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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Applicant is reminded of the requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement under 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
Applicant is further reminded of the requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement under 37 CFR 1.98(b), which requires that each item of information in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) be identified properly as follows: U.S. patents must be identified by the inventor, patent number, and issue date. U.S. patent application publications must be identified by the applicant, patent application publication number, and publication date. The Office will also accept a citation in an IDS where a U.S. patent application publication is identified using the inventor instead of the applicant. U.S. applications must be identified by the inventor, the eight digit application number (the two digit series code and the six digit serial number), and the filing date. If a U.S. application being listed in an IDS has been issued as a patent or has been published, the applicant should list the patent or application publication in the IDS instead of the application. Each foreign patent or published foreign patent application must be identified by the country or patent office which issued the patent or published the application, an appropriate document number, and the publication date indicated on the patent or published application. Each publication must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, and date and place of publication. When no page numbers are supplied, it is understood that all of the pages of the publication are the relevant pages. The date of publication supplied must include at least the month and year of publication, except that the year of publication (without the month) will be accepted if the applicant points out in the information disclosure statement that the year of publication is sufficiently earlier than the effective U.S. filing date and any foreign priority date so that the particular month of publication is not in issue. The place of publication refers to the name of the journal, magazine, or other publication in which the information being submitted was published.
See MPEP § 609 for more information regarding Information Disclosure Statements.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1:
An ion source
A sample substance
A vacuum chamber having at least one vacuum stage
Means for transmitting ions from said at least one ion source into the vacuum chamber
An ion guide within the vacuum chamber
An auxiliary excitation system coupled to the ion guide
At least one mass analyzer inside the vacuum chamber
At least one ion detector inside the vacuum chamber
Claims 5-8:
A DC potential source
Claim 9:
A secondary RF potential source
Claim 16:
Means coupled to the first segment to apply radial excitation
Claim 17:
A mass spectrometer
An ion source
A confinement field
Claim 32:
A mass spectrometer
A confinement field
An RF source
An auxiliary source
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
FIGs. 3-4: the specification contains no reference to a “Resolution window”
FIG. 7: the vertical axis should have an axis label
FIG. 7: the boundaries between “Stable trajectory” and “Unstable trajectory” are unclear
FIG. 7: the specification contains no reference to a “Transmission window”
FIG. 12: it is unclear why there is a reference character q in the ion guide
FIGs. 12 and 13: the specification fails to describe the portions of the figures including the “trap”, “Trapping voltage pulse”, “Pulse time”, and “release” labels
Figures 1, 2A, 2B, and 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
r
0
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 1: +H
V
R
F
, - H
V
R
F
FIG. 2B: x
FIGs. 3, 4: m1, m2, m3, m4
FIGs. 5, 6: m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6
FIGs. 12-14: MS
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Variables q and C are not defined.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 1, 8, 11, 17, and 32 disclose “default” RF and DC potentials. However, the specification fails to disclose a “default” potential of any kind.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “decluttered” should read “de-clustered”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, in this application are as follows:
Claim 1: “means for transmitting ions from said at least one ion source into the vacuum chamber”
Claim 16: “means…to apply radial excitation to the trapped ions within the first segment”
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure in the disclosure is as follows:
Claim 1: The specification fails to disclose a vacuum chamber (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) below) and therefore cannot disclose a structure for transmitting ions into the vacuum chamber. The limitation “means for transmitting ions from said at least one ion source into the vacuum chamber” is interpreted to cover any structure capable of transmitting ions.
Claim 16: “As a result of applying the auxiliary quadrupolar and dipolar RF potential, ions that have a resonance frequency equivalent to the frequency of the auxiliary RF field will gain radial energy…[and] be radially ejected out” (page 13, paragraph 35); i.e., the “means…to apply radial excitation” is an auxiliary quadrupolar/dipolar RF potential.
