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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/5/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s). In regards to the discussion regarding the breadth of the claims, it is noted that the routine purging/maintenance discussed in the remarks is different from the more specific purging processes, but the claims are sufficiently broad to read on certain forms of routine maintenance/cleaning in some situations as discussed in the rejection below. Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
PNG
media_image1.png
148
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
PNG
media_image2.png
151
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-9 is/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 description requirement thereof since the claims introduce new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure for “wherein the cycle timer is configured to periodically purge the supply line during operation of the mass spectrometer for chemical ionization”. It is not stated how the periodic purging is performed during the chemical ionization operation.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claims are read to mean the operation is broadly defined as any operation including chemical ionization, which could include routine maintenance/cleaning, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or claims may be amended by deleting the descriptive statement.
Claims 2-9 are rejected due to a dependency on claims 1, respectively.
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_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.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 for chemical ionization, 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 for chemical ionization (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 Shigetoshi teaches the need for periodic cleaning (see Shigetoshi, [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
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
Prosecution Insights