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 .
Objected Informalities
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In The Claims
Claim 1, line 3, “to as to” should be -- to --.
Claim 10, line 3, “to as to” should be -- to --.
Claim 13, line 2, “to as to” should be -- to --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Objected drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more charge envelopes in the drift time or mass to charge ratio distribution as recited in claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, and 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
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 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giles et al. (2017/0200594).
Giles et al. (2017/0200594) discloses, in figs. 1-8, an analytical instrument which includes:
Regarding claim 13,
an ion source 1 configured to ionize particles to produce ions (see figs. 1, 2);
an ion separation device 5 arranged downstream of the ion source 1, wherein the ion separation device 5 is configured to separate ions according to mass to charge ratio by using one or more time-varying electric fields to urge ions through a gas (see figs. 1, 2, “travelling wave” in [0033], [0174], [0190], [0191], [0192], [0194], [0207], [0226] and “gas” in [0034], [0038], [0174], [0190], [0201], [0207], [0208]); and
an ion detector 8 arranged downstream of the ion separation device, wherein the analytical instrument is configured such that ions eluting from the ion separation device can be detected by the ion detector (see figs. 1, 2, [0023], [0029], [0031], [0054], [0060], [0061], [0065], [0075], [0089], [0090], [0105], [0106], [0111], [0115], [0117], [0123], [0136], [0163], [0164], [0168], [0178], [0196], [0207], [0214], [0218], [0235]);
wherein the analytical instrument is configured to measure the transit time of ions through the ion separation device, and to determine a drift time or mass to charge ratio distribution of the ions therefrom (see abstract, figs. 5-8, [0017]-[0031], [0034]-[0125], [0157]-[0160], [0167]-[0174], [0182], [0183], [0185], [0190], [0194], [0195]-[0201], [0206]-[0220], [0225]-[0236]); and
wherein the analytical instrument is configured to use the drift time or mass to charge ratio distribution to characterize the particles (see [0023], [0069], the term “drift time” relating to the term “transit time” and/or the term “arrival time” in [0029], [0030], [0034], [0075], [0081], [0083], [0090], [0100], [0101], [0117]).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the ion separation device 5 is a travelling wave separation device (see figs. 1, 2, “travelling wave” in [0033], [0174], [0190], [0191], [0192], [0194], [0207], [0226]).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the ion separation device 5 is configured such that the gas in the ion separation device is maintained at a pressure ≥ 0.1 mbar (see figs. 1, 2, [0052], [0162]).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Giles et al. (2017/0200594) in view of Scalf et al. (6,727,497) and Ebeling et al. (6,649,907).
Giles et al. (2017/0200594) discloses all the features as discussed above except analyzing particles with masses > 1 MDa as recited in claim 10; and one or more devices configured to reduce the charge of the ions and arranged upstream of the ion separation device as recited in claims 10 and 18.
Using an analytical instrument as a mass spectrometer for analyzing the particles with masses > 1 MDa is considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Scalf et al. (6,727,497) discloses, in figs. 1-9B, a mass spectrometer for analyzing particles with masses > 1 MDa (see col. 11, lines 42-45), thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the mass spectrometer for analyzing the particles with masses > 1 MDa in the Giles et al. (2017/0200594) analytical instrument to analyze the particles having larger molecules. Since, the mass spectrometer is well known to analyze any particles that have small molecules to large molecules range.
Arranging a device upstream of the ion separation device for reducing the charge of the ions is also considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Ebeling et al. (6,649,907) discloses, in figs. 1A-9B, a mass spectrometer for analyzing samples containing chemical species with high molecular masses (see abstract), which includes an ion source 100 for ionizing particles to produce ions; a charge reduction device 300 for reducing the charge of the ions; and a drift tube 430 located downstream of the charge reduction device 300 for separating the charge-reduced ions according to mass to charge ratio (see fig. 5), thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the mass spectrometer for analyzing samples that includes the ion source for ionizing particles to produce ions; the charge reduction device for reducing the charge of the ions; and the drift tube located downstream of the charge reduction device for separating the charge-reduced ions in the Giles et al. (2017/0200594) analytical instrument to analyze the charge-reduced ions. Since, the mass spectrometer is well known to analyze any ions with any charge.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome objection(s), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome objection(s) and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art fails to disclose an analytical instrument and/or a method of analyzing particles with masses > 1 MDa, which includes using one or more charge envelopes identified in a drift time or mass to charge ratio distribution to characterize the particles as recited in claims 1 and 14; or an ion separation device having a resolution of between around 10 and 1000 as recited in claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIET TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert H. Kim can be reached on 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KIET T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881