NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected because-
(1) The drawings are objected to because FIG. 3-8 of the originally filed drawings are blurred. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning (See MPEP 1.84 (l)).
(2) The drawings are objected to because of the font size of fig.3-4, 6-8 being too small. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see MPEP 1.84(p)).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 31, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Manri et al. (US 2009/0072132 Al cited by Applicants, “Manri”).
Regarding Claim 19, Manri teaches a method of operating a dual analyser mass spectrometer ([0042]; [0045] disclose a dual analyser mass spectrometer comprising a linear ion trap (LIT) mass analyser 6 and a time-of-flight (TOF) mass analyser 10) to obtain MS1 and MS2 scans of positive and negative ions from a sample ([0046]-[0047]), a first mass analyser (6) operating at a first polarity and a second mass analyser (10) operating at a second polarity opposite to the first polarity ([0019]-[0026]; [0042]; [0045] disclose a dual analyser mass spectrometer comprising a linear ion trap (LIT) mass analyser 6 and a time-of-flight (TOF) mass analyser 10, which are configured to operate at opposite polarities), the method comprising: ionising the sample, in an ion source (fig.1; element 3) and ion processing region of the mass spectrometer, the ion source and ion processing region operating at a first polarity, to produce a plurality of ions ([0023]; [0027]; [0046], and also see steps 43, 44, 45 & 47 in fig.2, and steps 43, 83, 84 & 53 in fig.5); directing one or more first packets of ions to the first mass analyser and initiating the performing, by the first mass analyser at the first polarity, of at least one MS1 scan and/or at least one MS2 scan of the ions in the one or more first packets ([0047]; [0056]); after initiating the at least one MS1 scan and/or at least one MS2 scan of the one or more first packets of ions by the first mass analyser switching the polarity of the source and ion processing region to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity ([0042]: “the mass spectrometer is preferably enabled to switch the polarity of the TOF section 10 before analyzing the sample”; [0048]: “the mode is switched from the negative mode to the positive mode (49) in order to carry out a more detailed qualitative analysis by using the ECD”; [0057]); and after switching polarity of the source and ion processing region to the second polarity, directing one or more second packets of ions to the second mass analyser and performing, by the second mass analyser at the second polarity, at least one MS1 scan and/or at least one MS2 scan of the ions in the second packet (see steps 50, 51 & 53 in fig.2, and steps 89, 51 & 47 in fig.5, [0019-0021], [0040]-[0042], [0045]-[0047] & [0056]).
Regarding Claim 20, the method of claim 19 is taught by Manri.
Manri further teaches wherein the first mass analyser performs MS1 and MS2 scans at the first polarity and the second mass analyser performs MS1 and MS2 scans at the second polarity (Manri discloses performing MS I and MS2 scans at the first (negative) polarity using the first mass analyser ([0046]-[0047]; [0056]). Manri further discloses obtaining MS2 scans at the second (positive) polarity using the second mass analyser (see steps 50, 51 & 53 in fig.2, and steps 89, 51 & 47 in fig.5). As to “additionally obtaining MS1 scans at the second (positive) polarity using the second mass analyser,” Manri requires an appropriate precursor/parent ion be selected for isolation and fragmentation in steps 50 & 89 of fig.2 & 5, and thus, utilizing the teaching of Manri, a MS1 scan could be performed at the second (positive) polarity to identify the presence and mass position of the precursor/parent ions before isolation and fragmentation. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Manri. Further, see [0046]-[0047]; [0056].).
Regarding Claim 22, the method of claim 19 is taught by Manri.
Manri further teaches wherein for the first mass analyser and/or second mass analyser, a time period forming an MS1 scan is greater than a time period for performing an MS2 scan (The limitation is implicitly taught in [0046]-[0047]; [0056] and shown in fig.9-10 which indicate that sufficient time for performing the MS1 and MS2 scans would be required to ensure a good signal intensity, signal to noise ratio, mass resolution and mass accuracy. The optimal time period varies depending on the type and purpose of the analyses performed. Utilizing the teaching of Manri, the time period for performing the MS1 scan can be greater than the time period for performing the MS2 scan, or vice versa. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Manri.).
Regarding Claim 25, the method of claim 19 is taught by Manri.
Manri further teaches wherein the one or more first packets of ions comprises a first packet of ions, and the first mass analyser performs, at the first polarity, an MS1 scan of the ions in the first packet of ions, and after switching polarity of the ion source and ion processing region to the second polarity and directing one or more second packets of ions to the second analyser, the second analyser performs at the second polarity one or more MS2 scans on the one or more second packets of ions ([0025]; [0055]-[0057]; Claims 1 and 13).
Regarding Claim 27, the method of claim 19 is taught by Manri.
Manri further teaches that the method being performed within a time period based on a width of a chromatographic peak of the sample as it elutes from a chromatography system ([0019]-[0021], [0040], [0046] & [0056], specifically [0019] discloses that the method of Manri is performed on a chromatographic peak as it elutes from a liquid chromatograph. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Manri.).
Regarding Claim 30, the method of claim 19 is taught by Manri.
Manri further teaches wherein the dual analyser mass spectrometer comprises one or more ion traps such as curved linear ion traps or C-traps ([0040]: “a linear ion trap (LIT) 6”), the method comprising, at least one of the one or more ion traps, aggregating ions ionised by the source and ion processing region to form packets of ions, and, by the at least one ion trap, directing packets of ions to the first mass analyser and/or to the second mass analyser ([0046]-[0047]; [0056]).
Regarding Claim 31, the method of claim 19, is taught by Manri.
Manri further teaches wherein the first mass analyser and/or second mass analyser takes a time period of at least 50 ms, at least 100 ms, at least 200 ms or at least 500 ms, to switch polarity and recommence mass analysis ([0021] discloses a switching time period of about 0.1 seconds for a TOF mass analyser.).
Regarding Claim 33, Manri teaches a mass spectrometer (Fig.1), comprising: an ion source (3) and processing region, comprising: an ionisation source (fig.2; step 43) for producing a plurality of precursor ions from molecules of a sample (fig.2; steps 47, 53); a mass filter (4); an ion trap configured to aggregate or collect ions ionised by the source and ion processing region to form packets of ions and selectively direct packets of ions to a first mass analyser and/or to a second mass analyser; the first mass analyser; a fragmentation apparatus [0040]; the second mass analyser (10); and a controller (21) configured to cause the mass spectrometer [0041] to perform the method of claim 1 as taught by Manri.
Regarding Claim 34, Manri teaches a computer-readable medium (fig.1; elements 20/21) comprising computer program instructions (implicit in 21/20), when run on a computer or controller configured to control a mass spectrometer cause the mass spectrometer to execute the steps of the method of claim 1 as taught by Manri.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manri in view of Chernyshev et al. (US 2024/0203716 A1, “Chernyshev”).
Regarding Claim 29, the method of claim 19 is taught by Manri.
Manri further teaches wherein the first mass analyser (fig.1) is a linear ion trap (LIT) (6) and the second mass analyser is a time-of-flight mass analyser (e.g. MR-ToF) (10) or an orbital trapping mass analyser.
Manri does not teach an orbital trapping mass analyser, instead, Manri teaches linear ion trap (LIT).
However, Chernyshev teaches a method and system of mass spectrometry wherein the mass spectrometer comprises a linear ion trap mass analyser and an orbital trapping mass analyser [0140].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the linear ion trap (LIT) disclosed in Manri with an orbital trapping mass analyser, since it is known in the art to use an orbital trapping mass analyser which would be capable of performing the same function as the linear ion trap (LIT) without altering the functionality of the analyser.
Regarding Claim 32, the method of claim 19 is taught by Manri.
Manri does not teach that the mass analysers are high resolution accurate mass (HRAM) analysers.
However, Chernyshev teaches a method and system of mass spectrometry wherein the mass spectrometer comprises a linear ion trap mass analyser and an orbital trapping mass analyser. An example is the Orbitrap Fusion™ Tribrid mass spectrometer, which comprises a linear ion trap mass analyser and an orbital trapping mass analyser, capable of different maximum mass resolutions [0140].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the linear ion trap (LIT) disclosed in Manri with an orbital trapping mass analyser, since it is known in the art to use an orbital trapping mass analyser which would be capable of performing the same function as the linear ion trap (LIT) without altering the functionality of the analyser and would provide maximum mass resolutions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to Claim 1, the prior arts of the record do not teach or fairly suggest a method of operating a dual analyser mass spectrometer to obtain MS1 and MS2 scans of positive and negative ions from a sample, the method comprising, in combination with the other recited steps, directing one or more second packets of ions of the plurality of ions to a second mass analyser and performing, by the second mass analyser at the first polarity, a second scan sequence comprising at least one MS1 scan or at least one MS2 scan of the ions in the one or more second packets, wherein at least part of the at least one MS1 scan or at least part of the at least one MS2 scan performed by the second mass analyser is performed during a first deadtime in which the first mass analyser is switching polarity.
Claims 2-18 are allowed by virtue of their dependence from Claim 1.
(ii) Claims 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Limitations of the respective claims are the reasons for allowability.
The most pertinent prior art of record is to Brown et al. (US 2013/0256524 A1). Brown teaches a mass spectrometer comprising a RF confinement device, a beam expander and a Time of Flight mass analyser. The beam expander is arranged to expand an ion beam emerging from the RF confinement device so that the ion beam is expanded to a diameter of at least 3 mm in the orthogonal acceleration extraction region of the Time of Flight mass analyser [Abstract].
Another pertinent prior art of record is to GIANNAKOPULOS et al. (US 2020/0328068 A1). GIANNAKOPULOS art discloses a data independent acquisition method of mass spectrometry for analyzing a sample within a mass range of interest as it elutes from a chromatography system. The method comprises selecting precursor ions within a mass range of interest to be analyzed, performing at least one MS1 scan of the precursor ions using a first, high-resolution mass analyzer and performing a set of MS2 scans by segmenting the precursor ions into a plurality of precursor mass segments, each precursor mass segment having a mass range of no greater than 5 amu, and for each precursor mass segment fragmenting the precursor ions within that precursor mass segment and performing an MS2 scan of the fragmented ions using a time of flight mass analyzer [Abstract].
The invention of the above mentioned, even if modified, does not alone or in combination with the other arts of record, teach or fairly suggest the crux of the claimed features mentioned above, and also in combination with all other elements in the independent claims distinguish the present invention(s) from the prior arts.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855