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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the above indicated RCE dated 12/04/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-19, 21, 25 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 09/04/2025, hereinafter NFOA0904.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in FOA0904.
Applicant’s arguments presented in the Remarks dated 12/04/2025 have been fully considered, and will be addressed in order below.
Applicant argues Goedecke does not disclose first and second gate delays, arguing a gate delay is the time period between the operation of a pulsed ionization source and opening of the ion shutter and citing portions of Applicant's disclosure supporting such a definition. Applicant contrasts this with the concept of a gate width, which Applicant indicates as the time period for which a shutter is held open for, rather than the period of time between an ionization pulse and the opening of the shutter.
Applicant further argues "In Goedecke, the concept of a gate delay is entirely meaningless, because the ionisation source is operated constantly. There can therefore be no "gate delay" between its operation and opening of an ion shutter because there is no time period separating ionization and opening a shutter".
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, in Goedecke, the concept of a gate delay is not meaningless. In Goedecke, the ionization source would necessarily need to be at some point turned on or activated, and the shutter would not immediately be opened, as the device could not properly operate in this manner. As such, there will inherently be some time delay between the start of ionization and shutter opening, even if not specifically limited. Furthermore, Goedecke (Col. 3, Lines 54-62) states: “Ionization region 110 includes an ionizing source material, i.e., a radioactive source 112, e.g., and without limitation, nickel-63 (.sup.63Ni) that emits low-energy beta- (.beta.-) particles to generate ions 114. Alternatively, any ionizing source material that enables operation of IMS detection system 100 as described herein is used. Further, alternatively, any method of ionization is used that enable operation of IMS system 100 as described herein, including, without limitation, an electron beam source.”, which specifically indicates that the method of ionization is not limited, and in particular is not limited solely to continuous ionization sources, with the given alternative example being an electron beam source, which would be known by one or ordinary skill in the art to be at least capable of pulsed operation. Accordingly, arguing that a gate delay is meaningless because the ionization source is operated constantly is not convincing, because a constant operation source is not required by Goedecke, and even in such a case, there would be some delay between the turning on/activating of the ionization source.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), it is Examiner's opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand 'gate delay' to include any time delay between the start of operation of an ion source (i.e., the start of ionization of an ionization target) and the opening of the ion shutter, because even in the case of the embodiment of Goedecke having a constant ionization source, some delay would be necessary between commencing ionization of the analyte and opening of the shutter in order to operate as disclosed.
In the case of the embodiment of Goedecke having a constant ionization source, there is also necessarily a delay between when individual instances of ionization occur and the shutter opening, regardless of the fact that the ionization source of Goedecke is constant rather than pulsed. While not explicitly disclosed, this inherently reads on at least a first gate delay, as there will be some delay between when the ionization source is 'started' and when the gate opens. Goedecke then explicitly discloses opening the shutter for a period of time (i.e., corresponding to a gate width), then closing the gate, and reopening for a second pulse of ions through the gate after some additional time period. This additional time period is inherently present, but not explicitly disclosed to have any particular length.
As such, Examiner agrees that Goedecke does not explicitly disclose such a gate delay, however, it is Examiner's opinion that two, not otherwise limited, gate delays are inherently required by Goedecke.
However, Goedecke does not explicitly disclose the two gate delays as being different, as Goedecke does not particularly limit the delays in the text.
Applicant also argues that even were a pulsed ionization source included in Goedecke that it would not arrive at the present claims for the reasons discussed above. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above and further below.
Regarding Wernlund, Applicant argues that Wernlund cannot address the deficiencies of Goedecke, and argues that the positioning of the shutter in Wernlund (i.e., downstream of a pulsed source after a drift region) and the intended use thereof (i.e., time delayed from pulsed ion source to selectively allow ions to a subsequent stage, which in Wernlund is a detector element) would not allow the disclosure thereof to be applied to an arrangement such as that in Goedecke, arguing that because Wernlund doesn’t discuss modifying the timing of operation of an ion shutter specifically separating a reaction region from the drift region.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to Applicant's arguments regarding the purpose of the device of Wernlund, the goal of the device of Wernlund does not necessarily render the combination unsuitable or nonobvious, as a device intended for an alternative purpose may still provide specific instruction of a concept/technique/device which is useful in additional contexts. The standard by which the prior art is assessed is what the disclosure would indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan, not solely what is explicitly disclosed by the references.
In other words, in response to applicant's argument that Wernlund is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Wernlund provides techniques/instruction (i.e., as a teaching reference) to solve the problem of the relative timing of an ionization source pulse and subsequent ion shutter opening in order to select based on drift velocity, which is reasonably pertinent to the application of an IMS, regardless of whether Wernlund is specifically directed toward such an application.
Additionally, Wernlund was not applied to disclose the positioning or apparatus thereof to the device/apparatus of Goedecke, rather, as discussed in FOA0904, was merely applied for the technique of controlling the relative timing of an ion shutter and a pulsed ion source, but not the device itself, as Goedecke contains an ion shutter separating a reaction region separated from a drift region and is the primary reference of the rejection being modified by a teaching reference.
In other words, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant further argues against the purpose/goal of Wernlund, the technical field of Wernlund, and additionally the age/specific technology used in the apparatus of Wernlund. These are unconvincing for the reasons discussed above, and in response to applicant's argument based upon the age of the references, contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977).
Applicant further argues that a modification applying the variation in shutter timing of Wernlund to the ion shutter of Goedecke would render the teaching of Wernlund unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and would change the principle of operation of the system. This argument is not convincing, as Wernlund would not be modified in such a combination, rather Goedecke would be modified by including a teaching of a technique from Wernlund. In such a case, Wernlund would merely be a teaching reference for disclosing the relative timing of a shutter and a pulsed ion source to be used for ion selectivity. Were Wernlund the primary reference, this argument would clearly be convincing, however, because Goedecke is the primary reference and is merely being potentially modified by a technique taught in Wernlund that is reasonably pertinent/useful to the technological environment of Goedecke, such an argument does not hold and is not convincing.
Applicant further argues that (i) “Wernlund does not teach to vary the timing of operation of an ion gate in a general sense as alleged, but only teaches to do this in one specific embodiment (i.e. Wernlund does not generally disclose of teach “the relative timing of a shutter and a pulsed ion source” as alleged, but only a very specific implementation).”, and that (ii) “The skilled person would appreciate that the teaching of Wernlund as it relates to the timing of the gate at the detector is not relevant to modern IMS devices, which do not need to use such mechanisms to record IMS spectra.”, and further that (iii) “Wernlund does not provide a teaching that is “reasonably pertinent/useful to the technological environment of Goedecke”, rather Wernlund provides a teaching that would be considered technologically obsolete in the context of Goedecke.”, and finally that (iv) “the only thing that Wernlund indicates to the skilled person is how to measure drift times using an ion gate at the end of a drift chamber adjacent the detector. There is no technical information or indication in Wernlund that relates in any way to controlling the passage of ions into the drift chamber from the reaction region.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Each of these argument are one or more of a bodily incorporation (i, ii, iii, iv), non-analogous art (ii, iii, iv), or age of references argument (ii, iii), which are not convincing for the reasons discussed above.
Nevertheless, Examiner notes Wernlund clearly discloses controlling the relative timing of operation of a pulsed ion source and a downstream ion shutter to achieve ion selectivity, which is clearly reasonably pertinent to Goedecke, and in particular for the embodiments thereof which apply a pulsed ionizer (or in view of the cited prior art disclosing such conventional pulsed sources). Wernlund specifically states (Abstract): “In another embodiment an active shutter grid ion gate is opened at a predetermined time after the production of the ions and passes all ions with velocity less than a predetermined value to the output circuit.”, which clearly discloses controlling an ion shutter to achieve ion selectivity based on the timing of the shutter relative to ionization, wherein the predetermined time is disclosed to be selected to select particular ions based on velocity. This is clearly relevant to the device of Goedecke. Fig. 2 of Wernlund shows a graphical representation of one such exemplary relative timing for the pulsed ion source, and the supporting disclosure similarly discloses the relative timing being predetermined in order to select ions by drift velocity. Whether this selection is used for a different purpose than Goedecke is irrelevant to the relative timing control techniques disclosed by Wernlund, which can be adapted analogously to the system of Goedecke, using the specifics of the system of Goedecke and the ions produced therein to determine the precise values of the relative timing (as would be the case for any such system).
Examiner notes for completeness that the specific value of the timing for the device of Wernlund would likely differ from the timing that would be required in Goedecke, however, this does not render the teachings of Wernlund unsuitable for combination with Goedecke because the technique itself could nevertheless be applied, with the specific relative timing required for the specific system of Goedecke being determined by routine experimentation and/or first principles, in order to achieve its desired ion selectivity. As would be known by an ordinarily skilled artisan, for any such IMS system, in order to achieve ion selectivity based on the relative timing of an ion source and a downstream ion shutter, the specific conditions of the system would need to be taken into account, such as the size of the reaction region and its relative positioning to the ion shutter (i.e. spatial dimensions); the specific type of pulsed ion source used, the specific gaseous fluid applied to the reaction region to be ionized by the pulsed ion source, and the specifics of the ionization pulses themselves (i.e., defining the ions produced/present, and thus their relative ion mobilities, which would be necessary to determine the timings); etc. Accordingly, for any such IMS system, one could adapt the relative timing to achieve desired selectivity by routine experimentation, by taking into account all necessary known quantities of the system and determining the timing necessary to achieve the desired selectivity for the specific ions produced.
Applicant further argues with regard to claims 2, 4, 13, and 15, that the applied teachings of Satoh are not relevant because the disclosed portion refers to sample ions that have been fragmented in a collision cell, and not to product ions produced in the reaction region of an IMS spectrometer. Applicant argues that ‘reactant ions’ would be understood in the context of IMS spectrometry to refer to ‘ions produced by the ioniser that are used to ionise the sample’, and that Satoh does not disclose such ions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s alleged limitation of the term ‘reactant ions’. It is Examiner’s opinion that reactant ions would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to refer to ions which are the reactant in a reaction (i.e., would be used in a reaction to create products), and would not read any additional limitations into the claim. In fact, Applicant’s alleged limitation of the term ‘reactant ions’ does not appear to agree with Applicant’s own disclosure, which appears to indicate the ‘reactant ions’ are themselves also ‘product ions’, in that they are produced by providing an ionization pulse to the sample gas, which then subsequently act as reactant ions with unionized portions of the sample gas to produce the claimed ‘product ions’. In other words, the reactant ions are not a separate entity from the sample, but are ionized portions of the sample which are allowed to further react with the remainder of the sample over time.
Additionally, Applicant appears to be making an additional bodily incorporation argument, which is not convincing for the reasons discussed above.
Satoh discloses pulse ionizing a sample gas to produce ions, which are then used as precursor ions to be further reacted to produce additional product ions. Satoh discloses modifying the gate schedule to provide non-overlapping measurements of precursor and product ions. It is Examiner’s opinion that this technique is reasonably pertinent to the problem to be solved by Goedecke, regardless of the means by which Satoh solves the problem, which is different from that of Goedecke, but solves an analogous problem. Satoh solving the problem via alternative means does not preclude combination with Goedecke for the reasons discussed above.
Accordingly, these arguments in regards to claims 2, 4, 13, and 15 are not convincing.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Thus, Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art, presented with the teachings of Wernlund and Goedecke could readily apply the shutter timing techniques of Wernlund to the device of Goedecke were it modified to include a pulsed source (such as the alternative ionization source embodiments and/or as known in the art, as discussed in FOA0904), as the timing techniques used to control the shutter relative to the timing of the ionization pulse could be analogously applied in the arrangement of Goedecke including a pulsed source, taking into account the specifics of the system of Goedecke. Similarly, Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art, presented with the teachings of Satoh and Goedecke could readily apply the product ion/precursor ion selectivity techniques of Satoh to the device of Goedecke, as the techniques for selecting particular populations of ions via timed control of the shutter could be analogously applied in the arrangement of Goedecke, taking into account the specifics of the system of Goedecke.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the sample of gaseous region”, which lacks antecedent basis and does not make sense upon plain reading, however, Examiner believes that this is a mere typographical error that should read ‘the sample of gaseous fluid’;
Claim 2 recites “the puled ionisation source”, which Examiner believes is a mere typographical error that should read ‘the pulsed ionisation source’.
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 2-4, 12-19, and 21 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 2 recites “wherein the second gate delay is selected so that the portion of second sample ions comprises reactant ions in preference to product ions”. This limitation does not clearly indicate how the second gate delay should be selected because it is unclear what is required by “in preference to”. This language does not allow one to clearly delineate what is and is not required by the claim, as it does not indicate the relative proportions of reactant and product ions, or what relative proportions would be required to satisfy the limitation. Based on Examiner’s understanding of Applicant’s specification, it appears that this is intended to limit the temporal period of the second gate delay to select particular ions by their mobility (i.e., the temporal period of the second gate delay is disclosed as shorter so that the ratio of reactant ions to produce ions in the portion of second sample ions is greater than in the longer first gate delay), however, Examiner is not permitted to read limitations from the specification into the claims, and the limitations of the specification are not presently required by the claims. 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 ‘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’ (i.e., the ratio of reactant ions to product ions is greater than unity).
Claim 2 further recites “wherein the reactant ions are generated by the puled ionisation source, and are mixed with the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region to generate product ions from the sample of gaseous region”. It is not clear what is required by this limitation, which appears to disagree with Applicant’s disclosure as presently presented. Examiner’s understanding of Applicant’s specification would indicate that reactant ions are generated by the pulsed ionization source providing a pulse of ionizing energy to the sample of gaseous fluid, which is already provided in the reaction region prior to ionization, and thus the reactant ions are not solely generated by the ionization source itself. Examiner notes for completeness that Applicant’s disclosure indicates that these reactant ions are maintained in the reaction region until allowed to drift out of the ion shutter, and thus are mixed with the unionized portion of the sample of gaseous fluid, and will naturally create product ions over time. However, no active mixing is disclosed by Applicant’s disclosure, and thus the limitation ‘are mixed’ may have a potential support/scope of enablement issue if one were to interpret such a limitation as involving active mixing, which Examiner believes is within the present scope of the claim. As such, due to these contradictions between the scope of the claim and the present claim language, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, and to avoid any potential 112(a) issues, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein an ionisation pulse from the pulsed ionisation source to the sample of gaseous fluid generates reactant ions, and the reactant ions are subsequently allowed to mix with an unionised portion of the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region to generate product ions’. While not additionally indefinite, Examiner suggests relocating this entire limitation to the beginning of the claim (i.e., before the limitation regarding the selection of the second gate delay), which Examiner believes would significantly clarify the claim, e.g., such that the claim reads ‘wherein an ionisation pulse from the pulsed ionisation source to the sample of gaseous fluid generates reactant ions, and the reactant ions are subsequently allowed to mix with an unionised portion of the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region to generate product ions, and 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’.
Claim 4 recites similar limitations to claim 2, and is indefinite for similar reasons. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, claim 4 is similarly interpreted as ‘wherein an ionisation pulse from the pulsed ionisation source to the sample of gaseous fluid generates reactant ions, and the reactant ions are subsequently allowed to mix with an unionised portion of the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region to generate product ions, and 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’.
Claim 12 refers to ‘A detector instrument’, however, claims 12-19 and 21 each recite method steps of some form. See MPEP 2173.05(p).II. For example, claim 12 recites “a controller operable to:…”, followed by several method steps of the controller performing typical control functions on well-represented prior art elements (i.e., a pulsed ionization source and ion shutter). It is unclear how such method steps can limit an instrument itself, other than by limiting physical capabilities thereof. However, the method steps recited do not further limit the instrument itself, but rather its use (i.e., typical pulsed ionization sources are inherently capable of being controllably pulsed at desired timings, and typical ion shutters are inherently capable of being controllably opened and closed at desired timings, thus the limitations of claim 12 do not further limit the components of device itself, but rather the method of its use via a generic controller). Accordingly, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these claim limitations are interpreted as requiring only the physical elements of the instrument, any required relative positioning to achieve the claimed method steps, and any required physical capabilities of the elements necessary to achieve the method steps claimed.
Claims 13 and 15 suffer from similar indefiniteness issues as claims 2 and 4, and are thus interpreted similarly. However, because these claims pertain to an instrument rather than a method, as discussed above, they are interpreted as requiring only the physical elements of the instrument, any required relative positioning to achieve the claimed method steps, and any required physical capabilities of the elements necessary to achieve the method steps claimed, but not the method steps themselves, which are interpreted as not being required under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goedecke (USPN US 9147565 B1), as modified, in view of Wernlund (USPN US 3626181 A).
Examiner notes that Goedecke and Wernlund are Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 11/22/2022.
Regarding claim 1, Goedecke teaches a method of operating an ion mobility spectrometer (Title; Col. 1, Lines 6-10), the ion mobility spectrometer comprising a (Col. 3, Lines 52-62; Col. 5, Lines 48-52) and a reaction region separated from a drift region by an ion shutter (See Fig. 1, items 110, 118, and 116; Col. 3, Lines 64-67), the method comprising:
drawing a sample of gaseous fluid into the reaction region of the ion mobility spectrometer (Col. 3, Lines 47-63; Col. 5, Lines 43-52);
providing a (Col. 5, Lines 43-52);
after a first gate delay (Col. 5, Line 61 – Col. 6, Line 1; Examiner notes that as discussed above, Goedecke does not explicitly teach a gate delay, however, there is inherently a delay between ionization and opening of the shutter);
after the ion shutter has closed, providing a (Examiner notes the preferred ionization source is constant in Goedecke, thus additional ions will be generated in the ionization region, as described in Col. 5, Lines 48-56, forming second sample ions to be allowed into the drift region thereafter, as indicated by Col. 5, Line 66 – Col. 6, Line 5; Examiner additionally notes, however, that Goedecke also discloses the use of an electron beam ionization source, which are known in the art to have the capability to be pulsed);
after a second gate delay (Col. 5, Line 66 – Col. 6, Line 5), wherein the second gate delay is different from the first gate delay (See Fig. 3, items 206, 208, and 210; Col. 6, Lines 34-52; Examiner notes that Goedecke does not explicitly teach the gate delays being different, however the time between the two pulses is different than the time period shown prior to the first pulse).
Goedecke does not explicitly teach the ion mobility spectrometer comprising a pulsed ionization source and providing a first pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to ionise the sample of gaseous fluid and after a first gate delay following the first pulse, opening the ion shutter… and providing a second pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise the sample of gaseous fluid and after a second gate delay following the second pulse, opening the ion shutter… (Emphases added by Examiner).
However, Goedecke contemplates “any method of ionization is used that enable operation of the IMS system 100 as described herein” in Col. 3, Lines 59-61, and as discussed above, also discloses the use of an electron beam ionization source, which are known in the art to be capable of pulsed operation. The limitations lacking in Goedecke amount to the use of pulsed ionization source, rather than the explicitly disclosed constant radioactive ionization source. However, the general use of a pulsed ionization source is also known in the art. See: Bromberg (US 20070187591 A1), Cohen (US 5162652 A), Davies (US 5294794 A), Spangler (US 5338931 A), Ivashin (US 20120273669 A1), and Matthews (US 20130026357 A1), among others, each of which disclose a pulsed ionization source for an ionization region coupled to a drift region. As discussed in Bromberg ([0014]-[0019]), pulsed sources allow for a potential reduction in space charge (i.e., space charge dilution), allowing for space considerations to be beneficially addressed. Additionally, Ivashin ([0032]) discusses pulsed ion sources that allow for either pulsed or continuous ion production, giving one the flexibility to choose ion packets or continuous ion flow. Furthermore, Matthews ([0139]) discusses modulating the frequency applied to the pulsed ion source such that ion pulses are sufficiently (and adjustably) separated to be distinguishable.
As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that 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 Goedecke to include the specific use of a pulsed ionization source to provide the ions in the IMS system 100.
Doing so represents the use of a well-known technology within the art in its typical fashion, such as those discussed in Bromberg, Cohen, Davies, Spangler, Ivashin, and Matthews, and would allow one to achieve the benefits of potential space charge dilution, flexible ion application, and/or controllable ion separation.
Examiner notes for completeness that the instruction of Wernlund (see Col. 3, Line 65 – Col. 4, Line 6; Col. 4, Lines 12-15) would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the timing of an ion shutter such as that of Goedecke with a pulsed ionization source (e.g., those disclosed in Bromberg, Cohen, Davies, Spangler, Ivashin, and/or Matthews), such that the desired control of the timing of ion flow is achieved to select ions produced by mobility/drift velocity, wherein ion flow control is additionally indicated as desirable in Bromberg, Ivashin, and Matthews as discussed above. Examiner additionally notes that were one to apply the technique disclosed in Wernlund to the shutter timing control of Goedecke, one would naturally choose the timing of the shutter to achieve the desired ion selectivity as discussed in Wernlund (albeit for an alternative purpose, which as discussed above, is reasonably pertinent to the problem which Goedecke seeks to solve), which could be readily determined by routine experimentation, as discussed above. Such routine experimentation would also naturally allow one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the particular length of the gate delays to select the desired ions, as the particular conditions of the ionization (i.e., the particular sample gas and ionization pulse characteristics), the spacing of the shutter relative to the source/ionization region, etc. would determine the ions produced in the reaction region, and thus determine their drift velocities/mobilities, which would in turn determine the necessary timing of the shutter in order to achieve the desired ion selectivity. In other words, using only the techniques of Wernlund and Goedecke and the knowledge of the ionization characteristics of the particular system, one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the ions produced by first principles and/or routine experimentation (i.e., measuring which ions are produced via typical techniques one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of), which themselves would have known characteristics (i.e., drift velocity/mobility) or characteristic which could be determined by known techniques, could readily determine the time it takes for such ions to drift the distance between where the ions are produced and the shutter via simple physical principles calculations and/or routine experimentation (i.e., measuring how long between ionization pulses and ions arriving at the shutter via typical techniques one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of), and could use the knowledge of the ions produced and their characteristic to determine the time necessary to delay in order to select particular ions.
Regarding claim 5, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund teaches the method of claim 1.
Goedecke further teaches comprising obtaining ion spectrum data based on analysing at least one of the portion of first sample ions and the portion of second sample ions and controlling subsequent operation of the ion shutter of the ion mobility spectrometer based on said analysing (See Fig. 3; Col. 6, Line 34 – Col. 7, Line 57, and in particular Col. 6, Lines 34-65 and Col. 7, Lines 10-57).
Regarding claim 6, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund teaches the method of claim 5.
Goedecke further teaches 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 (See Fig. 3; Col. 6, Line 34 – Col. 7, Line 57).
Regarding claim 8, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund teaches the method of claim 5.
Goedecke wherein controlling subsequent operation of the ion shutter comprises reducing a gate width during a gate delay interval associated with a product ion peak (See Fig. 3; Col. 6, Line 34 – Col. 7, Line 57).
Regarding claim 10, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund teaches the method of claim 1.
Wernlund further teaches wherein drawing the sample of gaseous fluid comprises operating a pressure pulser to draw the sample into the reaction region, 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 (See Fig. 2; Col. 2, Lines 38-39).
Regarding claim 11, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund teaches the method of claim 1.
Goedecke further teaches comprising:
determining first ion spectrum data based on analysing the first sample ions (See Fig. 3);
determining second ion spectrum data based on analysing the second sample ions (See Fig. 3); and
combining the first ion spectrum data and the second ion spectrum data to provide a combined spectrum for identifying a substance of interest in the sample of gaseous fluid (See Fig. 3; Abstract; Col. 6, Line 60 – Col. 7 Line 57).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke teaches a detector instrument (Title; Abstract; Col. 1, Lines 6-10) comprising:
a (See Fig. 1, items 104, 110, 112; Col. 3, Lines 47-63; Col. 5, Lines 43-52);
an ion shutter (Col. 3, Lines 64-67);
a reaction region separated from a drift region by the ion shutter (See Fig. 1, items 110, 118, and 116; Col. 3, Lines 64-67); and
a controller operable to:
operate the (Col. 5, Lines 43-52);
control the ion shutter to provide a first gate delay between the operating of the (Col. 5, Line 61 – Col. 6, Line 1; Examiner notes that this functionality is interpreted as merely requiring the capability to be performed, as discussed above, and further, as discussed above, Goedecke does not explicitly teach a gate delay, however, there is inherently a delay between ionization and opening of the shutter, and the device of Goedecke need only be capable of providing a gate delay);
after the ion shutter has closed, operate the (Examiner notes that this functionality is interpreted as merely requiring the capability to be performed, as discussed above, and further notes that the preferred ionization source is constant in Goedecke, thus additional ions will be generated in the ionization region, as described in Col. 5, Lines 48-56, forming second sample ions to be allowed into the drift region thereafter, as indicated by Col. 5, Line 66 – Col. 6, Line 5; Examiner additionally notes, however, that Goedecke also discloses the use of an electron beam ionization source, which are known in the art to have the capability to be pulsed), and to
control the ion shutter to provide a second gate delay between the operating of the (Col. 5, Line 66 – Col. 6, Line 5; Examiner notes that the device of Goedecke is capable of providing arbitrary gate delays);
wherein the second gate delay is different from the first gate delay (See Fig. 3, items 206, 208, and 210; Col. 6, Lines 34-52; Examiner notes that Goedecke does not explicitly teach the gate delays being different, however the time between the two pulses is different than the time period shown prior to the first pulse).
Goedecke does not explicitly teach a pulsed ionisation source and operate the pulsed ionisation source to provide a first pulse to ionise a sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region and control the ion shutter to provide a first gate delay between the operating of the pulsed ionization source and opening the ion shutter… and operate the pulsed ionisation source to provide a second pulse to further ionise the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region and control the ion shutter to provide a second gate delay between the operating of the pulsed ionization source and opening the ion shutter… (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, Goedecke contemplates “any method of ionization is used that enable operation of the IMS system 100 as described herein” in Col. 3, Lines 59-61, and as discussed above, also discloses the use of an electron beam ionization source, which are known in the art to be capable of pulsed operation. The limitations lacking in Goedecke amount to the use of pulsed ionization source, rather than the explicitly disclosed constant radioactive ionization source. However, the general use of a pulsed ionization source is known in the art. See: Bromberg, Cohen, Davies, Spangler, Ivashin, and Matthews, among others, each of which disclose a pulsed ionization source for an ionization region coupled to a drift region. As discussed in Bromberg ([0014]-[0019]), pulsed sources allow for a potential reduction in space charge (i.e., space charge dilution), allowing for space considerations to be beneficially addressed. Additionally, Ivashin ([0032]) discusses pulsed ion sources that allow for either pulsed or continuous ion production, giving one the flexibility to choose ion packets or continuous ion flow. Furthermore, Matthews ([0139]) discusses modulating the frequency applied to the pulsed ion source such that ion pulses are sufficiently (and adjustably) separated to be distinguishable.
As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that 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 Goedecke to include the specific use of a pulsed ionization source to provide the ions in the IMS system 100.
Doing so represents the use of a well-known technology within the art in its typical fashion, such as those discussed in Bromberg, Cohen, Davies, Spangler, Ivashin, and Matthews, and would allow one to achieve the benefits of potential space charge dilution, flexible ion application, and/or controllable ion separation.
Examiner notes for completeness that, despite not being required by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the instruction of Wernlund (see Col. 3, Line 65 – Col. 4, Line 6; Col. 4, Lines 12-15) would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the timing of an ion shutter such as that of Goedecke with a pulsed ionization source (e.g., those disclosed in Bromberg, Cohen, Davies, Spangler, Ivashin, and/or Matthews), such that the desired control of the timing of ion flow is achieved to select ions produced by mobility/drift velocity, wherein ion flow control is additionally indicated as desirable in Bromberg, Ivashin, and Matthews as discussed above. However, as discussed above, the claim requires only the capability to perform the functions claimed, and the device of Goedecke, modified to include a pulse source, is capable of providing arbitrary gate delays and arbitrary control of opening and closing the ion shutter, and thus the requirements of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 21, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund teaches the instrument of claim 12.
Wernlund further teaches comprising a pressure pulser arranged to provide the sample of gaseous fluid from an inlet of the instrument into the reaction region (See Fig. 2; Col. 2, Lines 38-39),
wherein the controller is configured to operate the pressure pulser to draw the sample of gaseous fluid into the reaction region, and the controller is configured so that after operating the pressure pulser to draw the sample of gaseous fluid into the reaction region, 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 (See Fig. 2; Col. 2, Lines 38-39).
Regarding claim 25, Goedecke teaches a tangible non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions for programming a controller of an ion mobility spectrometry apparatus thereby to perform a method (Col. 2, Line 51 – Col. 3, Line 8) comprising the steps of:
operating an ion mobility spectrometer (Title; Col. 1, Lines 6-10), the ion mobility spectrometer comprising a (Col. 3, Lines 52-62; Col. 5, Lines 48-52) and a reaction region separated from a drift region by an ion shutter (See Fig. 1, items 110, 118, and 116; Col. 3, Lines 64-67), the method comprising:
drawing a sample of gaseous fluid into the reaction region of the ion mobility spectrometer (Col. 3, Lines 47-63; Col. 5, Lines 43-52);
providing a (Col. 5, Lines 43-52);
after a first gate delay (Col. 5, Line 61 – Col. 6, Line 1; Examiner notes that as discussed above, Goedecke does not explicitly teach a gate delay, however, there is inherently a delay between ionization and opening of the shutter);
after the ion shutter has closed, providing a (Examiner notes the preferred ionization source is constant in Goedecke, thus additional ions will be generated in the ionization region, as described in Col. 5, Lines 48-56, forming second sample ions to be allowed into the drift region thereafter, as indicated by Col. 5, Line 66 – Col. 6, Line 5; Examiner additionally notes, however, that Goedecke also discloses the use of an electron beam ionization source, which are known in the art to have the capability to be pulsed);
after a second gate delay (Col. 5, Line 66 – Col. 6, Line 5), wherein the second gate delay is different from the first gate delay (See Fig. 3, items 206, 208, and 210; Col. 6, Lines 34-52; Examiner notes that Goedecke does not explicitly teach the gate delays being different, however the time between the two pulses is different than the time period shown prior to the first pulse).
Goedecke does not explicitly teach the ion mobility spectrometer comprising a pulsed ionization source and providing a first pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to ionise the sample of gaseous fluid and after a first gate delay following the first pulse, opening the ion shutter… and providing a second pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise the sample of gaseous fluid and after a second gate delay following the second pulse, opening the ion shutter.
However, Goedecke contemplates “any method of ionization is used that enable operation of the IMS system 100 as described herein” in Col. 3, Lines 59-61, and as discussed above, also discloses the use of an electron beam ionization source, which are known in the art to be capable of pulsed operation. The limitations lacking in Goedecke amount to the use of pulsed ionization source, rather than the explicitly disclosed constant radioactive ionization source. However, the general use of a pulsed ionization source is also known in the art. See: Bromberg (US 20070187591 A1), Cohen (US 5162652 A), Davies (US 5294794 A), Spangler (US 5338931 A), Ivashin (US 20120273669 A1), and Matthews (US 20130026357 A1), among others, each of which disclose a pulsed ionization source for an ionization region coupled to a drift region. As discussed in Bromberg ([0014]-[0019]), pulsed sources allow for a potential reduction in space charge (i.e., space charge dilution), allowing for space considerations to be beneficially addressed. Additionally, Ivashin ([0032]) discusses pulsed ion sources that allow for either pulsed or continuous ion production, giving one the flexibility to choose ion packets or continuous ion flow. Furthermore, Matthews ([0139]) discusses modulating the frequency applied to the pulsed ion source such that ion pulses are sufficiently (and adjustably) separated to be distinguishable.
As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that 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 Goedecke to include the specific use of a pulsed ionization source to provide the ions in the IMS system 100.
Doing so represents the use of a well-known technology within the art in its typical fashion, such as those discussed in Bromberg, Cohen, Davies, Spangler, Ivashin, and Matthews, and would allow one to achieve the benefits of potential space charge dilution, flexible ion application, and/or controllable ion separation.
Examiner notes for completeness that the instruction of Wernlund (see Col. 3, Line 65 – Col. 4, Line 6; Col. 4, Lines 12-15) would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the timing of an ion shutter such as that of Goedecke with a pulsed ionization source (e.g., those disclosed in Bromberg, Cohen, Davies, Spangler, Ivashin, and/or Matthews), such that the desired control of the timing of ion flow is achieved to select ions produced by mobility/drift velocity, wherein ion flow control is additionally indicated as desirable in Bromberg, Ivashin, and Matthews as discussed above. Examiner additionally notes that were one to apply the technique disclosed in Wernlund to the shutter timing control of Goedecke, one would naturally choose the timing of the shutter to achieve the desired ion selectivity as discussed in Wernlund (albeit for an alternative purpose, which as discussed above, is reasonably pertinent to the problem which Goedecke seeks to solve), which could be readily determined by routine experimentation, as discussed above. See discussion in regards to claim 1, the reasoning of which applies here as well.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goedecke (USPN US 9147565 B1), as modified, in view of Wernlund (USPN US 3626181 A) and Satoh (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130306859 A1).
Examiner notes that Satoh is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 11/22/2022.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund teaches the method of claim 1.
Goedecke, as modified, further teaches [wherein an ionisation pulse from the pulsed ionisation source to the sample of gaseous fluid generates reactant ions, and the reactant ions are subsequently allowed to mix with an unionised portion of the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region to generate product ions (See Fig. 1, items 104, 110, 112, 118, and 116; Col. 3, Lines 47-67; Col. 5, Lines 43-52; Examiner notes that after ionization of the reactant ions, they will inherently begin reacting with the unionized portion of the sample gas to create product ions),
Goedecke 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, Goedecke discloses changing the temporal periods of the gate width in order to preferentially select ions based on their mobility.
Nevertheless, Satoh teaches [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] ([0029]).
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 Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, 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], as taught by Satoh.
Doing so would allow one to obtain the desired ion species to pass through the gate, as taught by Satoh, allowing better control of the produced species, as indicated as desirable by Goedecke.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund and Satoh teaches the method of claim 2,
Satoh further teaches wherein the first gate delay is longer than the second gate delay ([0029]).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund and Satoh teaches the method of claim 2.
Goedecke, as modified, further teaches [wherein an ionisation pulse from the pulsed ionisation source to the sample of gaseous fluid generates reactant ions, and the reactant ions are subsequently allowed to mix with an unionised portion of the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region to generate product ions (See Fig. 1, items 104, 110, 112, 118, and 116; Col. 3, Lines 47-67; Col. 5, Lines 43-52; Examiner notes that after ionization of the reactant ions, they will inherently begin reacting with the unionized portion of the sample gas to create product ions),
Satoh further teaches 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 ([0029]).
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goedecke (USPN US 9147565 B1), as modified, in view of Wernlund (USPN US 3626181 A).
Examiner notes for completeness that Satoh (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130306859 A1) also explicitly discloses limitations which are determined to not be required under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund teaches the instrument of claim 12.
Goedecke, as modified, further teaches [wherein an ionisation pulse from the pulsed ionisation source to the sample of gaseous fluid generates reactant ions, and the reactant ions are subsequently allowed to mix with an unionised portion of the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region to generate product ions (See Fig. 1, items 104, 110, 112, 118, and 116; Col. 3, Lines 47-67; Col. 5, Lines 43-52; Examiner notes that after ionization of the reactant ions, they will inherently begin reacting with the unionized portion of the sample gas to create product ions),
Goedecke 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, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the device of Goedecke is merely required to be capable of performing such a function. Goedecke is capable of arbitrary gate delays via arbitrary control of the ion shutter in order to preferentially select ions based on their mobility, and thus reads on the limitation.
Nevertheless, for completeness, Examiner notes that Satoh teaches [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] ([0029]).
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 Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, 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], as taught by Satoh.
Doing so would allow one to obtain the desired ion species to pass through the gate, as taught by Satoh, allowing better control of the produced species, as indicated as desirable by Goedecke.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund and Satoh teaches the instrument of claim 13.
Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim merely requires that the device be capable of having a first gate delay that is longer than the second gate delay. Goedecke is capable of arbitrary gate delays via arbitrary control of the ion shutter in order to preferentially select ions based on their mobility, and thus reads on the limitation.
Nevertheless, for completeness, Satoh further teaches wherein the first gate delay is longer than the second gate delay ([0029]).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund and Satoh teaches the instrument of claim 12.
Goedecke, as modified, further teaches [wherein an ionisation pulse from the pulsed ionisation source to the sample of gaseous fluid generates reactant ions, and the reactant ions are subsequently allowed to mix with an unionised portion of the sample of gaseous fluid in the reaction region to generate product ions (See Fig. 1, items 104, 110, 112, 118, and 116; Col. 3, Lines 47-67; Col. 5, Lines 43-52; Examiner notes that after ionization of the reactant ions, they will inherently begin reacting with the unionized portion of the sample gas to create product ions),
Goedecke 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, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the device of Goedecke is merely required to be capable of performing such a function. Goedecke is capable of arbitrary gate delays via arbitrary control of the ion shutter in order to preferentially select ions based on their mobility, and thus reads on the limitation.
Nevertheless, for completeness, Satoh further teaches Satoh further teaches wherein the first gate delay is selected so that the portion of first sample ions comprises product ions in preference to reactant ions ([0029]).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund and Satoh teaches the instrument of claim 13.
Goedecke further teaches wherein the controller is configured to obtain ion spectrum data based on analysing at least one of the portion of first sample ions and the portion of second sample ions and to control subsequent operation of the ion shutter based on said analysing (See Fig. 3; Col. 6, Line 34 – Col. 7, Line 57, and in particular Col. 6, Lines 34-65 and Col. 7, Lines 10-57).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund and Satoh teaches the instrument of claim 16.
Goedecke further teaches 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 (See Fig. 3; Col. 6, Line 34 – Col. 7, Line 57).
Regarding claim 18, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund and Satoh teaches the instrument of claim 17.
Goedecke further teaches wherein selecting the subsequent gate delay comprises selecting a gate delay to increase the amplitude of the product ion peak (See Fig. 3; Col. 6, Line 34 – Col. 7, Line 57).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund and Satoh teaches the instrument of claim 17.
Goedecke further teaches wherein controlling subsequent operation of the ion shutter comprises reducing a gate width during a gate delay interval associated with the product ion peak (See Fig. 3; Col. 6, Line 34 – Col. 7, Line 57).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goedecke (USPN US 9147565 B1), as modified, in view of Wernlund (USPN US 3626181 A) and Vestal (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20040119012 A1).
Examiner notes that Vestal is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 11/22/2022.
Regarding claim 9, Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, in view of Wernlund teaches the method of claim 1.
Goedecke does not explicitly teach wherein at least one gate delay is selected based on a mobility of a calibrant.
However, Goedecke discloses modifying the gate delay based on the ion mobility of ions in a first pulse, which one could reasonably interpret as being based on the mobility of a calibrant if the first pulse were used to calibrate the subsequent pulses of ions.
Nevertheless, Vestal teaches wherein at least one gate delay is selected based on the mobility of a calibrant ([0073]).
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 Goedecke, as modified to include a conventional pulsed ion source, to include wherein at least one gate delay is selected based on the mobility of a calibrant, as taught by Vestal.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use calibration data to better assign the gate delay value to achieve a desired measurement result.
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
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881