DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f):
Claim 15 has been amended to necessitate structure sufficient to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a)
Claim 1 was rejected for not requiring an upper limit to the number of atomic layers. Claim 1 has been amended to require 1-100 layers. By amendment, claim 1 is fully supported and the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim 17 has been amended to meet the written description requirement.
The rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) are therefore withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
By amendment, the issues raised under 35 USC § 112(b) have been overcome and therefore withdrawn.
However, the amendment raises new issues discussed herein below.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1): Aberth (USPN 4,851,669)
The remarks take the position at page 12, that Aberth is directed towards a microchannel plate detector (herein MCP) and not a solid target collision cell. Initially, a solid target collision cell in the preamble is defined by the transitional phrase “comprising”. MPEP 2111.03 (I) recites:
“The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps…. “Comprising" is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”
Here, the solid target collisional cell is defined by the claimed elements, since Aberth teaches the claimed elements it fits within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a solid target collision cell.
Moreover, Aberth is not directed towards an MCP detector. As recited in the title Aberth is directed towards “Surface-Induced dissociation for mass spectrometry”. Element 16 in figures 1-2 is referred to as a “microchannel collision plate allowing direct control over the degree of fragmentation (col. 4, lines 14-19). Moreover, the microchannel collision plate as discussed in col. 6, lines 41-61 results in incident parent ion beam undergoing collisions with the interior surfaces of the microchannels resulting in at least some of the parent ions dissociating into daughter ions (i.e. solid target collision cell as claimed). Therefore, this argument has been found unpersuasive.
The remarks continue by suggesting Aberth fails to disclose atomic layers. Specifically, the remarks agree that every metallic surface possesses atomic structure, however Aberth fails to disclose one or more atomic layers intentionally provided as a target material.
This has been found unpersuasive. As readily admitted in the remarks every metallic surface possesses atomic structure. Aberth expressly discloses surfaces of electrically conductive material on opposite faces of the resistive plate (col. 5, lines 34-37). Since the claim does not clarify what is understood to be an atomic layer any coating (i.e. conductive surface on resistive plate), is understood to be an atomic layer. Claim 1 does not specifically define the one or more atomic layers except to note they are atomic. As admitted by the remarks, all metallic materials possess an atomic structure, therefore a surface comprised of a conductive material is understood to be an atomic structure.
In other words, there is no requirement that each of the one or more atomic layers are only one atom thick, only that the layers are atomic. Clearly as all materials are atomic, the layers of Bajic meet the requirement for atomic layers.
At page 13, the remarks contend that Aberth does not teach the claimed functional and structural relationship, however fails to point to any specific error in the rejection. 37 CFR 1.111(b) requires “In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. ”
Here, this portion merely alleges that the functional and structural relationship is not disclosed without any specific arguments as to what supposed errors were made in the rejection. Therefore, this argument has been found unpersuasive.
The remarks continue by suggesting Aberth does not teach fragmentation while passing through the support.
This is clearly not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above.
The remarks argue that Aberth contains no disclosure of ions passing through multiple atomic layers that serve as the collision medium. Initially, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is a single layer. Clearly a surface of conductive material on a resistive material is a single layer.
The remarks then take the position that Aberth does not inherently fragment ions in the manner claimed. This has not been found persuasive, as claim 1 is an apparatus claim. MPEP 2114 (II) recites
“"[A]pparatus 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)”
Here, there are no structural distinctions in claim 1 to distinguish the claimed invention over that of Aberth.
With respect to the amended subject matter, it is noted that these limitations are purely functional. Initially, Aberth clearly demonstrates the support positioned in the path of the ion beam in figures 1 and 4. Since the surface of the SID MCP is conductive, as discussed above, ions will collide or are capable of collision with the conductive surface as it is the top surface of the MCP as seen in figure 2. The fragmentation is evident by the discussion in col. 5, lines 41-48 which recites:
“The use of a high resistance material for the microchannel plate is important since it reduces charge neutralization which would occur during collision between the ionic species and a conductive surface, such as a metallic surface. Such charged neutralization is a significant problem when employing collision-induced dissociation with a metal surface, according to the teachings of the prior art.”
Here, while the channel is insulative the surface is conductive (i.e. metal surface), therefore fragmentation occurs at the surface. Moreover, col. 4, lines 14-19 recites: “The decelerating lens 22 and accelerating lens 24 are utilized to control the translational energy of the parent ion beam striking and exiting the microchannel collision plate 16, allowing direct control over the degree of fragmentation of the parent ions.”
Since the ion beam strikes the plate 16 including conductive surfaces, some fragmentation as a result of striking the conductive surface occurs as in the prior art discussed in col. 2, lines 14-16.
With respect to the result of the ions lose radial and axial energy by subsequent collisions with the number of atomic layers while passing through the support and emerge from the support with low energy, it is noted that the ion beam comprises ions that will first strike the plate 16 followed by upstream ions. Since the ions that subsequently strike the plate after the first ions strike the plate, the result is deemed inherently. That is, the claim does not require and distinguishing structure over that of Aberth, therefore even if Aberth did not recognize the claimed result, such a result would have been inherent to the device of Aberth. Specifically, MPEP 2112 (II) recites:
“There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003)”
Here, because all structural requirements are met the result of loss of radial and axial energy by subsequent collisions is deemed inherent as all the structural requirements of the claim are met.
The remaining limitations of claim 1 were not argued and are discussed in the rejection herein below.
Ducan
The remarks argue that Ducan is not a collision cell, nor suggest CID, Fragmentation or tandem mass spectrometer.
While this is true, claim 1 only requires mass spectrometry as intended use. The SSTCC is only defined by a support of a particular structure, target material of a particular material. Applicant is reminded that MPEP 2114 recites “"[A]pparatus 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).”
Here, there is no requirement for an ion source, mass spectrometer, only the requirement of the structure of the SSTCC. While claim 1 has several requirements with respect to the manner in which the STCC is intended to be employed, there is no structural requirement that would distinguish the claimed device over Ducan. Therefore, the remarks are unpersuasive and the rejection stands.
The remarks argue that collision cell is not intended use. This has not been found persuasive. The structure of the collision cell is defined by the claim, which does not require any elements of a mass spectrometer for the purposes of fragmenting ions via collisional dissociations (i.e. an ion source, mass filter, detector, etc…). Therefore the collision cell is interpreted to be anything that meets the structural requirements of the claim. The manner in which the collision cell is intended to be employed does not distinguish the apparatus from that of the prior art.
Additionally, placement of the support in the flow path of an ion beam is clearly a manner of operating the device. Therefore, since Ducan teaches all the structural requirements, the manner of operating the device is insufficient to distinguish the claimed device over Ducan.
Bajic
The remarks take a similar position with respect to atomic layers. As discussed above, there is no requirement that each of the one or more atomic layers are only one atom thick, only that the layers are atomic. Clearly as all materials are atomic, the layers of Bajic meet the requirement for atomic layers.
With respect to collision with successive atomic layers, Bajic teaches the claimed structure thus ions are capable of colliding with the successive atomic layers of paragraph [0066], losing energy while traversing the target material is a result (see discussion above with respect to Aberth), emerging ions through the support is a manner of operating the device and there is no requirement to extract the ions towards a downstream mass analyzer. Applicant is reminded, while the claims are read in light off the specification, limitation may be imported from the specification into the claim (see MPEP 2111.01 (II)).
Aberth in view of Mane
The remarks take the position that ALD is a manufacturing technique not a structural teaching, this has not been found persuasive. Specifically, ALD results in atomic layers as evidenced by Kessls et al. (Kessls et al. “Atomic Layer deposition”, 2025), which teaches the definition of ALD as “Atomic layer deposition (ALD) is a surface-controlled chemical vapour deposition method, in which materials are prepared one atomic layer at the time”. Therefore, constructing the surface conductor of Aberth via ALD would result in one or more atomic layers.
With respect to intentionally selected as a collision target. There is no structural requirement that would distinguish the target material of the claimed invention from that of Aberth modified by Mane to be an atomic layer(s). Aberth teaches the conductive surface is on a resistive substrate, the substrate is the support and thus the conductive layer is mounted thereto. Fragmentation is discussed in the response above with respect to Aberth.
The remarks argue there is no motivation to combine. This has been found unpersuasive, as the motivation was discussed in the last office action.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed atomic layers perform a different function, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With respect to claims 2-3, the remarks take the position that these limitations further limit the support. This has not been found persuasive. Specifically, none of claims 2-3 require “the support to comprise a mesh”. Therefore, since claim 1, lists the mesh as an alternative and claims 2-3 do not require the support to be a mesh, any limitation limiting an alternative limitation is not sufficient to further limit the other alternatives. In this case Aberth teaches a grid, therefore limitations limiting the alternative mesh, without a requirement that the support be a mesh, does not further limit the grid alternative of claim 1.
A similar interpretation is applied to claim 6.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are taught as discussed in Aberth.
With respect to claim 10, the remarks take the position that the ion optics of Aberth do not meet the claimed limitations. This has been found unpersuasive. As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection, “Regarding claim 10, Aberth teaches an aperture lens, an Einzel extraction lens, an RF multi-pole ion guide, or a stack of lenses placed downstream of the support to extract and focus fragmented ions and direct them toward a mass analyzer (42 is an accelerating lens to focus ions towards mass analyzer 18, see col. 7, lines 20-31).” That is, Aberth teaches a lens stack (42, see figure 1) placed downstream of the support (16 is upstream of 42) to extract and focus fragment ions toward the mass analyzer (col. 7, lines 20-31, wherein ions are fragmented within the collisional device 16).
With respect to claim 11, the remarks take the position that retention on the plate 16 is not a retaining ring. This is not a detection plate as discussed in detail above, this is a surface induced collision plate. A retaining ring serves the same purpose as a support of a collisional plate.
The amendments to claims 14-15 require a new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment discussed herein below.
The remarks with respect to claim 16 are not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed herein above.
The remaining remarks reiterate the same arguments and are not persuasive as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 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 1 is vague and indefinite for reciting “a target material comprising one to one hundred atomic layers…the ions collide with the number of atomic layers of the target material and undergo fragmentation, the ions lose radial and axial energy by subsequent collisions with the number of atomic layers while passing through the support and emerge at low energy”.
Initially, the claim covers a single or one atomic layer and subsequent collision with the number of atomic layers. If there is only one atomic layer in the configuration such as seen in figure 4 of the instant drawings (target 420), there would be no subsequent ion collision after the first collision. This interpretation only works for figure 5 which teaches only 1-50 atomic layers. It appears the claim was intended to be generic, however if claim 1 is intended to cover both figure 4 and figure 5, it is not clear how for a single layer there could be any subsequent collision with the atomic layer.
Moreover, it is not clear whether the collision with the number of atomic layers and subsequent collision is intended to be the first ions that are incident the target material followed by a second subsequent set of ions that are incident the target or if the claim is suggesting a set of ions is incident the target material more than once.
Moreover, “the number of atomic layers” lacks antecedent basis and it is not clear whether the number of atomic layers is referring back to “one to one hundred atomic layers” or if the claim is defining an additional set of atomic layers.
For the purposes of examination, the subsequent collision is interpreted as upstream ions striking the STCC after the downstream ions are incident STCC as illustrated in figures 4-5, wherein figure 4 is annotated herein below for clarity.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-16 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on indefinite claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aberth (USPN 4,851,669).
Regarding claim 1, Aberth teaches a Solid Target Collision Cell (STCC) for mass spectrometry (fig. 2), comprising:
a) a support (16) comprising a grid having an opening geometry and an opening size (microchannels 30) and
b) a target material comprising one to one hundred atomic layers, wherein the target material coated (conductive surfaces 36 and 38 on opposite sides of resistive plate 16, see col. 5, lines 34-37. The surfaces are atomic, thus interpreted as two atomic layers), positioned on the support (surfaces 36/38 positioned on support 16 as seen in figure 2), wherein the target material is selected from a group consisting metals (col. 5, lines 41-45 teach metallic surfaces. Note elements are made up of atoms, therefore conductive surfaces are interpreted to be atomic layers),
wherein the support is placed in a flow path of an ion beam comprising ions (as seen in figure 2), the ions collide with the number of atomic layers of the target material1 and undergo fragmentation (col. 4, lines 14-19), the ions lose radial and axial energy by subsequent collision with the number of atomic layers (upstream ions are interpreted as subsequent collisions to microchannel collision plate 16, note the result of radial and axial energy loss is interpreted as inherent because Aberth teaches all structural requirements of the claim (MPEP 2112(II) and discussion in response to arguments section above)) while passing through the support and emerge from the support with low energy (the ions lose energy with each collision and pass through the channels in 16 as illustrated by rays 34 in figure 2)
and wherein the support and the target material are configured to resist sputtering of the target material by the incoming ion beam (since figure 2 shows the passing ion beam, there is inherently some resistance to sputtering as the device is intended to be used more than once),
thereby the target material provides as a collision region for fragmentation the ions (see footnote 1 above) while permitting fragmented ions pass through the support (as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Aberth teaches a tandem mass spectrometer (fig. 1), comprising:
a) an ionization source (12);
b) a set of ion guides or ion focusing lenses (40);
c) a first mass analyzer (10) or a mass filter to transmit ions having a specific mass to charge ratio (inherent to a mass analyzer), and to transmit parent or precursor ions having a particular or desired mass to charge ratio and to block all other ions having different or undesired mass to charge ratios (col. 4, lines 61-68 through col. 5, lines 1-4 teaches mass analyzer 14 receives ions and selectively transmits a particular fraction based on mass or m/z (i.e. blocking all others));
d) a solid target collision cell (16) comprising: i) a support in the form of a mesh, a grid (16), and
ii) a target material mounted, positioned, or coated on the support, wherein the target material is selected from a group consisting of graphene, carbon, silicon, metals, alloys which may have an atomic or molecular structure, or a combination of these materials, whereby the parent or precursor ions selected by the first mass analyzer are transmitted to the collision cell (col. 5, lines 34-49 teaches two metallic conductive surfaces. Note: surfaces inherently have an atomic structure);
e) a second mass analyzer (18), wherein said parent or precursor ions fragment into daughter ions by colliding with the target material while passing through the collision cell, the resulting fragment or daughter ions leave the collision cell to the second mass analyzer (as seen in figures 1-2), and daughter or fragmented ions having a particular mass to charge ratio are then selected by the second mass analyzer (col. 4, lines 61-68 through col. 5, lines 1-4 teaches mass analyzer 18 receives ions and selectively transmits a particular fraction based on mass or m/z (i.e. blocking all others)) and eventually reach an ion detector (20), and wherein the energy of the ions entering to and colliding with the collision cell is controlled by adjusting the applied potential between the collision cell and the preceding components of the mass spectrometer (no voltage drop to collision cell (see col. 5, lines 37-40), thus energy of ions controlled by accelerating lens 22),
f) whereby the openings or porosity of the support and/or target material are selected to provide sufficient collisions for fragmentation while allowing the fragmented ions to pass through the support (as seen in figure 2, channels 30 (openings/pore) through support 16 including conductive surfaces are selected to provide sufficient collisions for fragmenting ions 32 into daughter or fragment ions 34 while allowing the fragmented ions to pass through the support 16).
Regarding claim 18, Aberth teaches wherein the first or the second mass analyzers is any one of quadrupole, sector field, time-of-flight, ion mobility, ion trap, orbitrap, or Fourier- transform ion cyclotron resonance (col. 4, lines 61-66).
Regarding claim 19, Aberth teaches wherein the ionization source for the tandem mass spectrometer is selected from the group consisting of an electrospray ionization source, an electron impact source, an inductively coupled plasma source, an atmospheric pressure chemical ionization source, an atmospheric pressure photo- ionization source, and a plasma source (col. 4, liens 33-34 teaches electron impact).
