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 § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.— The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 5 recites “the control device sets a cell voltage …as a voltage to be applied to an ion guide equipped in the cell…the offset includes the cell voltage.” The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli , 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar , 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. In the instance case, the specification consistently describes the “cell voltage” as being applied to electrodes subsequent to the ion guide, rather than to the ion guide itself, a s claimed in claim 5. For example, the specification states that a cell voltage “is the voltage to be applied to each electrode subsequent to ion guide 23 in the traveling direction of the ions (Spec. page 14, Lls . 22-24).” The specification further explains that because cell voltage is applied to electrodes subsequent to the ion guide 23 , it is “also applied to each electrode of first electrode 3 1 and second electrode 32,” and the control device “needs to cause each electrode of first electrode 31 and second electrode 32 to offset” by the cell voltage amount (Spec. page 15, Lls . 1- 6 ).” As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of a “the control device sets a cell voltage …as a voltage to be applied to an ion guide equipped in the cell… the offset includes the cell voltage.” Since one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention, the claim is rejected for failing the written description requirement. For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification and figures. Claim s 1 -7 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. Claim 1 recites “the particles… bought into contact…” The phrase “bought into contact” is unclear in meaning and renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification and figures. Claim s 1 -8 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. Claim s 1 and 8 both recite a sampling cone “for taking in particles,” and a cell in which the “particles taken in …[are]…into contact with a predetermined gas,” but later recites a mass separation device that “separates ions on a mass-to-charge ratio basis” and a detector that detects “each of the ions.” The specification states that the sampling cone takes in “ions…and particles such as neutral particles” into the vacuum chamber (Spec. page 6, Lls . 3-6) . Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 do not clearly specify whether the “particles” being taken into and processed in the cell are limited to ions, whether neutral particles are included, and/or whether the “ions” later separated/detected are a subset of the “particles” taken in. The scope of claim 1 is therefore unclear . For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification and figures. Claims 2 and 3 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. Claims 2 and 3 both recite acquiring a scan result by detecting the first ion “by changing the electrode voltage,” and then determining the offset from a peak voltage extracted from that scan result. However, the specification describes the scan procedure as obtaining a detection result “while changing the axis-shifting voltage with the reference voltage being centered,” thereby obtaining a scan result of the axis-shifting voltage (Spec. page 17, Lls . 18-20) . Further, the axis-shifting voltage is described as a voltage “to be applied to each electrode of first electrode 31 and second electrode 32” in the axis-shifting optical system (Spec. page 11, Lls . 26-28) . Accordingly, it is unclear from claims 2-3 whether the recited “electrode voltage” that is changed during scanning corresponds to ( i ) the axis-shifting voltage applied to both electrodes together; (ii) the voltage applied to only one of the first and second electrodes; or (iii) some other voltage parameter. Without further explanation of how the electrode voltage is determined , one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, and the claims are indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification and figures. Claim 3 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 3 recites “mass-to-change ratio” which is not a recognized parameter in the art and is inconsistent with the remainder of the claim language reciting “mass-to-charge ratio.” For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification and figures. 