DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “remarks”, filed 02 September 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8 and 21 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sun et al. (CN201610105705) (copy of publication submitted herewith).
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomany (US pgPub 2015/0294837) in view of Karancsi et al. (US pgPub 2018/0038838) and further in view of Sun et al. (CN105567919) (copy of publication submitted herewith)
Regarding claim 1, Tomany teaches an atmospheric pressure ionization ion source (paragraph [0159] note: API (atmospheric pressure ion source), [0004]) comprising:
a sprayer (fig. 1, 1) configured to produce a spray of droplets ([0171]);
a target (target 10), wherein the spray of droplets is arranged to impact upon the target ([0203]);
a heater configured to heat the target ([0192] teaches indirectly heating the target by the source heater); and
a voltage source configured to apply a voltage to the target (the target 10 is preferably held at a 2.2kV, thus a voltage source is inherent see paragraph [0173]);
wherein the ion source is configured to operate at atmospheric pressure (API in paragraph [0159], wherein API is abbreviated for atmospheric pressure ionization, see paragraph [0004]).
While Tomany teaches that the target is indirectly heated by a heater ([0192]) and a heated stainless steel target ([0193]), Tomany fails to disclose the type of heater to indirectly heat the target, wherein the target comprises an electrically conductive and/or ferrous material, wherein the heater comprises an induction coil.
However, Karancsi et al. teaches an inductive heater configured to heat the target ([0591] and figure 14 discussing inductive heating of collision surface 215), wherein the target comprises an electrically conductive and/or ferrous material (Karancsi, [0041] teaches the outer collision surface may be metal such as steel or nickel (Karancsi, both are electrically conductive) or iron chromium aluminum (ferrous material), wherein the heater comprises an induction coil (an inductive heater inherently requires a coil).
Karancsi et al. modifies Tomany by providing a structure to indirectly heat by an inductive heater.
Since both inventions are directed towards indirectly heating the target, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the inductive heating structure of Karancsi in the device of Tomany because it would resolve how to provide indirect heating.
While, Karancsi shows a region of 215 not surrounded by coils Tomany in view of Karancsi fails to describe the structure of the inductive heater, thus fails to teach the indication coil arranged such that two regions of an outer surface of the target are surrounded by the induction coil and such that a region of the outer surface of the target that is between the two regions is not surrounded by the induction coil.
However, Sun et al. teach wherein the indication coil (fig. 1, 8) arranged such that two regions of an outer surface of the target are surrounded by the induction coil (two ends of rod 9 are surrounded by the induction coil) and such that a region of the outer surface of the target that is between the two regions is not surrounded by the induction coil (region of 9 between coils surrounding the ends of rod 9).
Sun et al. modifies the combined device by suggesting how to implement an inductive heating coil into a target surface such as suggested in the combined device.
Since both inventions are directed towards inductive heating of an elongated surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the heating coil of Sun et al. into the device of Tomany in view of Karancsi because by simultaneously heating the two ends of the rod energy consumption is low and induction heating efficiency is high (see translated abstract). Note Sun et al. is pertinent to the problem the applicant wishes to solve (i.e. improving heating efficiency [0226] of the instant published application).
While the structure is suggested by the combined device Tomany in view of Karancsi in view of Sun et al. fail to expressly recite wherein the spray of droplets impact upon the outer surface of the target that is between the two regions.
However, Karancsi teaches a mixture of analyte sample and matrix are transferred from through the inlet capillary 206 and emerge from the inlet capillary 206 and impact upon the collision surface 215 (fig. 14 and paragraph [0592]), wherein the collision surface is inductively heated ([0591]). That is, Karancsi suggests the spray should impact the collision surface (i.e. absent any coils). Since Sun et al. suggest a surface area of a rod between two coil regions at the end of the rod, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the spray of droplets suggested in Tomany in view of Karancsi impact surface between the coils as suggested by Sun et al. because it would ensure the spray impacts the collision surface to result in the generation of analyte ions ([0510], Karancsi), while protecting the inductive coils from contamination from the aerosol and maintaining the heating efficiency suggested in Sun et al.
Regarding claim 4, Tomany in view Karancsi teaches voltage and/or current source configured to pass an AC current through the induction coil (Karancsi, [0082]-[0083] teach AC voltage to one or more electrodes to cause heat to dissipate into the target, [0591] teaches inductive heater, thus requiring a coil. Therefore in order for the AC voltage to dissipate heat via electrodes in the inductive heater, the AC current must inherently pass through the induction coil).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szalay (WO 2013/098642) in view of Takats (US pgPub 2018/0059119) and further in view of Sun et al..
Regarding claim 1, Szalay teaches an atmospheric pressure ionization ion source (figs. 5A and 5B, note paragraph [0058]) comprising:
a sprayer spray (sample inlet 110’ introduce gas carrying aerosol particles 520, thus interpreted to be a sprayer because aerosol particles) configured to produce a spray of droplets (aerosol contains droplets);
a target (530), wherein the spray of droplets is arranged to impact upon the target (abstract);
a heater configured to heat the target ([0060]); and
a voltage source configured to apply a voltage to the target ([0060]);
wherein the ion source is configured to operate at atmospheric pressure ([0058] atmospheric region to vacuum region, thus ion source operates at atmospheric pressure)
wherein the target comprises an electrically conductive material ([0060]).
While Szalay teaches resistive heating the target ([0051]), Szalay fails to disclose inductive heating.
However, Takats teaches inductive heating may be used instead of resistive heating for heating the target ([0467]) wherein the heater comprises an induction coil (inherent to an inductive heater) such that a second region of the outer surface of the target is other than surrounded by the induction coil (collision surface 70 is not surrounded by a coil); and wherein the spray of droplets is arranged to impact upon the second region of the target (inherent to a collision surface).
Takats modifies Szalay by suggesting that inductive or a resistive heater may be used interchangeably.
Since both inventions are directed towards heating a target, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exchange the resistive heater with the inductive heater because it would lead to predictable results of heating the target.
While, Takats shows a region of 70 not surrounded by coils Szalay in view of Takats fails to describe the structure of the inductive heater, thus fails to teach the indication coil arranged such that two regions of an outer surface of the target are surrounded by the induction coil and such that a region of the outer surface of the target that is between the two regions is not surrounded by the induction coil.
However, Sun et al. teach wherein the indication coil (fig. 1, 8) arranged such that two regions of an outer surface of the target are surrounded by the induction coil (two ends of rod 9 are surrounded by the induction coil) and such that a region of the outer surface of the target that is between the two regions is not surrounded by the induction coil (region of 9 between coils surrounding the ends of rod 9).
Sun et al. modifies the combined device by suggesting how to implement an inductive heating coil into a target surface such as suggested in the combined device.
Since both inventions are directed towards inductive heating of an elongated surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the heating coil of Sun et al. into the device of Szalay in view of Takats because by simultaneously heating the two ends of the rod, energy consumption is low and induction heating efficiency is high (see translated abstract). Note Sun et al. is pertinent to the problem the applicant wishes to solve (i.e. improving heating efficiency [0226] of the instant published application).
While the structure is suggested by the combined device Szalay in view of Takats in view of Sun et al. fail to expressly recite wherein the spray of droplets impact upon the outer surface of the target that is between the two regions.
However, Takats teaches a mixture of analyte sample and matrix are transferred from through the inlet capillary 40 and emerge from the inlet capillary 40and impact upon the collision surface 70 (fig. 3 and paragraph [0467]), wherein the collision surface is inductively heated ([0467]). That is, Takats suggests the spray should impact the collision surface (i.e. absent any coils). Since Sun et al. suggest a surface area of a rod between two coil regions at the end of the rod, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the spray of droplets suggested in Szalay in view of Takats impact surface between the coils as suggested by Sun et al. because it would ensure the spray impacts the collision surface to result in the generation of analyte ions ([0421], Takats), while protecting the inductive coils from contamination from the aerosol and maintaining the heating efficiency suggested in Sun et al.
Claims 7-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomany in view of Karancsi in view of Sun et al. and further in view of Cristoni et al. (US pgPub 2006/0145089).
Regarding claim 7, Tomany in view of Karancsi of Sun et al. fails to disclose wherein the first region comprise a first electrically conductive material wherein the second region comprises a second different material, wherein the second material is more resistant to corrosion than the first material.
However, Cristoni et al. teach wherein the first region comprise a first electrically conductive material (metal plate 4, see paragraph [0053]) wherein the second region comprises a second different material, wherein the second material is more resistant to corrosion than the first material ([0053], active surface 4’ may be glass, glass, silica, or PTFE which more resistant to corrosion then metal).
Cristoni et al. modifies Tomany in view of Karancsi and Cheng by having the active surface a layer on the supporting surface.
Since both inventions are directed towards impaction ionization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the layered design of Cristoni as the target of Tomany in view of Karancsi in view of Cheng because it would allow for good performance of ionization ([0053]). Moreover, Karancsi is evidence that that a single material was known to be used for a target. Cristoni is evidence of a similar target that substitutes a single material for two materials ([0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the singe material for two materials as discussed in Cristoni because it would result in predictable ionization (See MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
Regarding claim 8, Tomany in view of Karancsi in view of Sun et al. in view of Cristoni teach wherein the target comprises a third different material configured to connect the first material to the second material (Cristoni, connecting means 5 in figure 1 connects 4 and 4’ to power source 20, see paragraphs [0053]-[0054]), wherein the third different material has a higher thermal conductivity than the second material (Cristoni [0054], 5 is made of electrically conductive materials (i.e. metal), thus having a higher thermal conductivity than 4’ when it is made of a polymer ([0053])). The rational for the combination is the same as discussed above.
Regarding claim 21, the combined device fails to disclose wherein the voltage source is configured to apply a voltage of
≥
500 V.
However, Cristoni teaches applying a voltage of
≥
500 V ([0055]).
Christoni modifies the combined device by suggesting a voltage to be applied to the target.
Since both inventions are directed towards impact ionization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the voltage suggested by Cristoni to the combined device because a voltage of about 200 V allows for the ionization yield to be increased.
Relevant art:
Cristoni et al. (US pgPub 2006/0145089) teaches a target for ionization. The target is made of two materials 4’ and 4 ([0053]).
Bajic (US pgPub 20140151547) also teaches a target for ionization of an aerosol.
Conclusion
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