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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-3, 5-9, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0076485 A1 [Stoermer].
Regarding Claim 1:
Stoermer discloses a multipole section-based ion funnel comprising:
an ion funnel section (para 42) formed by at least one pair of adjacently disposed members (Fig. 1 (1) and (2)),
wherein a first member of the at least one pair of adjacently disposed members includes a symmetrical configuration about a central axis of the first member (Fig. 2 (1) and (2) are both symmetrical about the central axis) and a pole structure (the indented aperture shapes are the pole structures.), and
wherein a second member of the at least one pair of adjacently disposed members (Fig. 2) includes a pole structure that is engageable with the pole structure of the first member to form a multipole structure (As described in para 35, the indented aperture shapes engage with each other via their respective fields to create pseudopotential surfaces. Further, the indented aperture shapes engage with each other through the circuit boards of Fig. 1 and their interleaved arrangement.).
PNG
media_image1.png
677
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
585
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2:
Stoermer discloses the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 1, wherein the pole structure of the first member and the pole structure of the second member form at least two poles. Each indented surface creates a pole, and each member includes two indented surfaces. So each member has two poles.
Regarding Claim 3:
Stoermer discloses the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 2, wherein the at least two poles are symmetrically disposed along a circumference of a circular opening formed by the at least one pair of adjacently disposed members. As shown in Figs. 1, 2, 4.
Regarding Claim 5:
Stoermer discloses the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 2, wherein radio frequency (RF) field distribution areas at the at least two poles are greater than RF field distribution areas at another ion funnel section of the multipole section-based ion funnel that does not include the at least one pair of adjacently disposed members. Para 35 – the RF field creates a pseudopotential in the vicinity of the indented portion, but not in other areas of the funnel that are not indented.
Regarding Claim 6:
Stoermer discloses the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the pole structure of the first member or the pole structure of the second member includes at least one of a concave, a convex, a generally flat, or a round profile. See Fig. 1 (1, 2) indented section.
Regarding Claim 7:
Stoermer discloses the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 1, wherein the at least one pair of adjacently disposed members forms an electrode pair that includes at least two poles of opposite polarities. As shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding Claim 8:
Stoermer discloses the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 1, wherein the ion funnel section formed by the at least one pair of adjacently disposed members is tapered or profiled to form a reduced diameter exit for ions traversing through the multipole section-based ion funnel. As shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding Claim 9:
Stoermer discloses the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 8, wherein the exit is disposed along a central axis of the multipole section-based ion funnel. As shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding Claim 14:
Stoermer discloses the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 1, wherein the multipole structure permits operation of the multipole section-based ion funnel for a pressure range of approximately 1 mTorr to approximately 10 Torr. Para 47.
Regarding Claim 15:
Stoermer discloses the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first member or the second member of the at least one pair of adjacently disposed members is at least partially formed as a plate. As shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 16:
Stoermer discloses the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 1, further comprising:
an ion funnel transition section (Fig. 4) formed by:
at least one generally flat plate including a first enclosed opening (Fig. 1 (1) – opening) ; and
the at least one pair of adjacently disposed members including a second opening that is disposed along a same axis as the first enclosed opening (Fig. 1 (2) – opening).
Regarding Claim 17:
Stoermer discloses a multipole structure comprising:
a first member of a pair of members, wherein the first member includes a pole structure a symmetrical configuration about a central axis of the first member (Fig. 1 (1) and (2) are both symmetrical about the central axis) and a pole structure (the indented aperture shapes are the pole structures.); and
a second member of the pair of members (Fig. 1 (1) and (2)), wherein the second member includes a pole structure that is engageable with the pole structure of the first member to form the multipole structure (As described in para 35, the indented aperture shapes engage with each other via their respective fields to create pseudopotential surfaces. Further, the indented aperture shapes engage with each other through the circuit boards of Fig. 1.) for a multipole section-based ion funnel (Fig. 4, para 42).
Regarding Claim 18:
Stoermer discloses the multipole structure according to claim 17, wherein at least one of the pole structure of the first member or the pole structure of the second member is transverse relative to a central axis of the multipole section-based ion funnel. As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the indented portions extend across the central axis, i.e., they are transverse thereto.
Regarding Claim 19:
Stoermer discloses a multipole section-based ion funnel (para 42, Fig. 4) comprising:
a tapered ion funnel section formed by a plurality of pairs of adjacently disposed members (Fig. 4, para 42),
wherein a first member of a pair of members of the plurality of pairs of adjacently disposed members includes symmetrical configuration about a central axis of the first member (Fig. 1 (1) and (2) are both symmetrical about the central axis) and a pole structure (the indented aperture shapes are the pole structures.);,
wherein a second member of the pair of members of the plurality of pairs of adjacently disposed members (Fig. 1 (1) and (2)) includes a pole structure (Figs. 1 (1, 2)) that is engageable with the pole structure of the first member to form a multipole structure (As described in para 35, the indented aperture shapes engage with each other via their respective fields to create pseudopotential surfaces. Further, the indented aperture shapes engage with each other through the circuit boards of Fig. 1.), and
wherein at least two pairs of the plurality of pairs of the adjacently disposed members include successively reduced diameter openings (As shown in Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoermer in view of US 7,514,673 B2 [Senko].
Regarding Claim 11:
Stoermer teaches the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 1, but fails to teach that the ion funnel section formed by the at least one pair of adjacently disposed members includes a linear funnel progression from a dipole structure to the multipole structure that includes greater than two poles.
Senko teaches an ion guide forming a tapered RF field (claim 1) and leading into a quadrupole ion guide (see Fig. 1 (155). In Senko, the ion guide is defined by a series of adjacently disposed and axially offset members (see Fig. 6) that are oppositely polarized (claim 14), thus forming dipoles. Adding the ion guide of Senko to Stoermer would entail guiding ions through the guide to Senko to the guide of Stoermer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the offset dipole guides of Senko Fig. 6 immediately upstream of the multipole guides of Stoermer. One would have been motivated to do so since the addition of the offset guide of Senko would reduce the streaming of neutral gas molecules into any downstream analytical device. Senko 6:11-27.
Regarding Claim 13:
Stoermer teaches the multipole section-based ion funnel according to claim 1, wherein the ion funnel section includes a plurality of further members, wherein each member of the plurality of further members includes an opening that is offset from a central axis of the multipole section-based ion funnel, and wherein the plurality of further members forms a non-direct flight path for ions traversing through the multipole section-based ion funnel.
Senko teaches an ion guide forming a tapered RF field (claim 1) and leading into a quadrupole ion guide (see Fig. 1 (155). In Senko, the ion guide is defined by a series of adjacently disposed and axially offset members (see Fig. 6) that are oppositely polarized (claim 14), thus forming dipoles. Adding the ion guide of Senko to Stoermer would entail guiding ions through the guide to Senko to the guide of Stoermer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the offset dipole guides of Senko Fig. 6 immediately upstream of the multipole guides of Stoermer. One would have been motivated to do so since the addition of the offset guide of Senko would reduce the streaming of neutral gas molecules into any downstream analytical device. Senko 6:11-27.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Drawings
Drawing objections of record are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Slater reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The indefiniteness rejection of claim 5 in withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments.
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 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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights