DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/15/26 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
For background, the invention is directed to periodically flushing the supply line to reduce wasting reagent and avoid water entrainment in the line (see [0027] of pgpub), which occurs as a general matter during operation, but is particularly an issue when swapping out gas sources (see [0026]). Shigetoshi [0030-33] discusses a system to improve swapping out reactive gas sources (18), using a bypass loop and feedback sensors, which aims to reduce the amount of time needed to switch gas sources/containers without breaking the vacuum inside the source (see [0010-12]). Quimby is directed to routinely/periodically deep cleaning the MS system (“These problems require that the MS be cleaned periodically” [0004]), to remove particulate contaminant deposits that accumulate over time in the gas lines (see [0003]), which originate from the reagents and sources chemicals themselves, which is different from dissolved air or water vapor from the routine swapping of gas sources.
Turning to the arguments presented, the remarks argue the combination of Shigetoshi and Quimby are directed to different problems, and the rejection does not establish why the combination would result in periodically operating Shigetoshi’s bypass arrangement as per claim 1. However, it is respectfully noted that the claims are broad enough to read on periodically operating the deep cleaning of Quimby.
Turning to the claim 1, the first period of time the valve is open and second period of time the valve is closed is controlled by the cycle timer is defined, and then separately the claim discusses periodically purging the supply line during operation of the mass spectrometer. It is noted that the under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the periodic purging may refer to the deep cleaning of Quimby, while the first and second time periods to the routine gas source swapping of Shigetoshi. Claim 6 does mention linking the first period of time with purging the supply line, but is not explicitly connected with the periodic purging of the supply line prior to chemical ionization in claim 1. Clarification is respectfully suggested.
It is additionally noted that “periodically purge the supply line during operation of the mass spectrometer, and prior to chemical ionization mass spectrometer data collection” is broad enough to read on e.g. data collection for a different experiment than the process described using the periodic purging, e.g. on another day.
The remarks argue that the combination of references fails to teach “the first and second periods are predetermined or adjustable based on a function of at least one of a flow rate through the bypass line, a length of the supply line, or an inner diameter of the supply line” in claim 6, because an experimentally selected value is based on numerous conditions, and not a particular identified relationship. Claim 10 refers to the same quoted language. However, the language “adjustable based on a function of” is broad enough to read on any system or function that is adjusted/adjustable that is based on (dependent on) parameters including “at least one of a flow rate through the bypass line, a length of the supply line, or an inner diameter of the supply line”. This can include an experimentally selected function. The specification uses the same language to describe the relationship “adjustable based on a function of” in [0031], but does not appear to describe further detail of the relationship (e.g. a particular algorithm or equation).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shigetoshi (JP3758606B2) in view of Quimby et al. (US 20130062515 A1) [hereinafter Quimby].
Regarding claim 1, Shigetoshi teaches a system comprising:
a gas source (see e.g. fig 4: 18) coupled to a mass spectrometer (see 11) with a supply line (see e.g. 17) to provide reagent gas for chemical ionization (see [0001,29]);
a bypass line (e.g. 21) connecting the supply line to a foreline of a vacuum pump (see e.g. 16), the bypass line including a valve (e.g. 22) and a bypass restrictor (e.g. 24); and
a cycle timer (required for operation of system, see [0018]) operable to open the valve for a first period of time and close the valve for a second period of time (see [0018-19]),
Shigetoshi may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the cycle timer is configured to periodically purge the supply line during operation of the mass spectrometer, and prior to chemical ionization mass spectrometer data collection, to remove contaminants or moisture from the reagent gas system.
However, the use of periodic purging of supply lines (e.g. periodic routine cleaning of the device, between different experiments, etc) was well known in the art. For example, Quimby teaches a system to use conditioning gases branching off a reagent supply line and used to purge a reagent supply line (see Quimby, fig 1: 160) and clean the entire mass spectrometry system (see e.g. [0074]), said system comprising wherein the cycle timer (some kind of computer required for operation of system) is configured to periodically purge (see periodic cleaning required, [0004]) the supply line during operation of the mass spectrometer (defining operation as entire time period comprising maintenance periods), and prior to chemical ionization mass spectrometer data collection (e.g. prior to a subsequent experiment), to remove contaminants or moisture from the reagent gas system (natural result of purging, see e.g. [0004]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Quimby in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve cleaning and conditioning of all parts of the mass spectrometer, including combining with the periodic purging system of Quimby.
The combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Quimby may fail to explicitly disclose the cycle timer being configured to periodically purge the supply line. However, given Quimby teaches the need for periodic cleaning (see Quimby, [0004]) for operation of the mass spectrometry system. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to configure the cycle timer to provide periodic cleaning cycles, as a routine skill in the art. It has been held that providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Quimby teaches the first period of time has a sufficient duration to purge the supply line (required for intended operation of fully purging the supply line, see Quimby, [0074]). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the first period of time is a function of a flow rate through the bypass line, a length of the supply line, the inner diameter of the supply line, or any combination thereof. However, Shigetoshi teaches the first period of time (e.g. for the selected reactive gas) is determined based on experimentation (see Shigetoshi, [0018]). Thus, the experimentally derived time must be a function of, in part, pipe parameters including pressure, flow rate, diameter, and length. It is noted that using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Equations themselves are not a patentable subject matter; as to the method steps utilizing particular equations, the use of particular mathematical means would have accomplished the same result.
Regarding claim 10, Shigetoshi teaches a method of periodically purging a supply line for providing reagent gas to a mass spectrometer for chemical ionization, comprising:
opening a valve (see e.g. Shigetoshi, fig 4: 22) to allow gas to flow through a bypass line (e.g. 21) connecting the supply line (e.g. 17) to a vacuum pump (e.g. 16);
keeping the valve open for a first period of time having a sufficient duration to purge the supply line (see e.g. [0027], required for intended operation of purging system, see Quimby, [0074]);
closing the valve (see e.g. 21);
keeping the valve closed for a second period of time (see e.g. during operation, [0018-19]); and
Shigetoshi may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first and second periods are predetermined or adjustable based on a function of at least one of a flow rate through the bypass line, a length of the supply line, or an inner diameter of the supply line.
However, Shigetoshi teaches that the periods of time for opening/closing the vales (e.g. for the selected reactive gas) are determined based on experimentation (see Shigetoshi, [0018]). Therefore, following an initial experiment to calibrate the system, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan for the system to provide for the first and second periods at these predetermined values. Alternately, it is noted that the experimentally derived times must be a function of, in part, pipe parameters including pressure, flow rate, diameter, and length. It is noted that using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Equations themselves are not a patentable subject matter; as to the method steps utilizing particular equations, the use of particular mathematical means would have accomplished the same result.
Shigetoshi may fail to explicitly disclose performing the purging prior to chemical ionization mass spectrometer data collection.
However, the use of periodic purging of supply lines (e.g. periodic routine cleaning of the device, between different experiments, etc) was well known in the art. For example, Quimby teaches a system to use conditioning gases branching off a reagent supply line and used to purge a reagent supply line (see Quimby, fig 1: 160) and clean the entire mass spectrometry system (see e.g. [0074]), said system comprising performing the purging prior to chemical ionization mass spectrometer data collection (e.g. prior to a subsequent experiment). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Quimby in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve cleaning and conditioning of all parts of the mass spectrometer, including combining with the periodic purging system of Quimby.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Quimby teaches providing a flow of reagent gas through the supply line to an ionization volume of a mass spectrometer during chemical ionization (see Shigetoshi, [0001,29]).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Quimby teaches preventing the flow of reagent to the ionization volume when not performing chemical ionization (e.g. Shigetoshi, [0017]).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Quimby may fail to explicitly disclose the first period of time is a function of a flow rate through the bypass line, a length of the supply line, the inner diameter of the supply line, or any combination thereof. However, Shigetoshi teaches the first period of time (e.g. for the selected reactive gas) is determined based on experimentation (see Shigetoshi, [0018]). Thus, the experimentally derived time must be a function of, in part, pipe parameters including pressure, flow rate, diameter, and length. It is noted that using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Equations themselves are not a patentable subject matter; as to the method steps utilizing particular equations, the use of particular mathematical means would have accomplished the same result.
