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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 14 and 16 are not indefinite, but instead are simply broad. Applicant explains that one of ordinary skill in the art can determine the bandwidth of a bandpass filter, and that claims 14 and 16 describe a bandpass mass filter that has a particular m/z bandwidth due to its structure and operational parameters. This is persuasive. The indefiniteness rejections of record are withdrawn.
Applicant asserts that Hopfgartner fails to teach a second mass filter, but instead only teaches one mass filter. This is not persuasive. As accepted by the applicant in the arguments, quadrupoles are mass filter. Fig. 2 (226) is a quadrupoles. This is evident in the marking of (226) as Q2. Further, (227) of Hopfgartner can be embodied as a quadrupole per Hopfgartner para 54. Both quadrupoles select ions that have been subject to fragmentation in the electron dissociation chamber (225), i.e., product ions. Further, (227) performs mass analysis on the selected ions, presumably by selective ejection, which is the norm. Applicant’s argument that Hopfgartner fails to teach a second mass filter directly contradicts applicant’s argument with respect to a definiteness of the mass filter of claims 14 and 16. Therein, applicant acknowledges that a mass filter is defined by its structure and operational parameters. Hopfgartner provides quadrupoles, i.e., the structure of a mass filter, and voltages to allow ions to pass through the quadrupoles for detection, i.e., the operational parameters of a mass filter. Since the quadrupoles are both structurally and operationally mass filters, they are also mass filters for the purposes of anticipation.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments significantly alter the scope of claims 1 and 4-6. An additional anticipation rejection is provided below to better represent the state of the art with respect to various understanding of the limitation: “using a [first/second] mass filter to select.”
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, 3-8, 10-13, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/014379 A1 [Hopfgartner].
Regarding Claim 1:
Hopfgartner discloses a method of performing mass spectrometry (abstract), comprising:
introducing a plurality of precursor ions into a mass spectrometer (Fig. 6 (610)),
using a first mass filter to select a portion (Paras 22, 52) of said precursor ions having m/z ratios within a first desired range (Fig. 6 (620)),
causing fragmentation of at least a portion of said selected precursor ions to generate a plurality of product ions (Fig. 6 (650)),
using a second mass filter (quadrupole of Fig. 2 (227), para 54; or quadrupole of Fig. 2 (226), para 67) to select a portion of said product ions having m/z ratios within a second desired m/z range (para 67), and
performing mass analysis of said selected product ions (para 67).
Regarding Claim 4:
Hopfgartner discloses the method of claim 1, wherein any of said first and second mass filter comprises a plurality of rods arranged in a multipole configuration. Paras 53-54.
Regarding Claim 5:
Hopfgartner discloses the method of claim 4, wherein said rods are configured for application of any DC and/or RF voltage thereto for generating an electromagnetic field within said mass filter for facilitating selection of said portions of any of the precursor and product ions. That is inherently how all quadrupole mass filters and analyzers work. Were they not so configured, then they would not be able to select ions.
Regarding Claim 6:
Hopfgartner discloses the method of claim 4, wherein said multipole configuration comprises a quadrupole configuration. Paras 53-54.
Regarding Claim 7:
Hopfgartner discloses a mass spectrometer, comprising:
an orifice for receiving a plurality of precursor ions from an ion source (Fig. 2 (221)),
a first bandpass mass filter for receiving at least a portion of said ions (Fig. 2 Q1), said first bandpass mass filter being configured for selecting a portion of said precursor ions having m/z ratios within a first desired range (Paras 22, 52),
a collision cell disposed downstream of said first bandpass mass filter for receiving at least a portion of said selected precursor ions to cause fragmentation of at least a portion thereof to generate a plurality of product ions (Fig. 2 (225), para 67), and
a second bandpass mass filter for receiving at least a portion of said product ions, said second bandpass mass filter being configured to select a portion of said product ions having m/z ratios within a second desired range (Fig. 2 (226), para 67).
Regarding Claim 8:
Hopfgartner discloses the mass spectrometer of claim 7, wherein said collision cell and said second bandpass mass filter are positioned in the same chamber. As shown in Fig. 2. (226) and (225) are in the same chamber.
Regarding Claim 10:
Hopfgartner discloses the mass spectrometer of claim 7, further comprising a mass analyzer disposed downstream of said second bandpass mass filter to receive at least a portion of said selected product ions and provide mass analysis thereof. Fig. 2 (227)- is a ToF mass analyzer.
Regarding Claim 11:
Hopfgartner discloses the mass spectrometer of claim 10, wherein said mass analyzer comprises a quadrupole mass analyzer. Para 54.
Regarding Claim 12:
Hopfgartner discloses the mass spectrometer of claim 7, wherein any of said first and second bandpass mass filter comprises a plurality of rods arranged in a multipole configuration and configured for application of any of an RF and/or DC voltage thereto for generating an electromagnetic field within said bandpass mass filter for facilitating selection of said portions of any of the precursor and product ions. Paras 53-54. All quadrupole mass filters and analyzers inherently operate in the claimed fashion. Were they not so configured, then they would not be able to select ions.
Regarding Claim 13:
Hopfgartner discloses the mass spectrometer of claim 12, wherein said multipole configuration comprises a quadrupole configuration. Para 53.
Regarding Claim 17:
Hopfgartner discloses the mass spectrometer of claim 7, further comprising an ion guide positioned upstream of said first bandpass mass filter for receiving ions passing through said orifice and provide focusing of said ions. Fig. 2 (222, 223).
Regarding Claim 18:
Hopfgartner discloses the mass spectrometer of claim 17, wherein said ion guide comprises a plurality of rods arranged in a multi-rod configuration and configured for application of RF and/or DC voltages thereto for generating an electromagnetic field for focusing said ions. Fig. 2 (223) is labeled “Q0”, which is the standard nomenclature in mass spectrometry for a quadrupole. As such, it has four rod electrode that are configured for application of RF and/or DC voltages thereto for generating an electromagnetic field for focusing said ions, like all quadrupoles.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0178887 A1 [Park].
Regarding Claim 1:
Park discloses a method of performing mass spectrometry (abstract), comprising:
introducing a plurality of precursor ions into a mass spectrometer (claim 10, Fig. 4 (AP ion source))
using a first mass filter to select a portion of said precursor ions having m/z ratios within a first desired range (claim 10 (c))
causing fragmentation of at least a portion of said selected precursor ions to generate a plurality of product ions (claim Fig. 10(d)),
using a second mass filter (claim 10(c), (d)) to select a portion of said product ions having m/z ratios within a second desired m/z range (claim 10(d)), and
performing mass analysis of said selected product ions (claim 10(d)).
Regarding Claim 4:
Park discloses the method of claim 1, wherein any of said first and second mass filter comprises a plurality of rods arranged in a multipole configuration. Abstract- quadrupoles.
Regarding Claim 5:
Park discloses the method of claim 4, wherein said rods are configured for application of any DC and/or RF voltage thereto for generating an electromagnetic field within said mass filter for facilitating selection of said portions of any of the precursor and product ions. That is inherently how all quadrupole mass filters and analyzers work. Were they not so configured, then they would not be able to select ions.
Regarding Claim 6:
Park discloses the method of claim 4, wherein said multipole configuration comprises a quadrupole configuration. abstract
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopfgartner in view of US 2017/0299550 A1 [Wang].
Regarding Claim 14:
Hopfgartner teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 7, but fails to specify that said first bandpass mass filter has an m/z bandwidth in a range of about 0.7 to about 25.
Wang teaches a mass analyzer (abstract) wherein the quadrupole filters (para 43) can have voltages (RF and DC) applied thereto to provide an m/z bandwidth of 5 m/z (para 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the window widths taught by Wang in the invention of Hopfgartner, since this would allow one to optimize experimental procedures around given precursor and product ions.
Regarding Claim 16:
Hopfgartner teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 7, wherein said second bandpass mass filter has an m/z bandwidth in a range of about 200 to about 400.
Wang teaches a mass analyzer (abstract) wherein the quadrupole filters (para 43) can have voltages (RF and DC) applied thereto to provide an m/z bandwidth of about 200 m/z (para 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the window widths taught by Wang in the invention of Hopfgartner, since this would allow one to optimize experimental procedures around given precursor and product ions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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