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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/27/2026, submitting that the amended independent claim 11 and claims 12-16 depending therefrom are included in Group I. In view of the amendment, the arguments are found to be persuasive. Consequently, the restriction requirement between Groups I and II is withdrawn, and Group I, claims 1-16, is being examined.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: magnetic field generator in claim 2 and claim 11.
Magnetic field generator will be interpreted as described in [0060] of the specification as including one or more magnetic-field generating sources such as electromagnets and permanent magnetic field generators.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high-density” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-density” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, the claim is undefined because it is not clear what constitutes a high-density electron region.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the center axis from the entrance aperture to the ion exit aperture". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consequently, it is unclear if this center axis is the same or different to the “a center axis through an ionization volume within the ionization chamber” of claim 1 upon which claim 10 depends.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarmby (US 20210175063 A1), in view of Masaru, et. al. (US 20230245878 A1), hereinafter Masaru.
Regarding claim 1, Quarmby teaches an ion source (ion source 200, [0052], Figs. 2A, 2B), comprising:
an electron source configured to produce electrons (electron source 202, [0052]);
an ionization chamber (ionization chamber 206, [0052]) having an entrance aperture through an electron lens (electron lens 204, [0052], Figs. 2A, 2B), an ion exit aperture through an end wall (ion exit aperture 236 through wall 234, [0054], Fig. 2A), and a center axis through an ionization volume within the ionization chamber (center axis 250, [0059], Fig. 2A), the ionization chamber configured to produce ions ([0005]).
Although Quarmby teaches a ferromagnetic element disposed proximate to the ionization volume (permanent magnet placed at one end of the ion source, [0063]), Quarmby does not explicitly teach such that the electrons are confined to the center axis within a paramagnetic section of the ionization volume and the electrons diverge away from the center axis within a ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume.
Masaru teaches a ferromagnetic element disposed proximate to the ionization volume (focusing magnets 13, Fig. 1A, [0005]) such that the electrons are confined to the center axis within a paramagnetic section of the ionization volume and the electrons diverge away from the center axis within a ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume (See Fig. 1A: In ionization chamber 10, the section between magnets 13 is interpreted to be the ferromagnetic section and the areas of 10 outside of the section between magnets 13 are interpreted to be the paramagnetic sections. The center axis is interpreted to be the y-axis running vertically between magnets 13. As seen in Fig. 1A, by virtue of the magnetism in the ferromagnetic section and the helical trajectory of the electrons, the electrons that travel slightly outside of the ferromagnetic section and into the paramagnetic section are redirected back toward the center axis, [0005]. Meanwhile, in the ferromagnetic section the electrons diverge away from the central axis due to thermal broadening effects , [0005] (resultant helical trajectory as seen in Fig. 1A)).
Masaru modifies Quarmby by suggesting the ferromagnetic element is disposed proximate the ionization volume such that the electrons are confined to the center axis within a paramagnetic section of the ionization volume and the electrons diverge away from the center axis within a ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume.
Since Masaru and Quarmby are both directed to mass spectrometer ion sources with ionization chambers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Masaru because the orientation of the focusing magnets allows broadening of the thermal electron flow to be suppressed, allowing the electrons to be concentrated in one section to allow for more effective and efficient ionization to take place, (Masaru, [0005], [0044])
Regarding claim 11, Quarmby teaches a method of operating an ion source ([0001] ion source 200, [0052], Figs. 2A, 2B), comprising:
generating a magnetic field in an ionization volume of an ionization chamber of the ion source using a magnetic field generator ([0063] magnetic field produced by a magnet in the ionization volume), the ionization chamber (ionization chamber 206, [0052]) having an entrance aperture through an electron lens (electron lens 204, [0052], Figs. 2A, 2B) and an ion exit aperture through an end wall (ion exit aperture 236 through wall 234, [0054], Fig. 2A);
Quarmby does not explicitly teach passing electrons produced by an electron source through a paramagnetic section of the ionization volume wherein the magnetic field confines the electrons to a center axis of the ionization volume; and passing the electrons through a ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume generated by a ferromagnetic element disposed within or adjacent to the ionization chamber, the electrons diverging away from the center axis within the ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume.
Masaru teaches passing electrons produced by an electron source through a paramagnetic section of the ionization volume wherein the magnetic field confines the electrons to a center axis of the ionization volume; and passing the electrons through a ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume generated by a ferromagnetic element disposed within or adjacent to the ionization chamber, the electrons diverging away from the center axis within the ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume (See Fig. 1A: In ionization chamber 10, the section between magnets 13 is interpreted to be the ferromagnetic section and the areas of 10 outside of the section between magnets 13 are interpreted to be the paramagnetic sections. The center axis is interpreted to be the y-axis running vertically between magnets 13. As seen in Fig. 1A, by virtue of the magnetism in the ferromagnetic section and the helical trajectory of the electrons, the electrons that travel slightly outside of the ferromagnetic section and into the paramagnetic section are redirected back toward the center axis, [0005]. Meanwhile, in the ferromagnetic section the electrons diverge away from the central axis due to thermal broadening effects , [0005] (resultant helical trajectory as seen in Fig. 1A)).
Masaru modifies Quarmby by suggesting passing electrons produced by an electron source through a paramagnetic section of the ionization volume wherein the magnetic field confines the electrons to a center axis of the ionization volume and passing the electrons through a ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume generated by a ferromagnetic element disposed within or adjacent to the ionization chamber, the electrons diverging away from the center axis within the ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume
Since Masaru and Quarmby are both directed to mass spectrometer ion sources with ionization chambers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Masaru because the orientation of the focusing magnets allows broadening of the thermal electron flow to be suppressed, allowing the electrons to be concentrated in one section to allow for more effective and efficient ionization to take place, (Masaru, [0005], [0044])
Regarding claim 3, Quarmby teaches wherein the paramagnetic section includes a high-density electron region where the electrons interact with neutral molecules introduced through a gas inlet to form analyte ions or reagent ions (gas inlet 228 introduces neutral gas molecules that interact with electrons that have entered the ionization chamber 206 through electron lens 204, [0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Quarmby teaches further comprising introducing neutral molecules into the ionization chamber through a gas inlet, and wherein passing the electrons through the paramagnetic section includes interacting the electrons with the neutral molecules in a high-density electron region in the paramagnetic section to form analyte ions or reagent ions (gas inlet 228 introduces neutral gas molecules that interact with electrons that have entered the ionization chamber 206 through electron lens 204, [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Quarmby does not explicitly teach further comprising a second paramagnetic section disposed after the ferromagnetic section along the center axis.
Masaru teaches further comprising a second paramagnetic section disposed after the ferromagnetic section along the center axis (In claim 1, the areas of 10 outside of the section between magnets 13 are interpreted to be the paramagnetic sections (See. Fig. 1A). If the area on the left side of the ferromagnetic section is the first paramagnetic section, then the second paramagnetic section is the area on the right side of the interpreted ferromagnetic section. The ferromagnetic section is along the center axis).
Masaru modifies Quarmby by suggesting a second paramagnetic section disposed after the ferromagnetic section along the center axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Masaru because the orientation of the focusing magnets and the paramagnetic and ferromagnetic sections allows broadening of the thermal electron flow to be suppressed, allowing the electrons to be concentrated in one section to allow for more effective and efficient ionization to take place, (Masaru, [0005], [0044])
Regarding claim 8, Quarmby does not explicitly teach wherein the ferromagnetic element is disposed externally to the ionization chamber.
Masaru teaches wherein the ferromagnetic element is disposed externally to the ionization chamber (Fig. 1 shows 13 disposed outside of 10, [0004]).
Masaru modifies Quarmby by suggesting the ferromagnetic element is disposed externally to the ionization chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Masaru because the orienting the magnets outside of the ionization chamber allows them to direct electrons generated by the filament into the electron port of the ionization chamber to ionize the sample component, (Masaru, [0004]-[0005], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Quarmby does not explicitly teach wherein the ferromagnetic element is disposed external to the ionization chamber.
Masaru teaches wherein the ferromagnetic element is disposed externally to the ionization chamber (Fig. 1 shows 13 disposed outside of 10, [0004]).
Masaru modifies Quarmby by suggesting the ferromagnetic element is disposed externally to the ionization chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Masaru because the orienting the magnets outside of the ionization chamber allows them to direct electrons generated by the filament into the electron port of the ionization chamber to ionize the sample component, (Masaru, [0004]-[0005], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Quarmby does not explicitly teach further comprising passing ions through the ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume to spatially separate the ions and the electrons.
Masaru teaches further comprising passing ions through the ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume to spatially separate the ions and the electrons (In Fig. 1 the ions are formed and pass through the area between 13 along 101 to interact with the electrons which travel between 11 and 12 in the y-direction. Consequently, the ions and electrons are spatially separated in different directions).
Masaru modifies Quarmby by suggesting passing ions through the ferromagnetic section of the ionization volume to spatially separate the ions and the electrons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Masaru because doing so allows the electrons to create the ions and the ions to continue on to perform mass spectrometry (Masaru, [0028], Fig. 1).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarmby (US 20210175063 A1) and Masaru (US 20230245878 A1), in view of Russ, et. al. (US 20140375209 A1), hereinafter Russ.
Regarding claim 7, Quarmby in view of Masaru does not explicitly teach wherein the ferromagnetic element is attached to or embedded within a portion of an outer wall of the ionization chamber.
Russ teaches the ferromagnetic element is attached to or embedded within a portion of an outer wall of the ionization chamber (magnet assembly 112 is attached to outer wall of body 104, which defines the internal ionization chamber/volume 208 via ring-shaped yokes 134, [0021], [0024], see Figs. 1 and 2).
Russ modifies the combination by suggesting the ferromagnet is attached to an outer wall of the ionization chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Russ because attaching the magnets so that they are connected to an outer wall of the ionization chamber allows the magnets to be configured for focusing of the electron beam in the desired axial direction, (Russ, [0024]).
Regarding claim 15, Quarmby in view of Masaru does not explicitly teach wherein the ferromagnetic element is attached to the ionization chamber or the ferromagnetic element is embedded within a portion of an outer wall of the ionization chamber.
Russ teaches the ferromagnetic element is attached to or embedded within a portion of an outer wall of the ionization chamber (magnet assembly 112 is attached to outer wall of body 104, which defines the internal ionization chamber/volume 208 via ring-shaped yokes 134, [0021], [0024], see Figs. 1 and 2).
Russ modifies the combination by suggesting the ferromagnet is attached to an outer wall of the ionization chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Russ because attaching the magnets so that they are connected to an outer wall of the ionization chamber allows the magnets to be configured for focusing of the electron beam in the desired axial direction, (Russ, [0024]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarmby (US 20210175063 A1) and Masaru (US 20230245878 A1), in view of McCauley, et. al. (US 10490396 B1), hereinafter McCauley.
Regarding claim 2, Quarmby does not teach further comprising a magnetic field generator proximate to an end of the ion source closest to the electron source.
McCauley teaches a magnetic field generator proximate to an end of the ion source closest to the electron source (magnetic assembly 300 including magnets 302 and 304 is proximate end of ion source 200 closest to electron source 202, Fig. 3, Fig. 2A, Col. 6 lines 5-11, Col. 2 lines 36-40).
McCauley modifies Quarmby by suggesting a magnetic field generator in the form of a magnetic assembly of two magnets, proximate to an end of the ion source closest to the electron source.
Since Quarmby and McCauley are both directed to ion sources, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of McCauley because the magnetic assembly of McCauley generates an axial magnetic field in the ionization chamber that can guide or contain electrons axially within the source (Col. 6 lines 5-11).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarmby (US 20210175063 A1) and Masaru (US 20230245878 A1), in view of Holden, et. al. (WO 2022109265 A1), hereinafter Holden.
Regarding claim 9, Quarmby in view of Masaru does not teach wherein the ferromagnetic element is configured to be moved to adjust the location of the ferromagnetic section within the ionization volume.
Holden teaches wherein the ferromagnetic element is configured to be moved to adjust the location of the ferromagnetic section within the ionization volume ([0033] teaches that a magnet positioning system can position a magnet assembly, including one or more magnets, to entrain electrons along an axis, and the position of the magnet assembly can be adjusted to precisely control the positioning of the one or more magnets, allowing optimization of the magnetic field alignment).
Holden modifies the combination by suggesting the ferromagnetic element is configured to be moved via a magnet positioning system that can adjust the magnetic field alignment and thus the location of the ferromagnetic section within the ionization volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Holden because such a configuration allows for precise control of the positioning of the one or more magnets, allowing for optimization of magnetic field alignment, (Holden, [0033]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 14 are 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.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 20160172146 A1) Wang is very similar to Russ. See paragraph [0045] of Wang, which is essentially same as [0033] of Russ. Also by Agilent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights