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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: item number 107. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0036] refers to item 106 as both an ionization module and an ionization region;
[0040] disagrees with Fig. 2 regarding which of items 126 and 128 are the positive and negative electrodes (i.e., the item numbers are transposed relative to Fig. 2);
[0060] has a typographical error in the word “differntiong”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the filtered sample”; While Examiner believes the term is definite in context, it nevertheless lacks antecedent basis; Examiner suggests rephrasing the previous clause to ensure clarity, such as ‘filtering the ions within the ionized flow to form a filtered sample such that only ions having desired…’; Claim 9 similarly recites “the filtered sample”, and Examiner similarly suggests rephrasing the previous clause to include ‘…configured to separate positive ions from negative ions within the ionized flow to generate a filtered sample…;
Claim 1 recites “performing… differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample to separate ions within the chemical sample into a first constituent group based on a first analysis characteristic, wherein performing differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample further comprises: filtering the ions within the ionized flow…; fragmenting the filtered sample…; performing, with an ion mobility spectrometer, ion mobility spectrometry…; and determining an identity of the chemical sample…”; While Examiner believes the claim is definite in context, the claim itself does not clearly indicate which method steps are intended to be included in ‘wherein performing differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample further comprises”, as the claim does not clearly indicate which subsequent steps are sub-steps of the ‘differential mobility spectrometry’ step and which are additional method steps subsequent to the performance of differential mobility spectrometry; Examiner suggests either changing the indentation of the claim similar to claim 9, or alternatively, including language such as ‘subsequent to performing differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample, performing, with an ion mobility spectrometer, ion mobility spectrometry…’ so as to clearly indicate that the ‘IMS’ and ‘determining an identity’ method steps are subsequent to the DMS step, and not a constituent part thereof;
Claim 1 recites “…determining an identity of the chemical sample…”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, the limitation should be amended to read ‘a chemical identity’ so as to maintain proper support for the claim limitations, as the specification does not appear to support any other types of identification other than by chemical identity;
Claim 3 recites “a negative charge” and “a positive charge” in the limitation “…to cause positive ions within the ionized flow to drift towards a negative charge and negative ions to drift towards a positive charge…”; While Examiner believes the terms are definite in context, for clarity, Examiner suggests connecting these terms to the first voltage differential or elements for generating such a differential; For example, ‘…applying a first voltage differential via first electrodes across the first radio frequency field to cause positive ions within the ionized flow to drift towards the negatively charged electrode and negative ions to drift towards the positively charged electrode to separate the positive ions from the negative ions within the ionized flow…’ or …applying a first voltage differential, having opposing positive charge and negative charge sides, across the first radio frequency field to cause positive ions within the ionized flow to drift towards the negative charge side and negative ions to drift towards the positive charge side to separate the positive ions from the negative ions within the ionized flow…’;
Claim 4 recites “the fragmented ionized flow”; While Examiner believes the term is definite in context, it nevertheless lacks antecedent basis; Examiner suggests merely rephrasing the corresponding clause in claim 1 to ensure clarity, such as ‘fragmenting the filtered sample to further dissociate ions within the filtered sample to generate additional ion types having distinctive mobility characteristics to form a fragmented ionized flow…’, which would obviate any potential issue in claim 4;
Claim 5 recites “a negative charge” and “a positive charge” in the limitation “…to cause positive ions within the fragmented ionized flow to drift towards a negative charge and negative ions to drift towards a positive charge…”; While Examiner believes the terms are definite in context, for clarity, Examiner suggests connecting these terms to the second voltage differential or elements for generating such a differential; For example, ‘…applying a second voltage differential via second electrodes across a second radio frequency field to cause positive ions within the fragmented ionized flow to drift towards the negatively charged electrode and negative ions to drift towards the positively charged electrode to separate the positive ions from the negative ions within the fragmented ionized flow…’ or …applying a second voltage differential, having opposing positive charge and negative charge sides, across a second radio frequency field to cause positive ions within the fragmented ionized flow to drift towards the negative charge side and negative ions to drift towards the positive charge side to separate the positive ions from the negative ions within the fragmented ionized flow…’;
Claim 7 recites “…to draw positive ions with in the first constituent group to a…”, which should read ‘…to draw positive ions within the first constituent group to a…’;
Claim 7 recites “a negative charge” and “a positive charge” in the limitation “…to draw positive ions with in the first constituent group to a negative charge…” and “…and draw the negative ions within the first constituent group to a positive charge…”; While Examiner believes the terms are definite in context, for clarity, Examiner suggests connecting these terms to the voltage differential or elements for generating such a differential, such as by linking to the first and second analytical modules; For example, ‘…applying a voltage differential across the analytical module via respective electrodes of first and second analytical modules to draw positive ions within the first constituent group to a negatively charged electrode of the first analytical module and draw negative ions within the first constituent group to a positively charged electrode of the second analytical module…’ or ‘…applying a voltage differential across the analytical module, the analytical module comprising first and second analytical modules respectively having a negative charge and a positive charge, to draw positive ions within the first constituent group to the negative charge and draw negative ions within the first constituent group to the positive charge…’; Examiner additionally notes that claim 7 recites “the negative ions within the first constituent group”; While Examiner believes the term is definite in context, it nevertheless lacks antecedent basis; Examiner suggests merely amending to ‘negative ions within the first constituent group’ (i.e., remove ‘the’), in order to avoid antecedent basis issues and to agree with the previous recitation of ‘positive ions within the first constituent group’ in the claim;
Claim 7 recites “…separating the ions of first constituent group in space…”, which should read ‘…separating the ions of the first constituent group in space…’;
Claim 8 recites “…performing a second time of flight analysis on the fragmented flow of ions within second constituent group…”, which should read ‘…performing a second time of flight analysis on the fragmented flow of ions within the second constituent group…’;
Claim 8 recites “…determining the identity of the chemical composition…”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, it nevertheless lacks antecedent basis as the previous recitation of ‘an identity’ in claim 1 refers to ‘an identity of the chemical sample’, not ‘the chemical composition; Accordingly, this limitation should either be amended to refer to ‘an identity’, or ‘the identity of the chemical sample’; Additionally, similar to claim 1, the limitation should be amended to read ‘a chemical identity’ so as to maintain proper support for the claim limitations, as the specification does not appear to support any other types of identification other than by chemical identity;
Claim 8 recites “…based on the correlation between the first dataset and the second data set.” While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context because the claim previously recites ‘correlating the second dataset…with the first dataset’, it nevertheless lacks antecedent basis, as no particular correlation is previously recited; Examiner suggests rephrasing the previous limitation to explicitly require generating ‘a correlation’ in the correlating step, such as ‘correlating the second dataset…with the first dataset…to generate a correlation’ or alternatively, by rephrasing to ‘generating a correlation between the second dataset…and the first dataset…;’;
Claim 9 recites “the chemical analyte”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, it nevertheless lacks antecedent basis, and should read ‘a chemical analyte’;
Claim 10 recites “…flowing through ionization region.”, which should read ‘…flowing through an ionization region.’;
Claim 15 recites “…and the first negative ion drift tube configured to receive negative ions from the first constituent group.”, which should read ‘…and the first negative ion drift tube is configured to receive negative ions from the first constituent group.’;
Claim 16 recites “…wherein the first and second shutter provide selected ions…”, which should read ‘…wherein the first and second shutters provide selected ions…’;
Claim 16 recites “…wherein the first and second shutter[s] provide selected ions from the first constituent group to the first positive ion drift tube and the first negative ion drift tube…”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, the phrasing is somewhat ambiguous, as the shutters each provide respectively selected ions to their respective drift tube, as the ions will not be the same ions between each of the two shutters; Accordingly, to remove this ambiguity, the claim should read ‘…wherein the first and second shutters each provide respectively selected ions from the first constituent group to the first positive ion drift tube and the first negative ion drift tube, respectively;…’; Additionally, the following limitation, while definite in context, needs similar amendment, such as ‘…a first fragmenter disposed at an outlet of the first positive ion drift tube and a second fragmenter disposed at an outlet of the first negative ion drift tube, each configured to fragment the respectively selected ions from the first constituent group to further dissociate the respectively selected ions from the first constituent group…’;
Claim 17 recites “…configured to receive fragmented ions from first fragmenter…”, which should read ‘…configured to receive fragmented ions from the first fragmenter…’;
Claim 18 recites “the second negative ion dirft tube” (top of p.8 of claims), which should read ‘the second negative ion drift tube’;
Claim 19 has similar issues to claim 8 with respect to the limitations “the identity” and “the correlation”, and should be similarly amended to read ‘the chemical identity’ and Examiner suggests rephrasing the previous limitation to explicitly require generating ‘a correlation’ in the correlating capability, such as ‘configured to correlate the second dataset…with the first dataset…to generate a correlation’ or alternatively, by rephrasing to ‘ configured to generate a correlation between the second dataset…and the first dataset…;’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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 is vague and indefinite for reciting “collecting a chemical sample and introducing the chemical sample to a detection system; performing, with a differential mobility spectrometer, differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample to separate ions within the chemical sample” because the claim does not require any ionization of the sample flow. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation is separation of ions without an ionization of the chemical sample, however without an ionization source, DMS to separate ions would not be possible, making the claim scope unclear as to whether or not an ionization source is required. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Examiner additionally notes that the claim subsequently recites ‘the ionized flow’, but no ionized flow is required. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring the step of ionizing the chemical sample to create an ionized flow.
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 16 recite “additional ion types having distinctive mobility characteristics”. It is unclear what is required of the ion types to have ‘distinctive’ mobility characteristics, as the term is not defined by the specification. Distinctive is thus understood to take on its conventional meaning of ‘marking as separate or different’ in this context. However, it is unclear whether this would require mobility characteristics to differ between different ions in ‘the additional ion types’, between the additional ion types and the ions in the filtered (but not fragmented) sample, etc. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Examiner believes Applicant may have intended this limitation to limit the additional ion types to have different mobility characteristics than the ions they are formed from, and thus, for purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted accordingly. For example, the limitation in claims 1 and 9 is interpreted as ‘additional ion types having different mobility characteristics from the ions in the filtered sample’. The interpretation for claims 7 and 16 will be discussed further below with respect to these limitations.
Claim 1 recites “performing… differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample to separate ions within the chemical sample into a first constituent group based on a first analysis characteristic, wherein performing differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample further comprises: filtering the ions within the ionized flow…; fragmenting the filtered sample…; performing, with an ion mobility spectrometer, ion mobility spectrometry…; and determining an identity of the chemical sample…”. It is unclear which method steps are intended to be included in ‘wherein performing differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample further comprises”, as the claim does not clearly indicate which subsequent steps are sub-steps of the ‘differential mobility spectrometry’ step and which are additional method steps subsequent to the performance of differential mobility spectrometry.
Claim 3 does not indicate when its recited sub-steps of the differential mobility spectrometry step are to be performed within the step relative to the other sub-steps (i.e., relative to the filtering and fragmenting sub-steps). Accordingly, it is not clear whether the sub-steps of applying the radio frequency field and the voltage differential are to be performed before or after filtering and/or fragmenting. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘prior to filtering the ions within the ionized flow, subjecting the ionized flow….; and applying a first voltage differential…’.
Claim 4, similar to claim 3, does not indicate when its recited sub-steps of the differential mobility spectrometry step are to be performed within the step relative to the other sub-steps (i.e., relative to the filtering and fragmenting sub-steps, relative to the subjecting the ionized flow sub-step, relative to the applying the first voltage differential sub-step). Based on the context in the claim, the ‘filtering the ions within the fragmented ionized flow’ sub-step must occur after fragmenting has occurred, so this step must occur after the ‘fragmenting the filtered sample’ sub-step from claim 1, which places it after the subjecting and applying sub-steps. This portion is not indefinite for this reason, but is indefinite for another reason. Claim 1 requires only a single DMS, and it is unclear how such an element can perform filtering on the fragmented ionized flow, since the required DMS filters prior to fragmentation. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. It would accordingly appear that either claim 1 should recite plural DMSs or claim 4 should specify that an additional DMS/filtering structure is required for performing the filtering on the fragmented ionized flow. Additionally, the following limitation is unclear because the stub-step of applying a first voltage differential is interpreted as being performed prior to the filtering (in accordance with the specification that discloses the separation and filtering as occurring prior to fragmentation in the DMS), so it is unclear how that sub-step can further include progressively modifying the first voltage differential to allow selected ions within the fragmented ionized flow to pass into the IMS, as no such fragmented ionized flow exists prior to the fragmenter. Additionally, it is unclear how the modifying the first voltage differential allows selected ions to pass into the IMS, as the ionized flow would need to first pass through the fragmenter, as well as another filtering DMS. Similarly, it is not clear how the ionized flow can pass into the IMS as the first constituent group, as the claim previously requires that the filtered fragmented ionized flow generates the first constituent group. For these reasons, it is not clear what is required by the second limitation in the context of the claim. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘’with a second differential mobility spectrometer (or equivalent structure), filtering the ions within the fragmented ionized flow to generate…, wherein applying the first voltage differential further includes, progressively modifying the first voltage differential to allow selected ions within the ionized flow to pass thereby; and…’.
Claim 4 recites “…filtering the ions within the fragmented ionized flow to generate the first constituent group such that only the first constituent group passes to an ion mobility spectrometer of the detection system”, however, claim 1 previously requires “…performing, with an ion mobility spectrometer, ion mobility spectrometry…”. Additionally, in claim 1 a detection system is recited, but the IMS recited in claim 1 is not required to be a part of the detection system. Accordingly, it is unclear whether claim 4 is referring to the same IMS as claim 1, or a different IMS. The claim subsequently recites “the ion mobility spectrometer”, which is unclear because it could reasonably be interpreted as referring to either the IMS of claim 1 or the IMS of claim 4, as it doesn’t recite the same language of ‘of the detection system’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as though claim 1 recites ‘…performing, with an ion mobility spectrometer of the detection system, ion mobility spectrometry…”, and claim 4 recites ‘…filtering the ions within the fragmented ionized flow to generate the first constituent group such that only the first constituent group passes to the ion mobility spectrometer of the detection system’.
Claim 5, similar to claim 4, recites “…filtering the ions within the fragmented ionized flow to generate the first constituent group such that only the first constituent group passes to an ion mobility spectrometer.”, however, claim 1 previously requires “…performing, with an ion mobility spectrometer, ion mobility spectrometry…”. Accordingly, it is unclear whether claim 5 is referring to the same IMS as claim 1, or a different IMS. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘the ion mobility spectrometer’. Examiner notes for completeness that the order of operations of the further sub-steps of claim 5 of the differential mobility spectrometry step are clear, as they must necessarily occur after fragmentation, and thus, must occur after the fragmenting sub-step in the differential mobility spectrometry step of claim 1. However, claim 5 has a similar issue to claim 4, in that claim 1 requires only a single DMS, and it is unclear how such an element can perform filtering on the fragmented ionized flow, since the required DMS filters prior to fragmentation. It would accordingly appear that either claim 1 should recite plural DMSs or claim 5 should specify that an additional DMS is required for performing the filtering on the fragmented ionized flow. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘with a second differential mobility spectrometer, applying a second voltage differential…’.
Claim 6 recites “the ion mobility spectrometer”, which is unclear for similar reasons to claims 4-5. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. However, were the issues of claims 4-5 ameliorated, e.g., as interpreted, this limitation would no longer have such a clarity issue, and thus, for purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as presented.
Claim 6 includes “applying the first voltage differential…further includes, progressively modifying the first voltage differential…to allow selected ions within the ionized flow…to pass into the ion mobility spectrometer as the first constituent group”. It is unclear how this limitation can occur when claim 1 requires fragmenting the filtered ions after performing the filtering, so it is unclear how the ionized flow can pass into the IMS as the first constituent group, when the filtered ions are still to be fragmented prior to entry into the IMS, as required by claim 1 and claim 5. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as only applying to the fragmented ionized flow, and the claim should be amended to include language to specify this requirement. Examiner believes it may be easiest to separate out the limitations directed toward the two different flows from the two different stages, such that this limitation is only directed toward the fragmented ionized flow present in the stage prior to the IMS. Examiner notes for completeness that the cross limitation of the ‘and/or’ limitations are interpreted, in accordance with the description in the specification (i.e., [0064]-[0065]), to not be required by the claim, so that indefinite and/or ostensibly impossible limitations such as ‘applying the first voltage differential further includes, progressively modifying the second voltage differential…’ or vice versa, or ‘applying the first voltage differential further includes, progressively modifying the first voltage differential to allow selected ions within the fragmented ionized flow…’ or ‘applying the second voltage differential further includes, progressively modifying the second voltage differential to allow selected ions within the ionized flow…’, etc. In other words, in accordance with Applicant’s disclosure, the ‘first voltage differential’ limitations must correspond to the other ‘first voltage differential’ and ‘ionized flow’ limitations, while the ‘second voltage differential’ limitations must correspond to the other ‘second voltage differential’ and ‘fragmented ionized flow’ limitations.
Claim 7 recites “…passing the ionized flow containing only the first constituent group to an analytical module of the ion mobility spectrometer…”. It appears that this should refer to ‘the fragmented ionized flow’ rather than the recited ‘ionized flow’, as claims 1 and 5 require fragmenting the filtered ions prior to passing to the IMS. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘the fragmented ionized flow’.
Claim 7 recites “…separating the ions of first constituent group in space…”. First, it is unclear which ions in particular are intended to be referred to, as there are multiple previous recitations of ions, including a plurality of recitations of ions in the IMS. Additionally, it is unclear whether this is intended to be a separate, additional method step than the previous application of the voltage differential to separate the positive and negative ions of the first constituent group. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. The claim later references ‘the ions’ again, which is unclear for similar reasons. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘thereby separating the positive and negative ions of [the] first constituent group in space and subsequently performing…’, and the subsequent recitation of ‘the ions’ is interpreted as ‘the positive and negative ions’.
In accordance with the above discussion regarding claim 7, the above discussed issue regarding ‘distinctive’ in claim 7 is interpreted as ‘having different mobility characteristics from the selected ions from the first constituent group’.
Claim 9 recites “…a differential mobility spectrometer fluidly connected to the chemical analyte inlet…”, however, the ionization module is previously required to have an ionization source fluidly connected to the chemical analyte inlet, and the analytical module is fluidly connected to the ionization module to receive the ionized flow therefrom. The differential mobility spectrometer (DMS) is required to be included in the analytical module. Accordingly, it is unclear how the DMS could be fluidly connected to the chemical analyte inlet. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. It would appear that the DMS is fluidly connected to the ionization module, rather than the chemical analyte inlet, which is already coupled to the ionization source, because the DMS receives an ionized flow which would imply that it receives directly from the ionization module, rather than from the chemical analyte inlet. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…a differential mobility spectrometer fluidly connected to the ionization module…’.
Claim 9 recites “…a first set of electrodes including a first positively charged electrode and a first negatively charged electrode configured to separate positive ions from negative ions within the ionized flow and wherein only ions of a predetermined mobility characteristic flow past the first set of electrodes…”. It is unclear what element of the system the limitation ‘wherein only ions of a predetermined mobility characteristic flow past the first set of electrodes’ is intended to limit. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…a first set of electrodes including a first positively charged electrode and a first negatively charged electrode configured to separate positive ions from negative ions within the ionized flow, whereby only ions of a predetermined mobility characteristic flow past the first set of electrodes…’ to connect the functionality required to the capabilities required.
Claim 13 similarly recites “…a second set of electrodes including a second positively charged electrode and a second negatively charged electrode downstream of the fragmenter configured to separate positive ions from negative ions within the fragmented ionized flow and ions of a predetermined mobility flow past the second set of electrodes forming a first constituent group, wherein the first constituent group passes to the ion mobility spectrometer.”, in which the limitations ‘ions of a predetermined mobility flow past the second set of electrodes forming a first constituent group, wherein the first constituent group passes to the ion mobility spectrometer’ are indefinite for similar reasons to those discussed in regards to claim 9. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…a second set of electrodes including a second positively charged electrode and a second negatively charged electrode downstream of the fragmenter configured to separate positive ions from negative ions within the fragmented ionized flow, whereby ions of a predetermined mobility flow past the second set of electrodes forming a first constituent group, and whereby the first constituent group passes to the ion mobility spectrometer.’ to similarly connect functionalities and capabilities required.
Claim 16 requires “…a first shutter at an inlet of the first positive ion drift tube configured to filter the first constituent group entering the first positive ion drift tube based on ion mobility…” and “…a second shutter at an inlet of the first negative ion drift tube configured to filter the first constituent group entering the first negative ion drift tube based on ion mobility…”. Claim 15 previously requires that the first positive ion drift tube be configured to receive positive ions from the first constituent group and the first negative ion drift tube be configured to receive negative ions from the first constituent group. Accordingly, it would appear that the first and second shutters cannot be configured to filter the first constituent group entering the first positive and negative ion drift tubes, respectively, as the system is only previously required to be configured to receive respective portions of the first constituent group at the two shutters. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…a first shutter at an inlet of the first positive ion drift tube configured to filter the positive ions from the first constituent group entering the first positive ion drift tube based on ion mobility…’ and ‘…a second shutter at an inlet of the first negative ion drift tube configured to filter the negative ions from the first constituent group entering the first negative ion drift tube based on ion mobility…’.
In accordance with the above discussion regarding claim 16, the above discussed issue regarding ‘distinctive’ in claim 16 is interpreted as ‘having different mobility characteristics from the respectively selected ions from the first constituent group’.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the positive ions” and “the negative ions”, which each lack antecedent basis in the claims. While other instances of positive and negative ions are present in the claims, those which reach an end of the second drift tubes are different from those previously recited in the claims. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘positive ions’ and ‘negative ions’.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the second analysis characteristic”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a second analysis characteristic’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 1-6 and 9-10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiceman (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220397552 A1) in view of Anderson (DOI: 10.1117/12.782429).
Examiner notes that Eiceman is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 05/09/2025.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman teaches a method for identifying a chemical composition (Abstract; [0011]-[0021]), comprising:
collecting a chemical sample and introducing the chemical sample to a detection system ([0011]-[0021]);
performing, with a differential mobility spectrometer, differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample to separate ions within the chemical sample into a first constituent group based on a first analysis characteristic ([0012]; [0054]; [0076]; Examiner notes that mobility is an analysis characteristic), wherein performing differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample further comprises:
filtering the ions within the ionized flow such that only ions having a desired mobility pass to a fragmenter (See Figs. 1 and 3, item 120; [0012]; [0054]; [0076]);
fragmenting the filtered sample to further dissociate ions within the filtered sample to generate additional ion types having distinctive mobility characteristics (See Figs. 1 and 3A, item 125; [0048]; [0057]);
(See Figs. 1 and 3, item 130; [0060]; Examiner notes that a DMS is a type of IMS); and
([0060]-[0062]; [0077]).
Eiceman does not explicitly teach performing, with an ion mobility spectrometer, ion mobility spectrometry on the first constituent group to separate ions within the first constituent group into a second constituent group based on a second analysis characteristic; and determining an identity of the chemical sample based on ions present within the second constituent group.
Examiner notes that a DMS, while technically a form of ‘ion mobility spectrometer’, would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to refer to different forms of spectrometry, as evidenced by the prior art Anderson, Section 2.2.
Anderson teaches a DMS-IMS system (See Fig. 3a and 3b; Section 2.2), which discloses performing, with an ion mobility spectrometer, ion mobility spectrometry on the first constituent group to separate ions within the first constituent group into a second constituent group based on a second analysis characteristic (See Fig. 3a; Section 2.2); and determining an identity of the chemical sample based on ions present within the second constituent group (See Fig. 3a; Section 2.2).
Anderson discloses (Section 2.2) that IMS separates ions by the absolute values of mobility coefficient while DMS separates ions by the field mobility dependence, and discloses that the respective coefficient values have limited ranges of variation for different ions, which leads to comparatively low resolution power of either DMS and IMS individually. Anderson further indicates that the DMS-IMS tandem gathers complete information about ion motion in the gas phase, increasing specificity and resolving power of the instrument in comparison with single DMS or IMS.
Accordingly, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eiceman to include an IMS arrangement downstream of the DMS arrangement as taught by Anderson, thereby including performing, with an ion mobility spectrometer, ion mobility spectrometry on the first constituent group to separate ions within the first constituent group into a second constituent group based on a second analysis characteristic; and determining an identity of the chemical sample based on ions present within the second constituent group, as taught by Anderson.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to gather complete information about ion motion, allowing for more specificity and resolving power, as taught by Anderson, which would allow for an improvement on the device of Eiceman.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the method of claim 1.
Eiceman further teaches further comprising, ionizing the chemical sample using an ionization source to produce an ionized flow prior to performing differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample ([0011]).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the method of claim 2.
Eiceman further teaches wherein performing differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample further comprises:
subjecting the ionized flow to a first radio frequency field to cause ions within the ionized flow to oscillate (See Figs. 3; [0050]; Examiner interprets ‘radio frequency’ as inherent, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand differential mobility spectrometry to operate via the application of radio frequency electric fields, which would naturally cause ions to oscillate in the disclosed oscillating fields); and
applying a first voltage differential across the first radio frequency field to cause positive ions within the ionized flow to drift towards a negative charge and negative ions to drift towards a positive charge to separate the positive ions from the negative ions within the ionized flow (See Figs. 1 and 3; [0050], oscillating asymmetric field and correcting/compensation field; [0076]-[0077]; Examiner interprets ‘radio frequency’ as inherent, as discussed above; Examiner additionally notes that in the configuration disclosed by the Figs. positive and negative ions naturally drift toward the negatively and positively charged plates, respectively, thereby naturally separating the positive and negative ions to some degree).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the method of claim 3.
Eiceman further teaches wherein performing differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample further comprises:
[with a second differential mobility spectrometer (or equivalent structure), ] (See Figs. 1 and 3, item 130; [0060]) filtering the ions within the fragmented ionized flow ([0050]; [0060]) to generate the first constituent group ([0076]-[0077])
wherein applying the first voltage differential further includes, progressively modifying the first voltage differential to allow selected ions within the ionized flow [[and/or the fragmented ionized flow]] to pass (See Figs. 3; [0050], i.e., via correcting/compensation field scan); and
generating a first data set for the first constituent group based on the first analysis characteristic ([0076]-[0077]).
However, the combination of Eiceman with Anderson discloses such that only the first constituent group passes to an ion mobility spectrometer of the detection system and to pass into the ion mobility spectrometer as (Emphasis added by Examiner), via addition of an IMS to the DMS of Eiceman discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the method of claim 3.
Eiceman further teaches wherein performing differential mobility spectrometry on the chemical sample further comprises:
[with a second differential mobility spectrometer, ] (See Figs. 1 and 3, item 130; [0060]) applying a second voltage differential across a second radio frequency field (See Figs. 3; [0050], oscillating asymmetric electric field and correcting/compensation field; Examiner interprets ‘radio frequency’ as inherent, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand differential mobility spectrometry to operate via the application of radio frequency electric fields, which would naturally cause ions to oscillate in the disclosed oscillating fields; [0060]) to cause positive ions within the fragmented ionized flow to drift towards a negative charge and negative ions to drift towards a positive charge to separate the positive ions from the negative ions within the fragmented ionized flow (See Figs 1 and 3, item 130; [0050]; [0060]; [0076]-[0077]; Examiner additionally notes that in the configuration disclosed by the Figs. positive and negative ions naturally drift toward the negatively and positively charged plates, respectively, thereby naturally separating the positive and negative ions to some degree); and
filtering the ions within the fragmented ionized flow ([0050]; [0060]) to generate the first constituent group ([0076]-[0077])
However, the combination of Eiceman with Anderson discloses such that only the first constituent group passes to an ion mobility spectrometer, via addition of an IMS to the DMS of Eiceman discussed above. Examiner additionally notes that Anderson also discloses charge separation of ions into two IMSs.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the method of claim 5.
Eiceman further teaches wherein applying the first voltage differential and/or applying the second voltage differential further includes, progressively modifying the first voltage differential and/or the second voltage differential to allow selected ions within the ionized flow and/or the fragmented ionized flow (See Figs. 3; [0050]; [0060]; [0076]-[0077])
and wherein performing differential mobility spectrometry further comprises, generating a first data set for the first constituent group based on the first analysis characteristic ([0076]-[0077]).
Eiceman does not explicitly teach wherein applying the first voltage differential and/or applying the second voltage differential further includes, progressively modifying the first voltage differential and/or the second voltage differential to allow selected ions within the ionized flow and/or the fragmented ionized flow to pass into the ion mobility spectrometer as the first constituent group (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, Eiceman combined with Anderson as discussed in regards to claim 5 satisfies the limitation via positioning of an IMS downstream of the tandem DMSs of Eiceman, and thus the requirements of the claim are taught by the combination.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman teaches a system, comprising:
a chemical detector including a chemical analyte inlet (Abstract; [0011]);
an ionization module having an ionization source therein fluidly connected to the chemical analyte inlet configured to receive the chemical analyte and ionize the chemical analyte to generate an ionized flow (See Figs. 1 and 3, item 100; [0011]); and
an analytical module fluidly connected to the ionization module to receive the ionized flow and configured to determine a chemical identity of the chemical analyte (See Figs. 1 and 3; ), the analytical module including:
a differential mobility spectrometer fluidly connected to the chemical analyte inlet (See Figs. 1 and 3, item 120; [0011]-[0012]; [0053]-[0055]), wherein the differential mobility spectrometer comprises,
a first set of electrodes including a first positively charged electrode and a first negatively charged electrode configured to separate positive ions from negative ions within the ionized flow and wherein only ions of a predetermined mobility characteristic flow past the first set of electrodes (See Fig. 1, top and bottom plates of 120, connected to positive and negative charges, respectively, which will naturally separate ions by charge; [0050]-[0055]; [0076]-[0077]); and
a fragmenter downstream of the first set of electrodes configured to fragment the filtered sample to further dissociate ions within the filtered sample to generate a fragmented ionized flow with additional ion types having distinctive mobility characteristics (See Figs. 1 and 3, item 125; [0048]; [0053]; [0057]; [0076]-[0077]); and
Eiceman does not explicitly teach an ion mobility spectrometer fluidly connected to the differential mobility spectrometer.
Examiner notes that a DMS, while technically a form of ‘ion mobility spectrometer’, would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to refer to a different form of spectrometry from IMS, as evidenced by the prior art Anderson, Section 2.2.
Anderson teaches a DMS-IMS system (See Fig. 3a and 3b; Section 2.2), which discloses an ion mobility spectrometer fluidly connected to the differential mobility spectrometer (See Fig. 3a; Section 2.2).
Anderson discloses (Section 2.2) that IMS separates ions by the absolute values of mobility coefficient while DMS separates ions by the field mobility dependence, and discloses that the respective coefficient values have limited ranges of variation for different ions, which leads to comparatively low resolution power of either DMS and IMS individually. Anderson further indicates that the DMS-IMS tandem gathers complete information about ion motion in the gas phase, increasing specificity and resolving power of the instrument in comparison with single DMS or IMS.
Accordingly, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eiceman to include an IMS arrangement downstream of the DMS arrangement as taught by Anderson, thereby including an ion mobility spectrometer fluidly connected to the differential mobility spectrometer, as taught by Anderson.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to gather complete information about ion motion, allowing for more specificity and resolving power, as taught by Anderson, which would allow for an improvement on the device of Eiceman.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the system of claim 9.
Eiceman further teaches wherein the ionization source is configured to ionize the chemical analyte flowing through ionization region ([0011]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the system of claim 9.
Eiceman further teaches wherein an outlet of the fragmenter is an outlet of the differential mobility spectrometer (See Figs. 1 and 3, items 120 and 125) such that the fragmented ionized flow forms a first constituent group and passes to the ion mobility spectrometer (See Figs. 1 and 3, item 130, which receives the fragmented ionized flow from 120/125; [0053]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the system of claim 9.
Eiceman further teaches wherein the differential mobility spectrometer comprises a second set of electrodes (See Fig. 1, item 130; [0060]) including a second positively charged electrode and a second negatively charged electrode downstream of the fragmenter (See Fig. 1, item 130, having positive and negative electrodes) configured to separate positive ions from negative ions within the fragmented ionized flow and ions of a predetermined mobility flow past the second set of electrodes forming a first constituent group ([0050]; [0060]; [0076]-[0077]; Examiner notes that in the configuration disclosed by the Figs. positive and negative ions naturally drift toward the negatively and positively charged plates, respectively, thereby naturally separating the positive and negative ions to some degree),
However, the combination of Eiceman with Anderson discloses wherein the first constituent group passes to the ion mobility spectrometer, via addition of an IMS to the DMS of Eiceman discussed above. Examiner additionally notes that Anderson also discloses charge separation of ions into two IMSs.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the system of claim 13.
Eiceman further teaches wherein the differential mobility spectrometer further comprises a computational module configured to generate a first data set for the first constituent group based on a first analysis characteristic (See Fig. 12; [0076]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the system of claim 14.
Anderson further teaches wherein the ion mobility spectrometer comprises:
a first positive ion drift tube and a first negative ion drift tube (See Figs. 3a and 3b, upward extending and downward extending IMS tubes, with red and blue arrows therein indicating opposite charge ion flows; See Section 2.2) each fluidly connected to an outlet of the differential mobility spectrometer (See Figs. 3a and 3b, upward extending and downward extending IMS tubes, connected to planar DMS from the left; See Section 2.2), wherein the first positive ion drift tube is configured to receive positive ions from the first constituent group and the first negative ion drift tube configured to receive negative ions from the first constituent group (See Figs. 3a and 3b, upward extending and downward extending IMS tubes, with red and blue arrows therein indicating opposite charge ion flows; See Section 2.2).
Claims 7-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiceman (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220397552 A1) in view of Anderson (DOI: 10.1117/12.782429), Miller (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20050173629 A1), and Koeniger (DOI: 10.1021/ac051060w).
Examiner notes that Miller is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 05/09/2025.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the method of claim 6.
Anderson further teaches wherein performing ion mobility spectrometry on the first constituent group further comprises:
passing the ionized flow containing only the first constituent group to an analytical module of the ion mobility spectrometer (Section 2.2).
Anderson does not explicitly teach applying a voltage differential across the analytical module to draw positive ions with in the first constituent group to a negative charge of a first analytical module of the ion mobility spectrometer and draw the negative ions within the first constituent group to a positive charge of a second analytical module of the ion mobility spectrometer, however, Anderson discloses simultaneous separation and measurement of positive and negative ions in the dual IMS system (i.e., equivalent to the first and second analytical modules of the IMS) disclosed, which would naturally require some charge separation to be applied to separate the charges to the two respective IMSs.
Miller discloses a similar DMS – dual-IMS system to that of Anderson, and further specifies this process, disclosing:
applying a voltage differential across the analytical module to draw positive ions with in the first constituent group to a negative charge of a first analytical module of the ion mobility spectrometer and draw the negative ions within the first constituent group to a positive charge of a second analytical module of the ion mobility spectrometer (See Fig. 87; [0517]-[0526], and in particular [0520]).
Miller further discloses:
separating the ions of first constituent group in space and performing a first time of flight analysis on the ions within the first constituent group to allow selected ions within the first constituent group to pass to a [downstream element] ([0523; [0525]; downstream element: i.e., collectors).
It is Examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eiceman in view of Anderson to include applying a voltage differential across the analytical module to draw positive ions with in the first constituent group to a negative charge of a first analytical module of the ion mobility spectrometer and draw the negative ions within the first constituent group to a positive charge of a second analytical module of the ion mobility spectrometer and separating the ions of first constituent group in space and performing a first time of flight analysis on the ions within the first constituent group to allow selected ions within the first constituent group to pass to a [downstream element], as taught by Miller.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and amounts to a more detailed disclosure of a similar device to Anderson, who discloses a device having similar ion charge separation capabilities to that of Miller, with Miller providing additional exemplary motivation for the general use of charge separation in [0192]-[0193].
Each of Eiceman, Anderson, and Miller disclose using fragmentation to aid in better chemical identification, however, none of these documents explicitly describe fragmenting after an IMS time of flight and/or drift analysis/separation. Miller discloses that fragmentation in their disclosure can be used with any type of IMS or DMS (or other disclosed similar systems), in order to aid in better identifying chemical analytes, and in particular discloses simultaneous detection of both unfragmented and fragmented portions of the same sample to gain further information. In other words, at the least, Miller discloses the general disclosure and motivation for further fragmentation to be used.
Nevertheless, Koeniger teaches separating the ions of first constituent group in space and performing a first time of flight analysis on the ions within the first constituent group to allow selected ions within the first constituent group to pass to a fragmenter (Abstract; Figs. 1, 3; Overview of Instrumentation Section; Modes of Operation; Operational Mode B; Operational Mode C); and
fragmenting the selected ions within the first constituent group to further dissociate and generate additional ion types having distinctive mobility characteristics generating a fragmented flow of ions forming the second constituent group (Abstract; Figs. 1, 3; Overview of Instrumentation Section; Operational Mode C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eiceman in view of Anderson and Miller to include separating the ions of first constituent group in space and performing a first time of flight analysis on the ions within the first constituent group to allow selected ions within the first constituent group to pass to a fragmenter; and fragmenting the selected ions within the first constituent group to further dissociate and generate additional ion types having distinctive mobility characteristics generating a fragmented flow of ions forming the second constituent group, as taught by Koeniger.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as each of Eiceman, Anderson, and Miller disclose the use of fragmentation in tandem mobility spectrometry systems and each reasons for such utility, with Miller specifically indicating fragmentation could be used between tandem elements of any combination including DMS and IMS configurations and disclosing motivations for applying fragmentation in [0219]-[0252], and because Koeniger discloses similar reasons for supplying such fragmentation techniques after an IMS selection, which could readily be applied to the IMSs of Anderson/Miller with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson, Miller, and Koeniger teaches the method of claim 7.
Koeniger further teaches wherein performing ion mobility spectrometry on the first constituent group further comprises:
performing a second time of flight analysis on the fragmented flow of ions within second constituent group to generate a second data set for the second constituent group based on the second analysis characteristic (Abstract; Figs. 1, 3; Overview of Instrumentation Section; Operational Mode C).
Miller further teaches:
correlating the second dataset generated for the second constituent group with the first dataset generated for the first constituent group ([0198]-[0199]; [0517]-[0526]; See also identification discussions of other embodiments); and
determining the identity of the chemical composition based on the correlation between the first dataset and the second data set ([0198]-[0202]; [0517]-[0526]; See also identification discussions of other embodiments).
Examiner notes that Miller does not explicitly teach correlating a dataset generated for dual TOF analysis with a dataset for DMS analysis, however, Miller discloses correlating DMS data and subsequent TOF IMS data. Koeniger discloses generating dual TOF analysis data, including fragmenting between the dual stages. Accordingly, the combination of the teachings of Miller and Koeniger could reasonably be combined to achieve correlating the data from an upstream DMS analysis with a downstream dual IMS system.
Thus, it is Examiner’s opinion that were an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the teachings of the prior art above, they would naturally adapt the analysis to include correlating data from the various stages in a similar manner to Koeniger and Miller, as appropriate.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the system of claim 15.
Anderson further teaches wherein the ion mobility spectrometer further comprises:
a first shutter at an inlet of the first positive ion drift tube (See Figs. 3a and 3b, upward extending and downward extending IMS tubes, having respective shutters in dashed green; See Section 2.2)
a second shutter at an inlet of the first negative ion drift tube (See Figs. 3a and 3b, upward extending and downward extending IMS tubes, having respective shutters in dashed green; See Section 2.2)
wherein the first and second shutter provide selected ions from the first constituent group to the first positive ion drift tube and the first negative ion drift tube (Examiner interprets this limitation as inherently disclosed by the shutter diagrammatically shown in Fig. 3a, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand such shutters to be controllable, and typically based on some chosen gate timing; Any such ions allowed through the respective shutters according to any such gate timing would read on ‘selected ions’ from the first constituent group to the respective drift tubes); and
Miller teaches wherein the ion mobility spectrometer further comprises:
a first shutter at an inlet of the first positive ion drift tube configured to filter the first constituent group entering the first positive ion drift tube based on ion mobility (See Fig. 87, item 2568; [0523]);
a second shutter at an inlet of the first negative ion drift tube configured to filter the first constituent group entering the first negative ion drift tube based on ion mobility (See Fig. 87, item 2570; [0525]),
wherein the first and second shutter provide selected ions from the first constituent group to the first positive ion drift tube and the first negative ion drift tube ([0523]; [0525]); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eiceman in view of Anderson to include wherein the ion mobility spectrometer further comprises: a first shutter at an inlet of the first positive ion drift tube configured to filter the first constituent group entering the first positive ion drift tube based on ion mobility; a second shutter at an inlet of the first negative ion drift tube configured to filter the first constituent group entering the first negative ion drift tube based on ion mobility (Emphases added by Examiner), as taught by Miller, who also teaches additional portions interpreted as disclosed by Anderson above.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to selectively gate the positive and negative ions into the IMS drift chambers in the manner described in Miller to the similar device in Anderson.
Eiceman in view of Anderson and Miller does not teach a first fragmenter disposed at an outlet of the first positive ion drift tube and a second fragmenter disposed at an outlet of the first negative ion drift tube configured to fragment the selected ions from the first constituent group to further dissociate the selected ions from the first constituent group to generate the second constituent group with additional ion types having distinctive mobility characteristics.
Each of Eiceman, Anderson, and Miller disclose using fragmentation to aid in better chemical identification, however, none of these documents explicitly describe fragmenting after an IMS time of flight and/or drift analysis/separation. Miller discloses ([0252]; [0556]) that fragmentation in their disclosure can be used with any type of IMS or DMS (or other disclosed similar systems), in order to aid in better identifying chemical analytes, and in particular discloses simultaneous detection of both unfragmented and fragmented portions of the same sample to gain further information in the discussion (beginning at [0223]) regarding Fig. 21. In other words, at the least, Miller discloses the general disclosure and motivation for further fragmentation to be used.
Nevertheless, Koeniger teaches a (Abstract; Figs. 1, 3; Overview of Instrumentation Section; Modes of Operation; Operational Mode B; Operational Mode C).
Examiner notes Koeniger does not disclose a positive and negative IMS separation system, but such a fragmenter disposed after an IMS could be applied to the charge separated IMSs of Anderson/Miller with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eiceman in view of Anderson and Miller to include a , as taught by Koeniger, to each of the charge separated IMS systems of Anderson/Miller in order to achieve a first fragmenter disposed at an outlet of the first positive ion drift tube and a second fragmenter disposed at an outlet of the first negative ion drift tube configured to fragment the selected ions from the first constituent group to further dissociate the selected ions from the first constituent group to generate the second constituent group with additional ion types having distinctive mobility characteristics via the combination.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as each of Eiceman, Anderson, and Miller disclose the use of fragmentation in tandem mobility spectrometry systems and each disclose reasons for such utility, with Miller specifically indicating fragmentation could be used between tandem elements of any combination including DMS and IMS configurations and disclosing motivations for applying fragmentation in [0219]-[0252], and because Koeniger discloses similar reasons for supplying such fragmentation techniques after an IMS selection, which could readily be applied to the IMSs of Anderson/Miller with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson, Miller, and Koeniger teaches the system of claim 16.
Eiceman in view of Anderson, Miller, and Koeniger further teaches wherein the ion mobility spectrometer further comprises:
a second positive ion drift tube configured to receive fragmented ions from first fragmenter and a second negative ion drift tube configured to receive fragmented ions from the second fragmenter (Anderson: See Fig. 3a, upward extending and downward extending IMS tubes; Miller: [0517]-[0526], and in particular [0523] and [0525]; Koeniger: Discloses second drift chamber D2 after fragmenter following a first drift chamber in Abstract; Figs. 1, 3; Overview of Instrumentation Section; Modes of Operation; Operational Mode B; Operational Mode C);
a positive ion detector at an end of the second positive ion drift tube configured to draw the positive ions towards the positive ion detector and configured to detect a time of flight of the positive ions of the second constituent group within the second positive ion drift tube (Miller: [0523]-[0524], disclosing positive and negative detectors at respective ends of drift chambers; Koeniger: Discloses detector after second drift chamber D2 after in Abstract; Figs. 1, 3; Overview of Instrumentation Section; Operational Mode C);
a negative ion detector at an end of the second negative ion drift tube configured to draw the negative ions towards the negative ion detector and configured to detect a time of flight of the negative ions of the second constituent group within the second negative ion drift tube (Miller: [0525]-[0526], disclosing negative detectors at respective end of respective drift chamber; Koeniger: Discloses detector after second drift chamber D2 after in Abstract; Figs. 1, 3; Overview of Instrumentation Section; Operational Mode C).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson, Miller, and Koeniger teaches the system of claim 17.
Eiceman in view of Anderson, Miller, and Koeniger further teaches wherein the analytical module is configured to determine a drift time of the positive ions of the second constituent group within the second positive ion drift tube and a drift time of the negative ions of the second constituent group in the second negative ion dirft tube and generate a second data set for the second constituent group based on the second analysis characteristic (Miller: [0517]-[0526], and in particular [0523] and [0525], which disclose TOF being used with reference to an analysis characteristic; Koeniger: Discloses determining drift times of tandem IMSs in Abstract; Figs. 1, 3; Overview of Instrumentation Section; Operational Mode C).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson, Miller, Koeniger teaches the system of claim 18.
Miller further teaches wherein the analytical module further comprises a computational module configured to correlate the second dataset generated for the second constituent group with the first dataset generated for the first constituent group ([0198]-[0199]; [0517]-[0526]; See also identification discussions of other embodiments); and determine the identity of the chemical analyte based on the correlation between the first dataset and the second data set ([0198]-[0199]; [0517]-[0526]; See also identification discussions of other embodiments).
Examiner notes that Miller does not explicitly teach correlating a dataset generated for dual TOF analysis with a dataset for DMS analysis, however, Miller discloses correlating DMS data and subsequent TOF IMS data. Koeniger discloses generating dual TOF analysis data, including fragmenting between the dual stages. Accordingly, the combination of the teachings of Miller and Koeniger could reasonably be combined to achieve correlating the data from an upstream DMS analysis with a downstream dual IMS system.
Thus, it is Examiner’s opinion that were an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the teachings of the prior art above, they would naturally adapt the analysis to include correlating data from the various stages in a similar manner to Koeniger and Miller, as appropriate.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiceman (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220397552 A1) in view of Anderson (DOI: 10.1117/12.782429) and Miller (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20050173629 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eiceman in view of Anderson teaches the system of claim 10.
Eiceman does not explicitly teach wherein the ionization source includes an electric-field ionizer, a radioactive ionizer, or a photo-ionizer.
However, Eiceman discloses the substance being ionized ‘conventionally’, which Examiner interprets as including typical forms of ionization of a chemical sample, which frequently include the above recited ionizer types. It is Examiner’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of which ionizers would be considered ‘conventional’, and would understand such a recitation to include the above ionizer types.
Nevertheless, Miller teaches each of these types of ionizers in [0189], [0327], [0370], [0387], [0390], [0398].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eiceman to explicitly indicate the disclosed ‘conventional’ ionization techniques as including an electric-field ionizer, a radioactive ionizer, or a photo-ionizer, as taught by Miller.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to ionize the chemical sample using standard techniques to selectively ionize the sample as discussed in [0398] of Miller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Burchfield (US 2010/001182 A1)
Boumsellek (US 8173959 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881