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, see pages 1-2, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. See rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. “Design and Performance of a Dual-Polarity Instrument for Ion Soft Landing” hereinafter referred to as Su, and in further view of Keqi Tang (US 6979816 B2), hereinafter referred to as Tang.
Regarding claim 1, Su teaches an apparatus for multiplexed electrospray ionization, the apparatus comprising:
a vacuum chamber (fig. 1 as annotated below);
a plurality of ionization sources independently coupled to the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1 as annotated below) by a plurality of heated inlets (In the dual polarity ESI interface, charged droplets produced by ±ESI are transferred into the vacuum system through two 100 mm long heated stainless steel inlet tubes (1/16′′ OD, 0.04′′ ID) mounted on the opposite sides of the first vacuum chamber (page 5905; para. [0005])),
wherein the plurality of heated inlets introduce ions to the vacuum chamber orthogonal to a direction of an ion beam within the vacuum chamber (The heated inlets are mounted orthogonally to the instrument axis (page 5905; para. [0005])),
and an outlet (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Su fails to teach wherein two or more of the plurality of heated inlets are located on a same side of the vacuum chamber and are positioned such that each heated inlet introduces ions into the vacuum chamber at a point at least about 1 mm away from where each other heated inlet introduces ions into the vacuum chamber.
However, Tang teaches wherein two or more of the plurality of heated inlets are located on a same side of the vacuum chamber (of a dual electrospray ion source, a dual heated capillary inlet (col. 8, lines 3-4)) (Fig. 3c as annotated below) and are positioned such that each heated inlet introduces ions into the vacuum chamber at a point at least about 1 mm away from where each other heated inlet introduces ions into the vacuum chamber (The dual electrospray emitters, spaced 14 mm apart and positioned between 3 and 5 mm from the heated capillary inlet, were used to introduce different sample mixtures into the MS system. The initial design used dual heated capillaries spaced at the same distance as the dual electrospray emitters (col. 8, lines 19-24)).
PNG
media_image2.png
555
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Su teaches orthogonal injection of ions through heated inlets. Su does not teach a plurality of inlets on the same side of the vacuum chamber. Tang teaches a plurality of heated inlets, which introduce ions, on the same side of a vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Su to include the teachings of Tang by replacing one of the “heated inlets…mounted orthogonally to the instrument axis (Su; pg. 5905, para [0005]) ”and the cartridge heaters that maintain the inlets (Su; pg. 5905, para [0005]) with the dual capillary inlets and dual electrospray of Tang such that a plurality of heated inlets, each which introduce ions, are located on the same side of the vacuum chamber, at least 1 mm apart from each other. Doing so increases throughput.
Regarding claim 2, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the vacuum chamber comprises an ion funnel ((Briefly, a high-pressure ion funnel (HPF) is mounted in a vacuum chamber (page 5906, para. [0001]))).
Regarding claim 3, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 2 wherein the ion funnel comprises a plurality of ring electrodes having a linearly decreasing inner diameter along the direction of the ion beam within the vacuum chamber (The HPF is composed of a stainless steel repeller plate on top and a stack of 113 ring electrodes. The first 28 electrodes have identical inner diameters (ID) of 50.8 mm (2 in), while the IDs of the following 85 electrodes decrease linearly from 50.8 to 2.5 mm (0.1 in)(page 5906, para. [0001])).
Regarding claim 4, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 3 wherein the plurality of ring electrodes have inner diameters that linearly decrease from about 50.8 mm to about 2.5 mm (The HPF is composed of a stainless steel repeller plate on top and a stack of 113 ring electrodes. The first 28 electrodes have identical inner diameters (ID) of 50.8 mm (2 in), while the IDs of the following 85 electrodes decrease linearly from 50.8 to 2.5 mm (0.1 in)(page 5906, para. [0001])).
Regarding claim 5, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 2 wherein the vacuum chamber comprises a repeller section upstream of the ion funnel along the direction of the ion beam within the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 6, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the plurality of inlets introduce ions to the vacuum chamber at the repeller section (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
477
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 2 wherein the outlet of the vacuum chamber is coupled to an inlet of a second vacuum chamber having a lower pressure than the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
825
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 7 wherein the second vacuum chamber comprises a second ion funnel (A low-pressure ion funnel (LPF) is mounted in the second vacuum chamber differentially pumped to 0.7 Torr by a second ECODRY 65 plus vacuum pump (pg. 5906, para. [0001])).
Regarding claim 9, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 8 wherein an outlet of the second vacuum chamber is coupled to an inlet of a bent flatapole ion guide (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
262
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 9 wherein an outlet of the bent flatapole ion guide directs the ion beam through a quadrupole mass filter, focused by an einzel lens, and directed onto a surface (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 11, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the ionization source is selected from the group consisting of electrospray ionization (ESI), atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI), atmospheric Pressure Photoionization (APPI), desorption electrospray ionization (DESI), nano- DESI, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI), and laser ablation electrospray ionization (LAESI) (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
320
956
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Su fails to teach the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising one or more additional ionization sources coupled to an opposite side of the vacuum chamber from the two or more of the plurality of heated inlets located on the same side of the vacuum chamber.
In the rejection of claim 1 above, Su is modified to include the teachings of Tang such that there is dual capillary inlets and dual electrospray sources on one side of the vacuum chamber such that the ions are orthogonally injected, as maintained by Su. Given this modification there a plurality of ionization sources on one side of the vacuum chamber and one additional ionization source on the opposite side of the vacuum chamber.
Regarding claim 15, Su teaches the apparatus of claim 14 wherein the one or more additional ionization sources are coupled to the opposite side of the vacuum chamber upstream or downstream of the vacuum chamber from the two or more of the plurality of heated inlets located on the same side of the vacuum chamber along the direction of the ion beam within the vacuum chamber (The heated inlets are mounted orthogonally to the instrument axis with one inlet positioned ∼5 mm downstream from another one to improve gas dynamics in the chamber (para. [0007])).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su, in view of Tang, and in further view of Peterson.
Regarding claim 12, Su does not teach the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the two or more of the plurality of heated inlets located on the same side of the vacuum chamber are contained in a cartridge removably coupled to a first port in the side of the vacuum chamber.
Tang teaches wherein the two or more of the plurality of heated inlets located on the same side of the vacuum chamber are contained in a cartridge (Two cartridge heaters were used to heat the capillary block (col. 8, lines 26-27)).
Further, Peterson teaches wherein the two or more of the plurality of heated inlets located on the same side of the vacuum chamber are contained in a cartridge removably coupled to a first port in the side of the vacuum chamber (In some embodiments cartridge 170 comprises a removable, replaceable cartridge that is integrated with coolant tubes 140a and 140b, as well as capillaries 142 and 144 (para. [0057])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Su to include the teachings of Tang such that the heated inlets are contained in a cartridge. Doing so allows the inlets to be heated.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Su, in view of Tang, to include the teachings of Peterson such that the cartridge containing the heated inlets is removably coupled to the fist port side of the vacuum chamber. Removably coupling the cartridges is convenient for ease of repair.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su, in view of Tang, and in further view of Richard Smith (US 20020185595 A1), hereinafter referred to as Smith.
Regarding claim 13, Su fails to teach the apparatus of claim 1 wherein three or more of the plurality of heated inlets are located on the same side of the vacuum chamber.
However, Smith teaches wherein three or more of the plurality of heated inlets are located on the same side of the vacuum chamber (A heated multi-capillary inlet …A schematic of the seven capillary inlet is shown in FIG. 1 (para. [0016])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Su, in view of Tang, to include the teachings of Smith, by including three of more heated inlets on the same side of the vacuum chamber. As explained by Smith the multi-capillary inlet “finds particular advantages when deployed to improve the ion transmission between an ESI source and the first vacuum stage of a mass spectrometer, and finds its greatest advantages when deployed in conjunction with an electrodynamic (RF) ion funnel deployed within the interior of the mass spectrometer (Smith; para. [0009])”
Requirement for Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
In searching prior art, it was found the inventors presented at the 68th ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry and Allied Topics.
In response to this requirement, please provide copies of each publication or material which was presented by the inventors or on behalf of the inventors at said conference and which relates to the subject matter of the instant invention.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Su, Pei, et al. "Multiplexing of electrospray ionization sources using orthogonal injection into an electrodynamic ion funnel." Analytical Chemistry 93.33 (2021): 11576-11584. - (relevant to claims 1-15 for use of multi-inlet orthogonal injection)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights