DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply is acknowledged. The traversal is found persuasive because the search burden for the instant claims was found to not be serious upon commencement of substantive examination of the application. The requirement is withdrawn.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3, 9 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “loading an optimal quantity of ions into the ion trap for a desired experiment”. However, it is unclear what degree constitutes an optimal quantity for a desired experiment. See MPEP 2173.05(c)(III).
Claim 9 recites “75% of the maximum of main RF voltage the ion trap can handle” but it is unclear in what manner “the ion trap can handle” is defined. For instance, this could refer to an arbitrary design ceiling, operational guidelines, where dielectric breakdown is detectable, deemed unacceptable, and/or a voltage that would cause irreversible damage to the device. A skilled artisan would not have been able to ascertain what this maximum refers to.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 –
PNG
media_image3.png
281
1244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kelley (US 5173604 A).
Regarding claim 6, Kelley teaches non-transitory computer readable media that, when executed on a processor, cause the processor in initiate performance of, the method comprising:
causing the ion trap (see fig 1) to perform a first scan out of ions by systematically increasing a main RF voltage applied to the ion trap from a first RF value to a second RF value (see col 6, lines 30-38, fig 3); and
causing the ion trap to perform a second scan out of ions by systematically decreasing the main RF voltage applied to the ion trap from a third RF value to a fourth RF value (see e.g. col 6, lines 42-51, fig 3).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image4.png
158
934
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley (US 5173604 A) in view of Watson et al., INTRODUCTION TO MASS SPECTROMETRY (4th Ed. 2007) [hereinafter Watson].
Regarding claim 1, Kelley teaches an ion trap having increased mass range with reduced mass discrimination, the ion trap comprising:
two end cap electrodes (see e.g. 12, 13) positioned along the z-axis of the linear ion trap, wherein the
one or more voltage sources (see e.g. 14, 35) configured to provide at least a main RF and an auxiliary RF to the ion trap (see fig 1); and
wherein the ion trap is communicatively coupled to a processor (29) and a memory storing executable media (required for operation of system) that, when executed on the processor, cause the ion trap to:
cause the ion trap to perform a first scan out of ions by systematically increasing a main RF voltage applied to the ion trap from a first RF value to a second RF value (see col 6, lines 30-38, fig 3); and
cause the ion trap to perform a second scan out of ions by systematically decreasing the main RF voltage applied to the ion trap from a third RF value to a fourth RF value (see e.g. col 6, lines 42-51, fig 3).
Kelley may fail to explicitly disclose the electrodes comprising an array of four linear electrodes.
However, the use of linear ion traps in place of 3D Paul ion traps was very well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Watson teaches that linear ion traps, comprising four linear electrodes (see e.g. Watson, p96, fig 2-27A), which enables the ability to avoid problems with 3D traps having limited capacity, and to increase the volume of trapped ions, while enabling known effective interoperability with a wide range of devices (see e.g. p95-97). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Watson in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to overcome the problems associated with 3D traps, including enabling increased trapping volume and flexibility of operation, in the manner taught by Watson.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches the media, when executed on the processor, further cause the ion trap to: before the first scan is performed, set one or more initial ejection parameters for the ion trap (e.g. for prior ejection, see e.g. Kelley, fig 3: 49); and between the performance of the first scan and the second scan (e.g. for masses at 50, 51, etc), set one or more new ejection parameters for the ion trap (e.g. for ejecting 54), wherein setting the one or more ejection parameters comprises applying an auxiliary RF of a first auxiliary value to the ion trap (see supplemental AC, fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches a mass spectrometer (see Kelley, abstract) that includes an ion trap having increased mass range with reduced mass discrimination, the mass spectrometer comprising: an ion source configured to generate a plurality of ions (see e.g. Watson, fig 2-27A, p97, para 1); the ion trap of claim 1 (see Kelley, fig 1); and a detector system configured to detect at least ions ejected from the ion trap (see fig 2-27A).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches the media, when executed on the processor, further cause the ion trap to: before the first scan is performed, set one or more initial ejection parameters for the ion trap (e.g. for prior ejection, see e.g. Kelley, fig 3: 49); and between the performance of the first scan and the second scan (e.g. for masses at 50, 51, etc), set one or more new ejection parameters for the ion trap (e.g. for ejecting 54), wherein setting the one or more ejection parameters comprises applying an auxiliary RF of a first auxiliary value to the ion trap (see supplemental AC, fig 3).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches the second RF value is greater than the first RF value (e.g. Kelley, fig 3: 49, 51), and wherein the third RF value is greater than the first RF fourth (e.g. 47,54).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson may fail to explicitly disclose the second RF value corresponds to greater than 75% of the maximum of main RF voltage the ion trap can handle, and the third RF value corresponds to greater than 75% of the maximum of main RF voltage the ion trap can handle. It is unclear what the maximum main RF voltage of the ion trap is. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select absolute RF values, including utilizing voltages sufficiently high to enable operation of the system without exceeding operational capacity of the system and/or designing the trap so that is not overengineered for normal voltages for mass spectrometry applications. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches wherein the r0, the maximum main RF voltage, and main RF frequency of the ion trap (see Kelley, fig 3) are not changed between the first scan and the second scan (see e.g. fig 3: C region, constructively defining as an unchanged component of the frequency), wherein the resonance ejection frequency is a first frequency value during the first scanout and a second frequency value during the second scan out (see e.g. col 6, lines 10-19, constructively defining as a changing component of the frequency value), and wherein the first frequency value is greater than the second frequency value (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches the first frequency value and the second frequency value are determined or otherwise selected such that ions having a first desired Thompson value are ejected from the ion trap during the first scan out and ions having a second desired Thompson value are ejected from the ion trap during the second scan out (required for intended operation of system, selecting ions m/z per scan out, see generally Kelley, col 6, lines 19-41). It is noted that the references do not explicitly disclose use of Thompsons rather than m/z, but inasmuch as the references address mathematical calculations of the same problem, using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches wherein the first scan out of ions and the second scan out of ions are each performed on a population of ions injected during a single ion injection cycle (see Kelley, fig 3: A, e.g. col 5, lines 32-39), and wherein the single ion injection cycle comprises: allowing the population of ions to pass into the ion trap (see same); closing the ion trap so as to contain the population of ions in the ion trap (required for operation of system).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches wherein n no additional ions are injected or otherwise intentionally introduced into the ion trap between the first scan out of ions and the second scan out of ions (see Kelley, fig 3).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches wherein causing the ion trap to perform a first scan out of ions corresponds to increasing the main RF until the magnitude of the voltages applied to the ion trap is within a threshold amount (see Kelley, fig 3). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the threshold amount is of a maximum magnitude voltage for the ion trap. However, to the extent a maximum voltage exists, defining voltages as a threshold ratio would have been an obvious variation as a routine skill in the art. Inasmuch as the references address mathematical calculations of the same problem, using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches wherein when the main RF applied to the ion trap is at the third value and the one or more new ejection parameters are set for the ion trap (see Kelley, fig 3), the magnitude of the voltage applied to the ion trap is within a threshold amount of a maximum magnitude voltage for the ion trap (defining as within the threshold amount).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches wherein the first RF value of the main RF is such that, while the initial ejection parameters are set for the ion trap, the maximum RF amplitude that can be applied to the ion trap (for predetermined purpose) would be exceeded if the main RF is scanned from the first RF value to the third RF value (defining maximum RF amplitude as such, see Kelley, fig 3).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches wherein the first RF value corresponds to the main RF voltage that causes ions within the ion trap having a first Thompson value to resonate when the ion trap has the initial ejection parameters (see e.g. Kelley, col 6, lines 20-41), wherein the second RF value corresponds to the main RF voltage that causes ions within the ion trap having a second Thompson value to resonate when the ion trap has the initial ejection parameters (see same), and wherein the second Thompson value is greater than the first Thompson value (see e.g. fig 3: higher m/z, corresponding to higher Thompson value).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches wherein the third RF value corresponds to the main RF voltage that causes ions within ion trap having a third Thompson value to resonate when the ion trap has the new ejection parameters (see e.g. Kelley, col 6, lines 20-41, fig 3), wherein the fourth RF value corresponds to the main RF voltage that causes ions within the ion trap having a fourth Thompson value to resonate when the linear ion trap has the new ejection parameters (see same), wherein the third Thompson value is greater than the fourth Thompson value (see e.g. fig 3: higher m/z, corresponding to higher Thompson value).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson teaches setting one or more additional ejection parameters for the ion trap, wherein setting the one or more additional ejection parameters comprises changing the auxiliary RF applied to the ion trap to a third auxiliary value (see Kelley, fig 3); and causing the ion trap to perform a third scan out of ions (see e.g. 45).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley and Watson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stafford et al. (US 5107109 A) [hereinafter Stafford].
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Stafford teaches a system for adjusting ionization times to avoid problems with saturation and space charge effects (see e.g. Stafford, col 1, lines 56-63), said system comprising loading an optimal quantity of ions into the ion trap for a desired experiment (see loading to achieve given total ion content, see col 6, lines 43-52, claim 1); and performing a mass spec analysis on the optimal quantity of ions in the ion trap (see claims 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Stafford in the system of the combined prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to avoid problems with saturation and space charge of ions, in the manner taught by Stafford. The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose determining a rate of injection that ions were introduced into the ion trap during loading by dividing the estimated quantity of ions in the ion trap by the loading time period that ions were allowed to enter the ion trap. However, inasmuch as the references address mathematical calculations of the same problem, using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. The equations themselves are not a patentable subject matter; as to the method steps utilizing particular equations, the use of particular mathematical means would have accomplished the same result.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Kelley, Watson, and Stafford teaches wherein loading the optimal quantity of ions into the ion trap comprises: determining a loading duration that is required to load the desired quantity of ions when they are loaded at the rate of injection (see ionization time which controls loading time, Stafford, col 6, lines 43-52, claim 2); and allowing ions to be injected for the loading duration (see same).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Kelley and Watson may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Stafford, for similar reasons as claim 3 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Kelley, Watson, and Stafford teaches wherein the media, when executed on the processor, further causes estimating a quantity of ions in the ion trap based on the first detection data and the second detection data (see Stafford, e.g. claim 1) by: applying one or more first weights (defining as arbitrary constant) to the first detection data from the first scan (see e.g. col 6, lines 43-52); and applying one or more second weights to the second detection data from the second scan (e.g. repeating for subsequent scans, experiments, etc).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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 on (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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881