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 § 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.
Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 recites the limitation “The atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 9.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 9 is canceled. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 12 will be interpreted as dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,919,562 B1 [hereinafter Whitehouse] in view of US6462337B1 [hereinafter Li].
Regarding Claim 1:
Whitehouse teaches an atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system (abstract): comprising:
an atmospheric pressure ionization component operated at an atmospheric pressure ((Fig. 1 (1) and Col. 11; Lls. 63-65: ions are produced in atmospheric pressure ion (API) source 1)
an electron impact ionization mass spectrometer component comprising an electron ionization source (Fig. 1(5) and Col. 2; Lls. 51-64: “an electron source 5” emits electrons and can be “a commercially obtained electron gun…electrons emitted from the electron source…are injected into the RF multipole collision cell 3”); and
an atmospheric pressure interface component operated below about 10 Torr (Col. 12; Lls. 65-66 and Col. 12; Lls.34-35: teaches transporting ions from an API source 1 through “various vacuum stage 6 of decreasing pressure” and into a downstream RF multipole collision cell; “the pressure of collision gas 4 is variable from 0.01mTorr to 200mTorr”, showing that Whitehouse’s API-to-vacuum transfer includes vacuum stages of decreasing pressure and a downstream region at 0.01-200mTorr, i.e., below 10 Torr),
the atmospheric pressure interface component including a source block to focus a plurality of molecules and ions from the atmospheric pressure ionization component at the atmospheric pressure into the electron ionization source (Col. 11; Lls. 54-66, Col. 12; Lls. 26-27&39-40: teaches “ions are produced in atmospheric pressure ion (API) source 1” and are “transported through… various vacuum stages 6 of decreasing pressure” and an “RF multipole ion guide 7” and are delivered to a downstream electron interaction/ionization region (the electron ionization source of Whitehouse’s electron-impact system); the downstream collision cell is equipped with entrance/exit lenses, and that “the voltage of lens 11 is adjusted to transfer ions…into the collision cell 3,” and that the ions “compress to a volume along centerline 17,” evidencing focusing/confinement into the downstream region). Accordingly, Whitehouse’s staged-vacuum interface and ion-optical elements provides structure that introduces/focuses ions (and transmitted species from the atmospheric-pressure region) from the atmospheric-pressure ionization component into the downstream electron interaction source.
the electron ionization source operating at a pressure below about 10⁻³ Torr (Col. 2; Lls. 34-35&51-64: teaches an “electron source 5” that provides electrons which are injected into the collision cell region for interaction with the delivered ions, and the pressure of collision gas 4 can be as low as 0.01mTorr, which is below 10⁻³ Torr),
However, Whitehouse does not specifically note that the source block comprising an electrostatic plate of variable extraction voltages and one or more electronic lens, wherein the electrostatic plate focuses the molecules and ions orthogonally into the one or more electronic lens.
Li teaches the source block comprising an electrostatic plate of variable extraction voltages and one or more electronic lens, wherein the electrostatic plate focuses the molecules and ions orthogonally into the one or more electronic lens (Figs. 5-7; 6:22-67 and 7:1-23: Li teaches auxiliary electrode 30a (“an electrostatic plate”) to which focusing voltage are applied. Under the applied focusing potential, auxiliary electrode 30a decreases divergence of ion beam 28 and thereby focuses/directs the ions toward interface member 10 (“electronic lens”) which disclosed as a circular planar metal plate electrode with central orifice 14, i.e., an apertured electrostatic lens electrode through which the ions pass).
Whitehouse teaches transferring ions from an API source into a downstream EI region using interface and ion-optical elements. Li teaches applying variable focusing voltages to an auxiliary electrostatic plate electrode to reduce ion-beam divergence and direct ions toward and through a downstream apertured electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Whitehouse to include Li’s variable -potential focusing electrode because both references are directed to controlling and guiding ions in mass spectrometry source/interface environments, and Li’s applied focusing-potential technique would have predictable improve Whitehouse’s ion introduction and transmission into the downstream electron interaction region by providing additional electrostatic control over beam divergence and focusing.
Regarding Claim 2:
Whitehouse in view of Li teaches the atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 1. Whitehouse further discloses wherein the atmospheric pressure ionization component comprises an electrospray ionization (ESI) component (Col. 8; Lls. 21-27: “The embodiments of the invention can be interfaced to any kind of ion source, including atmospheric pressure ion (API) sources…include but are not limited to Electrospray (ESI)…”).
Regarding Claim 3:
Whitehouse in view of Li teaches the atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 1. Whitehouse further discloses wherein the atmospheric pressure ionization component comprises an atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) component and (Col. 8; Lls. 21-27: “The embodiments of the invention can be interfaced to any kind of ion source, including atmospheric pressure ion (API) sources…include but are not limited to Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Ionization (APCI) sources”).
Regarding Claim 10:
Whitehouse in view of Li teaches the atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 1. Whitehouse further discloses a pump configured to generate differentially pumped regions (Col.12; Lls. 64-66 and Col. 14; Lls 45-49: teaches the system includes “various vacuum stages…of decreasing pressure” and describes ions being swept through a capillary bore into a “first-stage vacuum,” through a “skimmer orifice” into a “second vacuum stage,” and through a vacuum aperture into a “third vacuum stage,” while maintaining these multiple vacuum stages/regions at decreasing. Thus, by providing the staged vacuum structure (capillary bore, skimmer orifice, and vacuum aperture) and explicitly teaching the multi-stage vacuums of decreasing pressure, Whitehouse discloses the claimed pump that generates and maintains those differentially pumped regions).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse in view of Li, further in view of US 20210343518 A1 [hereinafter Pophristic].
Regarding Claim 4:
Whitehouse in view of Li discloses the atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 1. However, the combined references does not specifically note the atmospheric pressure ionization component comprises an atmospheric pressure analysis probe (ASAP) component. Pophristic teaches the atmospheric pressure ionization component comprises an atmospheric pressure analysis probe (ASAP) component (para. [0019]: “Multi-ionization sources using API methods, including ESI, nanoESI, APCI, and atmospheric-pressure solids analysis probe (ASAP) are commonly available from mass spectrometer vendors employing API mass spectrometers.” Pophristic teaches an ionization system. It would be obvious for an ordinary person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure Whitehouse’s API component as ASAP component as taught by Pophristic, since Pophristic identities ASAP as a commercially available API method, and Whitehouse does not limit it is API component to any particular API technique. A skilled person in the art would have been motivated to select ASAP ass a known alternative API option to expand the system’s usability to samples suited for ASAP.
Claims 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse in view of Li, further in view of EP 3817029A1 [hereinafter Klee].
Regarding Claim 5:
Whitehouse in view of Li discloses the atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 1. However, the combined references does not specifically note a processor operatively coupled to at least the electron impact ionization mass spectrometer component, the processor configured to execute a mass spectrometer analysis process. Klee teaches a processor operatively coupled to at least the electron impact ionization mass spectrometer component, the processor configured to execute a mass spectrometer analysis process (Fig. 4 and paras. [0103-0104 and 0112]: the apparatus includes an electron ion source 305.3 and a control unit 308, which is configured to control the apparatus to perform a mass spectrum analysis with the mass analyzer 307). Klee teaches mass analyzing sample by processing mass spectra with a mass analyzer. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing, to implement a processor/control unit as taught by Klee, to the mass spectrometer system of Whitehouse, because Whitehouse’s system necessarily operates the EI source and mass analyzer to obtain spectra, and Klee shows that implementing such operation and analysis using a control unit is a routine and predictable way to control system operation and execute the mass spectrometer analysis process.
Regarding Claim 6:
The modified system teaches the atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 5. Klee further discloses wherein the electron ionization source comprises a 70 eV electron ionization source (para. [0043]: “One of the first ion sources being a 70 eV electron ionisation ion source”).
Regarding Claim 7:
The modified system the atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 6. Klee further discloses wherein the processor is in communication with a 70 eV mass spectral library database (para. [0043]: teaches that using “ a 70 eV electron ionisation ion source” has the advantage that “loads of generic libraries of mass spectra of different compounds are available for identifying “ the sample constituents, expressly tying the advantage of selecting a 70 ev EI source to the availability of those mass spectra library database for identification, and indicating that the referenced libraries contain mass spectra suitable for matching/identification with 70eV EI spectra, i.e., a 70 ev mass spectral library database).
Regarding Claim 11:
Whitehouse in view of Li teaches the atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 1. However, the combined references does not specifically note wherein the electron ionization source is selected from a range between 40 eV and 70 eV. Klee discloses wherein the electron ionization source is selected from a range between 40 eV and 70 eV (para. [0043]: teaches that using “a 70 eV electron ionisation ion source”, where 70ev is “selected from a range between 40 eV and 70 eV.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective time of filing, to select 70 eV, which is within the required EI source range, and is a routine adjustment to EI energy, since it would be an obvious and predictable optimization or variation yielding no more than expected results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse in view of Li, further in view of “Thermoscientific (2018): Comparative analysis of mass spectral matching for confident compound identification using the Advanced Electron Ionization source for GC-MS” [hereinafter Thermoscientific].
Regarding Claim 8:
Whitehouse in view of Li discloses the atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 1. However, the combined references does not specifically note wherein the electron ionization source comprises a 40 eV electron ionization source. Thermoscientific teaches the electron ionization source comprises a 40 eV electron ionization source (Page 2: teaches while EI is traditionally operated at 70 eV for sensitivity and because commercial libraries are commonly acquired at that energy, the NIST contribution criteria require EI spectra to be acquired at an electron ionization energy “not less than 20 eV”, indicating that EI electron energy is an adjustable operating parameter and that energies other than 70 eV remain viable for generating useful spectra (including for library-related workflows when adequate matching is achieved) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective time of filing, to select 40 eV, which is above the stated minimum and represents a routine adjustment to EI energy, since it would be an obvious and predictable optimization or variation yielding no more than expected results.
Claim 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse in view of Li, further in view of US20020190203A1 [hereinafter Valaskovic].
Regarding Claim 12:
Whitehouse in view of Li teaches the atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system of claim 1. Li further teaches a capillary coupled to the atmospheric pressure ionization component for supplying the molecules and ions onto the electrostatic plate, (Figs 1 and 5; 6: 22-34: the source includes a capillary 20 to supply ions to the auxiliary circular planar electrode 30a). However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the capillary is movable relative to the electrostatic plate. Valaskovic teaches wherein the capillary is movable relative to the electrostatic plate (para. [0097]: “A tapered, metal coated fused-silica capillary nozzle …was positioned perpendicular to a 1 cm diameter metal ‘ground plate’ connected to ground potential. The distance between the plate and capillary nozzle was adjustable between 1 to 20 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate the adjustable capillary-to-plate arrangement of Valaskovic into the modified system of Whitehouse and Li, to optimize the ion introduction conditions, including ion focusing alignment, and transmission efficiency into the downstream region. Doing so would have been a predictable use of a known adjustable source-interface geometry to improve the performance of a similar ion-transfer system.
Regarding Claim 13:
Whitehouse teaches: an atmospheric pressure electron impact ionization mass spectrometer system comprising: an atmospheric pressure ionization component operated at an atmospheric pressure; an electron impact ionization mass spectrometer component comprising an electron ionization source; and an atmospheric pressure interface component operated below about 10 Torr, the atmospheric pressure interface component including a source block to focus a plurality of molecules and ions from the atmospheric pressure ionization component at the atmospheric pressure into the electron ionization source, the electron ionization source operating at a pressure below about 10-3 Torr (see claim 1 rejection).
However, Whitehouse does not specifically note the source block comprising an electrostatic plate; and a capillary coupled to the atmospheric pressure ionization component for supplying the molecules and ions onto the electrostatic plate, wherein the capillary is movable relative to the electrostatic plate.
Li teaches the source block comprising an electrostatic plate (see claim 1 rejection); and
Valaskovic teaches a capillary coupled to the atmospheric pressure ionization component for supplying the molecules and ions onto the electrostatic plate, wherein the capillary is movable relative to the electrostatic plate (see claim 12 rejection).
Whitehouse teacher focusing ions into a downstream electron ionizations source; Li teaches an electrostatic plate in the source block, and Valaskovic teaches a capillary movable relative to a plate. It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to combine these teachings so that the capillary-to-plate geometry in Whitehouse could be adjusted to optimize ion focusing and transfer into the downstream source, which is a predictable use of known ion-source tuning techniques.
Response to Arguments
The drawings were received on 01/15/2026. These drawings are accepted
The 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of “source block” is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn in light of applicant’s withdrawal of claim 9.
All other arguments have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection are based on different facts and claims than those applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THS 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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881