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ducan et al. (US pgPub 2015/0213992)
Regarding claim 1, Ducan teaches a Solid Target Collision Cell (STCC) for mass spectrometry (figure 8 shows two separated grids separated by atoms ([0055]). Note the claim must be structurally differentiated from the prior art, therefore figure 8 could be used as a collision cell. MPEP 2112(II)), comprising:
a) a support (640) comprising a mesh having a mesh size, a grid having an opening geometry and an opening size, a grating with micro- or nanostructure, a porous substrate with a predefined pore size, or a porous support membrane (graphene grids), and
b) a target material comprising one to one hundred atomic layers , wherein the target material is coated, mounted or positioned on the support (second layer graphene layer 620 positioned on 640), and wherein the target material is selected from a group consisting of graphene, carbon, silicon, metals, alloys having an atomic or molecular structure, or a combination of these materials (graphene, [0055]),
wherein the support is placed in a flow path of an ion beam comprising ions, the ions collide with the number of atomic layers of the target material and undergo fragmentation, the ions lose radial and axial energy by subsequent collisions with the number of atomic layers while passing through the support and emerge from the support with low energy and wherein the support (see discussion below) and the target material are configured to resist sputtering of the target material by the incoming ion beam (target material is graphene, which is the same as the claimed target material in one embodiment, thus inherently having the same characteristics as it is the same material), thereby the target material provides a collision region for fragmenting the
ions while permitting fragmented ions to pass through the support (intended use (i.e. placement) does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art see MPEP 2114 (II) “"[A]pparatus 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. ” Here placing the support in the path of the ion is the manner in which the device is intended to be used and does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art) and ion fragmentation occurs when ions enter the support and collide with the target material, thereby the target material acts as a collision cell while fragmented ions pass through the support (MPEP 2112 recites “the fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention”. Since the structure is the same as claimed, the result is an inherent characteristic of the structure).
Regarding claim 8, Ducan teaches wherein a thickness of the target material is in the range of single atom, and a single layer of graphene with a thickness of approximately 0.345 nm, or several layers of graphene (a single layer of graphene see paragraph [0055]).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Bajic (US pgPub 2015/0021469).
Regarding claim 1, Bajic teaches A Solid Target Collision Cell (STCC) for mass spectrometry (figure 1, shows target 11 which may be one or more layers of mesh or grid ([0066]). Note the claim must be structurally differentiated from the prior art, therefore figure 8 could be used as a collision cell. MPEP 2112(II)), comprising:
a) a support (first grid or mesh target layer [0066]) comprising a mesh having a mesh size, a grid having an opening geometry and an opening size, a grating with micro- or nanostructure, a porous substrate with a predefined pore size, or a porous support membrane (mesh or grid having size disclosed in paragraph [0060]-[0061]), and
b) a target material comprising one to one hundred atomic layers wherein the target material is coated, mounted or positioned on the support (second layer see paragraph [0066]), and wherein the target material is selected from a group consisting of graphene, carbon, silicon, metals, alloys having an atomic or molecular structure, or a combination of these materials (metal see paragraph [0055]),
wherein the support is placed in a flow path of an ion beam comprising ions, the ions collide with the number of atomic layers of the target material and undergo fragmentation, the ions lose radial and axial energy by subsequent collisions with the number of atomic layers while passing through the support and emerge from the support with low energy and wherein the support (see discussion below) and the target material are configured to resist sputtering of the target material by the incoming ion beam (target material is metal, which is the same as the claimed target material in one embodiment, thus inherently having the same characteristics as it is the same material), thereby the target material provides a collision region for fragmenting the ions while permitting fragmented ions to pass through the support (intended use (i.e. placement) does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art see MPEP 2114 (II) “"[A]pparatus 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. ” Here placing the support in the path of the ion is the manner in which the device is intended to be used and does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art, MPEP 2112 recites “the fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention”. Since the structure is the same as claimed, the result is an inherent characteristic of the structure).
Regarding claim 9, Bajic teaches a power source (voltage applied to mesh or grid [0124]) to apply a potential to the support ([0124] applied to grid ) to accelerate the ion beam towards the support (the voltage is applied thus capable of accelerating ions toward gird), whereby ions collide with the target material and undergo fragmentation (intended use see discussion above with respect to MPEP 2114), and lose their radial and axial energy by subsequent collisions with the number of atomic layers of the target material while passing through the support, and emerge with a low energy (see discussion with respect to MPEP 2112(II) discussed above).
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) 1-7, 10-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aberth (USPN 4,851,669) (second interpretation not interpreting the conductive layer to be an atomic layer) in view of Mane et al. (US pgPub 2016/0314947).
Regarding claim 1, Aberth teaches the same limitations as discussed above in claim 1, however, in this interpretation, Aberth fails to explicitly suggest the layers as atomic layers. However, Mane et al. teaches producing MCPs via atomic layer deposition ([0015], figure 1 shows electrode layers 116, thus atomic layers).
Mane modifies Aberth by suggesting Atomic layer deposition to create the MCP (i.e. including the electrode surfaces).
Since both inventions are directed towards microchannel plates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the conductive surfaces to be atomic layers as suggested by Mane because it is a significantly less expensive way to fabricate MPCs than other processes ([015]).
Regarding claims 2-3, the claims only further limit the alternative mesh. Since the mesh is not required by claim 1, these claims do not further limit the grid.
Regarding claim 4, Aberth teaches the opening geometry of the grid is circular (col. 5, lines 62-34).
Regarding claim 5, Aberth teaches wherein the opening size of the grid is selected in the range of hundreds of microns to less than a few nanometers (col. 6, lines 12-16) to allow fragmented ions to pass through the support without impeding the flow of the ion beam (this is a result of the size, since the structure is in the claimed range, the result will naturally follow if operated in the manner claimed).
Regarding claim 6, further limits the porous substrate. The porous substrate is not required in claim 1 except in the alternative, since Aberth in view of Mane teaches the grid, this claim does not further limit the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Aberth in view of Mane teaches wherein the number of atomic layers are in the range of 1 to 100 atomic layers (Aberth teaches two conductive surfaces (see claim 1), Mane also teaches atomic layer deposition, thus two atomic layers).
Regarding claim 10, Aberth teaches an aperture lens, an Einzel extraction lens, an RF multi-pole ion guide, or a stack of lenses placed downstream of the support to extract and focus fragmented ions and direct them toward a mass analyzer (42 is an accelerating less to focus ions towards mass analyzer 18, see col. 7, lines 20-31).
Regarding claim 11, Aberth teaches wherein a retaining ring is used to hold the support (col. 8, lines 27-29).
Regarding claim 14, Aberth teaches wherein the support comprises of a carrousel or a magazine (MCP mounted behind a aperture (see col. 8, lines 27-29), which is rotatable (col. 8, lines 31-34) and comprises a plurality of distinct regions (col. 7, lines 31-40), thus interpreted as a magazine) having a plurality of target materials (distinct regions having increased bias angle (col. 7, lines 37-40)), wherein each target material having a predefined thickness (inherent in the manufacture of such a MCP), and wherein the carrousel or the magazine is configured to change the target material using a switch, a servo motor, a step motor, or a mechanical handle to provide a selection of the target material with variable thicknesses (via external rotation see col. 8, lines 31-37, which is inherently either mechanical or motorized).
Regarding claim 15, Aberth teaches a plurality of replaceable solid target collision cells (each region 58,60,62 and 64 are interpreted as separate collision cells as they each have a different bias angle, see col. 7, lines 35-40. The whole plate may be replaced thus the plurality of cells are replaceable), wherein four the plurality of solid target collision cells are arranged on a carousel or magazine (col. 8, lines 31-37 teach the plate is externally rotatable and col. 8, lines 27-29 teaches the plate is mounted to an aperture. Since the plate is externally rotatable and mounted in an aperture, the rotatable mount is interpreted to be a magazine or carousel) mounted on a rotatable support (col. 8, lines 31-37) configured to selectively position each of the solid target collision cell in line with the ion beam (implicit to provide increased internal energy to the incident parent ions (col. 7, lines 37-40)), wherein the plurality of solid target collision cells comprise different target materials or different target thickness (the regions materials are different by the orientation of the channels, the claim does not require the materials to be compositionally different, only different. By different geometries due to the change of inclination angle, the materials are different for each region).
Regarding claim 16, Aberth in view of Mane teaches the target material made by CVD ([0029] of Mane suggests the used of either CVD or ALD).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aberth in view of Park (US pgPub 2003/0042412)
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Aberth teaches to teaches wherein the solid target collision cell whereby ions pass through the target material (see figure 2), however fails to disclose the collision cell is coupled to a chamber that is pressurized with a collision and/or reaction gas, wherein the gas dampens the fragmented ions in ion-molecular reaction, whereby ions colliding with and passing through the target material also undergo gas-based collisions and/or reactions to induce further fragmentation resulting in additional fragmentation products including daughter ions, and/or product.
However, Park teaches the collision cell (fig. 5, 136 for SID see paragraph [0053]) is coupled to a chamber (138) that is pressurized with a collision and/or reaction gas (CID in 138 see paragraph [0053]. Paragraph [0054] teaches collisional gas), whereby ions colliding with the target material (SID at 136, see paragraph [0053]) also undergo gas-based collisions and/or reactions to induce further fragmentation resulting in a plurality of fragmented ions (via downstream CID see paragraph see paragraph [0058]).
Park modifies Aberth by suggesting tandem SID and CID.
Since both inventions are directed towards SID, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an additional CID downstream of the SID of Aberth as suggested by Park because it would facilitate an additional fragmentation technique such that the types of analytical modes may be increased.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aberth in view of Park (US pgPub 2003/0042412) and further in view of Bateman (US pgPub 2004/0251411).
Regarding claim 13, the combined device fails to disclose the type of collisional gas.
However, Bateman is evidence that Helium and air and methane are known collisional gases ([0024]).
Bateman modifies the combined device by suggesting the claimed collisional gas.
Since both inventions are directed towards CID, it would have been obvious to select the gas suggested by Bateman because it would resolve the problem as to which gas would be appropriate for CID as disclosed in Abeth in view of Park.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2013/0088699 teaches in figure 10 graphene layers on either side of a tungsten grid such that none of the tungsten grid is exposed to atmosphere ([0101]). This reference could also be used to anticipate claim 1.
US2013/0138184 teaches a grid 12 supporting graphene layers 20 (see paragraph [0041] and fig. 1). This reference could also be used to anticipate claim 1.
US2012/0006784 teaches a covering grids with a graphene layer ([0043]). This reference could also be used to anticipate claim 1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 Aberth clearly demonstrates the support positioned in the path of the ion beam in figures 1 and 4. Since the surface of the SID MCP is conductive, as discussed above, ions will collide or are capable of collision with the conductive surface as it is the top surface of the MCP as seen in figure 2. The fragmentation is evident by the discussion in col. 5, lines 41-48 which recites:
“The use of a high resistance material for the microchannel plate is important since it reduces charge neutralization which would occur during collision between the ionic species and a conductive surface, such as a metallic surface. Such charged neutralization is a significant problem when employing collision-induced dissociation with a metal surface, according to the teachings of the prior art.”
Here, while the channel is insulative the surface is conductive (i.e. metal surface), therefore fragmentation occurs at the surface. Moreover, col. 4, lines 14-19 recites: “The decelerating lens 22 and accelerating lens 24 are utilized to control the translational energy of the parent ion beam striking and exiting the microchannel collision plate 16, allowing direct control over the degree of fragmentation of the parent ions.”
Since the ion beam strikes the plate 16 including conductive surfaces, some fragmentation as a result of striking the conductive surface occurs as in the prior art discussed in col. 2, lines 14-16.
Prosecution Insights