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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mathematical calculations without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mathematical process of calibration, the parts of which have historically been performed by hand. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only claimed application of the calibration is to data, i.e., data is corrected. Transforming data into more data is simply a mathematical process, and not an application that would transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional recited steps, ionizing a calibrant and measuring a first/second physio-chemical property, as well as the additional structures, mass spectrometers and ion mobility spectrometers, are notoriously well-known and do nothing more than limit the abstract idea to a broad field of use. As much is evident in the background section of the instant application makes it clear that these steps and apparatuses are admitted prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0130259 A1 [Anderson].
Regarding Claim 1:
Anderson teaches a method comprising:
measuring a first physico-chemical property of analyte ions so as to produce a data set (para 12);
identifying a first group of analyte ions within the data set (para 12 – ions of equal mass), wherein analyte ions within the first group each have a value of an attribute that corresponds to a first value or that is within a first range of the attribute (mass);
selecting, from a plurality of different calibrations, a first calibration associated with the first value or first range of the attribute (para 12); and
calibrating the measured first physico-chemical property of the first group of analyte ions using the first calibration (para 12 – adjusting the measured mass to charge signal generated by the ions within the mass spectrometer utilizing the adjusted calibration parameters);
identifying a second different group of analyte ions within the data set (para 12 – ions with predictable mass differences),
wherein analyte ions within the second group each have a value of the attribute that corresponds to a second different value or that is within a second different range of the attribute (para 12- mass differences implies that the ions have different masses);
selecting, from the plurality of different calibrations, a second calibration associated with the second value or second range of the attribute (para 12-ions having known mass differences); and
calibrating the measured physico-chemical property of the second group of analyte ions using the second calibration (para 12 – adjusting calibration to shift positions to corresponding to known differences).
Regarding Claim 3:
Anderson teaches a method comprising:
measuring a first physico-chemical property of analyte ions so as to produce a data set (para 12);
using a first calibration to calibrate the measured first physico-chemical property of a first group of the analyte ions (para 12 – ions of equal mass but different charge calibration); and
using a second different calibration to calibrate the measured first physico-chemical property of a second different group of the analyte ions (para 12 –calibration to shift positions of ions having known differences in mass).
Regarding Claim 4:
Anderson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
analyte ions within the first group each have a value of a second attribute that corresponds to a first value of the second attribute or that is within a first range of the second attribute (all of the ions are have a charge state that is with a range of acceptable charge states).
Regarding Claim 5:
Anderson teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising using one or more third different calibrations to calibrate the measured first physico-chemical property of one or more third different groups of the analyte ions. Para 20- the corrections to the physico-chemical property are performed iteratively, i.e., to third groups as third calibrations.
Regarding Claim 6:
Anderson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises calibrating the data set using multiple different calibrations to obtain a calibrated data set. See paras 12 and 20, as well as table 1.
Regarding Claim 7:
Anderson teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a plurality of different calibrations for an analytical instrument, where each calibration of the plurality of different calibrations is associated with a respective different value or range of the attribute. See paras 12 and 20, as well as table 1.
Regarding Claim 11:
Anderson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first physico-chemical property comprises mass to charge ratio, time of flight, ion mobility and/or collision cross section. Para 12.
Regarding Claim 12:
Anderson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first physico-chemical property comprises mass to charge ratio and/or time of flight, and the step of measuring the first physico-chemical property of the ions comprises mass analysing the ions so as to produce a mass and/or time of flight spectrum. Para 12.
Regarding Claim 13:
Anderson teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the step of measuring the first physico-chemical property of the ions comprises mass analysing the ions using a Time of Flight (“ToF”) mass analyser. Claim 2, para 7.
Regarding Claim 14:
Anderson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the attribute comprises a second different physico-chemical property. Mass and Charge state.
Regarding Claim 18:
Anderson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the attribute comprises energy. Both Mass and Charge state indicate energy.
Regarding Claim 19:
Anderson teaches an analytical instrument configured to perform the method of claim 1. Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20:
Anderson teaches the analytical instrument of claim 19, wherein the analytical instrument comprises a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer. Claim 2.
Claims 1, 16, 17, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0090873 A1 [Brown].
Regarding Claim 1:
Brown teaches a method comprising:
measuring a first physico-chemical property of analyte ions so as to produce a data set (abstract, claim 1);
identifying a first group of analyte ions within the data set (claim 1 - reference ions), wherein analyte ions within the first group each have a value of an attribute that corresponds to a first value or that is within a first range of the attribute (mass);
selecting, from a plurality of different calibrations, a first calibration associated with the first value or first range of the attribute (claim 1 -estimated properties are selected); and
calibrating the measured first physico-chemical property of the first group of analyte ions using the first calibration (claim 1);
identifying a second different group of analyte ions within the data set (paras 128, 131, 135-136 – reference peaks indicates that there are multiple analyte ions at issue),
wherein analyte ions within the second group each have a value of the attribute that corresponds to a second different value or that is within a second different range of the attribute (para 135-136- in that they are distinguishable peaks, they have different values);
selecting, from the plurality of different calibrations, a second calibration associated with the second value or second range of the attribute (claim 1 -estimated properties are selected); and
calibrating the measured physico-chemical property of the second group of analyte ions using the second calibration (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 16:
Brown teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the attribute comprises ion mobility and/or collision cross section. Paras 135-136, abstract, claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17:
Brown teaches the method of claim 16, wherein ions within each group have an ion mobility value and/or collision cross section within the same range, and wherein each group corresponds to a different ion mobility and/or collision cross section range. Paras 135-136, abstract, claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8:
Brown teaches a method comprising:
ionising a calibrant so as to produce ions so as to produce a data set (abstract, claim 1);
using an analytical instrument to measure a first physico-chemical property of the ions (claim 1);
identifying a first group of analyte ions within the data set (claim 1), wherein analyte ions within the first group each have a value of an attribute that corresponds to a first value or that is within a first range of the attribute (claim 6);
for each reference value of a first group of reference values of the first physico-chemical property, determining a difference between the reference value and a measured value of the first physico-chemical property associated with that reference value, and determining a first calibration for the analytical instrument using the differences, wherein reference values within the first group of reference values correspond to ions which have a value of an attribute that corresponds to a first value or that is within a first range of the attribute (paras 48-50);
identifying a second different group of analyte ions within the data set, wherein analyte ions within the second group each have a value of the attribute that corresponds to a second different value or that is within a second different range of the attribute (para 48- “one or more reference ions”);
for each reference value of a second group of reference values of the first physico-chemical property, determining a difference between the reference value and a measured value of the first physico-chemical property associated with that reference value, wherein reference values within the second group of reference values correspond to ions which have a value of the attribute that corresponds to a second different value or that is within a second different range of the attribute (in that the reference ions are distinguishable, they necessarily have different values), determining a second calibration for the analytical instrument using the differences (paras 48-50).
Regarding Claim 10:
Brown teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
for each reference value of a third group of plural reference values of the first physico-chemical property (para 48- “one or more reference ions”), determining a difference between the reference value and a measured value of the first physico-chemical property associated with that reference value, and determining a third calibration for the analytical instrument using the differences attribute (paras 48-50);
wherein reference values within the third group of reference values correspond to ions which have a value of the attribute that corresponds to a third different value or that is within a third different range of the attribute (in that the reference ions are distinguishable, they necessarily have different values. See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights