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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 08/28/2026 have been entered as a result of the above request for continued examination. Claims 1-6, 8-19, 21, and 25 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 06/29/2026, hereinafter FOA0629.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some, but not all of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in FOA0629.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended claim limitations not present at the time of FOA0629, and because the new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
See below for detailed discussion of amended claim limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “…based on analysing the first sample ions…” and “…based on analysing the second sample ions…”, which Examiner believes should read ‘…based on analysing the portion of the first/second sample ions…’, respectively;
Claim 12 has been amended to require ‘an action region’, however, the remainder of the claim still recites ‘the reaction region’, which now lacks antecedent basis in each case; Examiner believes the limitations are definite in context, and ‘an action region’ should read ‘a reaction region’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, 21, and 25 are 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 1 recites “after the first period of time, providing a second discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions”, however, it does not appear that ionizing a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid can be guaranteed by the structure disclosed. Rather, it appears that only a portion of a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid would be ionized. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘after the first period of time, providing a second discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise a portion of a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions’. Claims 12 and 25 suffer from similar issues and are interpreted similarly.
Claims 13-19 and 21 each recite method steps, as discussed in FOA0629, and are rejected for similar reasons. While the issue has been ameliorated in claim 12, as the claim is now phrased as a controller configured to perform the method steps (which is understood as capable (including physically) of performing the steps), the remainder of the issues from NFOA0629 remain.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubelik (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20170023525 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik teaches A method of operating an ion mobility spectrometer, the ion mobility spectrometer comprising a pulsed ionisation source and a reaction region separated from a drift region by an ion shutter (See Fig. 1, items 102, 104, 108, 130, 132, 142, region thereby, e.g. chamber 106, and item 112, separating reaction region from drift region 114; [0016]-[0019]), the method comprising:
operating a pressure pulser to draw a discrete sample of gaseous fluid into the reaction region of the ion mobility spectrometer (See Fig. 1, sample entry 134 to ionization chamber 106; [0015]; [0023]; Examiner interprets the sample injecting as reading on a pressure pulser, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan);
providing a first discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to ionise the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain first sample ions ([0021]-[0024]);
after a first gate delay following the first pulse, opening the ion shutter for a first period of time to permit a portion of the first sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region ([0025]);
Kubelik does not explicitly teach after the first period of time, providing a second discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions; and after a second gate delay following the second pulse, opening the ion shutter for a second period of time to permit a portion of the second sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region, wherein the second gate delay is different from the first gate delay.
Examiner notes that an ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of ion mobility spectrometry would have an advanced degree (e.g., PhD) in a physical science/engineering, or equivalent experience, and would thus have a relatively high level or ordinary skill and knowledge.
Such an ordinarily skilled artisan would readily recognize the limitations after the first period of time, providing a second discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions; and after a second gate delay following the second pulse, opening the ion shutter for a second period of time to permit a portion of the second sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region to be a mere repetition of the previous method step, and could readily repeat such a step using the device of Kubelik, which would require no additional structures or techniques.
Accordingly, while not explicitly disclosed by Kubelik, one of ordinary skill in the art would find after the first period of time, providing a second discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions; and after a second gate delay following the second pulse, opening the ion shutter for a second period of time to permit a portion of the second sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region obvious over Kubelik, as the necessary structure and techniques are disclosed, and repeating a disclosed method step with disclosed structure is well within the abilities of the ordinary skilled artisan having the aforementioned relatively high level of ordinary skill/knowledge.
Regarding the limitation wherein the second gate delay is different from the first gate delay, the limitation would similarly require no additional structure or techniques. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the disclosure of [0025] of Kubelik, including reciting “In some embodiments, the pulse delay is between about zero milliseconds (0 msec) and ten milliseconds (10 msec) (e.g., between about one-half millisecond (0.5 msec) and three milliseconds (3 msec)) depending on the dimensions of the ionization chamber 106, reaction rates of generated ions, the electric field E1, and ion mobility.”, as indicating the pulse delay as being controllable based on desired ions, which would depend on the disclosed parameters.
Such an ordinarily skilled artisan would readily recognize that modifying the gate delay would allow for modifying the ions available for passing the ion gate 112 to the drift tube 114 and would be motivated to modify such a gate delay to achieve additional ion species. In other words, this limitation merely requires applies the same functionality and selection technique as Kubelik to achieve additional ions in a predictable manner according to known processes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubelik to include after the first period of time, providing a second discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions; and after a second gate delay following the second pulse, opening the ion shutter for a second period of time to permit a portion of the second sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region, wherein the second gate delay is different from the first gate delay.
Doing so would allow one to select additional ions in a predictable/calculable manner using the disclosed structure and techniques of Kubelik.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik, as modified, teaches The method of claim 1.
Kubelik, as modified, further teaches wherein an ionization pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to the sample of gaseous fluid generates reactant ions, and the reactant ions mix with the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region to generate product ions ([0023]-[0025]),
Kubelik, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the second gate delay is selected so that the portion of second sample ions comprises a greater proportion of reactant ions than product ions.
However, selecting product or reactant ion proportions for a particular gate delay would be obvious in view of [0025] of Kubelik for the same reasons as discussed above. Selecting particular ions is merely a particular application of the technique disclosed therein, and would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan having the aforementioned high level of ordinary skill/knowledge.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubelik to include wherein the second gate delay is selected so that the portion of second sample ions comprises a greater proportion of reactant ions than product ions.
Doing so would allow one to select particular desired ions in a predictable/calculable manner using the disclosed structure and techniques of Kubelik.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik, as modified, teaches The method of claim 2.
Kubelik, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the first gate delay is longer than the second gate delay.
However, selecting a particular set of gate delays would be obvious in view of [0025] of Kubelik for the same reasons as discussed above. Doing so amounts to selecting particular ions, which is merely a particular application of the technique disclosed in Kubelik, and would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan having the aforementioned high level of ordinary skill/knowledge.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubelik to include wherein the first gate delay is longer than the second gate delay.
Doing so would allow one to select particular desired ions in a predictable/calculable manner using the disclosed structure and techniques of Kubelik.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik, as modified, teaches The method of claim 1.
Kubelik, as modified, further teaches wherein an ionisation pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to the sample of gaseous fluid generates reactant ions, and the reactant ions mix with the sample of gaseous fluid in the reactant region to generate product ions ([0023]-[0025]),
Kubelik, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the second gate delay is selected so that the portion of second sample ions comprises a greater proportion of reactant ions than product ions, and wherein the first gate delay is selected so that the portion of first sample ions comprises a greater proportion of product ions than reactant ions.
However, selecting product or reactant ion proportions for a particular gate delay would be obvious in view of [0025] of Kubelik for the same reasons as discussed above. Selecting particular ions is merely a particular application of the technique disclosed therein, and would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan having the aforementioned high level of ordinary skill/knowledge.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubelik to include wherein the second gate delay is selected so that the portion of second sample ions comprises a greater proportion of reactant ions than product ions, and wherein the first gate delay is selected so that the portion of first sample ions comprises a greater proportion of product ions than reactant ions.
Doing so would allow one to select particular desired ions in a predictable/calculable manner using the disclosed structure and techniques of Kubelik.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik, as modified, teaches The method of claim 1.
Kubelik, as modified, further teaches comprising obtaining ion spectrum data based on analysing at least one of the portions of first sample ions and the portion of second sample ions ([0025])
Kubelik, as modified, does not explicitly teach controlling subsequent operation of the ion shutter of the ion mobility spectrometer based on said analysing.
However, the goal of Kubelik is to form and analyze selected ions (e.g., via control disclosed in [0025]), and thus, performing basic feedback control to ensure proper ions are selected (e.g., using the disclosed measured data) would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan having the aforementioned high level of ordinary skill/knowledge.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubelik to include controlling subsequent operation of the ion shutter of the ion mobility spectrometer based on said analysing.
Doing so would allow one to select particular desired ions in a predictable/calculable manner using the disclosed structure and techniques of Kubelik, and to validate the performance thereof.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik, as modified, teaches The method of claim 5.
Kubelik, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein controlling subsequent operation of the ion shutter comprises selecting a subsequent gate delay based on a product ion peak in the ion spectrum data.
However, the goal of Kubelik is to form and analyze selected ions (e.g., via control disclosed in [0025]), and thus, performing basic feedback control to ensure proper ions are selected (e.g., using the disclosed measured data, which would naturally include at least some ion peak in the produced data) would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan having the aforementioned high level of ordinary skill/knowledge.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubelik to include wherein controlling subsequent operation of the ion shutter comprises selecting a subsequent gate delay based on a product ion peak in the ion spectrum data.
Doing so would allow one to select particular desired ions in a predictable/calculable manner using the disclosed structure and techniques of Kubelik, and to validate the performance thereof.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik, as modified, teaches the method of claim 5.
Kubelik, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein controlling subsequent operation of the ion shutter comprises reducing a gate width during a gate delay interval associated with a product ion peak.
However, the goal of Kubelik is to form and analyze selected ions (e.g., via control disclosed in [0025]), and thus, performing basic feedback control to ensure proper ions are selected (e.g., using the disclosed measured data, which would naturally include at least some ion peak in the produced data) would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan having the aforementioned high level of ordinary skill/knowledge.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubelik to include wherein controlling subsequent operation of the ion shutter comprises reducing a gate width during a gate delay interval associated with a product ion peak.
Doing so would allow one to select particular desired ions in a predictable/calculable manner using the disclosed structure and techniques of Kubelik, and to validate the performance thereof.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik, as modified, teaches The method of claim 1.
Kubelik, as modified, further teaches wherein at least one gate delay is selected based on a mobility of a calibrant ([0025], Examiner notes that the disclosed selection criteria would necessarily include the mobility of the particular calibrant used, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik, as modified, teaches The method of claim 1.
Kubelik, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the first pulse of the ionisation source and the second pulse of the ionisation source are both performed prior to a subsequent operation of the pressure pulser that draws a further discrete sample in to the reaction region.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily apprised of repeated ionization to produce additional ion species, and doing so would require no additional techniques or structure beyond that disclosed by Kubelik.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubelik to include wherein the first pulse of the ionisation source and the second pulse of the ionisation source are both performed prior to a subsequent operation of the pressure pulser that draws a further discrete sample in to the reaction region.
Doing so would allow one to select addition desired ions in a predictable/calculable manner using the disclosed structure and techniques of Kubelik.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik, as modified, teaches The method of claim 1.
Kubelik, as modified, further teaches comprising:
determining first ion spectrum data based on analysing the first sample ions ([0025]);
determining second ion spectrum data based on analysing the second sample ions ([0025], as modified); and
([0025]).
However, for the modified embodiment, the ordinarily skilled artisan having the aforementioned relatively high level of ordinary skill would find it obvious to combine spectra produced to best identify the substances therein, as doing so is a basic data analysis technique which one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik teaches A detector instrument (Abstract; See Fig. 1, items 102, 104, 108, 130, 132, 142, chamber 106, and item 112, separating reaction region from drift region 114; [0016]-[0019]) comprising:
a pressure pulser for drawing gaseous fluid into an action region of the detector instrument (See Fig. 1, sample entry 134 to ionization chamber 106; [0015]; [0023]; Examiner interprets the sample injecting as reading on a pressure pulser, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan);
a pulsed ionisation source for ionising the gaseous fluid ([0021]-[0024]);
an ion shutter ([0021]-[0025]);
a drift region separated from the reaction region by the ion shutter (See Fig. 1, chamber 106, and item 112, separating reaction region from drift region 114; [0016]-[0019]); and
a controller ([0016]-[0019]; [0021]-[0025]; Examiner notes that some form of control structure, e.g., a generic computer, is inherently disclosed to achieve the functionality disclosed, which could not be reasonably operated without, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan) configured to:
operate the pressure pulser to draw a discrete sample of the gaseous fluid into the reaction region (Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functionality in an apparatus claim is interpreted as merely requiring a structure capable of performing the function; Structure capable of performing this functionality is disclosed above);
operate the pulsed ionisation source to provide a first discrete pulse to ionise the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region, thereby to obtain first sample ions (Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functionality in an apparatus claim is interpreted as merely requiring a structure capable of performing the function; Structure capable of performing this functionality is disclosed above);
control the ion shutter to provide a first gate delay between the operating of the pulsed ionisation source and opening the ion shutter to remain open for a first period of time to permit a portion of the first sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region (Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functionality in an apparatus claim is interpreted as merely requiring a structure capable of performing the function; Structure capable of performing this functionality is disclosed above);
after the first period of time, operate the pulsed ionisation source to provide a second discrete pulse to further ionise a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region, thereby to obtain second sample ions (Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functionality in an apparatus claim is interpreted as merely requiring a structure capable of performing the function; Structure capable of performing this functionality is disclosed above); and
control the ion shutter to provide a second gate delay between the operating of the pulsed ionisation source and opening the ion shutter to permit a portion of the second sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region (Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functionality in an apparatus claim is interpreted as merely requiring a structure capable of performing the function; Structure capable of performing this functionality is disclosed above);
wherein the second gate delay is different from the first gate delay (Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functionality in an apparatus claim is interpreted as merely requiring a structure capable of performing the function; Structure capable of performing this functionality is disclosed above).
Regarding claims 13-19 and 21, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, require method steps, and do not recite additional structural limitations on the system, and thus, under the BRI, require only structure capable of performing the function. Structure capable of performing this functionality is disclosed in regards to claim 12.
Regarding claim 25, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubelik teaches A tangible non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions for programming a controller of an ion mobility spectrometry apparatus ([0016]-[0019]; [0021]-[0025]; Examiner notes that some form of control structure and software, e.g., a generic computer having generic control software thereon, is inherently disclosed to achieve the functionality disclosed, which could not be reasonably operated without, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan), including a pressure pulser (See Fig. 1, sample entry 134 to ionization chamber 106; [0015]; [0023]; Examiner interprets the sample injecting as reading on a pressure pulser, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan), a pulsed ionization source ([0021]-[0024]), and a reaction region separated from a drift region by an ion shutter (See Fig. 1, chamber 106, and item 112, separating reaction region from drift region 114; [0016]-[0019], to perform a method comprising the steps of:
operating the pressure pulser to draw a discrete sample of gaseous fluid into the reaction region of the ion mobility spectrometer (See Fig. 1, sample entry 134 to ionization chamber 106; [0015]; [0023]; Examiner interprets the sample injecting as reading on a pressure pulser, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan);
operating the pulsed ionisation source to provide a first discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to ionise the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain first sample ions ([0021]-[0024]);
after a first gate delay following the first pulse, opening the ion shutter for a first period of time to permit a portion of the first sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region ([0025]);
Kubelik does not explicitly teach after the first period of time, operating the pulsed ionisation source to provide a second discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions; and after a second gate delay following the first pulse, opening the ion shutter for a second period of time to permit a portion of the second sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region, wherein the second gate delay is different from the first gate delay.
The ordinarily skilled artisan having the aforementioned relatively high level of ordinary skill/knowledge would readily recognize the limitations after the first period of time, operating the pulsed ionisation source to provide a second discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions; and after a second gate delay following the first pulse, opening the ion shutter for a second period of time to permit a portion of the second sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region to be a mere repetition of the previous method step, and could readily repeat such a step using the device of Kubelik, which would require no additional structures or techniques.
Accordingly, while not explicitly disclosed by Kubelik, one of ordinary skill in the art would find after the first period of time, operating the pulsed ionisation source to provide a second discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions; and after a second gate delay following the first pulse, opening the ion shutter for a second period of time to permit a portion of the second sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region obvious over Kubelik, as the necessary structure and techniques are disclosed, and repeating a disclosed method step with disclosed structure is well within the abilities of the ordinary skilled artisan having the aforementioned relatively high level of ordinary skill/knowledge.
Regarding the limitation wherein the second gate delay is different from the first gate delay, the limitation would similarly require no additional structure or techniques. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the disclosure of [0025] of Kubelik, including reciting “In some embodiments, the pulse delay is between about zero milliseconds (0 msec) and ten milliseconds (10 msec) (e.g., between about one-half millisecond (0.5 msec) and three milliseconds (3 msec)) depending on the dimensions of the ionization chamber 106, reaction rates of generated ions, the electric field E1, and ion mobility.”, as indicating the pulse delay as being controllable based on desired ions, which would depend on the disclosed parameters.
Such an ordinarily skilled artisan would readily recognize that modifying the gate delay would allow for modifying the ions available for passing the ion gate 112 to the drift tube 114 and would be motivated to modify such a gate delay to achieve additional ion species. In other words, this limitation merely requires applies the same functionality and selection technique as Kubelik to achieve additional ions in a predictable manner according to known processes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubelik to include after the first period of time, operating the pulsed ionisation source to provide a second discrete pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise a remainder of the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions; and after a second gate delay following the first pulse, opening the ion shutter for a second period of time to permit a portion of the second sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region, wherein the second gate delay is different from the first gate delay.
Doing so would allow one to select additional ions in a predictable/calculable manner using the disclosed structure and techniques of Kubelik.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
