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 12/17/25 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.
The remarks argue that Bertsch relies on a twisted helical arrangement. However, the new rejection relies upon different embodiments of Bertsch that do not have the twisted alternative configurations.
The remarks also argue the short electrodes of Bertsch only occupy a fraction of the upstream channel and not the entire axial length of the inlet-side channel segment. However, the channel segments are claimed broadly enough that they may be constructively defined as any region comprising the inlet and outlet respectively. Further, the inlet does not preclude upstream components, so if the rods were constructed from smaller pieces without modifying the operation of the system (which would have been an prima facie obvious variation of the prior art, MPEP 2144.04), even the use of intermediate pieces having the same axial extent as a piece of the inlet side, would have been read on by the claim. It is also noted that nothing precludes the second segment from having portions of the short electrodes, or its own short electrodes. 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).
It is also noted that Bertsch explicitly discloses the desirability of adjusting the relative sizes and angles of the electrodes relative to each other, in order to obtain different field characteristics (see e.g. [0053]).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1, 6-14 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 6-14 is/are rejected.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bertsch et al. (US 20160133452 A1) [hereinafter Bertsch].
Regarding claim 1, Bertsch teaches a mass spectrometry device comprising an ion transport channel (see fig 1), wherein the ion transport channel comprises an ion inlet and an ion outlet (see fig 1 between inlet and e.g. 146), an inner diameter of the ion transport channel decreases continuously from the ion inlet to the ion outlet (see fig 1), the strength of an electric field formed in the ion transport channel increases continuously from the ion inlet to the ion outlet, while an area of an effective electric field decreases continuously from the ion inlet to the ion outlet (natural result of geometries in 160, 136, 124),
wherein the ion transport channel is enclosed by four long electrodes (see 124 in 136), and extension lines of central axes of all the four long electrodes intersect at one point (electrodes are formed on a straight conical shape without a “twist”, which will naturally intersect at the apex of the cone. Compare fig 1, [0060] with “twist” embodiment in fig 6, [0065]),
wherein an extension line of a central axis (see 104) of the ion transport channel intersects with the one point of the extension lines of the central axes of the four long electrodes (natural result of conical geometry, see fig 1),
wherein an inner diameter of the ion inlet is larger than that of the ion outlet (see fig 1), and strength of an electric field at the ion inlet is smaller than that of an electric field at the ion outlet (natural result of electrode geometries), and
wherein the ion transport channel comprises a first segment of channel and a second segment of channel (upstream and downstream segments of channel comprising the tilted electrode sections), a length of the first segment of channel is greater than that of the second segment of channel (see fig 1), the first segment of channel comprises the ion inlet and the second segment of channel comprises the ion outlet (see fig 1); the first segment of channel comprises eight electrodes (see fig 1, [0035,50]), the eight electrodes comprise the four long electrodes (see 124, [0035]) and four short electrodes (see 160, [0050]),
Bertsch may fail to explicitly disclose the four long electrodes each comprising only one central axis; and a length of each short electrode is the same as that of the first segment of channel.
However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the length of the first segment of channel may be constructively defined as the same length as the total length of the short electrode (see annotated image below). Alternately, 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 shape and size of the electrodes, including a configuration where the short electrode is moved or extended and/or the short and/or long electrode are separated into multiple pieces (as was well known in the art), so that the short electrode cover the same region around the inlet, and the long electrode is split into conical and cylindrical region portions, for example to provide more effective control of fields at the inlet and/or simplify manufacturing. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Bertsch may fail to explicitly disclose the extension lines of the four short electrodes intersect with an extension line of a central axis of the first segment of channel at the same point.
However, in different embodiments, Bertsch teaches that the short and long electrodes may be formed on the same cone, so short electrodes are placed between gaps in the long electrodes (see Bertsch, [0050]) (thereby providing a configuration where the extension lines converge at the same conical point). Alternately, in a different embodiment, Bertsch teaches that adjusting the radial offset of the short electrode including configurations where the offset decreases closer to the outlet (see [0053]) to advantageously enhance field penetration at the downstream end (see [0053]). 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 offset, including an offset where the convergence point is substantially the same as that for the long electrodes, in order to optimize for field penetration at the downstream end. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image2.png
669
988
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Bertsch fig. 1 (Annotated))][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (1st segment)][AltContent: textbox (2nd segment)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (1st segment (alternative))][AltContent: textbox (2nd segment (alternative))]
Claim(s) 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bertsch, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Loboda et al. (US 20170263429 A1) [hereinafter Loboda] and Javahery et al. (US 20070164213 A1) [hereinafter Javahery].
Regarding claim 6, Bertsch may fail to explicitly disclose three lenses are provided on the channel, which are a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens; in the eight electrodes, the four short electrodes are fixed to the second lens through the first lens, the four long electrodes are fixed to the third lens through the first lens, and the four long electrodes penetrate through the second lens. However, Loboda teaches an ion guide system that enables the ability to provide differential pressures within the ion guide system using aperture plates along the tapered multipole guide (see Loboda, fig 4, [0034]) to improve desired pressure separation between vacuum chambers in the system (see e.g. [0005]), comprising wherein three aperture plates (see figs 1,4: 28, 33, 32) are provided on the channel, which are a first aperture, a second aperture, and a third aperture (28, 33, 32). 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 Loboda in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable further control over the pressures in the system of the prior art, including using the known effective additional inter-funnel electrode aperture plate in the manner taught by Loboda. Therefore, the combined teaching of Bertsch and Loboda teaches in the eight electrodes, the four short electrodes are fixed to the second aperture plate (via inter-funnel plate, see Loboda, fig 4) through the first aperture plate (see left side of Bertsch, fig 1), the four long electrodes are fixed to the third aperture plate (right side of fig 1) through the first lens (in middle) (note obviousness of fixing and attaching the electrodes to the plates, since some kind of attachment mechanism would have been required for the intended operation of holding the electrodes in place). Furthermore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to create fixtures that attach the aperture plates and electrodes together. The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the four long electrodes penetrate through the second aperture plate, but it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust to form the aperture plate over the electrodes rather than dividing both the short and long electrodes into separate aperture assemblies, when further control of the RF trapping is not required.
The combined teaching of Bertsch and Loboda may fail to explicitly disclose the aperture plates being lenses. However, Javahery teaches a tapered ion guide system (see Javahery, fig 12) may be additionally operated in a trap mode by using aperture lens endplates (see 144, 146, [0105]). 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 Javahery in the system of the combined prior art to enable the additional flexibility to optionally provide trapping functions in addition to ion guiding.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Bertsch, Loboda, and Javahery teaches the second lens (see Loboda, figs 1,4: 33) is located between the first lens and the third lens (see 28, 32).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Bertsch, Loboda, and Javahery teaches each of the eight electrodes comprises a first end and a second end (e.g. left and right side of Bertsch, fig 1), and the first end of each of the four short electrodes is connected to the first lens (left side), and the second end of each of the four short electrode is connected to the second lens (see Loboda, fig 4, attached and mechanically connected to center aperture lens). It is alternately noted that 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 positions of the lens and/or second electrode to align the second end with the second lens, as an engineering skill in the art to obtain a desired size (see e.g. Loboda, [0044]) and/or separate the DC electrodes for instance to simplify assembly. It is noted that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Bertsch, Loboda, and Javahery teaches each of the eight electrodes comprises a first end and a second end (e.g. left and right side of Bertsch, fig 1), the first end of each of the four long electrodes is connected to the first lens, and the second end of each of the four long electrode is connected to the third lens (see Bertsch, fig 1, attached and mechanically connected to inlet and output aperture lens).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Bertsch, Loboda, and Javahery may fail to explicitly disclose included angles between the eight electrodes and the first lens are all acute angles ranging from 5°-15°, the eight electrodes are perpendicular to the second lens, and included angles between the four long electrodes and the third lens are all acute angles of 80°. However, Loboda teaches the inlet and outlet diameters and lengths of the electrodes may be adjusted based on a desired volume space for the ions, and upstream and downstream instruments (see e.g. Loboda, [0003,52,32]). Additionally, in a different embodiment, Bertsch teaches the electrodes may be twisted to form an improved hyperbolic potential (see Bertsch, figs 6a-b, [0035,62]). 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 length and angles of the electrodes, including a configuration comprising the claimed angles in a plane perpendicular to relative lens planes, in order to obtain a desired potential, volume space, and/or interoperability with upstream and downstream instruments. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Bertsch, Loboda, and Javahery may fail to explicitly disclose wherein when an area of an effective electric field region of the first segment of channel is twice that of an effective electrical field region of the second segment of channel, the eight electrodes are transformed into four electrodes. However, it is noted that the selection of relative voltages on the electrodes (see e.g. DC voltages, Bertsch, [0033], dimensions, e.g. Loboda, [0003,52,32], alternately see octupole, [0035]), including configurations whereby an effective electric field region of the first segment of channel is twice that of the second segment of channel at the boundary between the 4 and 8 electrodes, would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art in order to obtain a desired potential, volume space, and/or interoperability with upstream and downstream instruments. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted that 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. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Bertsch, Loboda, and Javahery teaches a second lens is provided on a boundary interface of the transformation (see at interface where the eight electrodes are transformed into four electrodes). The combined teaching of Bertsch, Loboda, and Javahery may fail to explicitly disclose wherein when an area of an effective electric field region of the first segment of channel is twice that of an effective electrical field region of the second segment of channel, the eight electrodes are transformed into four electrodes. However, it is noted that the selection of relative voltages on the electrodes (see e.g. DC voltages, Bertsch, [0033], dimensions, e.g. Loboda, [0003,52,32], alternately see octupole, [0035]), including configurations whereby an effective electric field region of the first segment of channel is twice that of the second segment of channel at the boundary between the 4 and 8 electrodes, would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art in order to obtain a desired potential, volume space, and/or interoperability with upstream and downstream instruments. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted that 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. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Bertsch, Loboda, and Javahery teaches the long electrodes and the short electrodes are evenly distributed around the channel at intervals (see Bertsch, fig 1, quadrupoles, [0032,35,50]), so as to enclose the ion transport channel (see fig 1); ions are capable of entering (e.g. to second lens) from the first segment of channel and then entering the second segment of channel without changing voltages applied to the electrodes (natural result of ion ejection).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Bertsch, Loboda, and Javahery teaches wherein the voltage and frequency applied to the long electrodes are the same as those applied to the short electrodes (when using octupole, see Bertsch, [0035] and redefining the additional poles as the short electrodes in the claim), only radio over fiber (ROF) and radio frequency (RF) voltages are applied to the ion transport channel, and no filtering direct current electric field is applied (DC is focusing field, not a filtering field; nevertheless note obviousness of removing DC potentials since the DC source is optional in Bertsch (“may be” used, [0033,43]) if end lenses are not used ([0043])), thus enabling charged ions to be aggregated (natural result of field).
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 2881