This application includes apparatus claims which recite functional features of the apparatus. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification fails to describe “a vacuum chamber having at least one vacuum stage; means for transmitting ions from said at least one ion source into the vacuum chamber; [an] ion guide within the vacuum chamber…at least one mass analyzer inside the vacuum chamber to receive and analyze said set of remaining ions transmitted by the ion guide, and at least one ion detector inside the vacuum chamber to detect said set of remaining ions analyzed by the said at least one mass analyzer”. The specification describes “successive pressure drops in various stages of the mass spectrometer” (page 2, paragraph 04); “pressurized ion guides, at pressures between (0-50 mbar)” (page 11, paragraph 27); and “depending on the pressure within the ion guide. At pressures above 50 mbar…” (page 12, paragraph 30). However, these portions of the specification all refer to the general state of the art, and fail to disclose a vacuum chamber in the present invention. No disclosure is made of a vacuum being formed, vacuum stages, nor ions transmitted into a vacuum chamber; nor is any disclosure made of an ion detector.
Claims 2-16 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the specification fails to describe “an RF-only quadrupole rod set”. The specification describes “[t]he resulting field inside the rods is determined by superposing the RF and DC fields” (page 10, paragraph 20); and “[a]uxiliary excitation can be achieved by methods such as applying resolving DC or radial RF dipolar/quadrupolar excitation” (page 12, paragraph 28; emphasis added). However, no disclosure is made of the ion guide itself having only RF potentials applied.
Regarding claim 4, the specification fails to describe “said means for transmitting ions coupled to the ion guide comprises of a resolving direct current (DC) potential VDC, an RF dipolar or quadrupolar field, a near-instability excitation, or a 2-D to 3-D field conversion”.
The specification describes “an ion guide, composed of four parallel rods 101, with a time-varying radio-frequency (RF) field and an added resolving direct current (DC) potential” (page 8, paragraph 19).
However, the resolving DC current is not disclosed as transmitting ions from the ion source into a vacuum chamber of the mass spectrometer as claimed in part (c) of claim 1 (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) below), which claim 4 appears to be referencing. The specification further describes “the reduction of space charge is accomplished by adding a low-band resolving DC potential VDC…In this case, all ions having a low mass are ejected out” (page 12, paragraph 31), i.e., the specification teaches the resolving DC potential ejecting ions rather than transmitting ions into the mass spectrometer. Similarly, the specification teaches the RF dipolar or quadrupolar field, a near-instability excitation, and a 2-D to 3-D field conversion as auxiliary applied components which eject ions (see, e.g., page 12, paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 7, the specification fails to describe “provid[ing] a fast stepwise DC potential to the ion guide”.
The specification describes a fast sweeping DC potential (page 12, paragraph 32) and a fast constant DC potential (page 13, paragraph 33). However, no disclosure is made of a stepwise DC potential.
Regarding claim 13, the specification fails to describe “a potential well of the second segment”.
The specification discloses “the potential well of the ion guide can be fully filled” (page 15, paragraph 40), i.e., the specification discloses a potential well of the ion guide as a whole, but fails to describe a potential well specific to the second segment of the ion guide.
Claim 14 is rejected because of its dependence on claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the specification fails to describe “potential well of first segment”.
The specification discloses “the potential well of the ion guide can be fully filled” (page 15, paragraph 40), i.e., the specification discloses a potential well of the ion guide as a whole, but fails to describe a potential well specific to the first segment of the ion guide.
Regarding claim 16, the specification fails to describe “a barrier potential with an adjustable height”.
The specification discloses “a constant potential barrier is formed with a given barrier height” (page 15, paragraph 41). However, no disclosure is made of the barrier height being adjustable.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The lack of enablement has been determined in accordance with the appropriate factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Claim 1 recites a “means for transmitting ions from said at least one ion source into the vacuum chamber”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “means for transmitting ions” includes both a) means which cause the ions to move, and b) a structure which the ions move through.
The state of the prior art demonstrates a wide variety of means for transmitting ions, such as buffer gas collisions (see, e.g., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0238755 A1), ion guide geometry (see, e.g., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0225598 A1), or a skimmer inlet (see, e.g., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0306861 A1).
Furthermore, the inventor has not provided sufficient direction for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention. The specification fails to disclose a vacuum chamber and therefore cannot disclose a structure for transmitting ions into the vacuum chamber; similarly, none of the drawings show a vacuum chamber into which the ions are transmitted.
Claims 2-16 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 15-16, 20-23, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said means for transmitting ions coupled to the ion guide”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “said means for transmitting ions coupled to the ion guide” to mean “said means for transmitting ions
Claim 15 recites the limitation “transmitting the set of desired ions out of the first section into the second section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “transmitting the set of desired ions out of the first section into the second section” to mean “transmitting the set of desired ions out of the first segment into the second segment”. Claim 16 is rejected because of its dependence on claim 15.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the stable region within the notch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the stable region within the notch” to mean “[[the]]a stable region within the notch”.
Claims 21-23 recite the limitation “the quadrupole”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the quadrupole” to mean “the ion guide”.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “an exit lens placed after the second segment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “an exit lens placed after the second segment” to mean “an exit lens
Further regarding claim 34, a broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 34 recites the broad recitation “the exit lens voltage is constant or pulsating”, and the claim also recites “a pulse period and a pulse height of the exit lens voltage” which is the narrower statement of the limitation because a “pulse period and a pulse height” is associated with a pulsating exit lens voltage, not a constant exit lens voltage. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 34 as reciting “the exit lens voltage is
Claim 35 recites the limitation “an axial field to accelerate and drive the ions trapped in the second segment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “an axial field to accelerate and drive the ions trapped in the second segment” to mean “an axial field to accelerate and drive the ions
Claim 35 recites the limitation “collisional focusing in the second segment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “collisional focusing in the second segment” to mean “collisional focusing in the ion guide”.
Claim 36 recites the limitations “a constant or a pulsating rod offset at the second segment of the ion guide…ions are trapped inside the first segment…collisionally-focused in the second segment…the pulse period and the height of the rod offset, the potential well of the ion guide”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “a constant or a pulsating rod offset at the second segment of the ion guide…ions are trapped inside the first segment…collisionally-focused in the second segment… the pulse period and the height of the rod offset, the potential well of the ion guide” to mean “a constant or a pulsating rod offset at the ion guide…collisionally-focused in the ion guide…[[the]]a pulse period and [[the]]a height of the rod offset, [[the]]a potential well of the ion guide”.
Further regarding claim 36, a broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 36 recites the broad recitation “a constant or pulsating rod offset”, and the claim also recites “the pulse period and the height of the rod offset” which is the narrower statement of the limitation because a “pulse period and height” is associated with a pulsating rod offset, not a constant rod offset. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 36 as reciting “a
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites “the ion guide comprises of an RF-only quadrupole rod set”. This limitation fails to include all the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends. In particular, claim 1 recites “at least one multipole ion guide…having a plurality of poles and at least one default radio-frequency (RF) potential and one or a set of default direct current (DC) potentials independently applied to the ion guide” (emphasis added).
Claims 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 24 recites “The method of claim 16…”. Claim 16 discloses a system, not a method. Therefore, the dependence of claim 24 is unclear.
Claims 25-31 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 24. Accordingly, claims 24-31 have not been further treated on the merits.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13, 15-17, 21, 23, and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Whitehouse et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,034,292 B1), hereinafter Whitehouse.
Regarding claim 1, Whitehouse discloses an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS) system (column 11, lines 27-35) for analyzing chemical species (claim 1, line 1), comprising:
a) at least one ion source to generate ions from a sample substance (column 11, lines 27-35);
b) a vacuum chamber (FIG. 2A) having at least one vacuum stage (FIG. 2A, vacuum stages 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52);
c) means for transmitting ions from said at least one ion source (FIG. 2A, ion source 30) into the vacuum chamber (FIG. 2A, transmitting means 37);
d) an ion guide comprising of at least one multipole ion guide within the vacuum chamber (FIG. 2A, multipole ion guides 23, 24, 25, 26) having a plurality of poles and at least one default radio-frequency (RF) potential (column 11, lines 9-11) and one or a set of default direct current (DC) potentials independently applied to the ion guide (column 13, lines 29-33) to create a confinement field within the ion guide (column 13, lines 29-33) and to receive and transmit ions within a range of mass-to-charge ratios (column 11, lines 9-11);
e) an auxiliary excitation system coupled to the ion guide to subject unwanted ions within a predefined range of mass-to-charge ratio to an auxiliary excitation, whereby a set of unwanted ions gain enough energy to overcome said confinement field to be ejected out of the ion guide (column 40, lines 3-5), or to be fragmented, or to be de-clustered, thereby filtering out and eliminating the set of unwanted ions to reduce a charge density and thereby, a space charge within the ion guide to improve transmission of a set of remaining ions that are a set of desired ions by the ion guide (column 50, lines 7-11);
f) at least one mass analyzer inside the vacuum chamber to receive and analyze said set of remaining ions transmitted by the ion guide (column 16, lines 1-15), and
g) at least one ion detector inside the vacuum chamber (FIG. 2A, element 76) to detect said set of remaining ions analyzed by the said at least one mass analyzer (column 41, lines 16-26).
Regarding claim 2, Whitehouse as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that said at least one ion source is an inductively coupled plasma torch (column 11, lines 27-35).
Regarding claim 3, Whitehouse as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that the ion guide comprises of an RF-only quadrupole rod set (column 11, lines 42-45).
Regarding claim 4, Whitehouse as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that said means for transmitting ions coupled to the ion guide comprises of a resolving direct current (DC) potential VDC, an RF dipolar or quadrupolar field, a near-instability excitation, or a 2-D to 3-D field conversion (column 36, lines 42-50).
Regarding claim 5, Whitehouse as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that said auxiliary excitation system coupled to the ion guide comprises of a DC potential source to provide a constant DC potential to the ion guide (column 22, lines 16-18), wherein the constant DC potential is configured to make the set of unwanted ions that have a mass-to-charge ratios lower than a predefined mass- to-charge ratio unstable and eject them out of the ion guide (column 21, lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 6, Whitehouse as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that said auxiliary excitation system coupled to the ion guide comprises a DC potential source to provide a fast-sweeping resolving DC potential to the ion guide (column 33, lines 40-41), said fast-sweeping resolving DC potential having at least one notch (column 36, lines 47-50) to create at least one stable mass-to-charge ratio range within the notch for a set of desired ions and to make all other mass-to-charge ratio ranges out of the notch unstable, thereby ejecting unwanted ions having mass- to-charge ratio values outside the notch out of the ion guide (column 37, lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 7, Whitehouse as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that said auxiliary excitation system coupled to the ion guide comprises a DC potential source (column 36, lines 42-45) to provide a fast stepwise resolving DC potential to the ion guide (column 36, lines 50-52), said stepwise resolving DC potential having at least one notch (column 36, lines 47-50) to create at least one stable mass-to-charge ratio range within the notch for the set of desired ions and to make all other mass-to-charge ratio ranges out of the notch unstable, thereby ejecting unwanted ions having mass-to-charge ratio values outside the notch out of the ion guide (column 37, lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 8, Whitehouse as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that said default radio-frequency (RF) potential applied to the ion guide (column 34, lines 1-5) creates a transmission window for the range of mass-to- charge ratios associated with a q parameter between 0.1 to 0.9 (column 34, lines 6-8), and wherein said auxiliary excitation system coupled to the ion guide comprise a DC potential source to apply a constant resolving DC potential to the ion guide (column 22, lines 16-18) to make ions having a q parameter (column 4, lines 3-15) below a predefined mass-to-charge ratio unstable and only allow desired ions having a q parameter above said predefined mass-to-charge ratio to be stable and pass through the ion guide (column 21, lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 9, Whitehouse as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that said auxiliary excitation system coupled to the ion guide comprises a secondary RF potential source (column 28, lines 45-50) to provide a broadband (column 37, lines 39-41) auxiliary RF dipolar or quadrupolar field to the ion guide (column 3, lines 66-67), said broadband auxiliary field having a range of RF frequencies to resonate with resonance frequencies of ions within a predefined range of mass-to-charge ratios (column 13, lines 8-11), wherein said auxiliary excitation system further comprises a notch formed by removing at least one predefined RF frequency band from said range of RF frequencies (column 43, lines 40-50), whereby the set of desired ions are stable, thereby making unwanted ions having resonance frequencies outside said notch unstable, thereby causing unwanted ions to gain radial energy to fragment, de-cluster, and/or eject out of the ion guide (column 43, lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 10, Whitehouse as applied to claim 9 discloses the system of claim 9.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that the broadband auxiliary RF dipolar or quadrupolar field applied to the ion guide comprises multiple notches in which the set of desired ions are stable and out of which the set of unwanted ions are unstable and will be fragmented, de-clustered, and/or ejected out of the ion guide (column 43, lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 11, Whitehouse as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that the ion guide is segmented having at least two segments comprising a first segment and a second segment (FIG. 2A, first segment comprising elements 23, 24, and second segment comprising elements 25, 26), and wherein said default RF potential is applied to both segments (column 14, lines 54-57), and wherein said auxiliary excitation is applied only to the first segment (column 14, lines 57-61) to eject unwanted ions out of the first segment to reduce space charge and improve collisional focusing and transmission of desired ions by the second segment (column 14, lines 61-65), and wherein the second segment is further used to accumulate or transmit the set of desired ions received from the first segment (column 14, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 12, Whitehouse as applied to claim 11 discloses the system of claim 11.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that said auxiliary excitation is a low-band resolving direct current (DC) potential or a broadband (column 37, lines 39-41) auxiliary quadrupolar or dipolar radio-frequency (RF) potential (column 3, lines 66-67).
Regarding claim 13, Whitehouse as applied to claim 11 discloses the system of claim 11.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that an exit lens (FIG. 2A, element 68) is added at the exit of the second segment (FIG. 2A, elements 25, 26), and wherein a pulsating DC potential is applied on the exit lens (column 32, lines 38-40), wherein a pulse period and a pulse height of said pulsating DC potential is configured to trap the set of desired ions received by the second segment (column 28, lines 25-27).
The limitation “until a potential well of the second segment is completely filled with the set of desired ions, and wherein said DC potential can be removed to let a set of trapped desired ions pass through the exit lens altogether, thereby improving the sensitivity of the system” is a functional limitation which is not required to be taught by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See Claim Interpretation supra.
Regarding claim 15, Whitehouse as applied to claim 11 discloses the system of claim 11.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses an offset potential applied to the second segment (column 13, lines 29-33) or a trapping potential pulse between the two segments, and wherein unwanted ions are ejected out of the first segment through auxiliary excitation followed by transmitting the set of desired ions out of the first section into the second section by removing said offset potential or said trapping potential pulse or by applying an axial field to the first segment (column 37, lines 17-33), thereby reducing space charge and improving transmission and collisional focusing of desired ions by the second segment (column 50, lines 7-11), and wherein an exit lens (FIG. 2A, element 68) may be placed at the exit of the second segment (FIG. 2A, elements 25, 26) to pull the desired ions out of the second segment (column 27, lines 61-65), thereby improving sensitivity of the system (column 50, lines 7-11).
The limitations “an offset potential applied…until potential well of first segment is completely filled” and “is a functional limitation which is not required to be taught by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See Claim Interpretation supra.
Regarding claim 16, Whitehouse as applied to claim 15 discloses the system of claim 15.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses a barrier potential with an adjustable height constantly applied between the two segments to trap the ions inside the first segment (column 26, lines 54-58), and wherein means are coupled to the first segment to apply radial excitation to the trapped ions within the first segment, and wherein said means coupled to the first segment are configured to only excite the desired ions in which the radial energy of desired ions convert into axial energy to cause only the desired ions to pass into the second segment (column 27, lines 14-18), thereby reducing space charge in the second segment and improve collisional focusing and transmission of desired ions in the second segment, thereby improving sensitivity of the system (column 50, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 17, Whitehouse discloses a method for reducing space charge in a mass spectrometer (column 50, lines 7-11) having an ion source (column 11, lines 27-35) and at least one multipole ion guide (FIG. 2A, multipole ion guides 23, 24, 25, 26) having a plurality of poles (column 11, line 15) and a confinement field (column 13, lines 29-33) to transport an ion beam having ions (column 11, lines 9-11), comprising the steps of:
a. applying an RF potential comprising of a time-varying radio-frequency (RF) to the ion guide (column 13, lines 8-11) and one or a set of default direct current (DC) potentials (column 13, lines 29-33) to create a confinement field within the ion guide (column 13, lines 29-33) and to receive and transmit the ions within a broad range of mass-to-charge ratios (column 11, lines 9-11), and
b. applying an auxiliary excitation to the ions passing through the ion guide (column 40, lines 3-5) to produce a low charge density ion beam and ameliorate a space charge (column 50, lines 4-10), whereby the auxiliary excitation causes ions to gain radial energy, overcome the confinement field, and be ejected out of a space between the plurality of poles of the ion guide, or be fragmented, or be de-clustered, and thereby unwanted ions are eliminated or ejected and the space charge within the ion guide is reduced (column 37, lines 34-52).
Regarding claim 21, Whitehouse as applied to claim 17 discloses the method of claim 17.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that the auxiliary excitation is a broadband (column 37, lines 39-41) auxiliary quadrupolar or dipolar RF potential VRF (column 3, lines 66-67), to radially eject or fragment or de-cluster ions (column 37, lines 35-42), whereby ions having mass-to-charge ratio, m/z, with a resonance frequency equal to an RF frequency of the RF potential gain radial energy inside the quadrupole, and get radially ejected, become fragmented, or become de- clustered (column 37, lines 34-52).
Regarding claim 23, Whitehouse as applied to claim 21 discloses the method of claim 21.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that the broadband auxiliary quadrupolar or dipolar RF potential VRF, has a plurality of notches (column 43, lines 40-50), wherein ions having m/z that fall within each notch are stable and pass through the quadrupole (column 43, lines 40-50), and remaining ions are radially unstable and are ejected, fragmented, or de-clustered (column 21, lines 45-49), thereby reducing the charge density and ameliorate space charge effects (column 50, lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 32, Whitehouse discloses a space charge reduction system for a mass spectrometer (column 50, lines 7-11), the system comprising:
a) an ion guide comprising of at least one multipole ion guide (FIG. 2A, multipole ion guides 23, 24, 25, 26) and a set of rods (column 10, lines 63-67) and having a confinement field to transport an ion beam having ions (column 13, lines 29-33);
b) an RF source (column 11, lines 48-50) to generate and apply a time-varying radio-frequency (RF) on the ion guide (column 13, lines 8-11), and one or a set of default direct current (DC) potentials (column 13, lines 29-33) to create the confinement field within the ion guide (column 13, lines 29-33) and to receive and transmit ions within a broad range of mass-to-charge ratios (column 11, lines 9-11);
c) an auxiliary source to generate and apply an auxiliary excitation on the ion guide (column 40, lines 3-5) to produce a low charge density ion beam and ameliorate a space charge effect (column 50, lines 4-10), whereby the auxiliary excitation causes ions to gain radial energy (column 37, lines 34-52), overcome the confinement field, and be ejected out of a space between the set of rods of the ion guide (column 40, lines 3-5), and thereby unwanted ions are ejected and the space charge within the ion guide is reduced (column 50, lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 33, Whitehouse as applied to claim 32 discloses the system of claim 32.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that the auxiliary excitation is a resolving direct current (DC) potential, VDC, an RF dipolar or quadrupolar field (column 3, lines 66-67), a near-instability excitation, or 2-D to 3-D field conversion.
The limitation “wherein for ions of a selected mass to charge ratio, some of the ion’s radial energy converts into axial energy, causing axial ejection of ions” is a functional limitation which is not required to be taught by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See Claim Interpretation supra.
Regarding claim 34, Whitehouse as applied to claim 33 discloses the system of claim 33.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses an exit lens (FIG. 2A, element 68) placed after the second segment (FIG. 2A, elements 25, 26) and an exit lens voltage applied on the exit lens to improve sensitivity (column 32, lines 38-49), wherein the exit lens voltage is constant or pulsating (column 32, lines 38-39).
The limitation “by adjusting a pulse period and a pulse height of the exit lens voltage, a potential well of the ion guide is fully filled to maximize transport of a set of desired ions” is a functional limitation which is not required to be taught by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See Claim Interpretation supra.
Regarding claim 35, Whitehouse as applied to claim 33 discloses the system of claim 33.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses having an axial field to accelerate and drive the ions trapped in the second segment out of the ion guide towards a next stage of the mass spectrometer (column 15, lines 20-34), whereby collisional focusing in the second segment is accomplished more conveniently due to the reduced space charge effect (column 27, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 36, Whitehouse as applied to claim 33 discloses the system of claim 33.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses a constant or pulsating rod offset at the second segment of the ion guide (column 13, lines 29-33), wherein a set of desired ions are trapped inside the first segment (column 13, lines 29-33), and then transported (column 13, lines 29-33) and collisionally-focused in the second segment (column 25, lines 32-35).
The limitation “by adjusting the pulse period and the height of the rod offset, the potential well of the ion guide is fully filled to maximize the transport of ions and, hence, sensitivity” is a functional limitation which is not required to be taught by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See Claim Interpretation supra.
Regarding claim 37, Whitehouse as applied to claim 32 discloses the system of claim 32.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that the ion guide is a quadrupole ion guide (column 24, lines 19-20).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse as respectively applied to claims 13 and 17 above, in view of Guna (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0286659 A1), hereinafter Guna.
Regarding claim 14, Whitehouse as applied to claim 13 discloses the system of claim 13.
Whitehouse fails to disclose an axial field applied to the second segment to drive the set of trapped desired ions through the exit lens altogether, thereby improving the sensitivity of the system.
However, Guna discloses an axial field applied to the second segment to drive the set of trapped desired ions through the exit lens altogether, thereby improving the sensitivity of the system (paragraph 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Whitehouse to include an axial field applied to the second segment to drive the set of trapped desired ions through the exit lens altogether, thereby improving the sensitivity of the system, based on the teachings of Guna that this advantageously couples axial and radial ion motions, enabling axial ion ejection at radial secular frequencies (Guna, paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 18, Whitehouse as applied to claim 17 discloses the method of claim 17.
In addition, Whitehouse discloses that the auxiliary excitation is by a resolving direct current (DC) potential, VDC, by an RF dipolar or quadrupolar field (column 3, lines 66-67 and column 40, lines 1-10), by performing near-instability excitation, or by 2-D to 3-D field conversion.
Whitehouse fails to disclose that for ions of a selected mass to charge ratio, some of the ion's radial energy converts into axial energy, causing axial ejection of ions.
However, Guna discloses that for ions of a selected mass to charge ratio, some of the ion's radial energy converts into axial energy, causing axial ejection of ions (paragraph 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Whitehouse to include that for ions of a selected mass to charge ratio, some of the ion's radial energy converts into axial energy, causing axial ejection of ions, based on the teachings of Guna that this improves extraction efficiency by reducing the number of ions which collide with the rods of the ion guide due to high radial energy (Guna, paragraph 0047).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Hager et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0225593 A1), hereinafter Hager.
Regarding claim 19, Whitehouse as applied to claim 17 discloses the method of claim 17.
Whitehouse fails to disclose that the auxiliary excitation is a low-band resolving direct current (DC) potential with a constant voltage having a notch, wherein ions outside a stable region within the notch are unstable and therefore ejected, whereby the space charge is reduced by ejecting a portion of unwanted ions.
However, Hager discloses that the auxiliary excitation is a low-band resolving direct current (DC) potential with a constant voltage having a notch (paragraph 0038, lines 17-24), wherein ions outside a stable region within the notch are unstable and therefore ejected (paragraph 0038, lines 17-27), whereby the space charge is reduced by ejecting a portion of unwanted ions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Whitehouse to include that the auxiliary excitation is a low-band resolving direct current (DC) potential with a constant voltage having a notch, wherein ions outside a stable region within the notch are unstable and therefore ejected, whereby the space charge is reduced by ejecting a portion of unwanted ions, based on the teachings of Hager that this ensures only ions of interest are further processed or analyzed, simplifying the device requirements (Hager, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 20, Whitehouse as applied to claim 17 discloses the method of claim 17.
Whitehouse fails to disclose that the auxiliary excitation is a low-band resolving direct current (DC) potential, VDC, with a sweeping voltage having a notch, wherein ions outside the stable region within the notch are unstable and therefore ejected.
However, Hager discloses that the auxiliary excitation is a low-band resolving direct current (DC) potential, VDC, with a sweeping voltage having a notch (paragraph 0038, lines 17-24), wherein ions outside the stable region within the notch are unstable and therefore ejected (paragraph 0038, lines 17-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Whitehouse to include that the auxiliary excitation is a low-band resolving direct current (DC) potential, VDC, with a sweeping voltage having a notch, wherein ions outside the stable region within the notch are unstable and therefore ejected, based on the teachings of Hager that this ensures only ions of interest are further processed or analyzed, simplifying the device requirements (Hager, paragraph 0038).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse as applied to claim 21 above, in view of Javahery et al. (CA Patent No. 2236199 C), hereinafter Javahery.
Regarding claim 22, Whitehouse as applied to claim 21 discloses the method of claim 21.
Whitehouse fails to disclose that the broadband auxiliary quadrupolar or dipolar RF potential VRF, has a single notch, whereby ions having m/z that fall within the single notch are stable and pass through the quadrupole, and remaining ions are radially ejected, fragmented, or decluttered.
However, Javahery discloses that the broadband auxiliary quadrupolar or dipolar RF potential VRF, has a single notch (page 5, lines 30-32), whereby ions having m/z that fall within the single notch are stable and pass through the quadrupole (page 6, lines 4-8), and remaining ions are radially ejected, fragmented, or decluttered (page 8, lines 27-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Whitehouse to include that the broadband auxiliary quadrupolar or dipolar RF potential VRF, has a single notch, whereby ions having m/z that fall within the single notch are stable and pass through the quadrupole, and remaining ions are radially ejected, fragmented, or decluttered, based on the teachings of Javahery that this advantageously enables filtering out of unwanted ions from the signal to be analyzed (Javahery, page 6, lines 1-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Javahery et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,093,929 A), hereinafter Javahery (2000), teaches an auxiliary excitation applied only to a first segment of an ion guide to eject unwanted ions out of the first segment to reduce space charge and improve collisional focusing and transmission of desired ions by the second segment, and wherein the second segment is further used to accumulate or transmit the set of desired ions received from the first segment.
Stewart et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0319828 A1), hereinafter Stewart, teaches a pulsating DC potential applied on the exit lens, wherein a pulse period and a pulse height of said pulsating DC potential is configured to trap the set of desired ions received by the second segment.
Kelley (U.S. Patent No. 5,187,365 A), hereinafter Kelley, teaches a fast-sweeping potential applied to an ion guide, said fast-sweeping potential having at least one notch to create at least one stable mass-to-charge ratio range within the notch for a set of desired ions and to make all other mass-to-charge ratio ranges out of the notch unstable, thereby ejecting unwanted ions having mass-to-charge ratio values outside the notch out of the ion guide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights