DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 22 January 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-12, 14-19, and 23 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument, see page 6, that Apffel fails to disclose a heating nozzle, Merriam-Webster.com defines “nozzle” as “a short tube with a taper or constriction used (as on a hose) to speed up or direct a flow of fluid” (emphasis added). FIG. 5 of Apffel shows heating element 130 tapering towards element 140, with the internal tube-like structure 120 of the heater 130 directing a flow of vaporized solvent and analyte (column 8, lines 20-21) towards exit 140. Therefore, the disclosure of Apffel teaches a nozzle of a heater, the nozzle having a nozzle axis.
Regarding applicant’s argument, see page 7, that the capillary of Apffel is internal to the heater and therefore the heater does not direct a stream of gas toward a capillary, the prior art rejection does not rely upon Apffel to disclose the heater directing a stream of gas toward a capillary. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are based on what the prior art reasonably teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Bajic (2007) discloses most of the limitations of claim 1, including a desolvation heater (column 11, lines 39-44) having a nozzle (FIG. 6, element 6), for directing a stream of heated gas (FIG. 6, element 13) onto the distal end of the capillary in use (column 12, lines 44-46: the vertical separation between the end of the capillary and the axis of the heater may be 0mm; therefore, the stream of heated gas is directed onto the distal end of the capillary). Bajic (2007) fails to disclose only the limitation “the corona axis is perpendicular to and intersects the nozzle axis”. However, Apffel discloses that the corona axis (FIG. 5, horizontal, i.e., X axis, of element 150) is perpendicular to and intersects the nozzle axis (FIG. 5, vertical, i.e., Y axis, of the nozzle of heating element 130). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have considered it an obvious matter of design choice to modify the relative orientation of the corona axis with respect to the nozzle axis, since the applicant has not disclosed that the perpendicular orientation of the corona axis with respect to the nozzle axis solves any problem or is for a particular reason. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In response to applicant's argument, see pages 7-8, that combining the teachings of Bajic (2007) and Apffel would not result in an apparatus wherein the capillary axis is perpendicular to and intersecting the nozzle axis, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the combined teachings of Bajic (2007) and Apffel reasonably suggests an apparatus wherein the capillary axis is perpendicular to and intersecting the nozzle axis (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 27-29: “[a]n orthogonal orientation between the axes of the electrospray probe 1 and the gas torch 6 is preferable”) and wherein the corona axis is perpendicular to and intersects the nozzle axis (Apffel, column 5, lines 13-62 disclose enhanced sensitivity with decreased noise resulting from the perpendicular arrangement of the corona axis and the cone axis with respect to the nozzle axis).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajic et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,265,362 B2), hereinafter Bajic (2007), in view of Apffel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,294,779 B1), hereinafter Apffel.
Regarding claim 1, Bajic (2007) discloses an atmospheric pressure ionisation source (column 3, lines 58-59) comprising:
an ionisation chamber (FIG. 6, element 8), comprising an aperture (FIG. 6: the area where element 3 passes from the exterior to the interior of element 8 comprises an aperture) for receiving at least the distal end of a capillary (FIG. 6, element 2) into the ionisation chamber (FIG. 6, element 8) in use, the aperture having a capillary axis (FIG. 6: the capillary axis is the vertical axis shown extending from element 2);
a desolvation heater (column 11, lines 39-44) having a nozzle (FIG. 6, element 6), for directing a stream of heated gas (FIG. 6, element 13) onto the distal end of the capillary in use (column 12, lines 44-46: the vertical separation between the end of the capillary and the axis of the heater may be 0mm; therefore, the stream of heated gas is directed onto the distal end of the capillary), the nozzle having a nozzle axis (FIG. 6: the nozzle axis is the horizontal axis shown extending from element 13);
a corona discharge device (FIG. 6, elements 15, 20, and 19) including a corona pin (FIG. 6, element 19) having a corona axis (FIG. 6: the corona axis is the horizontal axis shown extending from element 19), the corona pin for ionizing a sample in the ionisation chamber in use (column 15, lines 31-32); and
an inlet cone of a mass spectrometer (FIG. 6, element 5) arranged in the ionisation chamber (FIG. 6: cone 5 is arranged in ionisation chamber 8), the inlet cone defining a cone entrance (FIG. 6, element 11) having a cone axis (FIG. 6: the cone axis is the horizontal axis shown extending from element 11),
wherein the cone axis is coaxial with the corona axis (FIG. 6; column 15, lines 35-37: the corona pin is located substantially opposite the cone; Merriam-Webster.com entry 1b defines “opposite” as “situated in pairs on an axis”; therefore, the cone axis and corona axis are coaxial) and the capillary axis is perpendicular to (column 7, line 31: the angle between the capillary axis and the nozzle axis is 90°) and intersects with the nozzle axis (FIG. 6 shows the intersection of the capillary and nozzle axes).
Bajic (2007) fails to disclose that the corona axis is perpendicular to and intersects the nozzle axis.
However, Apffel discloses that the corona axis (FIG. 5, horizontal, i.e., X axis, of element 150) is perpendicular to and intersects the nozzle axis (FIG. 5, vertical, i.e., Y axis, of the nozzle of heating element 130).
Therefore, 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 Bajic (2007) to include that the corona axis is perpendicular to and intersects the nozzle axis, based on the teachings of Apffel that this perpendicular arrangement achieves enhanced sensitivity with decreased noise (Apffel, column 5, lines 13-62).
Regarding claim 2, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 1 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionisation source according to claim 1.
In addition, Bajic (2007) discloses that the distance between the cone entrance and the capillary axis is within a range of 90 to 110% of the distance between the capillary axis and the corona pin tip (column 15, lines 35-37: the corona pin is located substantially opposite the cone; Merriam-Webster.com entry 1b defines “opposite” as “situated in pairs on an axis…with each member being separated from the other by half the circumference…of the axis”; therefore, the cone entrance and the corona pin tip are located equidistant from the capillary axis, which intersects the cone/corona axis at 90° as disclosed in column 12, lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 3, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 2 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionisation source according to claim 2.
However, they do not specify the claimed distance between the cone entrance and the capillary axis and the distance between the capillary axis and the corona pin tip.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the distance between the cone entrance and the capillary axis and the distance between the capillary axis and the corona pin tip is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2007) teaches that “various geometrical parameters [of the ionization source] may be varied depending upon experimental conditions” (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 36-49). As such, Bajic (2007) identifies geometrical parameters as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the distance between the cone entrance and the capillary axis and the distance between the capillary axis and the corona pin tip and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 4, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 1 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionisation source according to claim 1.
However, they do not specify the claimed distance between the corona axis and the capillary axis and the distance between the capillary axis and the nozzle of the heater.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the distance between the corona axis and the capillary axis and the distance between the capillary axis and the nozzle of the heater is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2007) teaches that “various geometrical parameters [of the ionization source] may be varied depending upon experimental conditions” (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 36-49). As such, Bajic (2007) identifies geometrical parameters as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the distance between the corona axis and the capillary axis and the distance between the capillary axis and the nozzle of the heater and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 5, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 1 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionization source according to claim 1.
However, they do not specify the claimed distance between the capillary axis and the nozzle of the heater.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the distance between the capillary axis and the nozzle of the heater is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2007) teaches that “various geometrical parameters [of the ionization source] may be varied depending upon experimental conditions” (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 36-49). As such, Bajic (2007) identifies geometrical parameters as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the distance between the capillary axis and the nozzle of the heater and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 5 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionization source according to claim 5.
However, they do not specify the claimed distance between the capillary axis and the nozzle of the heater.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the distance between the capillary axis and the nozzle of the heater is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2007) teaches that “various geometrical parameters [of the ionization source] may be varied depending upon experimental conditions” (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 36-49). As such, Bajic (2007) identifies geometrical parameters as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the distance between the capillary axis and the nozzle of the heater and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 1 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionization source according to claim 1.
However, they do not specify the claimed distance between the corona axis and the nozzle.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the distance between the corona axis and the nozzle is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2007) teaches that “various geometrical parameters [of the ionization source] may be varied depending upon experimental conditions” (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 36-49). As such, Bajic (2007) identifies geometrical parameters as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the distance between the corona axis and the nozzle and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 8, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 1 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionization source according to claim 1.
However, they do not specify the claimed distance between the cone entrance and the tip of the corona pin.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the distance between the cone entrance and the tip of the corona pin is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2007) teaches that “various geometrical parameters [of the ionization source] may be varied depending upon experimental conditions” (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 36-49). As such, Bajic (2007) identifies geometrical parameters as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the distance between the cone entrance and the tip of the corona pin and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 9, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 8 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionization source according to claim 8.
However, they do not specify the claimed distance between the cone entrance and the tip of the corona pin.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the distance between the cone entrance and the tip of the corona pin is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2007) teaches that “various geometrical parameters [of the ionization source] may be varied depending upon experimental conditions” (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 36-49). As such, Bajic (2007) identifies geometrical parameters as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the distance between the cone entrance and the tip of the corona pin and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 10, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 9 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionization source according to claim 9.
However, they do not specify the claimed distance between the cone entrance and the tip of the corona pin.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the distance between the cone entrance and the tip of the corona pin is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2007) teaches that “various geometrical parameters [of the ionization source] may be varied depending upon experimental conditions” (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 36-49). As such, Bajic (2007) identifies geometrical parameters as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the distance between the cone entrance and the tip of the corona pin and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 11, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 1 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionization source according to claim 1.
In addition, Bajic (2007) discloses that the aperture is configured to receive the capillary such that the capillary is disposed to intersect the nozzle axis in use (column 12, lines 44-46: the vertical separation between the end of the capillary and the axis of the heater may be 0mm, i.e., they intersect).
Regarding claim 12, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 11 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionization source according to claim 11.
However, they do not specify the claimed distance between the distal end of the capillary and the nozzle axis.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the distance between the distal end of the capillary and the nozzle axis is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2007) teaches that “various geometrical parameters [of the ionization source] may be varied depending upon experimental conditions” (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 36-49). As such, Bajic (2007) identifies geometrical parameters as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the distance between the distal end of the capillary and the nozzle axis and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 1 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionization source according to claim 1.
In addition, Bajic (2007) discloses that the capillary axis is horizontal, the nozzle axis is vertical, the corona axis is horizontal or the cone axis is horizontal (FIG. 6: the corona/cone axis is shown to be horizontal).
Regarding claim 23, Bajic (2007) discloses an atmospheric pressure ionisation source (column 3, lines 58-59) comprising:
an ionisation chamber (FIG. 6, element 8), comprising an aperture (FIG. 6: the area where element 3 passes from the exterior to the interior of element 8 comprises an aperture) for receiving at least the distal end of a capillary (FIG. 6, element 2) into the ionisation chamber (FIG. 6, element 8) in use, the aperture having a capillary axis (FIG. 6: the capillary axis is the vertical axis shown extending from element 2);
a desolvation heater (column 11, lines 39-44) having a nozzle (FIG. 6, element 6), for directing a stream of heated gas (FIG. 6, element 13) onto the distal end of the capillary in use (column 12, lines 44-46: the vertical separation between the end of the capillary and the axis of the heater may be 0mm; therefore, the stream of heated gas is directed onto the distal end of the capillary), the nozzle having a nozzle axis (FIG. 6: the nozzle axis is the horizontal axis shown extending from element 13);
a corona discharge device (FIG. 6, elements 15, 20, and 19) including a corona pin (FIG. 6, element 19) having a corona axis (FIG. 6: the corona axis is the horizontal axis shown extending from element 19), the corona pin for ionizing a sample in the ionisation chamber in use (column 15, lines 31-32); and
an inlet cone of a mass spectrometer (FIG. 6, element 5) arranged in the ionisation chamber (FIG. 6: cone 5 is arranged in ionisation chamber 8), the inlet cone defining a cone entrance (FIG. 6, element 11) having a cone axis (FIG. 6: the cone axis is the horizontal axis shown extending from element 11),
wherein the cone axis is coaxial with the corona axis (FIG. 6; column 15, lines 35-37: the corona pin is located substantially opposite the cone; Merriam-Webster.com entry 1b defines “opposite” as “situated in pairs on an axis”; therefore, the cone axis and corona axis are coaxial), and the capillary axis is perpendicular to and intersects with the nozzle axis (column 7, line 31: the angle between the capillary axis and the nozzle axis is 90°) and intersects with the nozzle axis (FIG. 6 shows the intersection of the capillary and nozzle axes).
However, they do not specify the claimed distances between elements in the ionization source.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the distances between elements in the ionization source is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2007) teaches that “various geometrical parameters [of the ionization source] may be varied depending upon experimental conditions” (Bajic (2007), column 12, lines 36-49). As such, Bajic (2007) identifies geometrical parameters as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the distances between elements in the ionization source and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Bajic (2007) fails to disclose that the corona axis is perpendicular to and intersects the nozzle axis.
However, Apffel discloses that the corona axis (FIG. 5, horizontal, i.e., X axis, of element 150) is perpendicular to and intersects the nozzle axis (FIG. 5, vertical, i.e., Y axis, of the nozzle of heating element 130).
Therefore, 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 Bajic (2007) to include that the corona axis is perpendicular to and intersects the nozzle axis, based on the teachings of Apffel that this perpendicular arrangement achieves enhanced sensitivity with decreased noise (Apffel, column 5, lines 13-62).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bajic et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0066059 A1), hereinafter Bajic (2021).
Regarding claim 14, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel as applied to claim 1 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionisation source according to claim 1.
Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel fails to disclose that the nozzle of the desolvation heater is configured to direct a curtain of heated gas onto the distal end of the capillary, the curtain having a curtain plane.
However, Bajic (2021) discloses that the nozzle of the desolvation heater (FIG. 2, element 4) is configured to direct a curtain of heated gas onto the distal end of the capillary (paragraph 0122, lines 4-6), the curtain having a curtain plane (FIG. 2: the curtain plane is the XY plane).
Therefore, 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 Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel to include that the nozzle of the desolvation heater is configured to direct a curtain of heated gas onto the distal end of the capillary, the curtain having a curtain plane, based on the additional teachings of Bajic (2021) that this technique provides convenient and straightforward heating (Bajic (2021), paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 15, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel and Bajic (2021) as applied to claim 14 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionisation source according to claim 14.
In addition, Bajic (2021) discloses that the capillary axis is aligned with the curtain plane (FIG. 2: the axis of capillary 2 in the Y direction is aligned with the XY curtain plane).
Therefore, 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 Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel and Bajic (2021) to include that the capillary axis is aligned with the curtain plane, based on the additional teachings of Bajic (2021) that this technique provides convenient and straightforward heating (Bajic (2021), paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 16, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel and Bajic (2021) as applied to claim 14 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionisation source according to claim 14.
In addition, Bajic (2007) discloses that the nozzle comprises a plurality of nozzle apertures arranged linearly, or the nozzle comprises a single elongate aperture (FIG. 6: the heater nozzle 6 shows a single elongate nozzle with an aperture to emit element 13).
Regarding claim 17, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel and Bajic (2021) as applied to claim 14 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionisation source according to claim 14.
However, they do not specify the claimed dimensions of a heated gas curtain.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the dimensions of a heated gas curtain is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2021) teaches that “the sample is heated by a heated gas flow” (Bajic (2021), paragraph 0122), i.e., the gas flow must have a large enough dimension to reach the sample, wherein “the closer the sample is to the one or more heated gas outlets, the greater the effect of heating by the heated gas flow emitted from the one or more heated gas outlet” (Bajic (2021), paragraph 0127). As such, Bajic (2021) identifies the size of the gas curtain required to reach the sample as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., effective heating of the sample. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the dimensions of a heated gas curtain and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed dimensions since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 18, Bajic (2007) in view of Apffel and Bajic (2021) as applied to claim 14 discloses an atmospheric pressure ionisation source according to claim 14.
However, they do not specify the claimed dimensions of a heated gas curtain relative to the tip of the capillary.
Optimizing geometrical parameters such as the dimensions of a heated gas curtain relative to the tip of the capillary is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bajic (2021) teaches that “the sample is heated by a heated gas flow” (Bajic (2021), paragraph 0122), i.e., the gas flow must have a large enough dimension to reach the sample, wherein “the closer the sample is to the one or more heated gas outlets, the greater the effect of heating by the heated gas flow emitted from the one or more heated gas outlet” (Bajic (2021), paragraph 0127). As such, Bajic (2021) identifies the size of the gas curtain required to reach the sample as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., effective heating of the sample. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting geometrical parameters such as the dimensions of a heated gas curtain relative to the tip of the capillary and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the geometrical parameters of the ionisation source to meet the claimed dimensions since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights