DETAILED ACTION
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 on 4/22/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hager (WO2018142265A1) (US 20210134573 A1 will be used as an English language equivalent) [hereinafter Hager] in view of Aizikov et al. (US 20150325424 A1) [hereinafter Aizikov].
Regarding claim 1, Hager teaches a mass spectrometer, comprising:
an ion source (see fig 5: 104) for receiving a sample (see 102) and ionizing at least a portion of the sample to generate a plurality of ions (see [0062]),
a Fourier Transform (FT) mass analyzer (see [0002], fig 5) configured to receive at least a portion of said plurality of ions at an inlet port thereof (see fig 5), said FT mass analyzer comprising a plurality of rods arranged in a multipole configuration (quadrupole, see claim 1) providing a passageway for transmission of ions from said inlet port to an outlet port through which ions can exit the FT mass analyzer (see fig 5),
an RF voltage source (required for intended operation of system, see [0034]) for applying RF voltage(s) to said rods so as to generate an electromagnetic field within said ion passageway for radially confining the ions as they pass through the passageway (see [0033-34]),
a voltage source (required for intended operation of system, see [0043]) for applying a voltage pulse to at least one of said rods for radially exciting at least a portion of said ions at secular frequencies thereof (see e.g. [0043,46]) such that an interaction of said radially excited ions with fringing fields in proximity of said outlet port converts said radial oscillations into axial oscillations as the ions exit the FT mass analyzer (see [0047]),
an ion detector (see e.g. fig 5: 116) positioned downstream of said FT mass analyzer for detecting said axially oscillating ions and generating a transient oscillating detection signal (see e.g. claim 17), and
an analyzer (see e.g. 118) in communication with said ion detector for receiving said transient oscillating detection signal and applying a Fourier Transform to said transient oscillating detection signal to generate a spectrum of secular frequencies of said ions (see [0049]),
wherein said analyzer is configured to
Hagar may fail to explicitly disclose to identify a secular frequency of a target ion from among said secular frequencies; and the window is selected to optimize an intensity associated with the identified secular frequency of the target ion, when said target ion is present in the sample.
However, it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select and adjust (i.e. optimize) for an intensity value associated with a desired target ion range (see also Hagar, [0046], discussing adjusting secular frequencies (i.e. frequency range/window) for targeting desired corresponding m/z ratio species; and see Hagar, fig 11, [0076], showing identification of individual peaks associated with target ions). Further, for example, Aizikov teaches using fourier transform windowing to help isolate an ion species of interest (see e.g. Aizikov, [0055-56]), and better understand the nature of transient species in order to obtain information about e.g. vacuum conditions in the analyzer (see Aizikov, e.g. [0014,16],etc), said system comprising to identify a secular frequency of a target ion from among said secular frequencies (see e.g. ion species of interest, alternately a transient, alternately from the initial FT over the entire range, see [0056]); and the window is selected to optimize an intensity associated with the identified secular frequency of the target ion (optimization to match the known information about the ion species, see e.g. [0056-57]), when said target ion is present in the sample (required for operation of system). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Aizikov in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to adjust the FT window for a particular application, including optimizing for an ion species of interest and/or transient ion species of interest, to optimize for analysis of said species, and/or to generate information that can be used to infer information about vacuum effectiveness, in the manner taught by Aizikov.
Regarding claim 2, Hager teaches wherein said multipole configuration comprises a quadrupole configuration (see Hager, claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Hager and Aizikov teaches wherein said analyzer is configured to determine a width of said FT window based on an m/z ratio associated with the target ion (note FT window (vis a vis time ranges limited by FT frequency domain cutoffs) being adjusted based on m/z of desired ion to be analyzed, see generally Hager, [0046,76]; alternately, see Aizikov, [0055-57]).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Hager and Aizikov teaches said analyzer is configured to determine said width of said FT window based on said determined m/z ratio of the target ion (see discussion regarding claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Hager and Aizikov teaches said analyzer is configured to determine said width of said FT window by initially applying an FT having a window width greater than said width of said FT window (see e.g. Aizikov, [0055-56], initial window covers entire range before analyte or transient analysis of smaller windows) to said transient oscillating detection signal to obtain information regarding secular frequencies of said plurality of ions (see e.g. [0055-56]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Hager and Aizikov teaches said analyzer is configured to determine an m/z ratio of said target ion based on said identified secular frequency (see Hager, fig 11; note determined m/z and secular frequency are based on each other, e.g. [0050-52]).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Hager and Aizikov may fail to explicitly disclose a width of said FT window is in a range of about 0.5 millisecond to about 3 milliseconds. However, Hager teaches the pulse width may be 10 ns to 1 ms (see Hager, e.g. [0044]), and the selection of an FT analysis window commensurate with that range would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art to try to enable the intended operation of the system. Alternately, the pulse width may be read as the FT window under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights