DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Amended claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
The amended claim 9 recites the limitation “stalling in regions of of a mass spectrometer…”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach or disclose the amended claim limitations. More specifically, the interior region of the ion guide comprising a square or a rectangular interior region, where each of the first and second surface of each electrode are oriented transversely to one another to define at least a corner of the square of rectangular interior region. Examiner disagrees as Fig. 6 of Baba (WO 2021/064558) discloses an interior region of the apparatus 100 (of which the electrodes 107 and 108 are supplied with an RF voltage to guide ions, see paragraph [0071]), where each electrode 107 and 108 each are oriented transversely to one another to define at least a corner (see Fig. 6).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baba (WO 2021/064558, hereinafter Baba).
Regarding claim 1, Baba discloses a RF multipole ion guide (apparatus 10 comprises a set of quadrupole electrodes 17 connected to a RF voltage source, see paragraph [0051] used as an ion guide, see paragraph [0077]) comprising:
at least four elongated electrodes arranged in parallel around an axial centerline, each electrode being generally L-shaped in a cross section and having first and second inner surface directed toward an interior region of the ion guide, wherein the interior region of the ion guide comprises a square or rectangular interior region, each of the first and second surfaces of each electrode being oriented transversely to one another to define at least a corner of the square or rectangular interior region (quadrupole electrodes 107 having an L-shaped cross section, see Fig. 6, to guide ions to a midpoint, see paragraph [0071]; edge of each electrodes 107 and 108 oriented transverse to one another forming a corner, see Fig. 6; electrodes 107 and 108 are in the interior region of apparatus 100, see Fig. 6); and
an RF voltage source for supplying RF voltages to the elongated electrodes in a predetermined phase relationship (quadrupole electrodes 107 connected to a set of RF voltages, see paragraph [0071], phase relationship shown as polarities in the same configuration shown in Fig. 3A, see paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 6 of Baba discloses the first and second surface are oriented approximately perpendicularly to one another (quadrupole electrode 107 having an L-shaped cross section, see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 6 of Baba discloses at least one set of surface of adjacent elongated electrodes are aligned with one another (quadrupole electrodes 107 two being depicted, other two being directly behind, see Fig. 6 and paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Baba discloses adjacent elongated electrodes are electrically insulated from each other by means of gaps separating them (phase relationship shown as polarities in the same configuration shown in Fig. 3A, see paragraph [0071] shows the adjacent electrodes are electrically separated).
Regarding claim 7, Baba discloses the ion guide is employed in a chamber of a mass spectrometer having gas pressures are more than 10 mTorr (quadrupole electrodes 107 are used to guide ions, see paragraph [0071], in a mass spectrometer, see paragraph [0003], having gas pressures more than 10-2 Torr, see paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Baba discloses the ion guide is employed in a chamber of a mass spectrometer having gas pressures are more than 100 mTorr (quadrupole electrodes 107 are used to guide ions, see paragraph [0071], in a mass spectrometer, see paragraph [0003], having gas pressures more than 10-2 Torr, see paragraph [0044]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba in view of Chen et al. (US PGPub 2021/0407784, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 3, Baba fails to teach sets of segmented DC electrodes positioned proximate the elongated electrodes, and a DC voltage source coupled to the electrodes for applying DC voltages to the DC electrodes to generate a DC gradient along the axial centerline.
Fig. 1 of Chen teaches the ion guides can comprise electrodes positioned proximate the quadrupole (e.g. hexapole and octupole arrangements, see paragraph [0038]). Baba further teaches the electrodes of the ion guide can be segmented to allow a DC gradient to be applied to the segments to guide the ions toward the ion exit (ion guide electrode 908 comprises a plurality of conductive electrode sections 932 and configured to apply a DC voltage at successively varying DC voltage magnitude values, see Fig. 9A and paragraph [0075]).
Chen modifies Baba by suggesting forming a multipole (e.g. hexapole or octupole) with segmented electrodes to apply a DC voltage gradient.
Since both inventions are drawn to ion guides, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Baba by arranging segmented electrodes to apply a DC voltage gradient for the purpose of having greater control over guiding ions as taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 9, Baba fails to teach the ion guide is configured to establish a DC gradient along the axial centerline of ion guide to urge ions moving from the entrance to the exit and prevent ion stalling in regions of a mass spectrometer having gas pressures more than 10 mTorr.
Fig. 1 of Chen teaches the ion guides can comprise electrodes positioned proximate the quadrupole (e.g. hexapole and octupole arrangements, see paragraph [0038]). Baba further teaches the electrodes of the ion guide can be segmented to allow a DC gradient to be applied to the segments to guide the ions toward the ion exit (ion guide electrode 908 comprises a plurality of conductive electrode sections 932 and configured to apply a DC voltage at successively varying DC voltage magnitude values, see Fig. 9A and paragraph [0075]). Chen teaches this ion guide can operate in gas pressures of more than 10 mTorr (ion guide may be part of a collision cell where pressure is high (e.g. typically several to tens of mTorr), see paragraph [0006]).
Chen modifies Baba by suggesting forming a multipole (e.g. hexapole or octupole) with segmented electrodes to apply a DC voltage gradient in a mass spectrometer at a gas pressure more than 10 mTorr.
Since both inventions are drawn to ion guides, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Baba by arranging segmented electrodes to apply a DC voltage gradient for the purpose of having greater control over guiding ions as taught by Chen.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba.
Regarding claim 6, Baba discloses the dimensions and spacing of at least four elongated electrodes (quadrupole electrodes 107 having an L-shaped cross section, see Fig. 6 and paragraph [0071]).
While Baba is silent on optimizing ion transmission efficiencies in view of effect on pumping efficiency, it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights