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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 04/15/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-19, 21, and 25 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/15/2026, hereinafter NFOA0115. However, Applicant’s amendments to the claims have resulted in at least one additional objectionable issue. See below for detailed discussion.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in NFOA0115. While Applicant’s response is bona fide, indefiniteness issues remain. See below for detailed discussion.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, in regards to claim 1, Applicant recites several limitations from the claim (see Remarks dated 04/15/2026, p. 7-8), emphasizing “That is, claim 1 requires the steps of drawing a sample of gaseous fluid into the reaction region and ionising it with a first pulse of the pulsed ionisation source, and subsequently controlling the gate delay to permit first sample ions to enter the drift region. This is followed by applying a second pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to the sample of gaseous fluid (i.e. the same sample that was drawn into the reaction region), and subsequently controlling the gate delay to permit second sample ions to enter the drift region.”, and argues “It is respectfully submitted that these recitations in the claims are not disclosed in the prior art and are not taken into account in the reasoning provided in the Office Action.”
Claim 1, regarding these limitations, requires “drawing a sample of gaseous fluid into the reaction region of the ion mobility spectrometer; providing a first pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to ionise the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain first sample ions; after a first gate delay following the first pulse, opening the ion shutter to permit a portion of the first sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region; after the ion shutter has closed, providing a second pulse of the pulsed ionisation source to further ionise the sample of gaseous fluid, thereby to obtain second sample ions; after a second gate delay following the second pulse, opening the ion shutter 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.” While similar to the requirements alleged by Applicant above, the claims do not require ‘controlling a gate delay’. The claim requires opening the ion shutter after first and second gate delays, which are required to be different, which only requires that two gate delays be used, not that gate delays be controlled generally or in an active sense. The method requires drawing in the sample, providing a first pulse from an ionization source to the sample to ionize the sample, allowing a time period to elapse after the first pulse, and opening the ion shutter to allow a portion of the ionized sample to enter the drift region. The method then has a gap between steps (see further discussion below), as it requires ‘after the ion shutter has closed’, however, the method does not require closing the shutter, nor any particular time of remaining open. The claim subsequently requires providing a second pulse from the pulsed ionization source to ionize the sample of gaseous fluid, allowing a time period to elapse after the second pulse, and opening the ion shutter to allow a portion of the sample ions (ionized by the second pulse) to enter the drift region. Finally, the claim requires the two time periods elapsed between ionization pulses and opening the ion shutter be different. Respectfully, each of these limitations were mapped in NFOA0115 on pages 17-21, and Applicant’s assertion that “…these recitations in the claims are not disclosed in the prior art and are not taken into account in the reasoning provided in the Office Action.” is not directed toward any particular limitation. Accordingly, the argument is not convincing.
Applicant subsequently argues that Goedecke does not teach a pulsed ionization source, arguing: “In the Office Action, it is alleged that a pulsed ionisation source may be used in the system of Goedecke, based on an allegation of the general use of a pulsed ionisation source in the art. The Office Action at page 18 states 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.
(Emphasis added.) However, the fact that Goedecke does not specifically exclude a pulsed ionization source does not mean that Goedecke discloses a pulsed ionization source. Electron beam ionization sources are also known to be constant ionization sources similar to the other ion sources in Goedecke.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assessment.
First, Examiner did not assert at any point in NFOA015 that Goedecke explicitly or implicitly discloses a pulsed ionization source. In fact, on p. 18 of FOA0115, the rejection explicitly states that Goedecke does not explicitly disclose a pulsed ionization source. As discussed on p. 3-4 of NFOA0115, the ionization source of Goedecke is not particularly limited. Examiner asserted that electron beam ionization sources are known in the art to have the capability to be pulsed, which is accurate, and was merely intended to indicate relevant information known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner did not, however, assert that this disclosure taught such a pulsed source. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments that “…the fact that Goedecke does not specifically exclude a pulsed ionization source does not mean that Goedecke discloses a pulsed ionization source. Electron beam ionization sources are also known to be constant ionization sources similar to the other ion sources in Goedecke” are moot. As would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan, the source of Goedecke is not particularly limited, and thus, could reasonably include either pulsed or non-pulsed sources in various forms, such as those explicitly disclosed by Goedecke, as well as those that would otherwise be known to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Regardless, Goedecke does not explicitly teach such a pulsed source, as explicitly recited in the office action (p. 18), and hence, several prior art documents disclosing the conventional use of pulsed sources for ion manipulation arrangements (e.g., various forms of ion spectrometry) were provided to demonstrate that such a generic pulsed ionization source is well known in the art. Accordingly, the argument is not convincing.
Applicant further argues: “Additionally, the Office Action only makes reference generally to the use of pulsed ionization sources and appears not to specifically address those limitations with specific teachings in the art.”
As discussed above, these references to the use of pulsed ionization sources in ion manipulation arrangements (i.e., reasonably pertinent to Goedecke) were intended to only teach the modification of the ionization source of Goedecke to be pulsed. As shown in the claim mapping, each limitation is separately addressed.
Accordingly, Applicants following argument that “There is no disclosure in the cited art, or any indication in the Office Action of the above-described features of drawing a sample into the reaction region and applying first and second pulses of a pulsed ionisation source to that same sample, where different gate delays are applied to the first and second sample ions produced. Rather, there are only generalized statements.” is not convincing. Applicant has not pointed to any particular limitation that is not taught by either Goedecke or the combination applied in NFOA0115, or any particular ‘generalized statements’ relied upon in the prior art mapping. Each of the limitations of claim 1 are mapped on p. 17-21 of the action, with motivations to combine each element or technique combined to achieve the combination. Applicant has not indicated any particular limitations with erroneous claim mapping, and accordingly, the argument is not convincing.
Applicant next argues: “A specific embodiment of this concept is referred to in Claim 10. In reference to Claim 10, the Examiner appears to suggest that Wernlund discloses the features of Claim 10. However, Applicant respectfully disagrees. The passage at column 2, lines 38-39 of Wernlund referred to in the Office Action does not disclose the claimed features, this passage only states
Inlet tube 16 and outlet tube 18 permit an ionizable gaseous sample containing a substance to be detected to be introduced to and removed from the envelope 12. Any source of gaseous pressure, such as a suitable pump, may be employed to move the sample.
There is no disclosure, teaching, or even suggestion in Wernlund of the operation of a pressure pulser as recited in Claim 10, or the above-described recitations of Claim 1. In Wernlund, the only disclosure is of the inlet tube 16 and the outlet tube 18, which could be used to provide a flow of gas from the inlet tube 16 to the outlet tube 18. If the Examiner maintains the current rejections of Claims 1 and 10, Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to provide references that disclose the specific configurations and timing recited in these claims.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assessment, as the disclosed portion teaches a pressure pulser as required by claim 10.
Claim 10 requires “…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.” The term “pressure pulser” is not specifically limited in the claim beyond requiring the capability ‘to draw the sample into the reaction region’. Applicant’s specification provides further (non-limiting) instruction in [0038], which includes reference to a (non-limiting) pressure pulser including an actuator and a membrane, and recites “Drawing the sample of gaseous fluid comprises operating the pressure pulser to draw the sample into the reaction region - e.g. by providing temporary reductions of pressure in the reaction region.” (Emphasis added by Examiner), which appears to indicate that the pressure pulser is intended to operate by locally changing the pressure of a region to cause the sample to flow into the reaction region. While instructive, Examiner is not permitted to read such limitation from the specification into the claim. Accordingly, absent other limitation, a pressure pulser would be understood in the context of the claim as an element that changes a pressure to move the sample.
The cited portion of Wernlund, Col. 2, lines 38-39, recites “Any source of gaseous pressure, such as a suitable pump, may be employed to move the sample.” A pump that is turned on to create a local pressure field that causes the sample to be moved into the chamber (moving in the context of this disclosure in Wernlund is relative to the envelope 12). Additionally, ‘any source of gaseous pressure’ also includes additional potential pressure devices that would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art to be capable of creating a local pressure field and would cause the sample to move. This teaching reads on operating the equivalent of a pressure pulser (i.e., read on the example operating principle provided by Applicant’s specification) to draw the sample into the equivalent of the reaction region. Additionally, the previously cited portions of Goedecke and Wernlund (i.e., in claim 1) describing drawing in the sample and the plural pulses of the ionizer (in the case of Wernlund) disclosed that no additional sample was introduced into the equivalent of the reaction region between the plural ionizations. Examiner cited the necessary prior art portions to teach limitations not already disclosed in previous claim limitation mapping. Furthermore, Examiner notes for completeness that the claim does not require actually performing a subsequent operation of the pressure pulser, and as such, the claim merely requires that both pulses are performed and the pressure pulser is not operated between the pulses. The applied prior art combination clearly discloses performing a plurality of ionizations/ion pulses with a same sample as required by the claim. Accordingly, this argument is not convincing.
Applicant further argues: “In addition, it is stated on page 20 of the Office Action, in relation to claim 1:
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.
However, there is a fundamental missing link in this reasoning. The ''desired'' ion selectivity mentioned in the above passage of the Office Action (i.e. selecting by gate delay) is not a concept that is disclosed, taught or even suggested by Goedecke or by Wernlund. The reasoning in the Office Action presupposes that a skilled person is already seeking to do what the present claims specify, without any teaching in the prior art to do so. While Wernlund varies the delay between an ionisation pulse and an ion gate, this is only to enable the use of a difference circuit for recording signals as a function of time. There is no selection of ions that are passed for mobility analysis in Wernlund. The ''desired'' ion selectivity is not disclosed in Goedecke or Wernlund at all. That is to say, the cited ''desire'' to select ions to pass for mobility analysis, i.e. to a drift chamber, using different gate delays is not found in either Goedecke or Wernlund.”
First, in response to Applicant’s argument that “The ''desired'' ion selectivity mentioned in the above passage of the Office Action (i.e. selecting by gate delay) is not a concept that is disclosed, taught or even suggested by Goedecke or by Wernlund. The reasoning in the Office Action presupposes that a skilled person is already seeking to do what the present claims specify, without any teaching in the prior art to do so.”, Examiner notes that ‘selecting by gate delay’ is not required under the BRI of the claims, nor is any particular ‘desired’ ion selectivity, and thus whether such a concept is disclosed, taught, or suggested by Goedecke or Wernlund is moot.
Additionally, Goedecke, as previously discussed in NFOA0115 discloses at least two gate delays, including such that ions with different mobilities (and different ionization exposures) are detected separately.
Examiner at no point presupposed that an ordinarily skilled artisan is already seeking to do what the present claims specify, and made no such allegation in NFOA0115. For completeness, Examiner additionally notes that at no point in NFOA0115 did Examiner presuppose that one of ordinary skill in the art would be seeking to select by gate delay.
Examiner did, however, allege that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to improve the ion source of Goedecke with a pulsed source for the reasons disclosed in the office action, which have not been refuted. Examiner further alleged that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the relative timing control techniques of Wernlund directed specifically toward the timing between ionization and the opening of the shutter to the modified device of Goedecke, which includes such a pulsed source, and that it would be within the abilities of an ordinarily skilled artisan to do so in view of the cited portions of Wernlund.
Applicant further argues “While Wernlund varies the delay between an ionisation pulse and an ion gate, this is only to enable the use of a difference circuit for recording signals as a function of time. There is no selection of ions that are passed for mobility analysis in Wernlund. The ''desired'' ion selectivity is not disclosed in Goedecke or Wernlund at all. That is to say, the cited ''desire'' to select ions to pass for mobility analysis, i.e. to a drift chamber, using different gate delays is not found in either Goedecke or Wernlund.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Wernlund discloses selection of ions via their characteristics, namely drift velocity, however, Wernlund was not applied to teach mobility analysis, as Goedecke discloses selection of ions via their mobility/mobility analysis. Wernlund clearly discloses selecting via drift velocity, while Goedecke discloses the drift chamber, gate delays, and mobility analysis.
