DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/sub-species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 January 2025. Claim 5 is also directed towards non-elected species. Specifically, claim 5 requires wherein said electrodes for generating said wedge-shaped electric field region comprise one or more first electrode arranged in a first plane and a plurality of second electrodes arranged in a second plane, wherein the ion accelerator is configured to apply different voltages to different ones of the second electrodes so as to define the wedge-shaped electric field region between the one or more first electrode and the second electrodes, wherein the second plane is parallel to the first plane.
Specifically, sub-species iva (90 in figure 9) was elected without traverse. Here the wedge field 45 is between two electrodes arranged in different planes (i.e. 91 is tilted relative to parallel electrodes and adjusting the potential of electrode 91 allow controlling the time front tilt angle ([0156] of the published application). Therefore claim 5 is additionally withdrawn as being directed towards a different sub-species nonelected without traverse.
Further claim 8 requires “wherein the ion accelerator is arranged and configured to receive ions travelling in a first direction along a first axis that is substantially parallel to equipotential field lines of the wedge-shaped electric field.“ This also does not belong to subspecies iva because figure 9, 90 shows the axis z is not parallel to the field lines of the wedge shaped electric field. Claim 8 is also withdrawn.
Therefore, claims 5-6, 8 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an ion optical component…which deflects the average ion trajectory of the ions, thereby tilting the angle of the time front of the ions” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 invokes 35 USC§ 112(f) for an ion optical component, however the specification is devoid of any structure to perform the claimed function. MPEP 2163.03 (VI) recites:
“if the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.”
Because there is no structure associated with the claimed ion optical component, this limitation covers all ways of performing the claimed function, when no specific way is disclosed, therefore failing to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC § 112(a).
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.
Claim 11 is 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 limitation an ion optical component…which deflects the average ion trajectory of the ions, thereby tilting the angle of the time front of the ions” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of any structure materials or acts for performing the function of deflecting the average ion trajectory of ions, thereby tilting the angle of the time front of the ions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-12, 18 and 20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US20040108453) in view of Hoyes (US pgPub 2014/0054454).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi et al. teaches a mass spectrometer (fig. 1) having a pulsed ion accelerator (fig. 1, 7), said pulsed ion accelerator comprising:
a plurality of electrodes (fig. 2, 14/15) arranged and configured to generate an ion pulsing region (see fig. 2 electrodes 14/15 showing an orthogonal accelerator)),
wherein the pulsed ion accelerator is configured such that ions entering the ion accelerator are initially received in the ion pulsing region (region between electrodes 14/15, see paragraph [0008]); and
a plurality of electrodes arranged and configured to generate an electric field region downstream of said ion pulsing region (fig. 2, accelerator electrodes 16);
wherein the pulsed ion accelerator is configured to apply a pulsed voltage to at least one of said electrodes of the ion pulsing region for pulsing ions out of the ion accelerator (see paragraph [0008]), wherein the ions have a time front arranged in a first plane at the time the pulsed voltage is initiated (as seen in figure 2 time front of 18 between 14/15 at time of pulsing), and
Kobayashi et al. teaches two grids in the pulsed accelerator however fails to disclose wherein the electric field downstream of the pulsing region is wedge shaped and wherein the ion accelerator is configured such that the pulsed ions pass through the wedge-shaped electric field region so as to cause the time front of the ions to be tilted at an angle to the first plane;
wherein the ion accelerator further comprises a plurality of electrodes arranged and configured to generate an ion acceleration region downstream of the wedge-shaped electric field region for amplifying the time front tilt introduced by the wedge-shaped electric field; and wherein the at least one of said electrodes of the ion pulsing region for pulsing ions out of the ion accelerator is substantially parallel to said electrodes of the ion acceleration region.
However, Hoyes teaches wherein the electric field downstream of the pulsing region is wedge shaped (fig. 3, shows tilted arrangement formed by misalignment of G1 and G2, see paragraph [0089] for pusher electrode and G1 (i.e. pulsing region) and G2. However, [0089] teaches such parallel arrangement is hard to achieve consistently. Paragraph [0090] teaches misalignments cause distortions in the isochronous plane at detector. Paragraph [0091]-[0092] teach compensate misalignments to correct tilt in the isochronous plane. That is, the misalignment between G1 and G2 results in a tilted ion plane, thus is a wedge shaped field) and wherein the ion accelerator is configured such that the pulsed ions pass through the wedge-shaped electric field region so as to cause the time front of the ions to be tilted at an angle to the first plane ([0090] teaches small tilts in the x and y directs of the principle planes leads to an overall tilt in the isochronous plane at the ion detector.);
PNG
media_image1.png
756
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the ion accelerator further comprises a plurality of electrodes (fig. 4 or 6 note “current invention”, which shows a supplementary acceleration stage(s) placed in the field free region before the ion detector ([0092]). Figure 5 shows the stage as two grids G3 and G4 (i.e. a plurality of electrodes), wherein figure 6 shows figure 5 may be cascaded ([0094]) to correct for errors in both x and y directions) arranged and configured to generate an ion acceleration region downstream of the wedge-shaped electric field region ([0092] teaches acceleration stage (i.e. G3/G4 in figure 5) for correction of tilt (i.e. caused by misalignment between G1/G2 or wedge shaped field). Thus downstream of wedge shaped field)
PNG
media_image2.png
727
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for amplifying the time front tilt introduced by the wedge-shaped electric field (the claim is written as a device, since the acceleration stage is capable of changing the tilt of the isochronous plane in either direction (see figure 5, case 1/case 2), G3/G4 is capable of further amplifying the tilt caused by G1/G2 misalignments (i.e. wedge shaped field). See [0093] which teaches Vacc is capable of being adjusted, therefor the supplementary stage is capable of amplifying tilt by adjusting Vacc (i.e. the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 (II))); and
wherein the at least one of said electrodes of the ion pulsing region for pulsing ions out of the ion accelerator is substantially parallel to said electrodes of the ion acceleration region (G3 is essentially parallel to the principle planes of the instrument ([0093]). [0089] teaches parallel G1/G2 to the principle planes with a high degree of tolerance. Paragraph [0091] teaches relaxing those tolerances. Therefore, while G1/G2 are not exactly parallel to G3, they are substantially parallel, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand substantially parallel to be within the tolerance range of alignment in a system).
Hoyes modifies Kobayashi et al. by identifying that misalignments may occur between the pusher and the grid electrodes resulting in a tilt of the ion packet (i.e. wedge shaped field) and correcting the misalignment by a downstream acceleration stage.
Since both inventions are directed towards accelerators in a TOF system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the downstream acceleration stage of Hoyes in the device of Kobayashi because it would allow for the tolerances relaxed for positioning the components while optimizing the resolution of the spectrometer ([0091]). Therefore simplifying the positioning of the orthogonal accelerator.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes teach wherein said plurality of electrodes for generating said ion acceleration region are a plurality of parallel electrodes (Hoyes, G3 is parallel as discussed above. While G4 is inclined, it is parallel to a plane of the same incline. That is, the claim does not require the electrodes to be parallel to each other thus electrodes are planar thus parallel to planes. Alternatively, interpreting G3 and the cascaded G3 ([0094]) (i.e. fifth grid G5,see paragraph [0031]) to be the claimed plurality of electrodes, both electrodes are parallel to the principle plane as suggested in paragraph [0093]. That is, in this interpretation only G3 and G5 are interpreted to be the plurality of electrodes of the ion acceleration region downstream of the wedge shaped electric field region that are configured to generate ion acceleration via additional grids G4 and G6).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes teach wherein said electrodes for generating said wedge-shaped electric field region are arranged and configured for generating said wedge-shaped electric field region therebetween such that equipotential field lines in the wedge-shaped electric field region are angled to each other so as to form the wedge-shape (due to misalignment between g1 and G2 the equipotential field lines would be angled to cause tilt in the ions in the x or y direction. Figures 3-5 show the tilt of ions in x direction caused by misalignment, thus a wedge shaped field and equipotential lines between G1 and G2).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes teach wherein said electrodes for generating said wedge-shaped electric field region comprise one or more first electrode arranged in a first plane and one or more second electrode arranged in a second plane that is angled to the first plane so as to define the wedge-shaped electric field region between the one or more first electrode and one or more second electrode (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
716
725
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes teach wherein the electrodes for generating said wedge-shaped electric field region are arranged so that equipotential field lines of the wedge-shaped electric field extend substantially in a first direction (electric field of Kobayashi inherent between electrodes 16 extend in a direction, as modified by Hoyes, between G1/G2 wedge field therebetween by misalignment) and the plurality of electrodes for generating an ion pulsing region (between 14/15 of Koyboyashi) are configured to pulse the ions through the wedge-shaped electric field substantially transverse to the equipotential field lines (Koybayashi as seen in figure 2 packets 19 are pulsed transversely through field formed by 16, which as modified by Hoyes is wedge-shaped).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes teach wherein said electrodes of the ion acceleration region are configured to apply a static electric field in the ion acceleration region for accelerating the ions (Hoyes, [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes teach wherein said electrodes of the ion acceleration region are configured to apply an electric field in the ion acceleration region having parallel equipotential field lines for accelerating the ions (Hoyes, G3 and cascaded G5 (fifth grid see paragraph [0031]) are parallel to the principle plane ([0093] teaches G3 parallel and paragraph [0094] cascading the device, thus fifth grid G5 would also be parallel). Since paragraph [0094] cascades another device (second accelerator ([0031]) with the first device, the grids G3 and G5 (fifth grid) are parallel and thus configured to apply an electric field with parallel equipotential field lines by not providing a potential to G4/G6 (i.e. sixth grid [0031])).
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes teach an ion optical component (Hoyes, second acceleration stage ([0031])) located downstream of the pulsed ion accelerator (downstream G1/G2/G3/G4, see paragraph [0094]) which deflects the average ion trajectory of the ions, thereby tilting the angle of the time front of the ions by the ion optical component ((corrects tilt in y [0094])); and wherein the wedge-shaped electric field region of the pulsed ion accelerator is configured to tilt the time front of the ions passing therethrough so as to at least partially counteract the tilting of the time front by the ion optical device (since second accelerator stage corrects y tilt caused by G1/G2, the tilt from G1/G2 counteract the correction of the time front tilt at cascaded second stage of acceleration discussed in paragraphs [0031] and [0094]).
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi et al. teaches said pulsed accelerator is one of an orthogonal accelerator (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes teach wherein said electrodes of the ion pulsing region for pulsing ions out of the ion accelerator are substantially parallel to said electrodes of the ion acceleration region (Hoyes, G3/G5 see discussion above with respect to paragraphs [0031] and [0093]-[0094], note pusher electrode is substantially parallel because tolerances have been relaxed ([0057])), and wherein said electrodes for generating said wedge-shaped electric field region comprises an intermediate electrode (G1 or G2) tilted at an angle to the electrodes of the ion pulsing and ion acceleration regions so as to define the wedge-shaped electric field (G1 or G2 angled with respect to G3 (parallel see paragraph [0094]) and pusher, note pusher may have three stages see paragraph [0107]. See discussion above with respect to forming a wedge shaped field).
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes teach a method of mass spectrometry comprising: providing the mass spectrometer as claimed in claim 1 ;applying the pulsed voltage to the plurality of electrodes for generating said ion pulsing region so as to pulse ions out of the ion accelerator, wherein the ions have a time front arranged in the first plane at the time the pulsed voltage is initiated, and wherein the ions pass through the wedge-shaped electric field region so as to cause the time front of the ions to be tilted at the angle to the first plane (method taught as in the citations in claim 1 above).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes and further in view of Verenchikov (US pgPub 2013/0056627).
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi in view of Hoyes fails to disclose a multi-pass time-of-flight mass analyser or electrostatic ion trap having the pulsed ion accelerator, and electrodes arranged and configured so as to provide an ion drift region that is elongated in a drift direction (z-dimension) and to reflect or turn ions multiple times in an oscillating dimension (x-dimension) that is orthogonal to the drift direction.
However, Verenchikov teaches a multi-pass time-of-flight mass analyser or electrostatic ion trap (fig. 3) having a pulsed ion accelerator (32), and electrodes arranged and configured so as to provide an ion drift region that is elongated in a drift direction (z-dimension) and to reflect or turn ions multiple times in an oscillating dimension (x-dimension) that is orthogonal to the drift direction (z direction, x direction and oscillations seen in figure 1).
Verenchikov modifies the combined device by suggesting using the pulsed accelerator in a MR-TOF.
Since both inventions are directed towards orthogonal injection into a mass spectrometer, it would have been obvious to use the accelerator of the combined device in a MR-TOF because it would increase the flight path therefore improving resolution ([0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 14, the combined device in view of Verenchikov teaches (i) the multi-pass time-of-flight mass analyser is a multi-reflecting time of flight mass analyser having two ion mirrors that are elongated in the drift direction (z-dimension) and configured to reflect ions multiple times in the oscillation dimension (x-dimension), wherein the pulsed ion accelerator is arranged to receive ions and accelerate them into one of the ion mirrors (as seen in figure 3, x and z directions and ion oscillation in x dimension multiple times orthogonal accelerator best seen in figure 6a-6b).
Regarding claim 15, the combined device in view of Verenchikov teach an ion deflector located (68, figure 6b of Verenchikov) downstream of said pulsed ion accelerator (67/62/65), and that is configured to back-steer the average ion trajectory of the ions, in the drift direction, thereby tilting the angle of the time front of the ions received by the ion deflector ([0121]).
Regarding claim 16, the combined device in view of Verenchikov teach wherein the wedge-shaped electric field region of the pulsed ion accelerator is configured to tilt the time front of the ions passing therethrough so as to at least partially counteract the tilting of the time front by the ion deflector (Verenchikov deflector 68 counteract tilt provided by accelerator ([0121]), thus the accelerator counteracts the deflection).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. in view of Hoyes and further in view of Verenchikov (US pgPub 2013/0056627) and further in view of Stewart et al. (US pgPub 2017/0098533).
Regarding 17, the combined device in view of Verenchikov fails to disclose wherein the ion deflector is configured to generate a quadrupolar field for controlling the spatial focusing of the ions in the drift direction.
However, Stewart teaches wherein the ion deflector is configured to generate a quadrupolar field ([0031]-[0032] teach the tilt correction device comprises orthogonal pairs of plates, since the tilt correction device forms at least one dipole (abstract), four plates form a quadrupole. Moreover, paragraph [0030] teaches four poles thus a quadrupole) for controlling the spatial focusing of the ions (inherent function of a quadrupole (i.e. orthogonal dipolar field (i.e. quadrupole) effect the ion focus, thus control the focus of the ions)).
Stewart modifies the combined device by suggesting the deflector to be a quadrupole.
Since both inventions are directed towards correction of ion tilt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the deflector of Kobayashi in view of Hoyes in view of Verenchikov for the quadrupolar tilt corrector of Stewart because it would allow more flexibility in compensating tilt in multiple directions.
Relevant art of interest to the applicant:
Brown (US pgPub 2013/0256524) teaches orthogonal acceleration similar to Kobayashi above.
Additionally, Verenchikov cited above or WO-2016174462 (cited in parent application) see figure 9a-9c for accelerator and plurality of electrodes may be used in combination with Hoyes to make obvious the claim 1 in a similar manner as Kobayashi discussed herein above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881