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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show colored features as described in the specification. For example, “aliased peaks shown in red (Spec. [0046], describing Fig. 26), “Vertical red dotted lines” (Spec. Page 24: Line 24, describing Fig. 14). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Examiner noted that the Applicant submitted colored drawing, however, color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs not numbered in a consistent manner, i.e., paragraphs are numerically numbered on pages 1-15, but not numbered starting page 16.
The specifications contains unclear numeric notations that appear immediately following text (e.g., “1-5” as shown in Page 33, Line 23 of the description), which appear to be citation/reference callouts but are not clearly formatted or identified as such. Because these numbers are represented as ordinary text rather than as clearly distinguished citation markers, it is unclear whether they represent bibliographic references or technical/numerical values.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claimed limitation “…performing, by a second measuring device steps comprising” includes a typographical/grammatical error which appears to repeat the word “steps.”
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 1-11 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 “a first domain to second domain modulating state trajectory.” The claim does not provide objective boundaries for what constitutes the recited “trajectory,” including what form the “trajectory” must take (e.g., a function, schedule, ordering, mapping rule, or other representation) or how it is determined. As a result, the scope of the required step-to-step changes “according to” such a trajectory is unclear.
Likewise, Claim 6 also recites “the first domain to second domain modulating state trajectory is non-linear.” Because the antecedent term “trajectory” lacks clear metes and bounds as set forth above, it is unclear what relationship is being characterized as “non-linear,” and therefore the scope of claim 6 is also indefinite
In addition, Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sequence steps have a step interval”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al., Augmenting Ion Trap Mass Spectrometers Using a Frequency Modulated Drift Tube Ion Mobility Spectrometer. Analytical Chemistry, 88(6), 3121–3129 (2016) [hereinafter Morrison], in view of Levanon, Stepped-frequency pulse-train radar signal. IEE Proceedings - Radar, Sonar and Navigation, 149(6), 297 (2002) [hereinafter Levanon].
Regarding Claim 1:
Morrison teaches a method for multidimensional detecting of properties of particles (Page 1 of 9 – Abstract: a multidimensional (IMS + MS) measurement method by coupling an IMS to an ion trap MS), comprising:
measuring by a first measuring device a first property of particles, the measuring producing measurement values in a first domain (Pages 2-3 of 9 - Experimental Setup: measuring drift time (“first property”) of ions using an ion mobility spectrometer (“first measuring device”) to produce drift time (arrival-time) values (“measuring values”) in the time/drift time domain (“first domain”), and the measuring including
the first measuring device outputting the particles with a second domain modulation that corresponds to the particles' respective first domain measurement values (Page 1- Abstract; Page 3 - Experimental Setup: outputting ions through an IMS-to-MS path while applying frequency modulation (“second domain modulation”) that encodes drift time data (i.e., the modulation “corresponds to” the first-domain (drift time) measurement values),
a first domain to second domain modulating state trajectory (Page 1- Abstract: applying a modulation schedule from the time domain to a modulation frequency domain as a “linear frequency chirp,” i.e., a trajectory in the sense that modulation frequency is intentionally varied as a function of time);
performing, by a second measuring device steps comprising: decoding of the particles' respective first domain measurement values by a demodulation of the second domain modulation (Page 4 - Experimental Setup: the mass spectrometer system (“second measuring device”) performs decoding via Fourier transform of the modulated signal to recover drift time, “extracted ion chromatograms contain the encoded drift time data… transformed using the Fast Fourier Transform…” “Drift times… recovered… dividing the resultant frequency by the frequency sweep rate” ),
measuring a second property of the particles (Pages 3 and 4 - Experimental Setup: the mass spectrometer system measures an m/z resolved signal (“second property”), which allows ions within a defined m/z range (e.g., ±5 Da tolerance) to be detected and analyzed),
over a measuring interval extending in the first domain from a measuring interval start point to a measuring interval end point (Page 3 - Experimental Setup: the MS measuring/acquisition interval start point and the starting of frequency sweep (i.e., the time-varying frequency modulation waveform applied, with “sweep times used were 2, 4, 8, and 16 min”) are synchronized, and the MS measuring/acquisition interval as an interval inherently includes an end point (as any acquisition interval does)).
However, Morrison teaches the second domain modulation is a “linear frequency chirp”, and thus does not specifically note that 1) a sequence stepped second domain modulation; 2) the sequence steps have a step interval extending in the first domain from a step start to a step stop; 3) the sequence steps have a second domain modulating state that changes from step to step; 4) for each sequence step having a preceding step, the second domain modulation state of the preceding step differs from the second domain modulation state of said sequence step; 5) the sequence stepped second domain modulation is demodulated; 6) the measuring interval start point and the measuring interval end point are synchronized to the step start and to the step stop.
Levanon teaches:
A sequence stepped second domain modulation (Page 1 of 13 - Sections 1 and 2: teaches stepped-frequency pulse train where each pulse is at a different discrete frequency, “the frequencies are equally spaced,” and ““utilising a coherent train of pulses, with each pulse transmitted at a different frequency”);
the sequence steps have a step interval extending in the first domain from a step start to a step stop (Page 2 - Section2: the stepped-frequency sequence is implemented as a train of discrete pulses (each pulse = one “sequence step”), and the burst consist of M pulses at frequency
f
m
(different frequencies per pulse), with a pulse repetition interval
T
r
and a pulse duration time, i.e., each pulse/step has a per-step time boundaries in the time domain which has a start at the beginning of the pulse and a stop at the end of the pulse);
the sequence steps have a second domain modulating state that changes from step to step according to a trajectory (Page 1 - Abstract and Section 2: each step/pulse is associated with a transmit frequency (“second domain modulating state”), i.e., a discrete frequency value assigned to that pulse/step, changing from step to step (e.g., “
f
m
-
f
m
-
1
=Δf”), and the specific pattern of those step-to-step changes is governed by a selected “interpulse frequency coding” (linear/nonlinear/up/down/Costas)(“trajectory”);
for each sequence step having a preceding step, the second domain modulation state of the preceding step differs from the second domain modulation state of said sequence step (Page 1 - Section 2: adjacent steps differ in the standard stepped-frequency form, i.e., “each pulse transmitted at a different frequency” and “
f
m
-
f
m
-
1
=Δf”);
the sequence stepped second domain modulation is demodulated (Pages 1 and 7- Introduction and Section 3: the stepped frequence data are processed by Fourier analysis to “resolve the delay into range bins,” and for non-linear step ordering (e.g., Costas) an “order deshuffle is required” before applying an inverse FFT that “yields the intensities…at the effective range bin,” i.e., the stepped modulation is transformed into an output in a different domain via IFFT-based demodulation);
Accordingly, Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the last wherein clause of claim 1 “the measuring interval start point and the measuring interval end point are synchronized to the step start and to the step stop”. As discussed above, Morison teaches an MS acquisition (measuring interval) that is triggered/synchronized to the start of the modulation waveform (start point alignment). Levanon teaches the stepped waveform is realized as discrete pulses/steps, each having an identifiable start and stop in time (step boundaries). As such, by modifying Morrison with Levanon, the MS measuring window that Morrison synchronizes to the modulation start is applied on a per-step basis using Levanon’s pulse defined boundaries, yielding a measuring interval whose start/end synchronized to the step start/step stop.
Morrison teaches a particle measurement method (IMS →MS) where ions are frequency-modulated and then decoded by Fourier processing to recover drift information. Levanon teaches implementing stepped-frequency signal modulation and decode it using Fourier/IFFT-type processing. Both Morrison and Levanon address encoding information into a frequency-modulated waveform and then recovering that information by Fourier-domain demodulation/decoding. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Morrison by substituting Levanon’s stepped-frequency waveform/coding for Morrison’s disclosed “linear frequency chirp”, yielding an IMS/MS measurement in which the modulation is realized as a sequence of discrete frequency steps that remains decodable via Fourier techniques. A POSITA would be motivated to do so to improve Morrison’s modulation schedule since using a stepped frequency/coded waveform would provide greater control over the modulation trajectory (e.g., discrete step selection and step ordering) while still allowing Fourier/IFFT-type decoding of the modulated signal, without changing Morrison’s overall IMS/MS architecture or its Fourier-based recovery approach.
Regarding Claim 2:
Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the method of claim 1. Levanon further teaches wherein the sequence stepped second domain modulation is a stepped frequency modulation (teaches a stepped frequency modulation as “utilising a coherent train of pulses, with each pulse transmitted at a different frequency,” i.e., the modulation state is the transmit frequency and it is stepped from pulse to pulse).
Regarding Claim 3:
Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the method of claim 2. Levanon further teaches wherein for each step in the stepped sequence having a preceding step, a modulation frequency of the preceding step is lower or higher than a modulation frequency of said step (frequencies are changed by ““utilising a coherent train of pulses...Monotonically increasing (or decreasing) frequency is usually implemented”).
Regarding Claim 4:
Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the method of claim 2. Levanon further teaches wherein for each sequence step the modulation frequency is constant over the step interval (the frequency “during the pulse” is changing with stepped-frequency implemented as “a coherent train of pulses, with each pulse transmitted at a different frequency,” contrasting linear frequency modulation where signal’s instantaneous frequency changes linearly with time, indicating the frequency change occurs between pulses/steps, not within a pulse/step interval).
Regarding Claim 5:
Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the method of claim 2. Levanon further teaches wherein the respective step frequencies from step to step comprise a random sequence (Page 3: “Monotonically increasing (or decreasing) frequency is usually implemented, but it is not mandatory,” for example, the discrete step frequencies can be ordered according to Costas sequence (i.e., a permuted/coded ordering of the step frequencies).
Regarding Claim 6:
Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the method of claim 2. Levanon further teaches wherein the first domain to second domain modulating state trajectory is non-linear (Page 1 – Abstract: the mapping from pulse-to-pulse progression (through pulse train in time/sequence) to frequency state (the discrete frequency) following different interpulse frequency codings including “nonlinear coding”).
Regarding Claim 7:
Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the method of claim 1. Morrison further teaches wherein the particles are ions (Page 2: “ions passing through both gates to reach the ion trap are sampled”).
Regarding Claim 8:
Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the method of claim 1. Morrison further teaches wherein the first measuring device comprises an ion mobility spectrometer (teaches a “dual-gate drift tube ion mobility spectrometer (IMS)”).
Regarding Claim 9:
Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the method of claim 1. Morrison further teaches
wherein the second measuring device comprises a mass spectrometer (teaches a “linear ion trap mass spectrometer (LIT-MS)” coupled to IMS).
Regarding Claim 10:
Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the method of claim 1. Morrison further teaches wherein the particles are molecules (samples include “peptide and protein mixtures”).
Regarding Claim 11:
Morrison in view of Levanon teaches the method of claim 1. Morrison further teaches
wherein the first measuring device comprises an ion mobility spectrometer and the second measuring device comprises a mass spectrometer (teaches the IMS (first measuring device) and LIT-MS (second measuring device) coupling directly).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293, The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881