Additionally, portions of Examiner’s note were intended to indicate typical routine experimentation and/or calculations involved in the reduction to practice of any such mobility/velocity selecting apparatuses. For example, Examiner indicated the natural necessity of any system to adapt the timing control of its shutter and ionization source according to the physical conditions of the particular system. For example, the ionization conditions (e.g., the particular type of sample gas, ionization pulse characteristics) determine which potential types of ions can occur (which can be determined either via routine experimentation or first principles, as the conditions are physically deterministic), which would inherently determine their native properties (i.e., mobilities, velocities, etc.; again, these properties are inherent to particular ions). According to these properties (i.e., properties by which to separate ions, which is generally performed by various prior art documents cited in the rejection of claim 1 in different ways), the spacing between the ionization source, and the shutter and the spacing between the ionization region and the shutter, the timing of gates necessary to select ions according to any arbitrary reasonably-measurable property can be determined by routine experimentation and/or first principles. However, Examiner did not allege that this natural necessity to adapt conditions of separation according to the particular system (and/or the generic capability of an ordinarily skilled artisan to do so) taught or rendered obvious any claim limitation in the rejection. Nor did Examiner allege that actually separating particular ions in a particular arrangement according to a particular property would necessarily be obvious. These portions will be separated in the following action for clarity.
Applicant further argues: “Furthermore, in reply to the comments on Applicant's earlier arguments in the present Office Action, the Examiner attributes the points labelled (i) to (iv) as mere arguments relating generally to bodily incorporation or age of references. However, this is not correct. As the Examiner notes at the beginning of page 6 of the Office Action:
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.
The points (i) to (iv) summarised by the Examiner do not go to mere bodily incorporation or age of references, but precisely to what their disclosures would indicate to a skilled artisan. For example, with regard to the age and purpose of Wernlund, the argument is not simply that the reference is old, but rather that its teaching, as it is presented to the skilled artisan, teaches techniques for analysing the timing of ions' arrival at a detector, and not to selecting ions for mobility analysis. It is only speculation, not based on any implicit or explicit disclosure, teaching or even suggestion in the prior art, that a skilled artisan could pull the teaching of Wernlund out of context and apply it in completely different circumstances. There is no evidence on file to support the alleged teaching as described in the office action. Thus, the argument is not as to the age of Wernlund per se, but rather the technical information that is provided to the skilled artisan by the entire teaching of Wernlund (without reading the teaching into Wernlund that is taken from the present application and not found in the prior art).
Similarly, the point regarding the use of the teaching of Wernlund in a way that would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change its principle of operation is not a mere bodily incorporation argument with regard to the modification of Goedecke. Instead, this goes to what the disclosure would indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan, who is taught by Wernlund to use a specific technique in a specific context, for a specific reason. There is no suggestion or motivation in the art to use the teaching of Wernlund in an entirely different context, and in a way that does not achieve the purpose to which Wernlund is directed. This is not an argument of bodily incorporation, but rather it relates directly to what the disclosure of Wernlund would indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan. The modifications and combinations based on Goedecke and Wernlund are technically non-sensical when starting from these prior art documents and viewing each disclosure as a whole, as a skilled artisan would (without knowledge of the present application). There is certainly no suggestion of the benefits described in the passages bridging pages 2 and 3 of the present application. It necessarily requires the use of the present application as a blueprint to take each disclosure in the prior art out of its technical context in the way proposed by the Examiner.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes Applicants remarks have not overcome Examiner’s arguments presented in NFOA0115.
In particular, as discussed in the action, each of the points was further discussed thereafter (see p. 8-10), and as such, Applicant’s arguments regarding these points have already been addressed in NFOA0115.
Nevertheless, the relevant arguments will be further clarified.
Applicant argues: “The points (i) to (iv) summarised by the Examiner do not go to mere bodily incorporation or age of references, but precisely to what their disclosures would indicate to a skilled artisan. For example, with regard to the age and purpose of Wernlund, the argument is not simply that the reference is old, but rather that its teaching, as it is presented to the skilled artisan, teaches techniques for analysing the timing of ions' arrival at a detector, and not to selecting ions for mobility analysis.”
However, as discussed (see p. 5-6), Examiner did not solely argue that the referenced points are directed toward unconvincing arguments presented on p. 7-10 (bodily incorporation or age of references), but that they additionally presented those arguments in addition to the non-convincing non-analogous art argument addressed on p. 5-6.
As indicated in NFOA0115, 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, as indicated by Applicant. An ordinarily skilled artisan would readily recognize the potential utility of timing control techniques between a shutter and a pulsed ion source to a different application also utilizing timing control techniques between a shutter and an ion source, regardless of what is downstream of the shutter, as the apparatus itself is not the proposed combination.
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 having an ion source and a shutter selectively allowing ions therethrough, 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 NFOA 0115 (and 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.
Applicant further argues: “It is only speculation, not based on any implicit or explicit disclosure, teaching or even suggestion in the prior art, that a skilled artisan could pull the teaching of Wernlund out of context and apply it in completely different circumstances. There is no evidence on file to support the alleged teaching as described in the office action. Thus, the argument is not as to the age of Wernlund per se, but rather the technical information that is provided to the skilled artisan by the entire teaching of Wernlund (without reading the teaching into Wernlund that is taken from the present application and not found in the prior art).”
Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s assertion that Wernlund is being pulled out of context via speculation and applied to completely different circumstances is unfounded. Examiner has provided ample disclosure of reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art may find the teachings of Wernlund to be reasonably pertinent to the goal sought by Goedecke, and Applicant has not specifically refuted these findings by Examiner. Additionally, Applicant’s assertion that teachings of the present application are being read into Wernlund is not convincing. Examiner’s mapping of these claim limitations has not specifically been challenged, nor has any particular ‘reading in of teachings from the present application’ been presented by Applicant. Respectfully, Examiner has not read any limitation from the present application into Wernlund, and rather, the combination is motivated by recognizing similar functionality between two prior art documents, and recognizing that the teachings of one would be reasonably pertinent to the other.
As indicated in NFOA0115, 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, as indicated by Applicant. An ordinarily skilled artisan would readily recognize the potential utility of timing control techniques between a shutter and a pulsed ion source to a different application also utilizing timing control techniques between a shutter and an ion source, regardless of what is downstream of the shutter, as the apparatus itself is not the proposed combination.
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 having an ion source and a shutter selectively allowing ions therethrough, regardless of whether Wernlund is specifically directed toward such an application.
Applicant further argues: “Similarly, the point regarding the use of the teaching of Wernlund in a way that would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change its principle of operation is not a mere bodily incorporation argument with regard to the modification of Goedecke. Instead, this goes to what the disclosure would indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan, who is taught by Wernlund to use a specific technique in a specific context, for a specific reason. There is no suggestion or motivation in the art to use the teaching of Wernlund in an entirely different context, and in a way that does not achieve the purpose to which Wernlund is directed. This is not an argument of bodily incorporation, but rather it relates directly to what the disclosure of Wernlund would indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan. The modifications and combinations based on Goedecke and Wernlund are technically non-sensical when starting from these prior art documents and viewing each disclosure as a whole, as a skilled artisan would (without knowledge of the present application). There is certainly no suggestion of the benefits described in the passages bridging pages 2 and 3 of the present application. It necessarily requires the use of the present application as a blueprint to take each disclosure in the prior art out of its technical context in the way proposed by the Examiner.”
The arguments regarding the context of use in Wernlund are not convincing for similar reasons as discussed above, as the applied teachings of Wernlund are reasonably applicable to Goedecke, and as previously discussed, Wernlund is not being modified in the combination. The argument that the modifications and combinations are technically non-sensical when starting from these prior art documents and viewing each disclosure as a whole, is not convincing, as the applied teachings of Wernlund are reasonably applicable to Goedecke, as previously discussed. Viewing each document as a whole does not require combining every element, nor does it obviate the combination applied in NFOA0115. Combinations can be properly made in which the vast majority of the combining documents are directed toward very different problems/solutions, and can equivalently be properly made in cases which the vast majority of elements and embodiments of the combining documents cannot be combined. However, even in such cases, the prior art documents can provide teachings, techniques, structures, etc. that are reasonably pertinent to the problem solved by the other.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the benefits decribed in the passages bridging pages 2 and 3 of the present application) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The motivations to combine present in the office action have not been refuted, and are thus, maintained as proper.
Accordingly, Applicants arguments are not convincing.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “…based on the first sample ions…” and “…based on the portion of the second sample ions…”, which Examiner believes should read ‘…based on the portion of the first sample ions…’.
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, 8-21, 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.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 25, the claims each recite “…after the ion shutter has closed…”, however, claims 1 and 25 do not previously recite method steps requiring closing the ion shutter, and claim 12 does not disclose any structure as having the functionality to close (or in fact to open) the ion shutter. In the case of claims 1 and 25, this amounts to a gap between steps, as it is unclear what is required by ‘opening the ion shutter…after the ion shutter has closed…’, since the methods do not disclose closing the ion shutter, or the ion shutter closing after any time period. In the case of claim 12, the claim is directed toward a device, but is nevertheless indefinite for similar reasons. Claim 12 requires “a controller configured to…control the ion shutter to provide a first gate delay between the operating of the pulsed ionisation source and opening the ion shutter to permit a portion of the sample ions to leave…”. Controlling an ion shutter to provide a first gate delay does not appear to require actually opening or closing the ion shutter. The claim does not actually require the controller be configured to open the ion shutter to permit the portion of sample ions to leave. Accordingly, the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. opening and closing the ion shutter, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the device in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. 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 though the method steps include ‘after a predetermined period of time, closing the ion shutter’ before the limitation at issue, and as though claim 12 recites ‘a controller configured to…control the ion shutter to open and close and to provide a first gate delay between the operating of the pulsed ionisation source and opening the ion shutter, the opening of the ion shutter permitting a portion of the first sample ions to leave the reaction region and to enter the drift region; close the ion shutter after a predetermined period of time; after the ion shutter has closed…’. Similar interpretation is adopted for the second ‘control the ion shutter limitation, except for the initialization of the opening and closing capabilities.
Claims 13-19 and 21 each recite method steps, as discussed in NFOA0115, 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 NFOA0115 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, 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, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, 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 in NFOA0115, 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, or not 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, and the results in Fig. 3 showing the ion mobility separation, with the latter having inherently had more ionization exposure while the first group drifted; Examiner additionally notes that the delay between the start of ionization and the second opening of the shutter is different than that between the start of ionization and the first opening of the shutter).
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. Wernlund is applied merely as a teaching reference to adapt the timing of an ion shutter (disclosed by Goedecke) with a pulsed ionization source, such that the techniques of Goedecke can be better adapted to an improved ionization source (e.g., those disclosed in Bromberg, Cohen, Davies, Spangler, Ivashin, and/or Matthews).
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), adapted for the application of Goedecke in natural fashion, 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 generally adapt the particular length of the gate delays to select 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 (e.g., determined by the physics of the application), 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 characteristics to determine the time necessary to delay in order to select particular ions according to some arbitrary desired characteristic of the ions.
Regarding claim 5, 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 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, 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 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, 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 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, 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.
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; Examiner notes that Wernlund discloses performing plural ionization with the same sample in Col. 3, Line 60 – Col. 4, Line 23).
Regarding claim 11, 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 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 configured 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 the BRI of such functionality in an apparatus claim is interpreted as merely requiring a structure capable of performing the function, 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 the BRI of such functionality in an apparatus claim is interpreted as merely requiring a structure capable of performing the function, 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, and the results in Fig. 3 showing the ion mobility separation, with the latter having inherently had more ionization exposure while the first group drifted; Examiner additionally notes that the delay between the start of ionization and the second opening of the shutter is different than that between the start of ionization and the first opening of the shutter).
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 structure having the capability to perform the functions claimed, and the device of Goedecke, modified to include a pulsed 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; Examiner notes that Wernlund discloses performing plural ionization with the same sample in Col. 3, Line 60 – Col. 4, Line 23).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, 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, and the results in Fig. 3 showing the ion mobility separation, with the latter having inherently had more ionization exposure while the first group drifted; Examiner additionally notes that the delay between the start of ionization and the second opening of the shutter is different than that between the start of ionization and the first opening of the shutter).
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. Wernlund is applied merely as a teaching reference to adapt the timing of an ion shutter (disclosed by Goedecke) with a pulsed ionization source, such that the techniques of Goedecke can be better adapted to an improved ionization source (e.g., those disclosed in Bromberg, Cohen, Davies, Spangler, Ivashin, and/or Matthews).
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), adapted for the application of Goedecke in natural fashion, which could be readily determined by routine experimentation, as discussed above.
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 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 (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 remaining 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 teaches the method of claim 1.
Goedecke, as modified, further teaches Goedecke, as modified, further teaches 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 (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 remaining 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, 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, 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]).
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, 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, 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.
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 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 (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 remaining 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 Goedecke, as modified, further teaches 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 (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 remaining 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 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]).
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, 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, 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 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, 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 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, 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 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights