DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to communications on 05/07/2024
Claims 1-20 pending
Claims 1-20 rejected
Priority
Application data sheet received on 09/13/2023 claims foreign priority to patent GB2213502.4 filed on 09/14/2022. Priority document electronically received on 10/02/2023. Application data sheet accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
Responsive to IDS received on 09/13/2023 and 05/07/2024. All references considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Drawings received on 09/13/2023 are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Abstract received on 09/13/2023 contains less than 150 words and contains no legal or implied phraseology. Abstract is accepted by the examiner.
Specifications received on 09/13/2023 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 states, “determining the width of a passband of the bandpass characteristic” this should likely be written as “determining a width of a passband of the bandpass characteristic”
Claim 15 states “the mass of a carrier gas of the mass spectrometer, the operating mass range of one or more multicollector detectors of the mass spectrometer, or the mass range of an element or molecule of interest.“ The claim should likely be written as “a mass of a carrier gas of the mass spectrometer, a operating mass range of one or more multicollector detectors of the mass spectrometer, or a mass range of an element or molecule of interest.“
Claim 16 states “the width of a lower flank of the bandpass characteristic and the width of an upper flank of the bandpass characteristic” This likely should be written as “the width of a lower flank of the bandpass characteristic and the width of an upper flank of the bandpass characteristic”
Claim Interpretation
Claims 16, 18, and 20 recites the limitations of “a third predetermined fraction” and a “fourth predetermined fraction.” The first and second predetermined fractions derive from claim 2 which claim 16 does not depend on. Therefore, the examiner does not interpret the third and fourth predetermined fractions to be related to the first and second, only that these are labeled third and fourth to signify that these are different claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 states The method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving a second candidate magnetic field strength and a second candidate electric field strength of the mass filter;
and repeating, based on the received second candidate magnetic and electric field strengths, the determining of the corresponding centre mass, the determining of the width of the passband of the bandpass characteristic, and the determining of the at least one of the lower or the upper bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic,
wherein the repeating is until the bandpass characteristic meets the one or more acceptance criteria.
As understood by the examiner, the specification outlines a process where different candidate magnetic and electric field strengths are processed until the acceptance criteria are met. Rather than repeating the calculations with the same magnetic and electric fields until an acceptance criterion is met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? :
YES. The claim recites A computer-implemented method which is a process.
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?":
YES. Claim 1 recites: based on the received first candidate magnetic and electric field strengths, determining a corresponding centre mass of the mass filter;
This is the determination of a numeric value (centre mass of the mass filter) based on two other numeric values (magnetic and electric field strength). This is a relationship of numeric values based on either mathematic equations or rules derived by science. See par 93: “As one example, the centre mass may be determined by rearranging the following equation:
U
W
i
e
n
=
c
o
n
s
t
∙
E
m
∙
d
∙
B
“ MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
based on the received first candidate magnetic and electric field strengths, determining the width of a passband of the bandpass characteristic;
This is a determination of a numeric value (the width of a passband) based on two other numeric values (magnetic and electric field strengths). The specifications do not seem to discuss steps of how the width of the passband is determined using magnetic and electric field strengths. As understood by the examiner, this is a determination of the upper and lower bound width around the Centre where the Amu of the ion will pass the filter. This is an observation of two values (electric and magnetic field strength) and an evaluation of those values (a determination of the width of a passband). The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
and determining at least one of a lower or an upper bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter.
This is the determination of numeric values (at least one of a lower or an upper bound of the passband). This is done in respect to the width and center of the passband. Par 101: “Optionally, determining the upper bound 807 (step 604A) may comprise adding a first predetermined fraction 804A (e.g., 0.4 or 0.5) of the determined width 804 of the passband to the determined centre mass 800A, and, optionally, determining the lower bound 808 (step 604B) may comprise subtracting a second predetermined fraction 804B (e.g., 0.4 or 0.5) of the determined width 804 of the passband 801 from the determined centre mass 800A.” “ MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. Claim 1 additionally recites A computer-implemented method of simulating a mass filter of a mass spectrometer, the mass filter comprising a first Wien filter and a second Wien filter and having a bandpass characteristic, and the method comprising:
This claim limitation describes the technical background of the technology, that the judicial exceptions are applied to simulating a “mass filter of a mass spectrometer” which comprises Wien filters. The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” Because this claim limitation describes the field of use to apply the exception, rather than a practical application of the exception, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
receiving a first candidate magnetic field strength and a first candidate electric field strength of the mass filter, wherein the candidate magnetic field strength and the candidate electric field strength are field strengths of the first and second Wien filters;
This claim describes receiving two different numeric values from a computer implemented method. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 1 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2:The method of claim 1, wherein
the determining of the upper bound comprises adding a first predetermined fraction of the determined width of the passband to the determined centre mass and
the determining of the lower bound comprises subtracting a second predetermined fraction of the determined width of the passband from the determined centre mass.
This claim recites mathematical calculations of subtracting and adding values. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3:The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the at least one of the upper or lower bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter.
This claim displays the upper or lower bound of the passband which were determined from the judicial exceptions of claim 1. Displaying a result of the judicial exception as understood by the examiner is an insignificant extra solution activity. One example given in MPEP 2106.05(g) is “o iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” Where displaying was not determined to be a significant application. Furthermore, it is well understood, routine and conventional to display data to a user. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) with example “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” to be considered well understood and routine. Where “presenting offers” is viewed as displaying information.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a centre mass, optionally from a user;
This claim limitation describes receiving numeric data. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
and based on the received centre mass, determining a first updated electric field strength of the mass filter.
This is a mathematic determination of electric field strength based on the centre mass. This appears to utilize the same mathematic calculation principle as presented in claim 1 but applied to the other side of the equation. Where this claim is solved for E. See par 93: “As one example, the centre mass may be determined by rearranging the following equation:
U
W
i
e
n
=
c
o
n
s
t
∙
E
m
∙
d
∙
B
This is an observation and evaluation of values. Therefore the claim recites a mathematic calculation / mental process.
Claim 5:The method of claim 4, further comprising displaying the first updated electric field strength.
This claim displays the updated electric field strength determined from the judicial exception of claim 4. Displaying a result of the judicial exception as understood by the examiner is an insignificant extra solution activity. One example given in MPEP 2106.05(g) is “o iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” Where displaying was not determined to be a significant application. Furthermore, it is well understood, routine and conventional to display data to a user. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) with example “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” to be considered well understood and routine. Where “presenting offers” is viewed as displaying information.
Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a second candidate magnetic field strength and a second candidate electric field strength of the mass filter;
and repeating, based on the received second candidate magnetic and electric field strengths, the determining of the corresponding centre mass, the determining of the width of the passband of the bandpass characteristic, and the determining of the at least one of the lower or the upper bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic.
Claim 6 performs substantially identical operations to claim 1 except done with a second pair of candidate values. As outlined above in claim 1, the receiving of the candidate field strengths is the usage of a computer for its ordinary task of receiving data. The recited determination steps are the repeated mental processes and mathematic calculations of claim 1. Therefore claim 6 recites an abstract idea and does not apply the judicial exception into a practical application or provide more.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 6, further comprisingdisplaying the at least one of the upper or lower bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter,
This claim displays the upper or lower bound of the passband which was determined in claim 1. Displaying a result of the judicial exception as understood by the examiner is an insignificant extra solution activity. One example given in MPEP 2106.05(g) is “o iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” Where displaying was not determined to be a significant application. Furthermore, it is well understood, routine and conventional to display data to a user. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) with example “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” to be considered well understood and routine. Where “presenting offers” is viewed as displaying information.
wherein the repeating comprises repeating the determining of the corresponding centre mass, the determining of the width of the passband of the bandpass characteristic, the determining of the at least one of the lower or the upper bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic, and the displaying,
Claim 7 performs substantially identical operations to claim 1 except done with a second pair of candidate values. As outlined above in claim 1, the recited determination steps are the repeated mental processes and mathematic calculations of claim 1. Ad the displaying step is viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore claim 7 recites an abstract idea and does not apply the judicial exception into a practical application or provide more.
wherein the first candidate magnetic field strength, the first candidate electric field strength, the second candidate magnetic field strength, and the second candidate electric field strength are received from a user.
The information being received from a user is an example of insignificant extra solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(g). One example given is “i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);” where this limitation is understood as prompting an individual to obtain input for an equation. Furthermore, the information being received from a user is well understood, routine, and conventional. For example, one given in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) is “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” Where this limitation is understood to be recording a users input. Therefore this claim limitation does not apply the above judicial exceptions into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying a mass of a carrier gas of the mass spectrometer;
This claim displays information relating to a mass spectrometer (the mass of the carrier gas used). Displaying information to a user which is later used in a judicial exception (comparing the mass of the carrier gas to the bandpass) is an insignificant extra solution activity. One example given in MPEP 2106.05(g) is “o iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” Where displaying was not determined to be a significant application. Furthermore, it is well understood, routine and conventional to display data to a user. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) with example “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” to be considered well understood and routine. Where “presenting offers” is viewed as displaying information.
and optionally, responsive to determining that the mass of the carrier gas is between the upper and lower bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter, displaying a warning.
This limitation is an optional limitation. Furthermore, the examiner understands “displaying a warning” to encompass the data output of the judicial exception of “determining that the mass of the carrier gas is between the upper and lower bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter,” and therefore would be an insignificant application of the judicial exception of being mere data output.
Claim 9:The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying an operating mass range of one or more multicollector detectors of the mass spectrometer.
This claim displays information relating to a mass spectrometer (the operating mass range of the multicollector detectors). Displaying information to a user is an insignificant extra solution activity since it does not apply the judicial exceptions listed above. One example given in MPEP 2106.05(g) is “oiii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” Where even if the limitation related to the judicial exceptions, it would still not apply the judicial exception because displaying was not determined to be a significant application. Furthermore, it is well understood, routine and conventional to display data to a user. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) with example “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” to be considered well understood and routine. Where “presenting offers” is viewed as displaying information.
Claim 10: The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying a mass range of an element or molecule of interest,
This claim displays information relating to the element for testing (the mass range of the element). Displaying information to a user is an insignificant extra solution activity since it does not apply the judicial exceptions listed above. One example given in MPEP 2106.05(g) is “oiii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” Where even if the limitation related to the judicial exceptions, it would still not apply the judicial exception because displaying was not determined to be a significant application. Furthermore, it is well understood, routine and conventional to display data to a user. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) with example “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” to be considered well understood and routine. Where “presenting offers” is viewed as displaying information.
optionally wherein the method further comprises receiving from the user a selection of the element or molecule of interest from a plurality of elements and/or molecules.
This limitation is an optional limitation. Furthermore, the examiner understands “receiving from the user a selection” to encompass mere data gathering of requesting input from a user. Therefore, the claim limitation does not apply the exception to a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 11:The method of claim 7, further comprising:
subsequent to the repeated displaying, receiving confirmation that the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter is acceptable;
The determination if a bandpass characteristic is acceptable is an evaluation performed by an individual reasonably skilled in the art. Receiving confirmation under broadest reasonable interpretation is understood to be a generic notification, data received, data transmitted or displayed to a user. This does not apply the judicial exception as it is the use of generic computer components for an ordinary task (transmit data).
responsive to receiving the confirmation, setting a magnetic field and an electric field of the mass filter to the second candidate magnetic field strength and the second candidate electric field strength, respectively.
This claim limitation pertains to a choice made by an individual skilled in the art based on an evaluation of whether or not a bandpass characteristic meets an acceptance criteria as to what magnetic or electric field strength to use for an experiment. This step pertains to a selection of variables for an experiment, which encompasses processes performed in the mind as part of the scientific method. Therefore, the claim is a further recitation of the abstract idea.
Claim 12:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, based on at least one of the upper or lower bounds of the passband of the bandpass characteristic, whether the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter meets one or more acceptance criteria.
This claim limitation pertains to an observation of the upper/lower bounds of the passband and a determination/evaluation if the bandpass meets an acceptance criterion. As outlined, this is a mental process which can be performed by an individual reasonably skilled in the art.
Claim 13:
The method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving a second candidate magnetic field strength and a second candidate electric field strength of the mass filter;
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
and repeating, based on the received second candidate magnetic and electric field strengths, the determining of the corresponding centre mass, the determining of the width of the passband of the bandpass characteristic, and the determining of the at least one of the lower or the upper bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic,
As stated above, this repeating is the repeated determination steps of claim 1 which were determined to be recitations of mental processes and mathematic calculations.
wherein the repeating is until the bandpass characteristic meets the one or more acceptance criteria.
This claim limitation pertains to an observation of the bandpass characteristics and a determination/evaluation if the bandpass meets an acceptance criterion whether or not the determinations should be repeated. As outlined, this is a mental process which can be performed by an individual reasonably skilled in the art.
Claim 14:
The method of claim 12, further comprising, responsive to determining that the bandpass characteristic meets the one or more acceptance criteria, setting a or the magnetic field and an or the electric field of the mass filter to the candidate magnetic field strength and the candidate electric field strength, respectively, at which the bandpass characteristic was determined to meet the one or more acceptance criteria.
This claim limitation pertains to a choice made by an individual skilled in the art based on an evaluation whether or not a bandpass characteristic meets an acceptance criteria as to what magnetic or electric field strength to use for an experiment. This step pertains to a selection of variables for an experiment, which encompasses processes performed in the mind as part of the scientific method. The claimed invention from claim 1 pertains to a simulation of a mass spectrometer, not a method of mass spectrometry. Therefore the claim is a further recitation of the abstract idea.
Claim 15:The method of claim 12, wherein determining whether the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter meets one or more acceptance criteria comprises
comparing at least one of the upper or lower bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter with at least one of: the mass of a carrier gas of the mass spectrometer, the operating mass range of one or more multicollector detectors of the mass spectrometer, or the mass range of an element or molecule of interest.
This claim limitation pertains to an observation of the upper/lower bounds of the passband with for example the mass range of the molecule of interest and a determination/evaluation if the bandpass meets an acceptance criterion (does the molecule of interest fall within the bandpass). As outlined, this is a mental process which can be performed by an individual reasonably skilled in the art.
Claim 16:The method of claim 1, further comprising, based on the received first candidate magnetic and electric field strengths, determining the width of a lower flank of the bandpass characteristic and the width of an upper flank of the bandpass characteristic,
and wherein the determining of the upper bound further comprises adding a third predetermined fraction of the determined width of the upper flank to the determined centre mass and
the determining of the lower bound further comprises subtracting a fourth predetermined fraction of the determined width of the lower flank from the determined centre mass.
This claim recites mathematical calculations of subtracting and adding values. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is effectively similar to claim 1, except that it pertains to an apparatus which is a machine and contains the recitation of generic computing components such as a processor. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore under a similar rational to claim 1 this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 18:Claim 18 is effectively similar to claim 16 except that it depends on claim 17 and is therefore rejected under a similar rational to claims 16 and 17.
Claim 19:Claim 19 is effectively similar to claim 1, except that it pertains to non-transitory computer readable medium, which is an article of manufacture and contains the recitation of generic computing components such as a processor. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore under a similar rational to claim 1 this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is effectively similar to claim 16 except that it depends on claim 19 and is therefore rejected under a similar rational to claims 16 and 19.
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.
Claims 1-2,4, 6, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters_2021 (US 20210013017 A1) and Mitchell_2018 (“Designing a Wien Filter Model with General Particle Tracer”)
Claim 1:
Schwieters_2021 makes obvious A computer-implemented method (par 33: “The invention also extends to a method of mass spectrometry in accordance with claim”) of simulating a mass filter of a mass spectrometer, the mass filter comprising a first Wien filter and a second Wien filter and having a bandpass characteristic, and the method comprising: (par 55-56: “FIG. 8 shows a schematic view, in the X-Z plane, of a first embodiment of the static field mass filter of FIG. 5, comprising first and second Wien filters separated by an inversion lens, along with simulated ion trajectories in the X-Z plane.
FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c show simulated ion trajectories in the X-Z plane, in the arrangement of FIG.\ 8, with first, second and third mass spreads respectively. (Examiner note: bandpass characteristics)
Par 88: “The static field mass filter 120 maintains constant electric and magnetic fields, so that transmission of ions through the static field mass filter has a flat response across the selected m/z range. “ … par 98: “The electric field and magnetic flux density are adjusted (Examiner note: which implies a first candidate electric and magnetic field) until ions of m/z Mo travel along the symmetry axis (the Z axis in FIGS. 5 and 8) of the static field mass filter 120.” wherein the candidate magnetic field strength and the candidate electric field strength are field strengths of the first and second Wien filters; (par 55: “FIG. 8 shows a schematic view, in the X-Z plane, of a first embodiment of the static field mass filter of FIG. 5, comprising first and second Wien filters separated by an inversion lens, along with simulated ion trajectories in the X-Z plane” … Par 88: “The static field mass filter 120 maintains constant electric and magnetic fields, so that transmission of ions through the static field mass filter has a flat response across the selected m/z range. “)
based on the par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges. In FIG. 9a, the mass window is M.sub.0 +/−10%, that is, FIGS. 9a and 8 are identical. FIG. 9b shows ion trajectories for a wider mass window M.sub.0 +/−20%, and FIG. 9c shows ion trajectories for a still wider mass window of M.sub.0 +/−30%. (Examiner note: Where M.sub.0 is the center mass of the mass window) As can be seen by comparison of FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c, lateral mass dispersion (that is, dispersion in the X direction) is greatest at a point between the first and second Wien filters 220, 230, and, moreover, at that point the amount of ion dispersion increases with the width of the mass window. If a specific mass window is selected, (Examiner note: see par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter
so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ”Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strengths) only ions having a limited dispersion in the X direction between the two Wien filters should reach the second Wien filter.”
based on the par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges. In FIG. 9a, the mass window is M.sub.0 +/−10%, that is, FIGS. 9a and 8 are identical. FIG. 9b shows ion trajectories for a wider mass window M.sub.0 +/−20%, and FIG. 9c shows ion trajectories for a still wider mass window of M.sub.0 +/−30%. (Examiner note: Where M.sub.0 is the center mass of the mass window, and the +/- %s are the width of the passband with + being the upper bound and – being the lower bound) As can be seen by comparison of FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c, lateral mass dispersion (that is, dispersion in the X direction) is greatest at a point between the first and second Wien filters 220, 230, and, moreover, at that point the amount of ion dispersion increases with the width of the mass window. If a specific mass window is selected, (Examiner note: see par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ”Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strengths) only ions having a limited dispersion in the X direction between the two Wien filters should reach the second Wien filter.”
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite receiving [magnetic field strength and electric field strength of the wien filters],
Mitchell_2018 however makes obvious receiving [magnetic field strength and electric field strength of the wien filters], page 2 col 1 par 1: “The first model used homogeneous, rectangular electric and magnetic fields to simulate the fields in the Wien filter. These fields were constructed in GPT using the erect and rectmagnet functions for the electric and magnetic fields, respectively. Eventually, these fields were replaced with 3D field maps, created with the finite element field solver Opera [5] [6].” … page 7 section A.1 wien “Given the dimensions of the Wien filter and the field strengths, wien provides uniform fields with the specified strengths inside the Wien filter and can optionally calculate fringe fields for the magnetic field. wien(ECS,a,b,L,E,B,dl,b1,b2 [,scope: LOCAL or GLOBAL]) … E Electric field strength [V/m] B Magnetic field strength [T] Examiner note: Where E and B are inputs to the wein function.
Schwieters_2021 and Mitchell_2018 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called Wien Filters. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Schwieters_2021 and Mitchell_2018.
The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. The prior art pf Schwieters_2021 describes a double Wein filter system used for mass spectrometry. The prior art of Schwieter_2021 shows simulations results of the mass filters and also maps relationships between the magnetic and electric field strengths. See par 90-92 which outline the relationships as described, as well par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B (Examiner note: the electric and magnetic fields) may be adjusted. “This provides a clear understanding that one ordinarily skilled in the art recognizes that the passband of the Wein filter is based on electric and magnetic field strength, and provides justification that one ordinarily skilled in the art would obvious change these values to select ions of a particular mass by following the known mathematic relationships. Mitchell_2018 shows a simulation where this is done, providing a wien function with the magnetic and electric fields as input, stating page 4 col 2 par 1: “The updated model will aid in future diagnostic tests of any beamline component down stream of the Wien filter, and allow users to easily calculate the electric and magnetic fields needed for the filter to function properly.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the double Wein filter simulations of Schwieters_2021 with the input of electric and magnetic fields strengths of Mitchell_2018 for the benefit of allowing users to easily calculate the field strengths needed for the filter to function properly to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 2: Schwieters_2021 makes further obvious The method of claim 1, wherein
the determining of the upper bound comprises adding a first predetermined fraction of the determined width of the passband to the determined centre mass and
the determining of the lower bound comprises subtracting a second predetermined fraction of the determined width of the passband from the determined centre mass.
(par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges. In FIG. 9a, the mass window is M.sub.0 +/−10%, that is, FIGS. 9a and 8 are identical. FIG. 9b shows ion trajectories for a wider mass window M.sub.0 +/−20%, and FIG. 9c shows ion trajectories for a still wider mass window of M.sub.0 +/−30%. (Examiner note: Where M.sub.0 is the center mass of the mass window, and the +/- %s are the width of the passband with +10% being the upper bound and – 10% being the lower bound) As can be seen by comparison of FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c, lateral mass dispersion (that is, dispersion in the X direction) is greatest at a point between the first and second Wien filters 220, 230, and, moreover, at that point the amount of ion dispersion increases with the width of the mass window. If a specific mass window is selected, only ions having a limited dispersion in the X direction between the two Wien filters should reach the second Wien filter.”
Claim 4: Schwieters_2021 makes further obvious The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a centre mass, optionally from a user; (par 116: “The angular divergence of the ion beam is +-30 mrad relative to the Z axis. The mass range is set to M0 +/-20%. The simulation (FIGS. 10b and 10c) shows that ions of the central mass M0 pass along the Z axis without deviation.” and based on the received centre mass, determining a first updated electric field strength of the mass filter. (par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either {right arrow over (E)} or {right arrow over (B)} may be adjusted. In practice, for small changes in the selected mass, the magnetic flux density is kept constant (eg at 0.5T) and the electric field is adjusted.”)
Claim 6:
Schwieters_2021 makes further obvious The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Par 53: “FIG. 6 shows, highly schematically, an arrangement of a Wien filter employed as part of the static field mass filter of FIG. 5, to illustrate the effect of magnetic and electric fields on ions of velocity v.” par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted (Examiner note: To a second candidate E and B field) . par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges.)
and repeating, based on the par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges. In FIG. 9a, the mass window is M.sub.0 +/−10%, that is, FIGS. 9a and 8 are identical. FIG. 9b shows ion trajectories for a wider mass window M.sub.0 +/−20%, and FIG. 9c shows ion trajectories for a still wider mass window of M.sub.0 +/−30%. (Examiner note: Where M.sub.0 is the center mass of the mass window, and the +/- %s are the width of the passband with + being the upper bound and – being the lower bound. Where this is the second candidate) As can be seen by comparison of FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c, lateral mass dispersion (that is, dispersion in the X direction) is greatest at a point between the first and second Wien filters 220, 230, and, moreover, at that point the amount of ion dispersion increases with the width of the mass window. If a specific mass window is selected, (Examiner note: see par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ”Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strengths) only ions having a limited dispersion in the X direction between the two Wien filters should reach the second Wien filter.”
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite receiving [the candidate electric and magnetic field]
Mitchell_2018 however makes obvious receiving [the candidate electric and magnetic field] page 2 col 1 par 1: “The first model used homogeneous, rectangular electric and magnetic fields to simulate the fields in the Wien filter. These fields were constructed in GPT using the erect and rectmagnet functions for the electric and magnetic fields, respectively. Eventually, these fields were replaced with 3D field maps, created with the finite element field solver Opera [5] [6].” … page 7 section A.1 wien “Given the dimensions of the Wien filter and the field strengths, wien provides uniform fields with the specified strengths inside the Wien filter and can optionally calculate fringe fields for the magnetic field. wien(ECS,a,b,L,E,B,dl,b1,b2 [,scope: LOCAL or GLOBAL]) … E Electric field strength [V/m] B Magnetic field strength [T] Examiner note: Where E and B are inputs to the wein function.
Where as stated it would have been obvious to combine the double Wein filter simulations of Schwieters_2021 with the input of electric and magnetic fields strengths of Mitchell_2018 for the benefit of allowing users to easily calculate the field strengths needed for the filter to function properly to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is effectively similar to claim 1, additionally Schwieter_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of. An apparatus comprising a processor configured to (Claim 2: “ A mass spectrometer comprising the static field mass filter of claim 1,”) perform a method of simulating a mass filter of a mass spectrometer,(par 55: “FIG. 8 shows a schematic view, in the X-Z plane, of a first embodiment of the static field mass filter of FIG. 5, comprising first and second Wien filters separated by an inversion lens, along with simulated ion trajectories in the X-Z plane.”) Therefore this claim is rejected under a similar rational to claim 1.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is effectively similar to claim 1, additionally Schwieter_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor of an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform a method of (Claim 2: “ A mass spectrometer comprising the static field mass filter of claim 1,”) Therefore this claim is rejected under a similar rational to claim 1.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters_2021 and Mitchell_2018, and Fujito_2018 (“US 20180240660 A1”)
Claim 3:Schwieters_2021 makes obvious The method of claim 1, further comprising par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges. In FIG. 9a, the mass window is M.sub.0 +/−10%, that is, FIGS. 9a and 8 are identical. FIG. 9b shows ion trajectories for a wider mass window M.sub.0 +/−20%, and FIG. 9c shows ion trajectories for a still wider mass window of M.sub.0 +/−30%. (Examiner note: Where M.sub.0 is the center mass of the mass window, and the +/- %s are the width of the passband with + being the upper bound and – being the lower bound) As can be seen by comparison of FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c, lateral mass dispersion (that is, dispersion in the X direction) is greatest at a point between the first and second Wien filters 220, 230, and, moreover, at that point the amount of ion dispersion increases with the width of the mass window. If a specific mass window is selected, (Examiner note: see par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ”Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strengths) only ions having a limited dispersion in the X direction between the two Wien filters should reach the second Wien filter.”)
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite displaying
Fujito_2018 however makes obvious displaying (abstract: “. The mass spectrometer includes: a storage section 41 in which SIM measurement conditions and/or MRM measurement conditions are previously stored for a plurality of components; a measurement condition selection receiver 43 for performing the following operations when a command to create a method file in which measurement conditions are described is issued by a user: reading the selected ion monitoring measurement conditions and/or multiple reaction monitoring measurement conditions of the plurality of components, displaying the measurement conditions on a screen, and receiving a selection by the user;”)
Schwieters_2021 and Fujito_2018 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called mass spectrometry. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Schwieters_2021 and Fujito_2018. The rational for doing so would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior art of Schwieters_2021 makes obvious the steps above, but does not expressly recite a step of displaying to a user. Fujito_2018 outlines a mass spectrometer which displays measurement conditions on a screen. One ordinarily skilled in the art recognizes that a measurement condition in Schwieters_2021 would encompass a passband, and the display function of Fujito_2018 would perform the same function in Schwieters_2021 for a predictable result of outputting data for a user to see when running the experiment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the passband workflow of Schwieters_2021 with the displaying of Fujito_2018 for the benefit of allowing the user of Schwieters_2021 to view the results of their calculations to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 5:
Schweiters_2021 makes further obvious The method of claim 4, further comprising par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either {right arrow over (E)} or {right arrow over (B)} may be adjusted. In practice, for small changes in the selected mass, the magnetic flux density is kept constant (eg at 0.5T) and the electric field is adjusted.”)
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite displaying
Fujito_2018 however makes obvious displaying (abstract: “. The mass spectrometer includes: a storage section 41 in which SIM measurement conditions and/or MRM measurement conditions are previously stored for a plurality of components; a measurement condition selection receiver 43 for performing the following operations when a command to create a method file in which measurement conditions are described is issued by a user: reading the selected ion monitoring measurement conditions and/or multiple reaction monitoring measurement conditions of the plurality of components, displaying the measurement conditions on a screen, and receiving a selection by the user;”)
Whereas stated, it would have been obvious to combine the passband workflow of Schwieters_2021 with the displaying of Fujito_2018 for the benefit of allowing the user of Schwieters_2021 to view the results of their calculations to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 7:Schwieters_2021 makes obvious The method of claim 6, further comprising
par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges. In FIG. 9a, the mass window is M.sub.0 +/−10%, that is, FIGS. 9a and 8 are identical. FIG. 9b shows ion trajectories for a wider mass window M.sub.0 +/−20%, and FIG. 9c shows ion trajectories for a still wider mass window of M.sub.0 +/−30%. (Examiner note: Where M.sub.0 is the center mass of the mass window, and the +/- %s are the width of the passband with + being the upper bound and – being the lower bound) As can be seen by comparison of FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c, lateral mass dispersion (that is, dispersion in the X direction) is greatest at a point between the first and second Wien filters 220, 230, and, moreover, at that point the amount of ion dispersion increases with the width of the mass window. If a specific mass window is selected, (Examiner note: see par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ”Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strengths) only ions having a limited dispersion in the X direction between the two Wien filters should reach the second Wien filter.”)
wherein the repeating comprises repeating the determining of the corresponding centre mass, the determining of the width of the passband of the bandpass characteristic, the determining of the at least one of the lower or the upper bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic, andpar 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges. In FIG. 9a, the mass window is M.sub.0 +/−10%, that is, FIGS. 9a and 8 are identical. FIG. 9b shows ion trajectories for a wider mass window M.sub.0 +/−20%, and FIG. 9c shows ion trajectories for a still wider mass window of M.sub.0 +/−30%. (Examiner note: Where M.sub.0 is the center mass of the mass window, and the +/- %s are the width of the passband with + being the upper bound and – being the lower bound. Where this is the second candidate) As can be seen by comparison of FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c, lateral mass dispersion (that is, dispersion in the X direction) is greatest at a point between the first and second Wien filters 220, 230, and, moreover, at that point the amount of ion dispersion increases with the width of the mass window. If a specific mass window is selected, (Examiner note: see par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ”Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strengths) only ions having a limited dispersion in the X direction between the two Wien filters should reach the second Wien filter.”
wherein the first candidate magnetic field strength, the first candidate electric field strength, the second candidate magnetic field strength, and the second candidate electric field strength are par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ”Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strength. Where the first candidate values are prior to adjustment, and the second candidate values are after adjustment.
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite display
received from a user
Mitchell_2018 however makes obvious received from a user page 2 col 1 par 1: “The first model used homogeneous, rectangular electric and magnetic fields to simulate the fields in the Wien filter. These fields were constructed in GPT using the erect and rectmagnet functions for the electric and magnetic fields, respectively. Eventually, these fields were replaced with 3D field maps, created with the finite element field solver Opera [5] [6].” … page 7 section A.1 wien “Given the dimensions of the Wien filter and the field strengths, wien provides uniform fields with the specified strengths inside the Wien filter and can optionally calculate fringe fields for the magnetic field. wien(ECS,a,b,L,E,B,dl,b1,b2 [,scope: LOCAL or GLOBAL]) … E Electric field strength [V/m] B Magnetic field strength [T] Examiner note: Where E and B are inputs to the wein function.
Whereas stated, it would have been obvious to combine the double Wein filter simulations of Schwieters_2021 with the input of electric and magnetic fields strengths of Mitchell_2018 for the benefit of allowing users to easily calculate the field strengths needed for the filter to function properly to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Fujito_2018 however makes obvious displaying (abstract: “. The mass spectrometer includes: a storage section 41 in which SIM measurement conditions and/or MRM measurement conditions are previously stored for a plurality of components; a measurement condition selection receiver 43 for performing the following operations when a command to create a method file in which measurement conditions are described is issued by a user: reading the selected ion monitoring measurement conditions and/or multiple reaction monitoring measurement conditions of the plurality of components, displaying the measurement conditions on a screen, and receiving a selection by the user;”)
Whereas stated, it would have been obvious to combine the passband workflow of Schwieters_2021 with the displaying of Fujito_2018 for the benefit of allowing the user of Schwieters_2021 to view the results of their calculations to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 11:Schwieters_2021 makes obvious The method of claim 7, further comprising:
(par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges. In FIG. 9a, the mass window is M.sub.0 +/−10%, that is, FIGS. 9a and 8 are identical. FIG. 9b shows ion trajectories for a wider mass window M.sub.0 +/−20%, and FIG. 9c shows ion trajectories for a still wider mass window of M.sub.0 +/−30%. (Examiner note: Where M.sub.0 is the center mass of the mass window, and the +/- %s are the width of the passband with + being the upper bound and – being the lower bound. Where this is the second candidate) As can be seen by comparison of FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c, lateral mass dispersion (that is, dispersion in the X direction) is greatest at a point between the first and second Wien filters 220, 230, and, moreover, at that point the amount of ion dispersion increases with the width of the mass window. If a specific mass window is selected, (Examiner note: see par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ”Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strengths) only ions having a limited dispersion in the X direction between the two Wien filters should reach the second Wien filter.”
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite subsequent to the repeated displaying, receiving confirmation is acceptable; responsive to receiving the confirmation
Fujito_2018 however makes obviouspar 59: “If there is a segment in which the loop time is longer than the maximum loop time, the resetting presenter 47 additionally displays an appropriate message, such as the “Check the loop time” message as shown in FIG. 5B, along with the aforementioned pieces of information displayed by the loop time presenter 46. Furthermore, a “Re-Selection” button is displayed on the screen in the present case. If the user having recognized the message wishes to once more select the measurement conditions, the user can return to the screen shown in FIG. 4 by pressing the “Re-Selection” button. Otherwise, the user may find no problem in the displayed setting and press the “OK” button, whereupon the method file creator 48 creates a method file in which the measurement conditions selected by the user are written.”)
Whereas stated, it would have been obvious to combine the passband workflow of Schwieters_2021 with the displaying of Fujito_2018 for the benefit of allowing the user of Schwieters_2021 to view the results of their calculations and confirm their measurement conditions prior to testing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters_2021, Mitchell_2018, and Ashida_2019 (US 20190139748 A1)
Claim 10:
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying a mass range of an element or molecule of interest, optionally wherein the method further comprises receiving from the user a selection of the element or molecule of interest from a plurality of elements and/or molecules.
Ashida_2019 however makes obvious displaying a mass range of an element or molecule of interest, optionally wherein the method further comprises receiving from the user a selection of the element or molecule of interest from a plurality of elements and/or molecules. (par 28: “In the mass spectrometer provided, with the mass spectrum display controller and the product ion spectrum display controller, when a user selects one of the target compounds, the mass spectrum of the selected target compound is displayed on the display device. )
Schwieters_2021 and Ashida_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called mass spectrometry. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Schwieters_2021 and Ashida_2019. The rational for doing so would have been to follow a motivation proposed in the prior art. Ashida_2019 par 37 states “the user, by referring to the product ion spectral data in the compound database, may readily determines a suitable MRM measurement condition for the target compound.”
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the passband workflow of Swieters_2021 with the compound database by ashida_2019 for the benefit of determining suitable passband measuring conditions to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters_2021 and Mitchell_2018, Fujito_2018 and Nisaguchi_2021 (US 20210351028 A1)
Claim 8:The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite displaying a mass of a carrier gas of the mass spectrometer;
and optionally, responsive to determining that the mass of the carrier gas is between the upper and lower bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter, displaying a warning.
Fujito_2018 however makes obvious displaying
(par 59: “If there is a segment in which the loop time is longer than the maximum loop time, the resetting presenter 47 additionally displays an appropriate message, such as the “Check the loop time” message as shown in FIG. 5B, along with the aforementioned pieces of information displayed by the loop time presenter 46. Furthermore, a “Re-Selection” button is displayed on the screen in the present case. If the user having recognized the message wishes to once more select the measurement conditions, the user can return to the screen shown in FIG. 4 by pressing the “Re-Selection” button. Otherwise, the user may find no problem in the displayed setting and press the “OK” button, whereupon the method file creator 48 creates a method file in which the measurement conditions selected by the user are written.”)
Whereas stated, it would have been obvious to combine the passband workflow of Schwieters_2021 with the displaying of Fujito_2018 for the benefit of allowing the user of Schwieters_2021 to view the results of their calculations and confirm their measurement conditions prior to testing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Fujito_2018 does not expressly recite mass of a carrier gas of the mass spectrometer;
Nishiguchi_2021 however makes obvious mass of a carrier gas (par 44: “ions derived from a carrier gas, which is generally low-mass helium or nitrogen, can be efficiently excluded from the quadrupole mass filter”) of the mass spectrometer; (par 48: “As an example, the amount of current flowing through the electromagnets can be set according to the mass-to-charge ratio of the ion of analysis target. For example, the higher the mass-to-charge ratio of the ion of analysis target, the larger the amount of current flowing through the electromagnets can be set. Since the ion of analysis target has a large mass-to-charge ratio and the ion orbit is hard to change due to the magnetic field MF, even if the amount of current is increased to form a magnetic field MF in strong, the decrease in detection of ion strength in the ion detector 19 is hard to occur. On the other hand, carrier gas-derived ion has a low-mass and is efficiently removed by increasing in the magnetic field MF with increasing in current. Therefore, by setting the amount of current flowing through the electromagnets according to the mass-to-charge ratio of the ion of analysis target, the S/N of the measurement result can be improved and the measurement accuracy can be further improved. Examiner note: Where these carrier gas ions have known masses, where the above passage makes obvious the idea of filtering out carrier ions by the assumed knowledge of their low mass.
Nishiguchi_2021 is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is from the same field of endeavor called mass spectrometry. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Schwieters_2021, Fujito_2018, and Nishiguchi_2021.
The rational for doing so would have been to follow a teaching or motivation proposed in the prior art. The prior arts of Schwieters_2021 and Fujito_2018 teach mass spectrometry. Nishiguchi_2021 states par 7: “Ionized sample and carrier gas-derived ions spread near the central axis and enter the quadrupole mass filter at various angles of incidence, so that the proportion of ions incident along the central axis, that is, the proportion of ions incident through the central axis in parallel to the central axis is extremely low. However, since the amount of carrier gas (number of molecules) is much larger than the amount of the sample, even if only a small portion of the carrier gas-derived ions remains and enters the quadrupole mass filter, large noise is generated, reducing the measurement accuracy.“
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the mass spectrometer of Schwieters_2021 and Fujito_2018 with the mass filtering of Nishiguchi_2021 for the benefit of increasing measurement accuracy to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters_2021 and Mitchell_2018, Fujito_2018 and Schwieter_2018 (US 20180308674 A1)
Claim 9:
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying an operating mass range of one or more multicollector detectors of the mass spectrometer.
Fujito_2018 however makes obvious displaying (abstract: “. The mass spectrometer includes: a storage section 41 in which SIM measurement conditions and/or MRM measurement conditions are previously stored for a plurality of components; a measurement condition selection receiver 43 for performing the following operations when a command to create a method file in which measurement conditions are described is issued by a user: reading the selected ion monitoring measurement conditions and/or multiple reaction monitoring measurement conditions of the plurality of components, displaying the measurement conditions on a screen, and receiving a selection by the user;”)
Whereas stated, it would have been obvious to combine the passband workflow of Schwieters_2021 with the displaying of Fujito_2018 for the benefit of allowing the user of Schwieters_2021 to view the results of their calculations to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Fujito_2018 does not expressly recite, Schwieter_2018 however makes obvious an operating mass range of one or more multicollector detectors of the mass spectrometer. (par 34: “ Further, the mass filter can be adapted to be operable to transmit only ions having a mass within a mass window around a predefined mass, wherein the width of the mass window is selected based on the ion mass range transmitted by the mass analyser to the multicollector. The width of the mass window preferably is not greater or substantially greater than the range of ion masses detected in parallel by the multicollector.”)
Schwieter_2021, Fujito_2018 and Schwieter_2018 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called mass spectrometry. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Schwieter_2021, Fujito_2018 and Schwieter_2018. The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The prior arts of Schiweter_2021 and Fujito_2018 contain a base device of a mass spectrometer. Schwieter_2018 contains a known technique of considering an operating mass range of the multicollectors. The multicollecter is a part of the mass spectrometer, and one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize the importance of considering what the operating range of the multicollector is set to when considering the mass window tested.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the mass spectrometry of Schiweter_2021 and Fujito_2018 with the operating range of the multicollecter by Schwieter_2018 for the predictable result of ensuring the mass windows falls inside the operating range to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 12-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters_2021, Mitchell_2018, and Craig_2021 (“Project Vienna: A Novel Precell Mass Filter for Collision/Reaction Cell MC-ICPMS/MS”)
Claim 12:Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, based on at least one of the upper or lower bounds of the passband of the bandpass characteristic, whether the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter meets one or more acceptance criteria
Craig_2021 however makes obvious The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, based on at least one of the upper or lower bounds of the passband of the bandpass characteristic, whether the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter meets one or more acceptance criteria (page 10524 col 2 par 2: “When using laser ablation to analyze materials in situ, it is impossible to perform any purification prior to the analysis. Therefore, we need to use the precell mass filter to permit the stable transmission of a window (Examiner note: lower and upper bound) of masses centered on 88Sr.Without the mass window, a multitude of undesirable ion-gas reactions involving matrix elements and SF6 proceed. This results in an abundance of secondary interferences being produced, which compromises the accuracy and precision of the radiogenic Sr isotope ratios measured.41 Furthermore, any elemental interferences, e.g., 107Ag on 88SrF, will be avoided by preventing their entry to the CRC. With the Vienna precell mass filter, a stable transmission window centered on 88Sr was demonstrably produced (Examiner note: the determination) (Figure 9); neither 40Ar2 + nor xMo+ was transmitted into the cell. “ Examiner note: Where the acceptance criteria is the stable transmission of masses centered on Sr. …
See figure 9 which the passage refers to. “Figure 9. Mass window selection for in situ Rb/Sr dating using the Vienna precell mass filter. The precell mass filter was used to select a mass window between 82 and 94, (Examiner note: a lower and upper bound) which was transmitted into the collision cell for fluorination by SF6. Potential sources of interferent ions (Ar, ArN,ArO, ArAr, Rh, Pd, Ag, and Cd) were removed from the analysis.” Examiner note: the acceptance criteria.
Schwieters_2021, Mitchell_2018, and Craig_2021 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called Wien filter. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Schwieters_2021, Mitchell_2018, and Craig_2021.
The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yeidl predictable results. Schwieters_2021 contains the known device of a mass spectrometer with mass filters. The inventors of Schwieters_2021 use the mass filter for considerably the same purpose as Craig_2021, see par 34 in Schwieter_2021: “Static field mass filters may maintain a constant electric field and must contain a magnetic field. This leads to a flat transmission of ions across a selected mass to-charge ratio range and small deviations in system tuning do not change the measured isotope ratio in an unpredictable way. The static field mass filter is able to select a mass window prior to entry of the ions into the reaction cell.” And Craig_2021 page 10524 col 2 par 2: “Furthermore, any elemental interferences, e.g., 107Ag on 88SrF, will be avoided by preventing their entry to the CRC.” One ordinarily skilled in the art understands that the entire purpose of the passband of Schwiter_2021 is to limit which ions enter the reaction cells, and that one ordinarily skilled in the art would determine if that condition is properly met. This would allow one ordinarily skilled in the art to modify that window to make sure the experiment is performed properly.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the mass window selection of Schwieters_2021 with the checking of acceptance criteria of Craig_2021 for the benefit of ensuring the particular experiment is performed properly to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 13:Schwieters_2021 makes further obvious The method of claim 12, further comprising:
Par 53: “FIG. 6 shows, highly schematically, an arrangement of a Wien filter employed as part of the static field mass filter of FIG. 5, to illustrate the effect of magnetic and electric fields on ions of velocity v.” par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted (Examiner note: To a second candidate E and B field) . par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges.)
and repeating, based on the par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges. In FIG. 9a, the mass window is M.sub.0 +/−10%, that is, FIGS. 9a and 8 are identical. FIG. 9b shows ion trajectories for a wider mass window M.sub.0 +/−20%, and FIG. 9c shows ion trajectories for a still wider mass window of M.sub.0 +/−30%. (Examiner note: Where M.sub.0 is the center mass of the mass window, and the +/- %s are the width of the passband with + being the upper bound and – being the lower bound. Where this is the second candidate) As can be seen by comparison of FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c, lateral mass dispersion (that is, dispersion in the X direction) is greatest at a point between the first and second Wien filters 220, 230, and, moreover, at that point the amount of ion dispersion increases with the width of the mass window. If a specific mass window is selected, (Examiner note: see par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ”Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strengths) only ions having a limited dispersion in the X direction between the two Wien filters should reach the second Wien filter.”
wherein the repeating is until the bandpass characteristic meets the one or more acceptance criteria. (par 98: “The lighter ions ofm/z=0.9 M0 are deflected in the negative X direction by the first Wien filter 220, whilst the heavier ions of m/z=l .1 M0 are deflected in the positive X direction by the first Wien filter 220. The electric field and magnetic flux density are adjusted (Examiner note: Where an adjustment of E and B are adjustments of the bandpass) until ions of m/z Mo travel along the symmetry axis (the Z axis in FIGS. 5 and 8) of the static field mass filter 12”) Examiner note: acceptance criteria.
Schwieter_2021 does not expressly recite, but Mitchell_2018 however makes obvious receiving page 2 col 1 par 1: “The first model used homogeneous, rectangular electric and magnetic fields to simulate the fields in the Wien filter. These fields were constructed in GPT using the erect and rectmagnet functions for the electric and magnetic fields, respectively. Eventually, these fields were replaced with 3D field maps, created with the finite element field solver Opera [5] [6].” … page 7 section A.1 wien “Given the dimensions of the Wien filter and the field strengths, wien provides uniform fields with the specified strengths inside the Wien filter and can optionally calculate fringe fields for the magnetic field. wien(ECS,a,b,L,E,B,dl,b1,b2 [,scope: LOCAL or GLOBAL]) … E Electric field strength [V/m] B Magnetic field strength [T] Examiner note: Where E and B are inputs to the wein function.
Whereas stated, it would have been obvious to combine the double Wein filter simulations of Schwieters_2021 with the input of electric and magnetic fields strengths of Mitchell_2018 for the benefit of allowing users to easily calculate the field strengths needed for the filter to function properly to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 14:The method of claim 12, further comprising,
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite responsive to determining that the bandpass characteristic meets the one or more acceptance criteria, setting a or the magnetic field and an or the electric field of the mass filter to the candidate magnetic field strength and the candidate electric field strength, respectively, at which the bandpass characteristic was determined to meet the one or more acceptance criteria.
Craig_2021 however makes obvious responsive to determining that the bandpass characteristic meets the one or more acceptance criteria, page 10524 col 2 par 2: “When using laser ablation to analyze materials in situ, it is impossible to perform any purification prior to the analysis. Therefore, we need to use the precell mass filter to permit the stable transmission of a window (Examiner note: lower and upper bound) of masses centered on 88Sr.Without the mass window, a multitude of undesirable ion-gas reactions involving matrix elements and SF6 proceed. This results in an abundance of secondary interferences being produced, which compromises the accuracy and precision of the radiogenic Sr isotope ratios measured.41 Furthermore, any elemental interferences, e.g., 107Ag on 88SrF, will be avoided by preventing their entry to the CRC. With the Vienna precell mass filter, a stable transmission window centered on 88Sr was demonstrably produced (Examiner note: the determination) (Figure 9); neither 40Ar2 + nor xMo+ was transmitted into the cell. “ Examiner note: Where the acceptance criteria is the stable transmission of masses centered on Sr. …
setting a or the magnetic field and an or the electric field of the mass filter to the candidate magnetic field strength and the candidate electric field strength, respectively, at which the bandpass characteristic was determined to meet the one or more acceptance criteria. See figure 9 which the passage refers to. “Figure 9. Mass window selection for in situ Rb/Sr dating using the Vienna precell mass filter. The precell mass filter was used to select a mass window between 82 and 94, (Examiner note: a lower and upper bound) which was transmitted into the collision cell for fluorination by SF6. Potential sources of interferent ions (Ar, ArN,ArO, ArAr, Rh, Pd, Ag, and Cd) were removed from the analysis.” (Examiner note: the acceptance criteria). … par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ” Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strengths)
Whereas stated it would have been obvious to combine the mass window selection of Schwieters_2021 with the checking of acceptance criteria of Craig_2021 for the benefit of ensuring the particular experiment is performed properly to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 15:
The method of claim 12, wherein determining whether the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter meets one or more acceptance criteria comprises
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite comparing at least one of the upper or lower bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter with at least one of: the mass of a carrier gas of the mass spectrometer, the operating mass range of one or more multicollector detectors of the mass spectrometer, or the mass range of an element or molecule of interest.
Craig_2021 however makes obvious comparing at least one of the upper or lower bound of the passband of the bandpass characteristic of the mass filter with at least one of: the mass of a carrier gas of the mass spectrometer, (page 10524 col 2 par 2: “The precell mass filter in the Vienna MC ICPMS/MS was then used to restrict transmission into the CRC to a window around m/z 29. As the width of the bandpass window was restricted, the signal of the interferent peak on 29Si had reduced: Si transmission was unaffected. For a bandpass window at 30% of the maximum magnetic field, Ar ions were eliminated prior to the CRC (Figure 8). By doing so, the interference peak on 29Si was greatly reduced.” … “Figure 8. Magnet scan between 28 and 42 m/z for three different mass window selections with the Vienna precell mass filter. 2 ppm Si in 3% HNO3, collision gas = 1 mL/min He. With the broadest mass window (10% of the maximum magnetic field), the large 40Ar ion beam enters the CRC, resulting in a large interferent peak at m/z 29. By narrowing the mass window (30% of the maximum magnetic field), 40Ar was prevented from entering the CRC, eliminating the interference at m/z 29” Examiner note: Where figure 8 demonstrates a colored graph with the mass
the operating mass range of one or more multicollector detectors of the mass spectrometer, (not mapped)
or the mass range of an element or molecule of interest. page 10524 col 2 par 2: “When using laser ablation to analyze materials in situ, it is impossible to perform any purification prior to the analysis. Therefore, we need to use the precell mass filter to permit the stable transmission of a window (Examiner note: lower and upper bound) of masses centered on 88Sr.(Examiner note: element of interest)
See figure 9 which the passage refers to. “Figure 9. Mass window selection for in situ Rb/Sr dating using the Vienna precell mass filter. The precell mass filter was used to select a mass window between 82 and 94, (Examiner note: a lower and upper bound) which was transmitted into the collision cell for fluorination by SF6. Potential sources of interferent ions (Ar, ArN,ArO, ArAr, Rh, Pd, Ag, and Cd) were removed from the analysis.”
Whereas stated it would have been obvious to combine the mass window selection of Schwieters_2021 with the checking of acceptance criteria of Craig_2021 for the benefit of ensuring the particular experiment is performed properly to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 16:Schwieters_2021 makes obvious The method of claim 1, further comprising, based on the
and wherein the determining of the upper bound further comprises adding a third predetermined fraction of the determined width of the upper
the determining of the lower bound further comprises subtracting a fourth predetermined fraction of the determined width of the lower
(par 112-113: “FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c illustrate simulated ion trajectories through the static field mass filter 120 of FIG. 9, again in the X-Z plane of FIG. 5, for different mass ranges. In FIG. 9a, the mass window is M.sub.0 +/−10%, that is, FIGS. 9a and 8 are identical. FIG. 9b shows ion trajectories for a wider mass window M.sub.0 +/−20%, and FIG. 9c shows ion trajectories for a still wider mass window of M.sub.0 +/−30%. (Examiner note: Where M.sub.0 is the center mass of the mass window, and the +/- %s are the width of the flanks with +30 being the fraction added to the upper bound and -30 being the lower bound) As can be seen by comparison of FIGS. 9a, 9b and 9c, lateral mass dispersion (that is, dispersion in the X direction) is greatest at a point between the first and second Wien filters 220, 230, and, moreover, at that point the amount of ion dispersion increases with the width of the mass window. If a specific mass window is selected, (Examiner note: see par 92: “In order to adjust the Wien filter so as to select ions of different masses, either E or B may be adjusted. ”Which implies that the mass window is being selected based on the manipulation of the magnetic and electric field strengths) only ions having a limited dispersion in the X direction between the two Wien filters should reach the second Wien filter.”
Schwieters_2021 does not expressly recite Received .. flank
Mitchell_2018 however makes obvious received page 2 col 1 par 1: “The first model used homogeneous, rectangular electric and magnetic fields to simulate the fields in the Wien filter. These fields were constructed in GPT using the erect and rectmagnet functions for the electric and magnetic fields, respectively. Eventually, these fields were replaced with 3D field maps, created with the finite element field solver Opera [5] [6].” … page 7 section A.1 wien “Given the dimensions of the Wien filter and the field strengths, wien provides uniform fields with the specified strengths inside the Wien filter and can optionally calculate fringe fields for the magnetic field. wien(ECS,a,b,L,E,B,dl,b1,b2 [,scope: LOCAL or GLOBAL]) … E Electric field strength [V/m] B Magnetic field strength [T] Examiner note: Where E and B are inputs to the wein function.
Where as stated it would have been obvious to combine the double Wein filter simulations of Schwieters_2021 with the input of electric and magnetic fields strengths of Mitchell_2018 for the benefit of allowing users to easily calculate the field strengths needed for the filter to function properly to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Craig_2021 however makes obvious flank
PNG
media_image1.png
712
1207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Par 10522 col 1 par 6: “The size and shape of the mass window transmitted by this design are influenced not just by the position of the slit plates but also by the strength of the applied electric and magnetic fields. The greater the magnetic field applied, the steeper the gradient of the ion transmission curve (Figure 3).”
Examiner note: Where the examiner interprets the sloped lines in the transmission curves to be the flanks. Please note, that claim 16 does not depend on claim 2 which outlines a passband. Therefore, the flank can be interpreted under BRI as being a passband as well.
As stated, Schwieters_2021, Mitchell_2018, and Craig_2021 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called Wien filter. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Schwieters_2021, Mitchell_2018, and Craig_2021.
The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yeidl predictable results. Schwieters_2021 contains the known device of a mass spectrometer with mass filters. The inventors of Schwieters_2021 use the mass filter for considerably the same purpose as Craig_2021, see par 34 in Schwieter_2021: “Static field mass filters may maintain a constant electric field and must contain a magnetic field. This leads to a flat transmission of ions across a selected mass to-charge ratio range and small deviations in system tuning do not change the measured isotope ratio in an unpredictable way. The static field mass filter is able to select a mass window prior to entry of the ions into the reaction cell.” Craig_2021 outlines the mass window with flanks, which provide more detail on the ion transmissibility. Furthermore, Craig_2021 page 10524 col 2 par 2: “Furthermore, any elemental interferences, e.g., 107Ag on 88SrF, will be avoided by preventing their entry to the CRC.” One ordinarily skilled in the art understands that the ion transmissibility curve of Craig_2021 with flanks would apply to Schwieter_2021, and would allow for more accurate ion transmissibility analysis.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the mass window selection of Schwieters_2021 with the flanks of Craig_2021 for the benefit of ensuring the particular experiment is performed properly to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 18:Claim 18 is effectively similar to claim 16 except that it depends on claim 17 and is rejected under a similar rational to claims 16 and 17.
Claim 20:Claim 20 is effectively similar to claim 16 except that it depends on claim 19 and is rejected under a similar rational to claims 16 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights