in claim 10 rejection; pg. 8 par. 1: Although there is no particular upper limit of the heating temperature, it is considered that the reactive gas is almost completely removed by heating the ion trap to about 300 ° C) wherein the maintenance operation is performed separately from the measurement operation (as set forth above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 19, “the measurement operation” is interpreted as “a measurement operation”, in which case a measurement operation could be any operation that measures something, even one that is not related to the ion analyzer, such as measuring a length of an object; even if “the measurement operation” was referring to the first operation recited in claim 18, the heating step can still be interpreted as a separate operation from the first operation of introducing radicals since they involve two different actions that are performed by two separate structural features).
Regarding claim 20, Takahashi modified by Baba teaches the ion analyzer according to claim 10, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the heating unit configured to heat the electrode to the thermal decomposition temperature in maintenance to remove metal oxide formed during measurement, and prevent deterioration of ion detection sensitivity and mass accuracy (See Baba modification in claim 10 rejection; pg. 8 par. 1: Although there is no particular upper limit of the heating temperature, it is considered that the reactive gas is almost completely removed by heating the ion trap to about 300 ° C; this step is interpreted to be a maintenance step because a temperature is maintained for a finite period of time).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi modified by Baba in view of Damoc.
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi modified by Baba teaches the ion analyzer according to claim 10, as set forth above, but does not teach further comprising a hydrogen introduction unit configured to introduce a hydrogen gas into the inside of the reaction chamber.
Damoc teaches a first gas and a second gas, which can be hydrogen, both being fed into a radical generation unit (Fig. 1: higher-energy collision dissociation cell 145, gas supply 185 container two different gases) in order to provide a buffer gas for increasing the resolution of the analysis, wherein a controller controls the introduction of the second gas into to the inside of the reaction chamber (par. 74: Where a high-resolution analysis is selected, the control process progresses to Step S240 where a light weight buffer gas, for example, helium (He) or hydrogen (H.sub.2), from the gas supply 185 is selected, which reduces trapping efficiency in the C-trap 140, decreasing signal intensity, and reduced fragmentation efficiency in the HCD collision cell 145, but slows transient decay in the mass analyzer 165, increasing resolution). It is noted that the collision cell of Damoc is analogous to the radical generation unit of Takahashi because both generate ions from a gas (par. 2: Examples of the ion optical elements that a mass spectrometer may have include an element for collision induced dissociation (a collision cell)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takahashi modified by Baba to have a second gas supply source comprising hydrogen that is also fed into the radical generation unit, wherein the controller also controls the introduction of the second gas into the reaction chamber, as taught by Damoc, in order to have the option of increasing the resolution of the ion analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 16-17 are allowed.
Claim 5 is allowed in view of Takahashi in view of Damoc (US 20160203964 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS of 3/16/2022).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi teaches an ion analyzer configured to generate product ions from precursor ions derived from a sample component, and analyze the product ions (abstract: Provided is an ion analyzer for generating product ions from specimen component-derived precursor ions, and analyzing such product ions), the ion analyzer comprising:
a reaction chamber into which the precursor ions are introduced (Fig. 8: reaction chamber 2);
a gas supply unit capable of supplying a first gas which is a gas having oxidizing
ability (Fig. 8: a source supply source 52)
a radical generation unit configured to generate radicals from the first gas (Fig. 8: radical generation chamber 51);
a radical introduction unit configured to introduce the radicals generated in the radical generation unit into an inside of the reaction chamber (pg. 4 par. 5: Thereafter, the valve 56 of the radical irradiation unit 5 is opened, and a gas containing radicals generated in the radical generation chamber 51 is ejected from the nozzle 54); and
a control unit configured to control operations of the gas supply unit (Fig. 8: control unit 8 linked to valve 56), the radical generation unit, and the radical introduction unit, the control unit being configured to perform a first operation of introducing the radicals generated from the first gas by the radical generation unit into the inside of the reaction chamber (pg. 4 par. 1: flow path for supplying a raw material gas from the raw material gas supply source 52 to the radical generation chamber 51 is provided, and a valve 56 for adjusting the flow rate of the raw material gas is provided on the flow path; pg. 4 par. 5: Thereafter, the valve 56 of the radical irradiation unit 5 is opened, and a gas containing radicals generated in the radical generation chamber 51 is ejected from the nozzle 54. The gas molecules are removed by the skimmer 55 positioned in front of the jet flow, and radicals that have passed through the openings of the skimmer 55 are formed into a narrow beam shape, and the radical particle inlet 26 formed in the ring electrode 21. Pass through. This radical is introduced into the ion trap 2) but does not teach
and a second gas which is a gas having reducing ability;
and a second operation of introducing the second gas into the inside of the reaction chamber.
Damoc also teaches a mass spectrometer for analyzing ions (abstract: The present disclosure provides a mass spectrometer for performing an analysis of sample ions). Damoc teaches a first gas and a second gas, which can be hydrogen, both being fed into a radical generation unit (Fig. 1: higher-energy collision dissociation cell 145, gas supply 185 container two different gases) in order to provide a buffer gas for increasing the resolution of the analysis, wherein a controller controls the introduction of the second gas into to the inside of the reaction chamber (par. 74: Where a high-resolution analysis is selected, the control process progresses to Step S240 where a light weight buffer gas, for example, helium (He) or hydrogen (H.sub.2), from the gas supply 185 is selected, which reduces trapping efficiency in the C-trap 140, decreasing signal intensity, and reduced fragmentation efficiency in the HCD collision cell 145, but slows transient decay in the mass analyzer 165, increasing resolution). It is noted that the collision cell of Damoc is analogous to the radical generation unit of Takahashi because both generate ions from a gas (par. 2: Examples of the ion optical elements that a mass spectrometer may have include an element for collision induced dissociation (a collision cell)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takahashi to have a second gas supply source comprising hydrogen that is also fed into the radical generation unit, wherein the controller also controls the introduction of the second gas into the reaction chamber, as taught by Damoc, in order to have the option of increasing the resolution of the ion analysis.
However, Takahashi modified by Damoc does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to perform the first operation during measurement of the sample component but perform the second operation at a time of non-measurement. This claim is interpreted to recite that the first operation occurs before the second operation by virtue of the operations being called “first” and “second”. As argued by Applicant, since the Damoc modification is intended to introduce a second gas to increase the resolution of the ion analysis, the second gas must necessarily be introduced at a time of measurement, as opposed to non-measurement. By contrast, the instant claim recites wherein the measurement occurs after the first gas is introduced but prior to the second gas being introduced.
Moreover, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takahashi to read on this limitation because in the prior art, a second gas is usually introduced prior to measurement as a buffer gas so that measurement can be conducted more effectively.
Claims 6-9 and 16-17 are allowed as dependent on claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGRU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Elizabeth A. Robinson can be reached on (571) 272-7129. 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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799