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 amendment filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 12, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 7, 14-16, 21, 23 and 26 was previously cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 17-20, 22, 24-25 and 27 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued starting on page 7 paragraph 3 that Thomson in view of Schneider fails to teach claim 1 because Thomson fails to teach the drift gas transporting the ions at a flow rate greater than about 10 L/min. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Thomson is cited to teach introducing a drift gas (from gas source 66) through an inlet of a differential mobility spectrometer (¶ 0027), and performing differential mobility separation on ions within the drift gas using the differential mobility spectrometer as the drift gas transports the ions therethrough. Schneider is then cited to cure Thomson’s deficiency in teaching “that the flow rate of the drift gas is greater than 10 L/min”. Therefore, Thomson in view of Schneider does teach the drift gas transporting the ions at a flow rate greater than about 10 L/min.
Applicant argued starting on page 8 paragraph 3 that Schneider fails to teach newly added claim element where the flow rate of the gas through a differential mobility spectrometer is also greater than about 10 L/min. Examiner agrees that there is no specific Schneider teaching regarding the gas flow rate through the DMS, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a gas flow rate through a differential mobility spectrometer of greater than about 10 L/min, when Schneider already teaches that the flow rate of the curtain gas into curtain chamber (218) is 25 L/min (¶ 0034), and that the pressure in the curtain chamber (218) can provide both the curtain gas outflow (226) as well as the gas inflow (228) into the DMS (202; ¶ 0018), thus the gas flow rate through the DMS must be close to 25 L/min as well.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (US 2009/0101812) in view of Schneider (WO 2009/143616).
Regarding claim 1, Thomson teaches a method of analyzing ions in a differential mobility spectrometer (DMA; ¶ 0015), comprising:
introducing a drift gas (from gas source 66) through an inlet of a differential mobility spectrometer (¶ 0027);
performing differential mobility separation on ions within the drift gas using the differential mobility spectrometer as the drift gas transports the ions therethrough (in DMA drift region 10; ¶ 0027).
Thomson fails to teach that the flow rate of the drift gas is greater than 10 L/min.
Schneider teaches a differential mobility spectrometer comprising a curtain gas that becomes the drift gas (208; ¶ 0018), which has a flow rate of 25 L/min, as a way to control analysis duration (¶ 0034-0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a drift gas flow rate of greater than 10 L/min, because such drift gas flow rate is known and used in the art to control the analysis duration in a spectrometer, as shown in Schneider.
Thomson and Schneider further fail to teach that the drift gas within the DMS has a flow rate of greater than about 10 L/min.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a gas flow rate through a differential mobility spectrometer of greater than about 10 L/min, when Schneider already teaches that the flow rate of the curtain gas into curtain chamber (218) is 25 L/min (¶ 0034), and that the pressure in the curtain chamber (218) can provide both the curtain gas outflow (226) as well as the gas inflow (228) into the DMS (202; ¶ 0018), thus the gas flow rate through the DMS must be close to 25 L/min (greater than about 10 L/min) as well.
Regarding claim 2, Thomson in view of Schneider teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting a resolution of the differential mobility separation for at least one species of ion of interest without substantially adjusting transmission of said at least one species of ion of interest (adjusting gas flow rate would adjust the resolution; ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 3, Thomson in view of Schneider teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the flow rate of the drift gas through the inlet is substantially maintained during said adjusting step (continuous flow; ¶ 0006 and 0018).
Regarding claim 4, Thomson in view of Schneider teaches the method of claim 2, wherein a throttle gas is not provided to an outlet of said differential mobility spectrometer during said adjusting step (no teaching of throttle gas or addition gas source for throttle gas).
Regarding claim 9, Thomson in view of Schneider teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the flow rate of drift gas through the inlet is 25 L/min (¶ 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 10, Thomson in view of Schneider teaches the method of claim 1, wherein an outlet of the differential mobility spectrometer is sealed to an inlet of a vacuum chamber containing at least one mass spectrometer, the method further comprising performing mass spectrometry on ions transported through the outlet of the differential mobility spectrometer into the inlet of the mass spectrometer (Thomson claim 10; Fig. 1; ¶ 0015).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (US 2009/0101812) in view of Schneider (WO 2009/143616), in further view of Covey (US 2016/0334369).
Regarding claim 5, Thomson in view of Schneider teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to further teach that adjusting a cross-sectional area of the inlet to adjust a residence time of ions within the differential mobility spectrometer.
Covey teaches a differential mobility spectrometer comprising an inlet for incoming ions, wherein the diameter of the inlet may be adjusted to control the resolution and sensitivity of the apparatus (¶ 0074-0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate adjustable cross-sectional area of Thomson’s inlet to adjust a residence time of ions, since it has been taught that adjusting the diameter of a DMS inlet is a way to control the resolution and sensitivity of the apparatus, as shown in Covey.
Regarding claim 6, Thomson in view of Schneider teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to further teach adjusting a diameter of the inlet to be in a range of between about 0.5 mm and about 20 mm.
Covey teaches a differential mobility spectrometer comprising an inlet for incoming ions, wherein the diameter of the inlet (0.5 mm) may be adjusted to control the resolution and sensitivity of the apparatus (¶ 0074-0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate adjustable cross-sectional area of Thomson’s inlet to adjust a residence time of ions, since it has been taught that adjusting the diameter of a DMS inlet is a way to control the resolution and sensitivity of the apparatus, and a known diameter is 0.5 mm, as shown in Covey.
Regarding claim 8, Thomson in view of Schneider teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the differential mobility spectrometer comprises parallel plate electrodes (219) separated by an analytical gap, but fails to further teach that the inlet is adjustable relative to the cross-sectional area of the analytical gap.
Covey teaches a differential mobility spectrometer comprising an inlet for incoming ions, wherein the diameter of the inlet may be adjusted to control the resolution and sensitivity of the apparatus (¶ 0074-0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate adjustable cross-sectional area of Thomson’s inlet to adjust a residence time of ions, since it has been taught that adjusting the diameter of a DMS inlet is a way to control the resolution and sensitivity of the apparatus, as shown in Covey.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (US 2009/0101812) in view of Schneider (WO 2009/143616), in further view of Schneider 2 (US 8,084,736).
Regarding claim 11, Thomson in view of Schneider teaches the method of claim 10, but fails to further teach adjusting a resolution of the differential mobility separation for at least one species of ion of interest by adding or removing gas between the outlet of the differential mobility spectrometer and the inlet of the vacuum chamber containing the at least one mass spectrometer.
Schneider 2 teaches a differential mobility spectrometer upstream of another vacuum chamber, wherein a throttle gas is added between the outlet of the differential mobility spectrometer and the inlet of the vacuum chamber containing the at least one mass spectrometer to control between sensitivity and selectivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate an additional gas between the outlet of the Thomson’s differential mobility spectrometer and the inlet of the vacuum chamber containing the at least one mass spectrometer, because using such additional gas is a known way to control between sensitivity and selectivity, as taught in Schneider 2.
Claim(s) 12-13, 17-19, 22, 24-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (WO 2009/143616) in view of Covey (US 2016/0334369).
Regarding claim 12, Schneider teaches a system comprising:
a housing (206, 207) having an inlet (210) and an outlet (212);
a drift gas supply for supply a drift gas that flows through the inlet at a flow rate greater than about 10 L/min (gas coming into curtain chamber at 25 L/min, and becomes drift gas; ¶ 0034 and 0018);
two parallel plate electrodes (plates 206; Fig. 1; ¶ 0014) disposed within said housing and separated from one another by a fixed distance, the volume between the two electrodes defining an analytical gap through which ions that enter the inlet are transported from the inlet toward the outlet (¶ 0014);
a voltage source for providing DC voltages to at least one of the parallel plate electrodes to generate an electric field, the electric field for passing through selected ions species based on mobility characteristics (Figs 4 and 5; ¶ 0034); and
a drift gas supply for supplying a gas that flows through the inlet at a flow rate of 25 L/min (¶ 0018 and 0034-0035).
Schneider fails to additionally teach that a RF voltage is provided to the plate electrodes.
Covey teaches a differential mobility spectrometer comprising an analytical gap for ion introduction, wherein an RF potential is added to a plate electrode at the analytical gap to focus the ions (¶ 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a RF potential at Schneider’s plate electrodes, since such RF potential is known and used to focus ions in ion introduction to a spectrometer, as taught in Covey.
Schneider further fails to teach that the drift gas through the analytical gap has a flow rate of greater than about 10 L/min.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a gas flow rate through the analytical gap of greater than about 10 L/min, when Schneider already teaches that the flow rate of the curtain gas into curtain chamber (218) is 25 L/min (¶ 0034), and that the pressure in the curtain chamber (218) can provide both the curtain gas outflow (226) as well as the gas inflow (228) into the DMS (202; ¶ 0018), thus the gas flow rate through the DMS must be close to 25 L/min (greater than about 10 L/min) as well.
Regarding claim 13, Schneider in view of Covey teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the inlet comprises an aperture for allowing the traversal of the drift gas into the housing, and wherein a cross-sectional area of the aperture is adjustable (¶ 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 17, Schneider in view of Covey teaches the system of claim 13, wherein a diameter of the inlet is adjustable, about 0.5 mm (¶ 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 18, Schneider in view of Covey teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the aperture extends through at least one electrode plate, wherein the at least one electrode plate is electrically separated from the parallel plate electrodes (Figs. 18-19).
Regarding claim 19, Schneider in view of Covey teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the system lacks a throttle gas supply (no teaching of throttle gas or addition gas source for throttle gas).
Regarding claim 22, Schneider in view of Covey teaches the system of claim 12, but fails to further teach that the cross-sectional area of the analytical gap is about 20 mm2, or a length of the analytical gap along the direction of drift gas flow
is greater than about 30 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate such area/gap length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use such area/length for the purpose of achieving a desired resolution. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) 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.
Regarding claim 24, Schneider in view of Covey teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the outlet is sealed to an inlet of a vacuum chamber containing at least one mass spectrometer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Schneider in view of Covey teaches the system of claim 12, further comprising:
a curtain chamber within which the housing is disposed (Figs. 1 and 2); and
a curtain gas supply for providing a flow of curtain gas into the curtain chamber (¶ 0034), wherein a portion of the curtain gas outflows from an aperture in the curtain
plate and the remainder forms the drift gas (¶ 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 27, Schneider in view of Covey teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the drift gas comprises at least one of a chemical modifier and a mixture of gases (¶ 0014).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (WO 2009/143616) in view of Covey (US 2016/0334369), in further view of Schneider 2 (US 8,084,736).
Regarding claim 20, Schneider in view of Covey teaches the system of claim 12, but fails to further teach a throttle gas supply is provided for adding a throttle gas to the outlet of the housing, and wherein adjustments to the throttle gas are
configured to modify residence time within the system.
Schneider 2 teaches a differential mobility spectrometer upstream of another vacuum chamber, wherein a throttle gas is added between the outlet of the differential mobility spectrometer and the inlet of the vacuum chamber containing the at least one mass spectrometer to control between sensitivity and selectivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate an additional gas between the outlet of the Thomson’s differential mobility spectrometer and the inlet of the vacuum chamber containing the at least one mass spectrometer, because using such additional gas is a known way to control between sensitivity and selectivity, as taught in Schneider 2.
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 HSIEN C TSAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday (8-5).
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.
/HSIEN C TSAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881