Regarding claim 15, Shigetoshi teaches opening the valve to purge the supply line prior to chemical ionization analysis (see Shigetoshi, e.g. [0027], purging the empty supply line with fresh reagent gas) and keeping the valve closed when the mass spectrometer is collecting chemical ionization data (valves must be closed during measurement, see Shigetoshi, [0006-7,27]).
Regarding claim 16, Shigetoshi teaches keeping the valve closed when the mass spectrometer is collecting chemical ionization data.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shigetoshi and Quimby, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shaw et al. (US 20210033583 A1) [hereinafter Shaw].
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Quimby teaches a reagent gas controller (required for operation of the system, see Shigetoshi, [0028]), the reagent gas controller configured to; (a) control a flow of reagent gas into an ion source of a mass spectrometer (e.g. during chemical ionization, see [0028]); (b) shut off the flow of reagent gas into the ion source during electron ionization (see switching between modes, [0066]). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose (c) adjust the cycle timer based on usage of the mass spectrometer. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the cycle timer based on usage, generally (for example, not performing cleaning when the mass spectrometer is not turned on for extended periods of time). Alternately, it is noted that it was well known in the art to set the cleaning cycle timer for a period of non-use. For example, Shaw teaches performing a cleaning/calibration from 12AM-5AM based on shift schedules for workers and utilization of the site (see Shaw, [0058]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to change the cycle timer for routine cleaning based on actual utilization at the site where it is installed.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi, Quimby, and Shaw teaches a reagent gas controller is configured to provide the reagent gas flow to the ion source during chemical ionization (see [0001,29]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Quimby teaches the controller configured keep the valve closed when the mass spectrometer is collecting chemical ionization data (valves must be closed during measurement, see Shigetoshi, [0006-7,27]). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose to adjust the cycle timer based on usage of the mass spectrometer. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the cycle timer based on usage, generally (for example, not performing cleaning when the mass spectrometer is not turned on for extended periods of time). Alternately, it is noted that it was well known in the art to set the cleaning cycle timer for a period of non-use. For example, Shaw teaches performing a cleaning/calibration from 12AM-5AM based on shift schedules for workers and utilization of the site (see Shaw, [0058]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to change the cycle timer for routine cleaning based on actual utilization at the site where it is installed.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi, Quimby, and Shaw teaches the controller configured to instruct the cycle timer to open the valve to flush the supply line prior to chemical ionization analysis (see Shigetoshi, [0016]; also note requirement to periodically flush the entire system during conditioning, Quimby, e.g. [0004,56]).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi, Quimby, and Shaw teaches the controller configured to instruct the cycle timer to keep the valve closed when the mass spectrometer is collecting chemical ionization data (valves must be closed during measurement, see Shigetoshi, [0006-7,27]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shigetoshi, Quimby, and Shaw, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wells (US 5237175 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi, Quimby, and Shaw may fail to explicitly disclose a reagent gas controller is configured to shut off the reagent gas flow into the ion source during electron ionization. However, the use of systems to provide both EI and CI were well known in the art (see e.g. Shigetoshi, [0002]). For example, Wells teaches a known effective control system to enable use of both CI and EI (e.g. col 2, lines 38-61), wherein a reagent gas controller is configured to shut off the reagent gas flow into the ion source during electron ionization (see Wells, col 4, lines 11-15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Wells in the system of prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable use of different ionization systems, in the manner known in the prior art.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shigetoshi and Quimby, as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, and further in view of Wells (US 5237175 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Quimby may fail to explicitly disclose the valve is a solenoid valve. But the use of solenoid valves was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Wells teaches a known effective solenoid valves (see e.g. Wells, col 3, line 67). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings to enable the intended operation of the system. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Quimby may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Wells, for similar reasons as claim 4 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Wells teaches preventing the flow of reagent to the ionization volume when not performing chemical ionization (see during EI, Wells, col 4, lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Shigetoshi and Quimby may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Wells, for similar reasons as claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 – 8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
