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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/16/24 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s).
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) 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “the second scan out of ions occurs after the first scan out of ions and after a period of time between the first scan out of ions and the second scan out of ions during which one or more ejection parameters are set” but it is unclear if “during which one or more ejection parameters are set” refers back to the period of time or the second scan out of ions.
Claims 2-5, 7-20 are rejected due to their dependency from claims 1, 6.
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_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 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 7, lines 20-44, fig 3; alternately see e.g. col 6, lines 42-51, any of the subsequent scan outs for different ranges);
wherein the second scan out of ions occurs after the first scan out of ions (see fig 3) and after a period of time between the first scan out of ions and the second scan out of ions during which one or more ejection parameters are set (ejection parameters are set via applying new frequencies and voltages onto the electrodes, which occurs during the second scan out; alternately note could refer to ejection parameters for e.g. some other mass range or some other experiment).
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.
PNG
media_image4.png
1371
933
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1st RF value)][AltContent: textbox (2nd RF value)][AltContent: textbox (e.g. 3rd RF value)][AltContent: textbox (e.g. 4th RF value)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Kelley, fig 3 (Annotated))]
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 intermediate masses between the first and second scan), set one or more new ejection parameters for the ion trap (e.g. for ejecting 53), 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).
Claim(s) 3, 4 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 the ions into the ion trap for an 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 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 an estimated quantity of ions in the ion trap by a 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. Additionally, it is noted that the determining is not further utilized in the claims.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Kelley, Watson, and Stafford teaches wherein loading ions into the ion trap comprises: determining a loading duration to load the ions when they are loaded at the rate of injection (required for operation of system; 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).
Claim(s) 6-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley (US 5173604 A).
Regarding claim 6, Kelley teaches non-transitory computer readable media that, when executed on a processor, cause the processor to initiate performance of a method, the method comprising:
causing an 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 7, lines 20-44, fig 3; alternately see e.g. col 6, lines 42-51, any of the subsequent scan outs for different ranges);
wherein the second scan out of ions occurs after the first scan out of ions (see fig 3) and after a period of time between the first scan out of ions and the second scan out of ions during which one or more ejection parameters are set (ejection parameters are set via applying new frequencies and voltages onto the electrodes, which occurs during the second scan out; alternately note could refer to ejection parameters for e.g. some other mass range or some other experiment; note obviousness of adjusting parameters generally for other applications).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Kelley 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 intermediate masses between the first and second scan), set one or more new ejection parameters for the ion trap (e.g. for ejecting 53), 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 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; or 46,55, etc).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Kelley may fail to explicitly disclose the second RF value corresponds to greater than 75% of the maximum of main RF voltage, and the third RF value corresponds to greater than 75% of the maximum of main RF voltage. 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. Alternately it is noted that the maximum of main RF voltage may be constructively defined as the claimed voltage range.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Kelley teaches wherein an 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 a 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 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 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 teaches wherein 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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Stafford et al. (US 5107109 A) [hereinafter Stafford].
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Kelley 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 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 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 2878
Prosecution Insights