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, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0266984 A1 [hereinafter Hinaro ] in view of “ Thermo Fisher iCAP RQ Auto-tuning concept ” [hereinafter Thermo 1 ], and further in view of US10804088B1 [hereinafter Thermo 2 ] Regarding Claim 1 : Hinaro teaches a mass spectrometer (Abstract , also see annotated Fig. 1 below ) comprising: an ion source (Fig. 1(20)) that ionizes a sample ([0026]); a sampling cone (Fig. 1 (41)) having an intake port (Fig. 1 (42)) formed on a first axis (Fig. 3(160)- Fig. 3 (see below) is an enlarged version of the ion lens configuration in Fig. 1) for taking in particles in an ionization chamber (Fig. 1 (51)) in which the ion source is arranged (paras. [0026-0027]), a cell (Fig. 1 (80)) that is provided on the first axis, the particles taken in from the sampling cone being bought into contact with a predetermined gas in the cell ([0029]: “into the cell 80, a collision and/ or reaction gas is introduced from an inlet 82. The molecules of introduced gas collide with various ions contained in the ion beam 200 or react with charge transfer”); a mass separation device (Fig. 1(91)) that is provided on a second axis (Fig. 3 (170)) parallel to the first axis and separates ions on a mass-to-charge ratio basis ([0029]: “Ions contained in the ion beam 200 which have been guided into the mass filter 91 are separated on the basis of a ratio of mass and charges (m/z value) in the mass filter 91”) ; a detector (Fig. 1(92) ) that is provided on the second axis and detects each of the ions separated by the mass separation device (para. [0030]: ions are “guided into the mass filter 91 are separated…and then guided into the detectors 92” which “detects the introduced ions”) ; a first electrode (Fig. 1(110)) having a particle passage port (Fig. 3 (14 0 )-aperture) provided on the first axis between the cell and the mass separation device; a second electrode (Fig. 1 (130)) having a particle passage port (Fig. 3 (150)-aperture) provided on the second axis between the first electrode and the mass separation device ; sets an electrode voltage to be applied to each of the first electrode and the second electrode ( paras. [0031 and 0034] : “elec trode 110 and the plate-like electrode 130 are applied with a DC voltage of -30 V ” ). However, Hirano does not specifically note a control device which controls the mass spectrometer into a first mode or a second mode, and set the voltages of the electrodes in the second mode. Thermo 1 describes an automated tuning workflow for its iCAP RQ ICP-MS that operates the instrument in different measurement modes and stores mode-specific tuned values. Specifically, Thermo 1 teaches : a control device (Instrument Control software) , wherein the control device controls the mass spectrometer into a first mode in which a detection result is obtained while the predetermined gas is not filled in the cell (pp. 3 and 4: tuning the MS via the Instrument Control software, “The Instrument is set to STDS Mode… Autotune is run … the values are stored”) , or a second mode in which a detection result is obtained while the predetermined gas is filled in the cell (p.4: “the instrument mode is changed to KEDS … Autotune is run … the values are stored for KEDS mode”). Although not specified in Thermo 1 , it is well known in the art that STD and KED are abbreviations used in the ICP-MS art to refer to a gasless “standard” condition and a gas-filled collision-cell condition, respectively. For example, Thermo’s iCAP TQ specification sheet describes operation in “standard mode (no cell gas)” and, alternatively, in a “collision cell with Helium and kinetic energy discrimination.” (See p . 8) , set the voltages of the electrodes in the second mode ( pp. 4 and 9: parameters including the “Angular Deflection Lens voltage ” (“electrode voltage”) are turned and loaded to KED/KEDS mode (second mode)), the electrode voltage in the second mode being obtained by adding an offset to an initial voltage set as the electrode voltage in the first mode (pp. 4, 9 and 12: teaches in a first mode (STD) the instrument runs an Autotune and determines optimum voltage values for ion-optical elements including the Angular Deflection Lens (i.e., an initial les/electrode voltage for that mode), when transitioning from STD to a second (gas) mode (KED), an additional -100 V is applied to the Angular Deflection Lens voltage “before being transferred into… KED mode Tune settings,” meaning the KED-mode voltage is obtained by taking the STD-mode (initial) value and adding an offset (-100V)). It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Thermo 1 ’s controller-driven mode operation and voltage-setting practice to Hirano ’s post-cell electrode pair during the gas-filled mode, since Hirano ’s electrodes are ion-optical elements in the same downstream region whose voltages are set to control transmission into the analyzer, and adjusting those post-cell electrode voltages in the gas-filled mode can improve ion transmission and sensitivity into the mass analyzer when collision gas changes ion energy and focusing conditions. Thermo 1 does not specifically note the offset is determined according to the known mass-to-charge of the target ion. Thermo 2 teaches that the offset is determined according to the known m/z of the target (analyte) ion (Col. 2; Lls . 13-17 and Claim 8: teaches “the analyte ions comprise a known value of m/z and the values of the … offset electrical potentials are determined from a prior mass spectrometer calibration…against m/z,” and setting those offset electrical potentials “in accordance with a prior … calibration of optimal offset electrical potential settings against m/z” ) . Therefore, it would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to choose Thermo 1 ’s offset using Thermo 2 ’s m/z-based calibration, a Thermo-assigned control technique, because selecting an offset as a function of m/z can improve consistency and reduce manual retuning by applying an appropriate correction for the particular target ion being measure d . Regarding Claim 4 : The combined references of Hi ran o , Thermo 1 , and Thermo 2 teach the mass spectrometer of claim 1. Thermo 1 further teaches wherein the offset includes a predetermined energy-barrier voltage regardless of a mass-to-charge ratio (pp. 4 and 9: adding a fixed, predetermined voltage offset (−100 V) to the lens potentials after optimization, which is independent of m/z ). Regarding Claim 6 : The combined references of Hi rano , Thermo 1 , and Thermo 2 teach the mass spectrometer of claim 1. Thermo 2 further teaches wherein the control device acquires offset information indicating a relationship between a mass-to- charge ratio and the offset when an ion having the mass-to-charge ratio is set as the target ion (Col. 3, Lls . 13-17: when analyte ions have a known m/z, sets offset potentials in accordance with a prior mass spectrometer calibration of optimal offset electrical potential settings against m/z), and when an input of a mass-to-charge ratio of the target ion is accepted, the control device determines the offset corresponding to the input mass-to-charge ratio based on the offset information (Col. 15, Lls . 3-20: generate a look-up table or regression curve of best settings vs. m/z and use it to set/vary the settings in coordination with each m/z). Regarding Claim 8 : Hirano teaches a mass spectrometer (Abstract) comprising: an ion source (Fig. 1(20)) that ionizes a sample ([0026]); a sampling cone (Fig. 1 (41)) having an intake port (Fig. 1 (42)) formed on a first axis (Fig. 3(160) ) for taking in particles in an ionization chamber (Fig. 1 (51)) in which the ion source is arranged ([0026-0027]); a cell (Fig. 1 (80)) that is provided on the first axis (Fig. 3(160)- Fig. 3 is an enlarged version of the ion lens configuration in Fig. 1), the particles taken in from the sampling cone being bought into contact with a predetermined gas in the cell ([0029]: “into the cell 80, a collision and/ or reaction gas is introduced from an inlet 82. The molecules of introduced gas collide with various ions contained in the ion beam 200 or react with charge transfer”); a mass separation device (Fig. 1(91)) that is provided on a second axis (Fig. 3 (170)) parallel to the first axis and separates ions on a mass-to-charge ratio basis ([0029]: “Ions contained in the ion beam 200 which have been guided into the mass filter 91 are separated on the basis of a ratio of mass and charges (m/z value) in the mass filter 91”) ; a detector (Fig. 1(92) that is provided on the second axis and detects each of the ions separated by the mass separation device (Fig. 3 and para. [0030]: ions are “guided into the mass filter 91 are separated…and then guided into the detectors 92” which “detects the introduced ions”) ; a first electrode (Fig. 1(110)) having a particle passage port (Fig. 3 (1 40 )-aperture) provided on the first axis between the cell and the mass separation device ; and a second electrode (Fig. 1 (130)) having a particle passage port (Fig. 3 (150)-aperture) provided on the second axis between the first electrode and the mass separation device , an electrode voltage to be applied to each of the first electrode and the second electrode ( paras. [0031 and 0034] : “elec trode 110 and the plate-like electrode 130 are applied with a DC voltage of -30 V ” ). However, Hirano does not specifically note a setting method for an analysis condition for a mass spectrometer , and setting the electrode voltage when the second mode is set . Thermo 1 teaches a setting method for an analysis condition for a mass spectrometer ( describes an automated tuning workflow for its iCAP RQ ICP-MS that operates the instrument in different measurement modes and stores mode-specific tuned values ) . Specifically, Thermo 1 teaches the setting method comprises: setting a first mode in which a detection result is obtained while the predetermined gas is not filled in the cell (pp. 3 and 4: tuning the MS via the Instrument Control software, “The Instrument is set to STDS Mode… Autotune is run … the values are stored”) ; setting a second mode in which a detection result is obtained while the predetermined gas is filled in the cell (p.4: “the instrument mode is changed to KEDS … Autotune is run … the values are stored for KEDS mode”). Although not specified in Thermo 1 , it is well known in the art that STD and KED are abbreviations used in the ICP-MS art to refer to a gasless “standard” condition and a gas-filled collision-cell condition, respectively. For example, Thermo’s iCAP TQ specification sheet describes operation in “standard mode (no cell gas)” and, alternatively, in a “collision cell with Helium and kinetic energy discrimination.” (See p . 8) ; and setting, when the second mode is set, an electrode voltage to be applied in the second mode ( pp. 4 and 9: parameters including the “Angular Deflection Lens voltage ” (“electrode voltage”) are turned and loaded to KED/KEDS mode (second mode)), the electrode voltage in the second mode being obtained by adding an offset to an initial voltage set as the electrode voltage in the first mode (pp. 4, 9 and 12: teaches in a first mode (STD) the instrument runs an Autotune and determines optimum voltage values for ion-optical elements including the Angular Deflection Lens (i.e., an initial les/electrode voltage for that mode), when transitioning from STD to a second (gas) mode (KED), an additional -100 V is applied to the Angular Deflection Lens voltage “before being transferred into… KED mode Tune settings,” meaning the KED-mode voltage is obtained by taking the STD-mode (initial) value and adding an offset (-100V)). It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Thermo 1 ’s controller-driven mode operation and voltage-setting practice to Hirano ’s post-cell electrode pair during the gas-filled mode, since Hirano ’s electrodes are ion-optical elements in the same downstream region whose voltages are set to control transmission into the analyzer, and adjusting those post-cell electrode voltages in the gas-filled mode can improve ion transmission and sensitivity into the mass analyzer when collision gas changes ion energy and focusing conditions. Thermo 1 does not specifically note the offset is determined according to the known mass-to-charge of the target ion to be detected . Thermo 2 teaches that the offset is determined according to the known m/z of the target (analyte) ion to be detected (Col. 2; Lls . 13-17 and Claim 8: teaches “the analyte ions comprise a known value of m/z and the values of the … offset electrical potentials are determined from a prior mass spectrometer calibration…against m/z,” and setting those offset electrical potentials “in accordance with a prior … calibration of optimal offset electrical potential settings against m/z”. Therefore, it would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to choose Thermo 1 ’s offset using Thermo 2 ’s m/z-based calibration, a Thermo-assigned control technique, because selecting an offset as a function of m/z can improve consistency and reduce manual retuning by applying an appropriate correction for the particular target ion being measure d . Claims 2-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Hi rano , Thermo 1 , and Thermo 2 , and further in view US 2015 / 0235827A1 [hereinafter PerkinElmer ]. Regarding Claim 2 : The combined references of Hi rano , Thermo 1 , and Thermo 2 teach the mass spectrometer of claim 1. T he combined references further teach determining the offset when a first ion having a first mass-to-charge ratio set as the target ion ( See Thermo 2 Col. 3, Lls . 13- 17: teaches if “the analyte ions comprise a known value of m/z,” then the values of “offset electrical potentials are determined ...against m/z”). T he combined references also teach obtaining such calibration/test data using a prepared/standard sample and repeatedly setting values to different test values while operating the system to obtain resulting test spectra ( See Thermo 2 Col. 14 , Lls . 29 - 3 7 ). However, while the combined references teach determining an offset electoral potential for a known m/z target ion, they do not explicitly describe the particular determination processing recited in claim 2, i.e., an explicit scan result showing a relationship between detection intensity and electrode voltage created by changing electrode voltage, and selecting a peak voltage (highest intensity) as the basis for determining the offset. PerkinElmer teaches the specific determination processing as the concrete tuning/calibration method used to determine the offset electrical potentials of Thermo 2 . In particular, PerkinElmer teaches the control device executes determination processing determining the offset by analyzing, in the second mod, a first standard sample including a first component having the first mass-to-charge ratio when ionized (paras. [0022 and 0026]: an ICP-MS system that autotunes the system between STD and KED modes, in the gas/cell mode, the auto tuning/optimizing uses “analyte-containing standard solution containing known analyte(s) at known concentration(s)” ), the determination processing comprising: acquiring a scan result showing a relationship between detection intensity of the first ion and the electrode voltage by detecting the first ion in the second mode by changing the electrode voltage (Table 5, paras. [0133-0134]: for each target ion, scanning/changing the electrode voltage across a defined range and increment as part of an optimization routine (e.g., -17 V to -7 V in 0.5 increments) , acquiring an output that shows the relationship between voltage setting and resulting intensity for the target analyte ion, as its optimization output Table 5 reports the tested voltage setting and the measured detection intensity ( MaxIntensity ) for each target analyte ion); and determining the offset when the first ion is the target ion based on a peak voltage with the highest detection intensity extracted from the scan result ( Table 5, paras. [0133-0134]: selecting the voltage corresponding to the peak (highest intensity ) from the scan results, as Table 5 identifies an “optimum” voltage setting (DAC) associated with the MaxIntensity result for the target analyte ion, i.e., the peak-intensity point used as the basis for selecting the voltage setting to be applied). The combined references of Hi rano , Thermo 1 and Thermo 2 teach obtaining test spectra from a standard/prepared sample (See Thermo 2 Col. 14, Lls . 33-37 “such test spectra may be obtained from a prepared or standard sample of a particular analyte...”) and the controller repeatedly sets values to different test values and obtains test spectra (See Thermo 2 Col. 14, Lls . 28-33: “the values...are repeatedly set to carious different test values...a test spectra is presented to the user for the user’s evaluation”). In addition, as mentioned in the claim 1 analysis, the combined references established a “second mode” (gas-filled mode) as part of the system control logic. Accordingly, the combined references teach tuning/optimizing parameter values , e.g., offset, in a second mode. PerkinElmer teaches ICP-MS auto-tuning method which scans voltages and optimizes based on intensity; it is the same field of endeavor (mass spectrometry tuning, voltage-setting for ion transmission/detection). Therefore, it would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art , before the effective time of filing, to use the known scan-and-peak optimization procedure, i.e., scan a voltage and choose the peak-intensity voltage, as taught in PerkinElmer , as the routine way to determine the “ offset electrical potential” of Thermo 2 for the target ion in the gas mode, since both references address mass spectrometry tuning/calibration and selecting electrode voltage settings to optimize detection/transmission for specified analytes under controlled operating conditions. Regarding Claim 3 : The combined references of Hi r a n o , Thermo 1 , and Thermo 2 teach the mass spectrometer of claim 1. As analyzed in claim 2, the combined references further in view of PerkinElmer teach a scan result showing a relationship between detection intensity and electrode voltage created by changing electrode voltage, and selecting a peak voltage (highest intensity) as the basis for determining the offset. In addition, Thermo 2 teaches storing a relationship between the determined offset and the first mass-to-charge ratio in a storage (Col. 3, Lls . 13-17 and Col. 15, Lls . 3-11: storing a relationship between a target ion’s m/z and the corresponding optimal offset electrical potential settings, e.g., ∆ Vc , ∆ Vd , as a look-up table or regression curve versus m/z). Regarding Claim 5 : The combined references of Hi r a n o , Thermo 1 , and Thermo 2 teach the mass spectrometer of claim 1. PerkinElmer further teaches : the control device sets a cell voltage as a voltage to be applied to an ion guide equipped in the cell in the second mode (Table 1, paras. [0100, 0105, 0158]: teaches that in a gas-cell operating mode (e.g., collision cell mode/KED), the controller optimizes the Cell Rod Offset (CRO) of the reaction cell by “varying the voltages … supplied to the rods within the cell 140,” i.e., the electrodes that guide ions through the cell) , the cell voltage is predetermined regardless of the mass-to-charge ratio (Table 6, para. [0141]: explains the controller determines a “balance point among analytes of comparatively low, medium, and high mass … and the voltage setting corresponding to this point is used as the optimized setting value.” Also as shown in Table 6, output a single “optimum” CRO value across multiple analytes with different masses. Accordingly, the cell rod offset (cell voltage) is predetermined regardless of the m/z of the particular target ion being measured (i.e., it is one fixed setting for the mode, not per-m/z), and the offset includes the cell voltage (para. [0158]: teaches CRO is a baseline/central offset term for the cell rod voltages, and other downstream potentials (e.g., QRO) are defined by adding an offset to CRO. In other words, when PerkinElmer builds the operating voltages by “CRO + (offset),” the resulting “offset voltage” functionally includes the CRO (cell voltage) as part of the voltage-setting expression). Regarding Claim 7 : The combined references of Hi r a n o , Thermo 1 , and Thermo 2 teach the mass spectrometer of claim 1. PerkinElmer further teaches wherein a value of the offset decreases as a value of the mass-to-charge ratio increases ( T able 5: Table 5 shows Optimal Values (DAC) shifting as mass increases, with the magnitude moving toward zero at higher m/z (i.e., decreasing “offset” magnitude with increasing m/z). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JING WANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2504 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT KIM can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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