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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 19 January 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,728,153 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claims 21-23, 25-26 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse (WO 03/102508 A1) in view of Whitehouse (US 7,189,697 B1, hereinafter Whitehouse ‘697).
Regarding claim 21, Whitehouse teaches a multipole comprising:
A plurality of multipole electrodes (40, 25, 41, fig. 2A) disposed along a longitudinal axis and being arranged one relative to another so as to define an ion transmission volume therebetween for transmitting ions along a length of the multiple between an ion inlet end and an opposite ion outlet end thereof;
An electronic controller operably connected to an RF power source (control module and power supply unit, fig. 2B) and the plurality of multipole electrodes and being configured to apply at least an RF potential to the plurality of multipole electrodes,
Wherein said plurality of multipole electrodes is configured to generate an RF-only field along a first portion and a third portion of the length of the set of multipoles (RF-only segments 40 and 41, p. 43 paragraph 2) and to generate an axial DC field along a second portion of the length of the multipole when said electronic controller is applying the at least an RF potential to the plurality of multipole electrodes (DC acceleration, p. 55 col. 1), and
Wherein, during use, ions are focused radially inward toward the longitudinal axis of the multipole within the first and third portion of the length of the set of multipoles and transmit through the third portion after the second portion and first portion (p. 43 paragraph 3-p. 44 paragraph 1).
Whitehouse does not teach that each electrode in the plurality of multiple electrodes includes a first, section and third section, the RF-only fields being applied to the first and third sections and the axial DC field being applied to the second section.
Whitehouse ‘697 teaches a multipole having electrodes with first, second and third sections (201-203, fig. 2) where different voltages are applied to each segment (col. 35 line 66-col. 36 line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the multipole sections (40, 25, 41) of Whitehouse as parts of an integral multiple separated by an insulator, based on the teaching of Whitehouse ‘967 that this is a known equivalent means of providing three different voltage regions of a multipole, and allows effective alignment of the rod sections while still allowing independent voltage control of each rod.
Regarding claim 22, Whitehouse teaches an embodiment in which each of the multipole electrodes has a uniform first cross-sectional area in a first section, a second cross-sectional area smaller than the first cross-sectional area in the second section, and a uniform third cross-sectional area in the third section, a center of each of the first, second and third cross-sectional area lying on the same axis (e.g. section 218, fig. 25).
Regarding claim 23, Whitehouse teaches that the first cross-sectional area and the third cross-sectional area are equal.
Regarding claim 25, Whitehouse teaches that the plurality of multipole electrodes comprises at least four elongate electrodes arranged in pairs on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis, wherein a uniform first spacing occurs between elongate electrodes in the first section, a second spacing larger than the first spacing occurs between elongate electrodes in the second section, and a uniform third spacing occurs between elongate electrodes in the third section (fig. 25).
Regarding claim 26, Whitehouse teaches that the uniform first spacing is equal to the uniform third spacing.
Regarding claims 28-29, Whitehouse teaches that the plurality of multipole electrodes may comprise six or eight elongate electrodes (hexapole or octupole, p. 34 paragraph 3-p. 35 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 30, Whitehouse teaches that the first section of the length of the multipole is disposed between an ion inlet orifice and the second section of the length of the multipole (section 40 before ion guide 25, fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 31, Whitehouse teaches that the third section of the length of the multipole is disposed between an ion outlet orifice and the second section of the length of the multipole (section 41 after ion guide 25, fig. 2A).
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse in view of Whitehouse ‘967 and in further view of Schoen (US 9,842,730 B2).
Regarding claim 24, Whitehouse and Whitehouse ‘967 teach all the limitations of claim 21 as described above. Whitehouse teaches that the plurality of multipole electrodes comprises at least four elongate electrodes arranged in pairs on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis, wherein elongate electrodes of each pair are parallel one relative to the other within the first and third portion of the length of the multipole.
Whitehouse does not teach that the electrodes are non-parallel one relative to the other within a second portion of the length of the multipole.
Schoen teaches a multipole having electrodes non-parallel to each other (col. 7 line 32-col. 8 line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current claims to make the electrodes of the cell 25 of Whitehouse non-parallel as taught by Schoen, in order to assist in transporting ions through the system and prevent unintended trapping as described by Schoen.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse in view of Whitehouse ‘967.
Regarding claim 27, Whitehouse does not teach that the uniform first spacing is different from the uniform third spacing. However Whitehouse teaches that the configuration of fig. 25 may be altered for various applications, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the spacing between electrodes as this is a known result effective variable (affecting the ion transmission and gas conductance between sections) with no unexpected result (MPEP 2144.05 II A [R-01. 2024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 34-39 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious a multipole having the structure of the current claims, in particular in which an ion guide has an RF-only field along a first portion of the length of a multipole and an axial DC field along a second portion of the length of a multipole and the second end of non-parallel auxiliary electrodes being shortened relative to a first end of main electrodes by between 2.5 and 5 r0 where r0 is an inscribed radius of the main electrodes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims21-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is true that the Whitehouse reference (WO 03/102508 A1) teaches separate multipole electrodes 40, 25 and 41, rather than having each rod electrode of a multipole divided into individual axial segments as required by the amended claim 21. However upon further consideration it would have been obvious to combine the sections 40, 25 and 41 of Whitehouse, forming a single set of multipole electrodes with the sections receiving separate voltages being separated by an insulator based on the teaching of Whitehouse ‘967 as described above, as an alternate equivalent arrangement with the advantage of ensuring axial alignment between rod segments. Doing so would still allow the segments (40, 25 and 41) to be independently controlled by separately applied RF and DC voltages as taught by Whitehouse (WO 03/102508 A1) and so would maintain the function of the invention of Whitehouse.
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 DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881