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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 03/19/2026 with the above request for continued examination have been entered. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 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 12/19/2025, hereinafter FOA1219.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in FOA1219.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues in favor of the amended claim limitations, which are moot, because they pertain to amended claim limitations not present at the time of FOA1219. Nevertheless, for clarity of the record, Examiner will address a relevant point. Applicant states “…claims 1, 10, and 17 are currently amended to clarify that the system employs a single deflector. This single deflector is configured to alone be able to deflect the ions along a deflection page as claimed.” (Emphasis added by Applicant; Deflection page is understood as deflection path). Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim requires that the single deflector is configured to alone be able to deflect the ions. The claim at no point requires the single deflector to alone be capable of deflecting the ions along the deflection path, but rather requires capabilities of the single deflector, but does not require that no other elements be used to be used in conjunction with the deflector. In fact, Applicant’s specification (see also, e.g., claim 11) discloses the use of such additional elements which assist in forming the iso-potential lines, such as the grounded enclosure (see [0011], [0032], [0054], [0109] of the PGPub). See also Response to Arguments section of FOA1219 (Page 5, paragraph 2). The claim does require that the single deflector have the capabilities claimed, but not that it does it alone, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Applicant further argues “No cited reference teaches a system with a deflector of the claimed configuration and that is capable of effectively turning the ions in the ion beam with a single deflector.”, which Examiner disagrees with for similar reasons to those discussed in the Response to Arguments section of FOA1219 (See Page 3, paragraph 1 – Page 7, paragraph 1).
Applicant then elaborates on their view of each of the cited prior art documents Kalinitchenko, Hirano, and Dowsett regarding the this amended limitation.
In regards to Kalinitchenko, Applicant argues “Kalinitchenko requires an ion mirror that is required to be positioned immediately after the ion source that is a flat deflective element (36) that itself includes a number of chargeable elements (e.g. [0088]) and a grounded flat element (40) in opposition.”, further arguing “The field between the first element and the grounded element are what turn the ions.”, concluding that “it is a combination of a chargeable element and a rejecting element that are required to turn the ions in Kalinitchenko”.
Respectfully, it is Examiner’s opinion that this does not distinguish between the claimed invention and Kalinitchenko, because Kalinitchenko discloses a single deflector with the required capabilities, and the claims do not preclude the single deflector having constituent elements.
First, regarding Applicant’s assessment of Kalinitchenko, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kalinitchenko does not mention an “ion mirror” at any point within their disclosure, and does not disclose any element being ‘positioned immediately after the ion source’. In Kalinitchenko, the deflector is downstream of the ion source and extracting/focusing optics (e.g., deflector 5 downstream of ion source 4, thermalization arrangement 8, extraction arrangement 27 which includes extraction/focusing electrodes 16, 20, and lens 32 in Fig. 2; [0087]). While item 36 could be considered to be functionally equivalent to an ion mirror, it is not explicitly disclosed as such, and thus this cannot serve to distinguish between Kalinitchenko and the amended claims.
Second, Applicant appears to be attempting to distinguish between the deflector of Kalinitchenko and the single deflector required by the amended claims by indicating Kalinitchenko has more than a single deflector. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The deflector, as indicated in the prior art rejection of FOA1219, is item 5, not item 36. While deflector 5 may have plural constituent elements, plural constituent elements are not precluded by the claim, and nevertheless deflector 5 itself is only a single deflector, and thus reads on the limitation as now claimed.
For completeness, Examiner notes that the ion deflector 5 of Kalinitchenko includes an electric field inducer 10 ([0084]; i.e., a single electric field inducer), which itself includes a chargeable component 36 ([0088]; i.e., a single chargeable component). The chargeable component 36 is disclosed as having a number of chargeable elements 88, however, these are constituent elements of a single item 36, and [0088] indicates that the number of chargeable elements 88 is not particularly limited, as ‘more or less’ than the four shown in the figures are disclosed as possible by Kalinitchenko. It is Examiner’s view that this disclosure is sufficiently broad to include a single chargeable element 88 (i.e., 1 is less than 4), which would moot any argument that such plural elements 88 would require more than a single deflector (a characterization which Examiner nevertheless disagrees with, as discussed above). Additionally, [0088]-[0091] discuss each of the chargeable elements 88 as exhibiting a voltage potential that is controllable to a desired value, and accordingly, even in a case having a plurality of elements 88, were each of the elements 88 controlled to exhibit a same voltage, or to achieve a net voltage on the chargeable component 36, the chargeable component 36 would operate as a single chargeable element 88 (and any ions passing therethrough would experience a single net deflection), which would also moot any argument that such plural elements 88 would require more than a single deflector. Examiner notes that claims 1 and 10 are system claims, and as such the prior art need only the capability to achieve the claimed functionality in order to read on the limitations thereof, while claim 17 requires the actual function/method steps (which are nevertheless disclosed).
Applicant’s argument that Kalinitchenko requires a deflective element (i.e., item 36) and a grounded element (i.e. item 40) also appears to be an argument that more than a single deflector is required by Kalinitchenko, or that the deflective element must alone perform the deflections, which, as discussed above is not required under the BRI. The grounded element 40 is not a deflector, and operates analogously to the grounded enclosure of the instant application, and thus cannot reasonably serve to distinguish between the deflector of Kalinitchenko and the ‘single’ deflector required by the amended claims. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that “The field between the first element and the grounded element are what turn the ions.” is irrelevant, as this is not precluded by the claims, and in fact, is equivalent to the arrangement of the instant application where the field is produced between the deflector and the grounded enclosure.
In other words, Kalinitchenko discloses the use of a single deflector having plural constituent elements, which are not precluded by the claim, and which are disclosed broadly enough and having sufficient disclosed functionality to themselves read on a single deflector, even if the constituent elements were themselves regarded as ‘deflectors’, an interpretation which Examiner disagrees with, and has not adopted.
Under the BRI, the limitation “the single deflector specifically configured and sufficient to generate an electric field defined by a plurality of curved inner isopotential lines and a plurality of curved outer isopotential lines, wherein ions in the ion beam move along a deflection path in a deflection region that deflects the ion beam within 10° of said inner isopotential lines and out of alignment with the first propagation axis to a second propagation axis aligned with an ion exit opening”, as recited in amended claim 1, requires (i) a single deflector, (ii) the single deflector be specifically (‘specifically’ not interpreted as further limiting, as the BRI of ‘specifically configured to’ and ‘configured to’ is the same) configured and sufficient to (i.e., capable of) generate an electric field, (iii) the electric field be defined by a plurality of curved inner isopotential lines and a plurality of curved outer isopotential lines, (iv) ions in the ion beam move along a deflection path in a deflection region, (v) the deflection path deflects the ion beam within 10° of said inner isopotential lines, (vi) the deflection path deflects the ion beam out of alignment with the first propagation axis to a second propagation axis, and (vii) the second propagation axis is aligned with an ion exit opening.
Examiner notes this (and claim 10) is a system claim, and as such the deflector need only be capable of generating such an electric field with such a functionality. Examiner additionally notes that under the BRI, the ions and the ion beam are not a part of the ion detector assembly of claim 1, and thus regarding limitations to the movement of the ions in the ion beam, a prior art reference would need only disclose structure capable of such functionality to read on the deflector. It is Examiner’s opinion that the deflector 5 of Kalinitchenko reads on this limitation under the BRI, as discussed above and further below, as it discloses or discloses structure having the inherent capabilities of each of (i)-(vii). Items (i) and (ii) are discussed above. Item (iii) is inherently satisfied by the disclosed structure of Kalinitchenko, as the electric fields generated by Kalinitchenko in order to achieve the disclosed deflections inherently have a plurality of curved inner and outer isopotential lines. Item (iv) is clearly satisfied, as discussed above and in the previous prior art rejection. Item (v) is inherently satisfied by the disclosed structure of Kalinitchenko, as the structure of Kalinitchenko is capable of controlling the deflection path of the ion beam to achieve arbitrary deflection, and is thus capable of deflecting an ion beam within 10° of some arbitrary set of isopotential lines that have further isopotential lines further out from the deflector. Item (vi) is clearly satisfied, as discussed above and in the previous prior art rejection. Item (vii) is clearly satisfied, as discussed above and in the previous prior art rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the deflectors of Hirano and Dowsett follow a similar form, namely, that the deflectors thereof have plural constituent elements, and thus cannot read on a single deflector. Examiner respectfully disagrees for similar reasons to those discussed above regarding Kalinitchenko, as the claim does not preclude the deflector having plural constituent elements, and having plural constituent elements does not prevent the deflectors of the cited prior art from being/operating as a ‘single’ deflector under the BRI.
In both Hirano and Dowsett, a single deflector operates to deflect a beam in a similar manner, the single deflector having plural constituent elements (i.e., electrodes 110, 120, and 130 in Hirano and deflecting sectors 42 and 46 in Dowsett). Furthermore, in both Hirano and Dowsett, the plural constituent elements function together to perform a single deflection by the respective deflectors, and thus an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the deflector of either of Hirano or Dowsett as being a ‘single’ deflector under the BRI, or at the very least being a single deflector unit which is functionally equivalent to a single deflector. However, Examiner notes that neither Hirano nor Dowsett is needed to teach such a limitation, as Kalinitchenko discloses the limitation, and the documents could be combined with Kalinitchenko in the same manner discussed in FOA1219, even with the amended limitations of claims 1, 10, and 17.
Applicant’s subsequent further discussion of the functionality discussed in the specification (see p. 10) is instructive, however, cannot serve to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art, as such specific functionality/capabilities is not claimed and Examiner is not permitted to read limitations from the specification into the claims.
Accordingly, it is Examiner’s opinion that including the limitation requiring ‘a single deflector’ in claim 1, and similar limitations in claims 10 and 17, does not distinguish over the prior art of record, including in view of Applicant’s arguments.
Examiner additionally notes that were the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention that the deflector comprise a single, unitary element in place of plural elements disclosed in the prior art (which are sufficient to read on any additional claim requirements thereof), it is Examiner’s opinion that such a limitation would nevertheless be found obvious, because it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Applicant could refute such a determination by showing evidence of unexpected results, however, Examiner notes that such evidence must clearly distinguish how the claimed elements/arrangement (i.e., not embodiments from the disclosure which contain elements/functionality which are not claimed) would achieve such unexpected results, where the prior art arrangement would not.
Next, Applicant argues in regards to claim 10, which was previously amended to include the subject matter now-canceled claim 13.
Applicant argues that Kalinitchenko will not inherently comprise iso-potential lines that extend at decreasing angles relative to the first propagation axis. Applicant supports this assertion by discussing Fig. 2C (and paragraph [0051]) of the instant application, describing how the invention of the instant application creates such iso-potential lines and how the iso-potential lines will be disposed within the system. Applicant further supports this assertion by stating that “In contrast, Kalinitchenko requires the presence of an ion mirror that is required to be positioned immediately after the ion source that changes the way any iso-potential lines extend from any deflecting element.” and “Thus, due to the fundamentally different geometry and electrode arrangement in Kalinitchenko, the claimed iso-potential line behavior cannot be inherent in that system.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assessment, and does not view the arguments as adequately refuting Examiner’s assertion of inherency made in FOA1219.
First, as discussed above, Kalinitchenko does not require the presence of ‘an ion mirror’ that is required to be ‘positioned immediately after the ion source’. Kalinitchenko discloses the use of a deflector 5 which is downstream of the ion source and extracting/focusing elements, as discussed above. While item 36 (a constituent element of deflector 5) could be considered to be functionally equivalent to an ion mirror, it is not explicitly disclosed as such, and thus this alleged difference cannot serve to distinguish between Kalinitchenko and the amended claims, and the deflector of Kalinitchenko is also not required to be ‘positioned immediately after the ion source’, nor would this necessarily refute the inherency asserted in FOA1219.
Second, Applicant has argued that such an alleged ion mirror disposed immediately after the ion source would ‘changes the way any iso-potential lines extend from any deflecting element’, but does not say how this would change the iso-potential lines, nor how such a change would necessarily result in generated iso-potential lines that do not achieve the required relative positioning thereof. Examiner notes that Kalinitchenko is not required to achieve the same arrangement as discussed in Applicant’s disclosure in order to read on the claimed limitation, it is only required to read on the claim language, and achieve a system which is capable of (including inherently capable of) generating an electric field having the necessary iso-potential lines and their relative positioning within the system.
Applicant has not demonstrated how Kalinitchenko is not capable of forming such iso-potential line arrangements. Applicant argues “A system is not inherently arranged to produce a particular field distribution merely because it is capable of being reconfigured to tuned to do so.” Applicant’s argument is moot because Examiner at no point alleged that the system is ‘inherently arranged to produce a particular field distribution’ (Emphasis added by Examiner), because the production of a particular field distribution is not required by the claim, as the claim is directed to a system with particular capabilities. Examiner argued that the system of Kalinitchenko is capable of achieving such iso-potential lines, which is all that is required by the claim, as these limitations are directed to capabilities of the deflector, and such, a system that achieves these capabilities inherently reads on the system, even if the prior art reference does not explicitly disclose the particular iso-potential line arrangements. Furthermore, Applicant has not argued how such an alleged change in ‘the way any iso-potential lines extend from any deflecting element’ would necessarily result in different iso-potential lines (or their relative positioning of) for Kalinitchenko compared to the claimed invention, and in fact, has not discussed how the iso-potential lines of the arrangement of Kalinitchenko would be formed in any manner other than to merely allege a difference. In other words, Applicant has not provided arguments that could be reasonably construed as adequately refuting Examiner’s assertion of inherency, as Applicant has not described how the iso-potential lines and their relative positioning would be different that that required by the claim, in the arrangement of Kalinitchenko that achieves the deflection of the ion beam required by the claim (and disclosed in Kalinitchenko).
Applicant subsequent asserts that ‘…the Office has not met the burden of providing factual evidence showing that the claimed field geometry necessarily results from the prior-art structure, and therefore inherency is not established.’ Respectfully, Examiner has not asserted that ‘the claimed field geometry necessarily results from the prior-art structure’, because, as discussed above, such a geometry is not required to be formed in the claim. Examiner has asserted that the disclosed structure of Kalinitchenko is inherently capable of forming such an electric field with such iso-potential lines. Accordingly, it would not make sense for Examiner to ‘provide factual evidence showing that the claimed field geometry necessarily results from the prior-art structure’, as such a demonstration would not be required to establish the inherency asserted by Examiner, since the inherency asserted by Examiner is toward the capability of the system of Kalinitchenko to form such iso-potential line arrangements, which is clearly satisfied. In order to achieve the disclosed deflections by the system of Kalinitchenko, it must be capable of achieving such iso-potential lines, else the field would not be capable of curving the ions in the manner it does. Examiner acknowledges that such iso-potential lines in Kalinitchenko would likely have different overall morphology from the iso-potential lines of the instant application, or for instance, from the iso-potential lines of Dowsett, however, it is nevertheless inherently capable of deflecting ions, via an electric field having a plurality of curved iso-potential lines, along the deflection path within 10° of an arbitrary set of ‘inner’ curved iso-potential lines.
As such, Applicant’s assertion that Examiner has not properly established inherency is not supported by sufficient evidentiary basis which can refute Examiner’s assertion of inherency, which is thus maintained.
Applicant further discuses alleged unexpected benefits (i.e., tolerating wider ranges of kinetic energy distributions) to support their refutation of Examiner’s assertion of inherency, however, Applicant does not connect the alleged unexpected benefits to specific claimed elements/functionality that would necessarily achieve these benefits, and that would not be achieved using the prior art arrangements. Accordingly, the argument that the arrangement claimed achieves unexpected benefits that would overcome the inherency asserted by Examiner is not convincing, and the assertion of inherency made by Examiner in NFOA0530 is maintained.
Finally, Applicant argues, in regards to claim 17, in favor of amended claim limitations not present at the time of FOA1219, which are thus moot. However, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure indicates in [0044] that such a ‘drag potential’ appears to merely be an explicit recitation of applying a voltage to the deflector to generate the electric field. error and will address the argument as though it refers to claim 18.
See below for further detailed discussion of amended claim limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12, 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “…the deflector radius of curvature is less than a minimal deflection radius of curvature rdmin.”, which is somewhat ambiguous upon plain reading as the minimal deflection radius of curvature is not connected to the deflection path, as indicated in the disclosure (where rdmin is disclosed as pertaining to the deflection path), and thus upon plain reading it appears to be requiring the deflector radius of curvature being less than a minimal (i.e., smallest) radius of curvature, which would not make sense; As such, to remove this ambiguity, the claim should be amended to connect rdmin to the deflection path, e.g., ‘…the deflector radius of curvature is less than a minimal deflection radius of curvature rdmin of the deflection path/radius.’; Alternatively, such language could be included in claim 4, which claim 5 depends upon, such as ‘…the deflection path to comprise a deflection radius of curvature with an end disposed at the vertex.’;
Claim 6 recites “…a minimal deflection radius of curvature rdmin.”, however, claim 5 already recites “a minimal deflection radius of curvature rdmin”, and claim 6 depends upon claim 5, and thus, should read ‘…the minimal deflection radius of curvature rdmin.’
Claim 16 recites “…wherein the single deflector comprises a quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex…”, which Examiner believe should read ‘…wherein the single deflector comprises the quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex…’, so as to maintain consistency with the convention adopted between claims 1 and 7, such that there is no ambiguity whether this recitation refers back “a quarter of a cylinder” in claim 10;
Claim 19 recites “…wherein: ions in the ion beam comprise a plurality of mass to charge ratios, and applying a plurality of combinations of voltages to the single deflector to direct the ions in the ion beam through the ion exit opening.”, which is somewhat unclear because the claim first limits that which is modified by the method, and then requires an additional method step without indicating that the method is being modified; While definite in context, the wording should be amended to clarify, e.g., ‘…wherein: ions in the ion beam comprise a plurality of mass to charge ratios, and the method further comprises applying a plurality of combinations of voltages to the single deflector to direct the ions in the ion beam through the ion exit opening.’;
Claim 20 recites “…further comprising adjusting voltages applied to the single deflector and to compensate for a kinetic energy distribution of the ions in the ion beam.”, which is somewhat unclear because of the wording; While definite in context, the wording should be amended to clarify, e.g., ‘…further comprising adjusting voltages applied to the single deflector and compensating for a kinetic energy distribution of the ions in the ion beam.’;
Claims 1-9 refer to ‘isopotential’ lines, while in and after claim 10, the claims refer to ‘iso-potential’ lines; A convention should be chosen and maintained, e.g., ‘iso-potential’.
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 10-12 and 14-20 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 10 recites “…a detection element configured to generate electronic signals from the ion beam after deflection via the single deflector, wherein the electric field generated by the single deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to one of the particle shields of the pair of particle shields in an area proximate to the ion exit opening, wherein successive portions of the iso-potential lines extending proximate to the ion entry opening encountered by the ion beam extend at decreasing angles relative to the first propagation axis such that, within the deflection region, the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the vertex.” (Emphasis added by Examiner). The claim does not previously require that iso-potential lines extend proximate to the ion entry opening, nor does the claim require that the electric field that deflects the ion beam do so proximate to the ion entry opening. The claim previously requires that the deflector be capable of producing an electric field with iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to one of the particle shields of the pair of particle shields in an area proximate to the ion exit opening, but makes no reference to the field near the ion entry opening. Examiner notes that the BRI of such functional limitations in such a system claim is understood as requiring structure capable of performing such functionality. Examiner looked to Applicant’s disclosure for instruction, which indicates that the iso-potential lines (i.e., that the deflector is capable of forming) should be proximate the ion entry opening, however, Examiner is not permitted to read limitations from the specification into the claims. As such, it is not clear what is required under the BRI for limitations toward such functionality which is not previously required in the claim. 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 ‘…a detection element configured to generate electronic signals from the ion beam after deflection via the single deflector, wherein the electric field generated by the single deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to one of the particle shields of the pair of particle shields in an area proximate to the ion exit opening, wherein successive portions of the iso-potential lines extend proximate to the ion entry opening, and wherein the successive portions encountered by the ion beam extend at decreasing angles relative to the first propagation axis such that, within the deflection region, the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the vertex.’. Examiner notes that in this interpretation, the beam would inherently encounter the successive portions, because the ion entry opening is previously required to receive the ion beam along the first propagation axis, and thus if the deflector is required to be capable of generating successive portions near the ion entry opening, the successive portions would inherently be encountered by the beam in operation. However, the capability and the necessary structure to achieve it is still what is required under the BRI, rather than an actual application of such fields.
Claim 17 recites “…blocking additional neutral particles by transmitting the ion beam through the ion exit opening in the second particle shield…”, however, the claim does not previously require that the second particle shield have the ion exit opening therein. Examiner looked to Applicant’s disclosure for instruction, which indicates that the second particle shield is intended to have the ion exit opening therein, however, Examiner is not permitted to read limitations from the specification into 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 ‘…blocking additional neutral particles by transmitting the ion beam through the ion exit opening, the ion exit opening being disposed in the second particle shield…’.
Claim 20 recites “…further comprising adjusting voltages applied to the single deflector and whether ‘voltages’ refers back to such implicitly required voltages, or whether additional voltages are intended to be required to be applied and then adjusted. 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 ‘“…further comprising adjusting the drag potential applied to the single deflector and
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 1-10, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalinitchenko (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20150060687 A1) in view of Hirano (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20150187555 A1) and Dowsett (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200058480 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kalinitchenko teaches an ion detector assembly (Abstract; [0043]) comprising:
a first particle [aperture] comprising an ion entry opening for receiving an ion beam propagating along a first propagation axis (See Fig. 7, items 5, 85, 240, and the wall in which the aperture 240 is formed in; [0084]; [0108]; Examiner notes item 85 is the propagation path, which is along a first axis before entering deflector 5 and that the wall in which the aperture 240 is formed could be interpreted as a particle shield, as it blocks particles except in the ion entry opening; Examiner additionally notes Figs. 8-10 read on this limitation as well);
a single deflector (See Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6-10, item 5; [0084]) comprising:
(See Fig. 7, items 240, 260, and walls in which 240 and 260 are formed in; Examiner notes the two walls form a corner),
the single deflector specifically configured and sufficient to generate an electric field defined by a plurality of curved inner isopotential lines and a plurality of curved outer isopotential lines (See Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6-10, item 5; [0084]; Examiner notes that the deflector in the arrangement of Kalinitchenko is capable of generating an electric field having a plurality of curved iso-potential lines, which could be arbitrarily labeled as ‘inner’ and ‘outer’), wherein ions in the ion beam move along a deflection path in a deflection region (See Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6-10, deflection path is path traversed by beam from axis A to axis B; [0084]; deflector in the arrangement of Kalinitchenko is capable of generating an electric field having a plurality of curved iso-potential lines that cause ions to move along a deflection path) that deflects the ion beam within 10° of said inner isopotential lines (Examiner interprets the deflector of Kalinitchenko as inherently capable of deflection of the ion beam being within 10° of an arbitrary subset of the isopotential lines generated by the deflector; The BRI of such functional limitations in an apparatus claim require only sufficient structure to be capable of performing such functionality; The inner curved isopotential lines will inherently exist in the case of the deflector of Kalinitchenko in order to achieve the functionality disclosed, and Kalinitchenko discloses controlling the deflector to arbitrarily deflect a beam between two distinct axes of travel, which are not particularly limited, which Examiner views as inherent disclosure of the capability to perform ‘deflecting the ion beam within 10° of said inner isopotential lines’) and out of alignment with the first propagation axis to a second propagation axis aligned with an ion exit opening (See Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6-10, items A, B, 5, 85, 260; [0084]);
the second particle [aperture] comprising the ion exit opening (See Fig. 7, items 5, 85, 260, and the wall in which the aperture 260 is formed in; [0084]; [0108]; Examiner notes that the wall in which the aperture 260 is formed could be interpreted as a particle shield, as it blocks particles except in the ion exit opening; Examiner additionally Figs. 8-10 read on this limitation as well); and
a detection element configured to convert and multiply the ion beam to electrons after deflection via the single deflector (See Figs. 1-2, and 7, items 48, 265; [0084]; [0108]),
wherein
the first particle [aperture] extends at an angle relative to the second particle [aperture] (See Fig. 7, items 240, 260, and walls in which 240 and 260 are formed in), and
the first particle [aperture] and the second particle [aperture] define the corner region (See Fig. 7, items 240, 260, and walls in which 240 and 260 are formed in; Examiner notes the two walls form a corner).
Kalinitchenko does not explicitly teach a first particle shield comprising an ion entry opening and the second particle shield comprising the ion exit opening and the first particle shield extends at an angle relative to the second particle shield and the first particle shield and the second particle shield define the corner region (Emphases added by Examiner), as Kalinitchenko does not explicitly disclose such wall apertures as specifically shielding, and does not teach a single deflector comprising: a first rear surface extending proximate to the first particle shield; a second rear surface extending proximate to a second particle shield; a vertex where the first rear surface meets the second rear surface, the vertex being disposed proximate to a corner region and wherein the single deflector is a quarter of a sphere centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of an ellipsoid centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector comprises a quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex (Emphases added by Examiner).
Hirano teaches a first particle shield comprising an ion entry opening (See Figs. 2-6, items 140 and 150; [0037]-[0038]) and a second particle shield…the second particle shield comprising an ion exit opening (See Figs. 2-6, items 140 and 150; [0037]-[0038]) and the first particle shield extends at an angle relative to the second particle shield (See Figs. 2-6, items 140 and 150; [0037]-[0038]; [0045]) and the first particle shield and the second particle shield define the corner region (See Figs. 2-6, items 140 and 150; [0037]-[0038]; [0045]).
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 Kalinitchenko to include a first particle shield comprising an ion entry opening and a second particle shield…the second particle shield comprising an ion exit opening and the first particle shield extends at an angle relative to the second particle shield and the first particle shield and the second particle shield define a corner region (Emphases added by Examiner), as taught by Hirano.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use the particle shields in their typical fashion as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, to limit the entry of the particle beam and any neutral species into the deflection area, except via the apertures, which allows for control of the position of the beam entry into and out of the deflection area.
Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano does not teach a single deflector comprising: a first rear surface extending proximate to the first particle shield; a second rear surface extending proximate to a second particle shield; a vertex where the first rear surface meets the second rear surface, the vertex being disposed proximate to a corner region and wherein the single deflector is a quarter of a sphere centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of an ellipsoid centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector comprises a quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex (Emphases added by Examiner).
Dowsett teaches a single deflector (Abstract; [0105]-[0108]) comprising:
a first rear surface extending proximate to the first particle shield (See Fig. 2, item 42, and in particular the straight side on the bottom thereof; Examiner notes that this side is proximate the entrance opening, which corresponds to the first particle shield of Kalinitchenko; Examiner additionally notes that Dowsett discloses the housing 38 as a shield, which is proximate the bottom side of item 42);
a second rear surface extending proximate to a second particle shield (See Fig. 2, item 42, and in particular the straight side on the right side thereof; Examiner notes that this side is proximate the exit opening, which corresponds to the second particle aperture of Kalinitchenko; Examiner additionally notes that Dowsett discloses the housing 38 (which has exit wall 54 as a constituent part thereof) as a shield, which is proximate the right side of item 42),
a vertex where the first rear surface meets the second rear surface, the vertex being disposed proximate to a corner region (See Fig. 2, item 42, and in particular the corner where the straight sides meet; Examiner notes that this vertex is proximate the corner formed by the walls in which the entrance and exit apertures are formed in, which corresponds to the corner region of Kalinitchenko) and further teaches wherein the single deflector is a quarter of a sphere centered on the vertex (See Figs. 2-4, item 42/142; [0114]-[0120]), or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of an ellipsoid centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector comprises a quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex.
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 Kalinitchenko to include a single deflector comprising: a first rear surface extending proximate to the first particle shield; a second rear surface extending proximate to a second particle shield; a vertex where the first rear surface meets the second rear surface, the vertex being disposed proximate to a corner region and wherein the single deflector is a quarter of a sphere centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of an ellipsoid centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector comprises a quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex (Emphases added by Examiner), as taught by Dowsett.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results and would allow one to shape the electric field lines near the deflector using the disclosed morphology of Dowsett for the deflector, allowing alternative/additional control of the direction/propagation of the beam.
Regarding claim 2, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the ion detector assembly of claim 1.
Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett further teaches wherein the first rear surface extends parallel to the first particle shield and the second rear surface extends parallel to the second particle shield (See Hirano, Figs. 2-6 and Dowsett Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the ion detector assembly of claim 1.
Kalinitchenko further teaches wherein a portion of the deflection path extends at a deflection angle of at least 90° relative to the first propagation axis (See Figs. 1-2, 7-10).
Regarding claim 4, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the ion detector assembly of claim 1.
Kalinitchenko further teaches wherein within the deflection region the electric field is configured to cause the deflection path to comprise a deflection radius with an end disposed at the vertex (See Figs. 1-2, 7-10; Examiner notes that the disclosed deflection path inherently has a radius of curvature which is interpreted as a deflection radius, and that the radius in the deflection region would inherently have one end at the deflection path and one at a the vertex of the walls containing items 240 and 260).
Regarding claim 5, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the ion detector assembly of claim 4.
Kalinitchenko in view of Dowsett further teaches wherein:
at least a portion of the single deflector comprises a deflector radius of curvature, as measured from the vertex (See Dowsett Fig. 2, item 42; Examiner notes that item 42 inherently has a radius of curvature); and
the deflector radius of curvature is less than a minimal deflection radius of curvature rdmin (understood as referring to the deflection path; See Dowsett Fig. 2, items 42 and 46; [0105]; Examiner notes that the cited portion discloses the ion beam passing through the deflecting gap 46, which would inherently include the deflector radius of curvature being less than a minimal deflection radius of curvature, else the beam would hit item 42 and not pass through the deflecting gap 46).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the ion detector assembly of claim 5.
Kalinitchenko in view of Dowsett further teaches wherein the deflector radius of curvature is greater than or equal to half of [the] minimal deflection radius of curvature rdmin (understood as referring to the deflection path; See Dowsett Fig. 2, items RH, 42, and 46; [0026]; [0097]; [0105]).
Regarding claim 7, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the ion detector assembly of claim 1.
Kalinitchenko in view of Dowsett further teaches wherein the single deflector is the quarter of a sphere centered on the vertex (See Figs. 2-4, item 42/142; [0114]-[0120]), or wherein the single deflector is the quarter of an ellipsoid centered on the vertex.
Examiner notes that the prior art document Park cited in NFOA0530 discloses such limitations as well.
Regarding claim 8, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the ion detector assembly of claim 1.
Kalinitchenko in view of Dowsett further teaches wherein the single deflector comprises a cross-sectional area that varies as a function of position along the vertex (See Dowsett Figs. 2-4, item 42/142; [0114]-[0120]; Examiner notes that a spherical sector inherently satisfies this limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the ion detector assembly of claim 8.
Kalinitchenko in view of Dowsett further teaches wherein a center of the ion entry opening and a center of the ion exit opening are disposed in a deflection plane containing the cross-sectional area (See Dowsett Figs. 2-5, wherein the ion entry and exit openings are in the deflection plane, which also inherently contains a cross-sectional area of the deflector that varies as a function of position along the vertex).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko teaches a mass spectrometry system (Abstract) comprising:
an ion source generating an ion beam ([0043);
a mass analyzer configured to guide the ion beam along a first propagation axis (See Figs. 1-2; [0035]; [0084]); and
an ion detector assembly (See Figs. 1-2, and 7, items 2, 48, 265; [0043]; [0084]; [0108]) comprising:
a pair of particle [apertures] extending at an angle to one another and forming a corner region, the pair of particle [apertures] comprising an ion entry opening for receiving the ion beam and an ion exit opening (See Fig. 7, items 5, 85, 240, 260 and the walls in which the apertures 240 and 260 are formed in; [0084]; [0108]; Examiner notes that the walls in which the apertures 240 and 260 are formed could be interpreted as particle shields, as they blocks particles except in the ion entry/exit opening, and that the two walls form a corner; Examiner additionally notes Figs. 8-10 read on this limitation as well);
a single deflector configured to generate an electric field in a deflection region that deflects the ion beam out of alignment with the first propagation axis along a deflection path extending through the ion exit opening (See Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6-10, item 5; [0084]),
a detection element configured to generate electronic signals from the ion beam after deflection via the single deflector (See Figs. 1-2, and 7, items 2, 48, 265; [0043]; [0084]; [0108]; Examiner notes that the detector generating electronic signals is interpreted as inherent), wherein the electric field generated by the single deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to one of the particle [apertures] of the pair of particle [apertures] in an area proximate to the ion exit opening (See Figs. 1-2, 7-10; [0008]-[0018]; [0021]-[0022]; [0088]-[0091]; Examiner notes that in the arrangement of Kalinitchenko, the electric field generated by the deflector will inherently comprise iso-potential lines, and in order to achieve the disclosed functionality (i.e., the disclosed arbitrary control of the beam path between two distinct axes, which are not particularly limited) will inherently have the capability to form an electric field comprising iso-potential lines that extend at decreasing angles relative to the first propagation axis and that are within 10° of perpendicular to the ion exit opening plane in order to achieve the results discussed in Kalinitchenko; Examiner additionally notes that the deflector of Kalinitchenko need only be capable of generating an electric field with such iso-potential lines, as discussed above, regarding the BRI of functional limitations in apparatus/system claims; The arrangement of Kalinitchenko is inherently capable of achieving such iso-potential lines via the deflector, and thus the limitation is satisfied), wherein successive portions of the iso-potential lines [Interpreted as: extend proximate to the ion entry opening, and wherein the successive portions] encountered by the ion beam extend at decreasing angles relative to the first propagation axis such that, within the deflection region, the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the [corner region] (See Figs. 1-2, 7-10; [0008]-[0018]; [0021]-[0022]; [0088]-[0091]; Examiner notes that in the arrangement of Kalinitchenko, the electric field generated by the deflector will inherently comprise iso-potential lines, which will inherently have ‘successive portions’, under the BRI; In order for the deflector of Kalinitchenko to achieve the disclosed functionality (i.e., the disclosed arbitrary control of the beam path between two distinct axes, which are not particularly limited), it will inherently have the capability to form an electric field comprising iso-potential lines extending at decreasing angles relative to the initial propagation axis such that within the deflection region, the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the corner region in order to achieve the results discussed in Kalinitchenko; Kalinitchenko explicitly discloses generating an electric field, inherently having iso-potential lines, such that within the deflection region, the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the corner region, and merely lacks disclosure of the iso-potential lines, however, the iso-potential lines are nevertheless inherently present to achieve such results; Examiner additionally notes that the deflector of Kalinitchenko need only be capable of generating an electric field with such iso-potential lines, as discussed above, regarding the BRI of functional limitations in apparatus/system claims; The arrangement of Kalinitchenko is inherently capable of achieving such iso-potential lines via the deflector, and thus the limitation is satisfied, apart from the ‘vertex’ limitation, as indicated).
Kalinitchenko does not explicitly teach a pair of particle [apertures] extending at an angle to one another and forming a corner region, the pair of particle [apertures] comprising an ion entry opening for receiving the ion beam and an ion exit opening and wherein the electric field generated by the single deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to one of the particle shields of the pair of particle shields in an area proximate to the ion exit opening (Emphases added by Examiner), as Kalinitchenko does not explicitly disclose such wall apertures as specifically shielding, and further does not explicitly teach and the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the vertex (Emphasis added by Examiner), but rather at an equivalent positional location, and does not teach the single deflector comprising a pair of rear surfaces and a vertex where the pair of rear surfaces meet, wherein said single deflector is a quarter of a sphere centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of an ellipsoid centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex.
Hirano teaches a pair of particle shields extending at an angle to one another and forming a corner region, the pair of particle shield comprising an ion entry opening for receiving the ion beam and an ion exit opening (See Figs. 2-6, items 140 and 150; [0037]-[0038]; [0045]).
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 Kalinitchenko to include a pair of particle shields extending at an angle to one another and forming a corner region, the pair of particle shields comprising an ion entry opening for receiving the ion beam and an ion exit opening (Emphases added by Examiner), as taught by Hirano.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use the particle shields in their typical fashion as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, to limit the entry of the particle beam and any neutral species into and out of the deflection area, except via the apertures, which allows for control of the position of the beam entry into the deflection area.
Thus, the combination of Kalinitchenko and Hirano further discloses wherein the electric field generated by the deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to one of the particle shields of the pair of particle shields in an area proximate to the ion exit opening (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano does not explicitly teach the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the vertex (Emphasis added by Examiner) and does not teach the single deflector comprising a pair of rear surfaces and a vertex where the pair of rear surfaces meet, wherein said single deflector is a quarter of a sphere centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of an ellipsoid centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex.
Dowsett further teaches the deflector comprising a pair of rear surfaces and a vertex where the pair of rear surfaces meet (See Fig. 2, item 42, and in particular the straight side on the bottom thereof, the straight side on the right side thereof, and the corner where the straight sides meet; Examiner notes that this vertex is proximate the corner formed by the walls in which the entrance and exit apertures are formed in, which corresponds to the corner region of Kalinitchenko), wherein said single deflector is a quarter of a sphere centered on the vertex (See Figs. 2-4, item 42/142; [0114]-[0120]), or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of an ellipsoid centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex and the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the vertex (See Fig. 2, showing deflection path with a deflection radius the vertex).
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 Kalinitchenko to include the deflector comprising a pair of rear surfaces and a vertex where the pair of rear surfaces meet, wherein said single deflector is a quarter of a sphere centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of an ellipsoid centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector is a quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex and the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the vertex, as taught by Dowsett.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results and would allow one to shape the electric field lines near the deflector using the disclosed morphology of Dowsett for the deflector, allowing alternative/additional control of the direction/propagation of the beam.
For completeness, Examiner notes:
Dowsett also teaches wherein the electric field generated by the deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to [the plane of the ion exit opening] in an area proximate to the ion exit opening (See Figs. 2, 4).
Dowsett also teaches wherein successive portions of the iso-potential lines [Interpreted as: extend proximate to the ion entry opening, and wherein the successive portions] encountered by the ion beam extend at decreasing angles relative to the first propagation axis such that, within the deflection region, the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the vertex (See Figs. 2, 4, 6; [0099]-[0101]; Examiner notes that the deflection path inherently comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the vertex, and the structure of Dowsett will also inherently comprise the capability of forming iso-potential lines in the disclosed fields).
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 Kalinitchenko to explicitly include wherein successive portions of the iso-potential lines [Interpreted as: extend proximate to the ion entry opening, and wherein the successive portions] encountered by the ion beam extend at decreasing angles relative to the first propagation axis such that, within the deflection region, the deflection path comprises a deflection radius with an end disposed at the vertex, as taught by Dowsett
Doing so would allow one, as taught by Dowsett, to direct the beam to be more parallel to the exit axis.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the mass spectrometry system of claim 10.
Kalinitchenko does not explicitly teach wherein one of the particle shields of the pair of particle shields is configured to block the detection element from neutral species propagating through the mass analyzer.
However, Examiner notes that any neutral species propagating with the ion beam would be at least partially blocked by the entrance/exit apertures of the deflection region. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the purpose and functionality of particle shields, and in particular particle shields disposed with entrance/exit apertures to such a deflection region.
Nevertheless, Hirano teaches wherein one of the particle shields of the pair of particle shields is configured to block the detection element from neutral species propagating through the mass analyzer ([0018]-[0022]; [0034]-[0042]; Examiner notes that the particle shields of Hirano would inherently block neutral species from entering/exiting the deflection region).
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 Kalinitchenko to explicitly include wherein one of the particle shields of the pair of particle shields is configured to block the detection element from neutral species propagating through the mass analyzer, as taught by Hirano.
Doing so represents applying a known prior art element in its typical fashion in order to achieve predictable results and would allow one to ensure neutral species do not reach the mass analyzer, as discussed by Hirano, allowing for less background noise in the measurements, and thus better measurement results.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the mass spectrometry system of claim 10.
Kalinitchenko in view of Dowsett further teaches wherein the deflector comprises a curved deflection surface (See Dowsett Fig. 2, item 42, and in particular the curved side thereof, opposite the vertex formed by its straight sides, and extending between its straight sides), wherein at least a portion of the curved deflection surface comprises a deflector radius of curvature, as measured from the vertex, that is greater than or equal to half of the deflection radius (See Dowsett Fig. 2, items RH, 42, and 46; [0026]; [0097]; [0105]).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the mass spectrometry system of claim 10.
Kalinitchenko in view of Dowsett further teaches wherein the iso-potential lines extend parallel to the rear surfaces proximate to the pair of particle shields (See Dowsett Figs. 2, 4, and 6).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the mass spectrometry system of claim 10.
Kalinitchenko in view of Dowsett further teaches wherein the single deflector comprises a quarter of a cylinder centered on the vertex, or wherein the single deflector comprises a cross-sectional area that varies as a function of position along the vertex (See Dowsett Figs. 2-4, item 42/142; [0114]-[0120]; Examiner notes that a spherical sector inherently satisfies this limitation).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko teaches a method of detecting an ion comprising:
generating an ion beam propagating along a first propagation axis ([0043]);
[aperture] (See Fig. 7, items 5, 85, 240 and the wall in which the aperture 240 is formed in; [0084]; [0108]; Examiner notes that the wall in which the aperture 240 is formed could be interpreted as a particle shield, as it blocks particles except in the ion entry/exit opening; Examiner additionally notes Figs. 8-10 read on this limitation as well);
deflecting the ion beam off of the first propagation axis onto a deflection path by generating an electric field using a single deflector disposed proximate a corner region disposed at an intersection between the first particle [aperture] and a second particle [aperture] (See Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6-10, item 5; [0084]; [0088]-[0091]),
applying a drag potential to the single deflector to compensate for a kinetic energy distribution of ions in said ion beam such that each ion travels on or proximate to the deflection path and is guided through an ion exit opening ([0062]; [0088]-[0094]; Examiner interprets tuning the voltages to the deflector to manipulate/steer tune the ion beam to be appropriately focused depending on the real conditions to read on ‘applying a drag potential…to compensate for a kinetic energy distribution of the ions in the ion beam’; Examiner notes that the ions travel on or proximate the deflection path as a result of the potential applied to the deflector of Kalinitchenko);
[aperture]; and
generating a detection signal from the ion beam using a detection element (See Figs. 1-2, and 7, items 2, 48, 265; [0043]; [0108]; [0114]; Examiner notes that the detector generating a detection signal is interpreted as inherent),
Kalinitchenko does not explicitly teach blocking neutral particles propagating with the ion beam by transmitting the ion beam through an ion entry opening of a first particle shield and …a single deflector disposed proximate a corner region disposed at an intersection between the first particle shield and a second particle shield and blocking additional neutral particles by transmitting the ion beam through the ion exit opening in the second particle shield and wherein the electric field generated using the single deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to the second particle shield in an area proximate to the ion exit opening, and does not teach wherein the single deflector comprises a pair of rear surfaces and a vertex where the pair of rear surfaces meet, the vertex being disposed proximate the corner region.
However, Kalinitchenko discloses generating an electric field via a deflector that causes the ion beam to impinge upon the exit opening within 10° of perpendicular to the exit opening (See Figs. 1-2, 7-10; [0008]-[0018]; [0021]-[0022]; [0088]-[0091]), and the structure of Kalinitchenko is capable of achieving the required iso-potential lines as discussed above in regards to the apparatus/system claims. Additionally, Examiner notes that ‘in an area proximate to the ion exit opening’ is quite broad, and thus, e.g., it could be reasonably interpreted as including iso-potential lines within the deflection region in general, as the deflection region is an area, and is an area that is proximate to the ion exit opening. However, within the deflection region there will be iso-potential lines extending within 10° of perpendicular to the second particle aperture, for example, in Figs. 2, 4, or 7, in order to achieve the bending of the beam demonstrated (and discussed in the above cited portions) the electric field generated will certainly have iso-potential lines somewhere within the deflection region that are within 10° of perpendicular to the second particle aperture.
Accordingly, it is Examiner’s opinion that Kalinitchenko, under the BRI, and as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, discloses
Furthermore, in the arrangement of Kalinitchenko, the electric field lines generated to achieve such functionality will inherently comprise iso-potential lines that are within 10° of perpendicular to the ion exit opening plane in order to achieve the results discussed in Kalinitchenko, and one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve an arbitrary field configuration within the capabilities of the disclosed arrangement of Kalinitchenko without the use of inventive activity, by merely using the device in the manner in which it is intended to be used, and so as to allow one to achieve the desired directing of the ion beam in three dimensions as needed, and as discussed in Kalinitchenko.
As such, under the BRI of the claim, it is Examiner’s opinion that the disclosure of Kalinitchenko would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to disclose wherein the electric field generated using the deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to the second particle [aperture] in an area proximate to the ion exit opening, with ‘an area proximate to the ion exit opening’ is interpreted as the area of the deflection region of Kalinitchenko.
Additionally, Examiner notes that any neutral species propagating with the ion beam would be at least partially blocked by the entrance/exit apertures of the deflection region of Kalinitchenko. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the purpose and functionality of particle shields, and in particular particle shields disposed with entrance/exit apertures to such a deflection region.
Nevertheless, Hirano teaches blocking neutral particles propagating with the ion beam by transmitting the ion beam through an ion entry opening of a first particle shield and blocking additional neutral particles by transmitting the ion beam through an ion exit opening in the second particle shield (See Figs. 2-6, items 140 and 150; [0018]-[0022]; [0034]-[0042]; [0045]; Examiner notes that the particle shields of Hirano would inherently block neutral species from entering/exiting the deflection region).
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 Kalinitchenko to include blocking neutral particles propagating with the ion beam by transmitting the ion beam through an ion entry opening of a first particle shield and blocking additional neutral particles by transmitting the ion beam through an ion exit opening in the second particle shield (Emphases added by Examiner), as taught by Hirano.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use the particle shields in their typical fashion as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, to limit the entry of the particle beam and any neutral species into the deflection area, except via the apertures, which allows for control of the position of the beam entry into the deflection area.
Thus, the combination of Kalinitchenko and Hirano further discloses wherein the electric field generated using the deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to the second particle shield in an area proximate to the ion exit opening (Emphases added by Examiner).
Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano does not teach wherein the single deflector comprises a pair of rear surfaces and a vertex where the pair of rear surfaces meet, the vertex being disposed proximate the corner region.
Dowsett teaches wherein the single deflector comprises a pair of rear surfaces and a vertex where the pair of rear surfaces meet, the vertex being disposed proximate the corner region (See Fig. 2, item 42, and in particular the straight side on the bottom thereof, the straight side on the right side thereof, and the corner where the straight sides meet; Examiner notes that this vertex is proximate the corner formed by the walls in which the entrance and exit apertures are formed in, which corresponds to the corner region of Kalinitchenko).
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 Kalinitchenko to include wherein the single deflector comprises a pair of rear surfaces and a vertex where the pair of rear surfaces meet, the vertex being disposed proximate the corner region, as taught by Dowsett.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results and would allow one to shape the electric field lines near the deflector using the disclosed morphology of Dowsett for the deflector, allowing alternative/additional control of the direction/propagation of the beam.
For completeness, Examiner notes:
Dowsett teaches wherein the electric field generated using the deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to [the plane of the ion exit opening] in an area proximate to the ion exit opening (See Figs. 2, 4).
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 Kalinitchenko to include wherein the electric field generated using the deflector comprises iso-potential lines that extend within 10° of perpendicular to [the plane of the ion exit opening] in an area proximate to the ion exit opening, as taught by Dowsett.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements/techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as the modification includes the combination of a device which is at least capable of achieving such functionality with an alternative prior art deflector embodiment that discloses such a technique, in a manner that would achieve predictable results, i.e., calculable field orientations, in order to achieve the desired control over the beam, and would allow one, as disclosed by Dowsett, to achieve a beam with good alignment with the exit aperture.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the method of claim 17.
Kalinitchenko further teaches further comprising focusing the ion beam at one or more of the ion entry opening and the ion exit opening using one or more ion focusing lenses ([0087]; [0108]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the method of claim 17.
Kalinitchenko further teaches wherein:
ions in the ion beam comprise a plurality of mass to charge ratios ([0043]-[0044]; Examiner notes that ions in several of the disclosed source techniques will inherently comprise a plurality of mass to charge ratios unless otherwise selected by a m/z selecting arrangement), and [wherein the method further comprises]
applying a plurality of combinations of voltages to the single deflector to direct the ions in the ion beam through the ion exit opening ([0088]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the method of claim 17.
Kalinitchenko further teaches further comprising adjusting voltages applied to the single deflector and to compensate for a kinetic energy distribution of the ions in the ion beam ([0062]; [0088]-[0094]; Examiner interprets tuning the voltages to the deflector to manipulate/steer tune the ion beam to be appropriately focused depending on the real conditions to read on ‘to compensate for a kinetic energy distribution of the ions in the ion beam’).
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalinitchenko (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20150060687 A1) in view of Hirano (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20150187555 A1) and Dowsett (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200058480 A1), further in view of Schwieters (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130112868 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kalinitchenko in view of Hirano and Dowsett teaches the mass spectrometry system of claim 10.
Kalinitchenko does not teach further comprising a grounded enclosure configured to shape the iso-potential lines within the deflection region, the grounded enclosure surrounding the deflection region and the detection element.
However, Kalinitchenko discloses the use of a grounded element to shape the field within the deflection region.
Nevertheless, Dowsett further teaches further comprising a grounded enclosure configured to shape the iso-potential lines within the deflection region, the grounded enclosure surrounding the deflection region (See Figs. 2-5; [0017]; [0029]; [0104]).
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 Kalinitchenko to include further comprising a grounded enclosure configured to shape the iso-potential lines within the deflection region, the grounded enclosure surrounding the deflection region, as taught by Dowsett.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of arrangements to hold the housing for such elements at electrical ground, and would allow one, as discussed by Dowsett, to use the difference between the grounded housing and additional charged elements to shape the electric fields within the device.
Kalinitchenko in view of Dowsett does not explicitly teach further comprising a grounded enclosure configured to shape the iso-potential lines within the deflection region, the grounded enclosure surrounding the deflection region and the detection element (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, it is Examiner’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of arrangements in which both deflecting and detection elements are disposed in grounded housings, as such arrangements are common in the art to prevent potential unintended effects of charging on detection elements.
Nevertheless, Schwieters teaches the grounded enclosure surrounding the deflection region and the detection element (See Fig. 6, items 431, 432, 450, 480, 531, 532, 550, 580; [0088]; [0092]).
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 Kalinitchenko in view of Dowsett to include the grounded enclosure surrounding the deflection region and the detection element (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Schwieters.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Schwieters, to ensure all elements within the housing have a defined potential, or in other words, to control for potential unintended effects of charging of the housing, as would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Preikszas (US 20220367142 A1);
Badiei (US 20210242006 A1);
Greenwood (US 20210033551 A1);
Tanner (US 20040056189 A1).
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
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights