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 6/5/26 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). It is additionally noted that the claims are sufficiently broad to read on the second set of charged particles being e.g. the same set of species as the first set, a different set of species that happens to span a substantially similar m/z range as the first set of species, a different set of species comprising a sub-range of m/z that spans a common sub-range of m/z, etc. It is also noted that the language of passing a set of charged particles into the charged particle inlet of the charged particle transmission device with given parameters is broad enough to read on later ejecting at different parameters, including ejecting at non-overlapping m/z ranges. Finally, it is noted that the first and second sets are broad enough to read on even unconnected experiments at different times (days, years, etc).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 8, 13-22 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12 is/are rejected.
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_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (US 20140131568 A1) [hereinafter Green].
Regarding claim 1, Green teaches a method for controlling a multi-pole charged particle transmission device having an even number of elongated rods (see e.g. fig 1) spaced apart radially about a central axis extending axially through the device (see e.g. fig 1) from a charged particle inlet at one end of the device to a charged particle outlet at an opposite end of the device (see e.g. fig 13, left and right sides of 10), the method comprising:
controlling an AC voltage source to apply an AC voltage (see e.g. [0052], e.g. 69.936kHz, [0233], etc), having a frequency set to a first frequency, having a peak amplitude set to a first amplitude and having a waveform shape set to a first waveform shape (see [0233]), to the rods of the multi-pole charged particle transmission device (see same),
passing a first set of charged particles into the charged particle inlet of the charged particle transmission device (required for operation of system) with the frequency of the applied AC voltage at the first frequency, with the peak amplitude of the applied AG voltage at the first amplitude, and with the waveform shape of the AG voltage set to the first waveform shape (see same), wherein charged particles from the first set of charged particles exiting the charged particle outlet span a range of mass-to-charge ratios (e.g. the 300 m/z in [0233]; note reads on the wider span of ratios including all the charged particles including those during scanning, see [0228]),
controlling the AC voltage source to change one of the frequency of the AG voltage to a second frequency different from the first frequency (e.g. 70.170 kHz, [0234]; alternately for different experiment; alternately repeating the same experiment to verify results, and this corresponds to another frequency during scanning, etc), the peak amplitude of the AG voltage to a second amplitude different from the first amplitude (see e.g. [0092]), or the waveform shape of the AC voltage to a second waveform shape different from the first waveform shape, and
passing a second set of charged particles into the charged particle inlet of the charged particle transmission device (required for operation of system) with the one of the frequency of the applied AC voltage at the second frequency, the peak amplitude of the applied AC voltage at the second amplitude, or the waveform shape of the AC voltage having the second waveform shape (see same; alternately repeating experiment or for different experiment), wherein charged particles from the second set of charged particles exiting the charged particle outlet also span the range of mass-to-charge ratios (e.g. the wider span of ratios including all the charged particles including those during scanning of all the frequencies/amplitudes for same or different experiment, see [0228]).
Green may fail to explicitly disclose that the charged particles from the second set of charged particles exiting the charged particle outlet also span the range of mass-to-charge ratios. However, this limitation is broad enough to read on the fully scanned range of m/z ratios that are ejected from the trap, and not just a selective extraction done to a single m/z peak (see scanning, [0228]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to repeat the scanning, including e.g. scanning over the same sample (e.g. reproduce an experiment and/or improve precision), analyzing different samples ultimately having a substantially similar m/z range spans, and/or scanning different sample over an arbitrary range having overlapping sub-ranges (i.e. spanning the same sub-range), etc. It is noted that applying a known technique to a known device in order to yield predictable result supported a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, Green teaches prior to controlling the AC source to change the one of the frequency of the AC voltage to the second frequency or the peak amplitude of the AC voltage to the second amplitude (e.g. during a prior experiment; alternately see MSn experiments, [0243]; alternately see sequential ejection, [0228]), (i) controlling the AC voltage source to advance the one of the frequency of the applied AC voltage by a first selected frequency step size to an advanced frequency (required for operation of scanning; alternately could read as the entire range) toward the second frequency, or the peak amplitude of the AC voltage by a first selected amplitude step size to an advanced amplitude toward the second amplitude (e.g. ejection, [0228]; alternately MSn, [0243]), followed by (ii) passing a new set of the charged particles (note, this is broad enough to read on different portions of a single population of charged particles as they traverse the device) through the charged particle transmission device with the one of the frequency of the applied AC voltage at the advanced frequency, or the peak amplitude of the AC voltage at the advanced amplitude (e.g. ejection, [0228]; alternately MSn, [0243]), and (iii) executing (i) and (ii) until the one of the advanced frequency reaches the second frequency, or the advanced amplitude reaches the second amplitude (see same; alternately note selecting e.g. frequency for claim 2 and amplitude for claim 1, wherein the conditions are automatically met; note also obviousness in repeating the process i-iii for different experiments). It is further noted it has been held that a mere repetition of steps to achieve a desired effect would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.01; Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F. 3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Regarding claim 3, Green teaches after the one of the advanced frequency reaches the second frequency, or the advanced amplitude reaches the second amplitude, (iv) controlling the AC voltage source to advance the one of the frequency of the applied AC voltage by a second selected frequency step size to an advanced frequency (required for operation of scanning; alternately e.g. the entire difference) back toward the first frequency, or the peak amplitude of the AC voltage by a second selected amplitude step size to an advanced amplitude back toward the first amplitude (e.g. for a subsequent experiment; alternately see MSn experiments, [0243]; alternately see sequential ejection, [0228]), followed by (v) passing another new set of the charged particles through the charged particle transmission device with the one of the frequency of the applied AC voltage at the advanced frequency, or the peak amplitude of the AC voltage at the advanced amplitude (e.g. ejection, [0228]; alternately MSn, [0243]), and (vi) executing (iv) and (v) until the one of the advanced frequency reaches the first frequency, or the peak amplitude reaches the first amplitude (see same; note also well known obviousness of selecting increasing or decreasing scan direction, see generally [0056]; alternately note selecting e.g. frequency for claim 3 and amplitude for claim 1, wherein the conditions are automatically met; note also obviousness in repeating the process i-iii for different experiments). It is further noted it has been held that a mere repetition of steps to achieve a desired effect would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.01; Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F. 3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Regarding claim 4, Green may fail to explicitly disclose executing a selected number of times, (i)-(iii) and followed by (iv)-(vi). However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the number may be one or zero. Further, it is noted that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to repeat the steps, for example for a subsequent experiment (alternately see MSn, [0243]; alternately see sequential ejection, [0228]), as a routine skill in the art. It is further noted it has been held that a mere repetition of steps to achieve a desired effect would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.01; Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F. 3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Regarding claim 5, Green may fail to explicitly disclose completing (iii) within a selected time period. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the time period for completing the experiment (see e.g. Green, [0271]) for example to balance efficiency and precision. It is also noted that a skilled artisan would have recognized an experiment must be completed within certain engineering constraints, including time, and complete the experiment before e.g. funding or grants are exhausted for that fiscal year(s).
Regarding claim 6, Green may fail to explicitly disclose completing (vi) within a selected time period. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the time period for completing the experiment (see e.g. Green, [0271]) for example to balance efficiency and precision. It is also noted that a skilled artisan would have recognized an experiment must be completed within certain engineering constraints, including time, and complete the experiment before e.g. funding or grants are exhausted for that fiscal year(s).
Regarding claim 7, Green may fail to explicitly disclose completing each execution of (i)-(iii) and (iv)-(vi) within a selected time period. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the time period for completing the experiment (see e.g. Green, [0271]) for example to balance efficiency and precision. It is also noted that a skilled artisan would have recognized an experiment must be completed within certain engineering constraints, including time, and complete the experiment before e.g. funding or grants are exhausted for that fiscal year(s).
Regarding claim 9, Green teaches controlling the AC voltage source comprises controlling the AC voltage source to change the peak amplitude of the AC voltage, the method further comprising: selecting a base peak amplitude of the AC voltage (e.g. some intermediate amplitude during amplitude scan, see e.g. Green, [0052,228,243], etc; alternately defining as the second amplitude) produced by the AC voltage source, and selecting the first and second amplitudes, wherein the second amplitude is greater than the first amplitude (see same), such that the base peak amplitude is between the first and second amplitudes, such that the base peak amplitude is the first amplitude, or such that the base peak amplitude is the second amplitude (see same). Green may fail to explicitly disclose the base peak amplitude being a function of mass-to-charge ratios of the charged particles to be passed through the multi-pole charged particle transmission device. 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 10, Green teaches only the AC voltage is applied to the rods such that the multi-pole charged particle transmission device operates as a multi-pole charged particle guide (see e.g. RF-only mode, Green, [0129]).
Regarding claim 11, Green teaches controlling a DC voltage source to also apply a DC voltage to the rods of the multi-pole charged particle transmission device such that the multi-pole charged particle transmission device operates as a multi-pole charged particle mass-to-charge ratio filter (see e.g. Green, [0129]).
Regarding claim 12, Green teaches selecting a magnitude of the DC voltage which defines a corresponding range of mass-to-charge ratios to pass through the multi-pole charged particle mass-to-charge ratio filter (required for operation of mass filter, see [0241]), and controlling the DC voltage source to apply the DC voltage with the selected magnitude to the rods of the multi-pole charged particle mass-to-charge ratio filter so as to pass through the multi-pole charged particle mass-to-charge ratio filter only charged particles having mass-to-charge ratios within the corresponding range of mass-to- charge ratios (see e.g. [0241,246]). It is unclear if the magnitude of the DC voltage by itself defines a corresponding range of mass-to-charge ratios. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, given the other operating parameters of the system, the selected DC voltage would naturally affect (thereby correspond to) the range of m/z ratios being selected by the filter. Alternately, it is noted that tuning of mass filter via adjustment of DC voltages was well known and conventional at the time the application was effectively filed.
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