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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 14 July 2026, with respect to the specification and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the specification and claim 1 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument, see page 13, that Yip does not address even transmission of ions, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 require that a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention, wherein the reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). In this case, Yip is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., tuning operating parameters of a mass spectrometer filter (Yip, paragraphs 0002 and 0012).
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, that Yip fails to disclose determining whether the adjusting results in a change which is less than a predetermined maximum change, Yip teaches adjusting a lens (paragraph 0123, lines 18-19, “variations in the voltages applied to…ring lens 1140”) and comparing a “test response” to a “reference response” (paragraph 0111) to determine “if the test response differs from the reference response by more than a critical amount” (paragraph 0111, lines 5-7, emphasis added) with respect to error tolerances (paragraph 0111, lines 8-10; paragraph 0090, lines 16-17).
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, that Yip fails to disclose determining an isotope ratio and determining a change in the isotope ratio, Yip discloses adjusting a lens (paragraph 0123, lines 18-19, “variations in the voltages applied to…ring lens 1140”) and determining a change in precursor/fragment ratios resulting from said lens variation (paragraph 0123, lines 11-13, “variations in relative P/F ratios observed while varying the voltage applied to the labeled element”). Regarding isotope ratios, Yip discloses that “an optimized initial setting for the instrument may also include the step of establishing that the instrument reproducibly measures a known fixed ratio such as a reference compound’s isotopic ratio” (paragraph 0092, lines 26-29, emphasis added). “Reproducibility” is defined by the Dictionary of Environmental Science and Technology as “[t]he closeness of agreement between individual results obtained with the same method on identical test material but under different conditions” (emphasis added). In other words, reproducibility is a value determined from a change in a measurement results due to changes in a measurement condition. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that Yip’s disclosure of establishing reproducibility of the measurement of a reference compound’s isotope ratio includes determining a change in the isotope ratio resulting from adjusting a particular measurement condition.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-16, that Rafferty fails to disclose determining whether the varying results in a change greater than a predetermined maximum change in a ratio of ion intensities; and that Rafferty fails to disclose repeating the varying, determining, and changing until the varying does not result in a change greater than the predetermined maximum change, Rafferty is not relied upon to teach a change in ion intensities (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below).
Furthermore, Rafferty discloses comparing a measured quantity (“resolution and sensitivity of the resulting spectrum”; paragraph 0037, lines 8-9) from a mass spectrometer to a desired value of said quantity (“resolution and sensitivity of the resulting spectrum are optimal or meet predetermined criteria”; paragraph 0037, lines 8-9, emphasis added); wherein said measured quantity changes based on varying the electric field strength of a lens (“[i]f the resolution and sensitivity of the resulting spectrum are optimal or meet predetermined criteria…then that lens voltage may be used for subsequent scans…[o]therwise, the lens voltage is adjusted in step 606 and repeats the mass spectrum scan”; paragraph 0037, lines 8-13, emphasis added). Rafferty further discloses that this process is repeated until the comparison between the measured quantity and the desired value of said quantity reaches a desired result (“[t]he iterative process of steps 603 to 606 may continue until the resolution and sensitivity of the spectrum are considered to be optimal or meet the predetermined criteria”; paragraph 0038, lines 1-3, emphasis added).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0013017 A1), hereinafter Schwieters (2021), in view of Yip et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0201095 A1), hereinafter Yip.
Regarding claim 1, Schwieters (2021) discloses a method of tuning a static field mass filter of a mass spectrometer (paragraphs 0037-0039), the static field mass filter having a first Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 220) and a second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 230), the method comprising:
causing a beam of ions comprising a plurality of ion species (paragraph 0117, last sentence) to be injected through an entrance aperture (FIG. 10b, element 200) into the static field mass filter (FIG. 10b);
applying, in the first Wien filter, a first magnetic field and a first electric field having a first magnetic field strength and a first electric field strength, respectively, to deflect the beam into a respective subbeam for each ion species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0098);
applying, in the second Wien filter, a second magnetic field and a second electric field having the first magnetic field strength and the first electric field strength, respectively (paragraph 0100), to counter the deflection of the subbeams caused by the first Wien filter (FIG. 8); and
adjusting a first lens of the static field mass filter (paragraph 0119; the voltage applied to lens 240 is adjusted based on the ion optical characteristics due to the fields produced by the Wien filters), positioned downstream of the first Wien filter and upstream of the second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, lens 240), such that trajectories of the subbeams downstream of the second Wien filter are substantially mass independent (paragraph 0100, lines 15-17; FIG. 8).
Schwieters (2021) fails to disclose that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change.
However, Yip discloses that adjusting the first lens (paragraph 0123, lines 11-22, lens 1140) comprises determining at least one ratio (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 12-15) and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change, based on the teachings of Yip that this enables simple and efficient tuning or calibration of the mass spectrometer (Yip, paragraph 0069).
Yip discloses that the ratio determined before and after adjusting the lens is a precursor/fragment, or P/F, ratio. The disclosure of Yip demonstrates that the function of isotope ratios is known in the art of mass spectrometer calibration. Yip also shows that substituting isotope ratios for another type of ratio in mass spectrometer calibration yields the predictable result of determining if the mass spectrometer is in need of calibration based on the reproducibility of a known measurement (Yip, paragraph 0092). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 2, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses adjusting at least one further lens (FIG. 10b, lenses 300, 310) of the static field mass filter to focus one or more of the subbeams towards a target (paragraph 0124).
Regarding claim 3, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 2 discloses the method of claim 2.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses that the at least one further lens is positioned downstream of the second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, lens 310 is downstream of second Wien filter 230).
Regarding claim 4, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 2 discloses the method of claim 2.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses that the at least one further lens is positioned upstream of the second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, lens 300 upstream of second Wien filter 230).
Regarding claim 9, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 2 discloses the method of claim 2.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses that the target is an ion optical element (paragraph 0100; the target 210 is an exit aperture, which receives the beam of ions as an ion optical element).
Regarding claim 10, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses that the first lens is adjusted to focus one or more of the subbeams (paragraph 0100) towards an exit aperture (FIG. 10b, element 210) of the static field mass filter to yield one or more focused subbeams (paragraph 0100).
Regarding claim 11, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 2 discloses the method of claim 2.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses adjusting a second lens of the static field mass filter, positioned downstream of the first and second Wien filters (FIG. 10b, second lens 310), to further focus the one or more focused subbeams towards an exit aperture (paragraph 0124).
Regarding claim 14, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 10 discloses the method of claim 10.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses that the adjusting of the first lens of the static field mass filter is to focus one or more of the subbeams towards the exit aperture and into the second Wien filter (paragraph 0100).
Regarding claim 15, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses adjusting a second lens of the static field mass filter, positioned upstream of the first and second Wien filters, (FIG. 10b, lens 300), to focus the beam (paragraph 0124) towards an exit aperture of the static field mass filter (FIG. 10b, element 210).
Regarding claim 16, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses that the static field mass filter has a central axis, the entrance and exit apertures of the static field mass filter are aligned on the central axis, and the beam of ions is injected into the static field mass filter along the central axis (FIG. 10b, central horizontal (Z) axis), and wherein the adjusting of the second lens of the static field mass filter is to focus the beam towards the exit aperture of the static field mass filter and to ensure that the beam passes through the first and second Wien filters on the central axis of the static field mass filter (paragraph 0124 and FIG. 10b).
Regarding claim 18, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses that at least one of: adjusting a lens comprises adjusting a deflection of the lens (paragraph 0099: the deflection of the lens is in proportion to the amount of deviation from the Wien filter); or the method is computer-implemented.
Regarding claim 19, Schwieters (2021) discloses an apparatus comprising a processor (FIG. 10b shows a simulation, which processes data as disclosed in paragraph 0116; this meets the definition from Merriam-Webster.com of ‘processor’, i.e., “a component of a computer that processes data”) configured to perform a method of tuning a static field mass filter of a mass spectrometer (paragraphs 0037-0039), the static field mass filter having a first Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 220) and a second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 230), the method comprising:
causing a beam of ions comprising a plurality of ion species (paragraph 0117, last sentence) to be injected through an entrance aperture (FIG. 10b, element 200) into the static field mass filter (FIG. 10b);
applying, in the first Wien filter, a first magnetic field and a first electric field having a first magnetic field strength and a first electric field strength, respectively, to deflect the beam into a respective subbeam for each ion species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0098);
applying, in the second Wien filter, a second magnetic field and a second electric field having the first magnetic field strength and the first electric field strength, respectively (paragraph 0100), to counter the deflection of the subbeams caused by the first Wien filter (FIG. 8); and
adjusting a first lens of the static field mass filter (paragraph 0119; the voltage applied to lens 240 is adjusted based on the ion optical characteristics due to the fields produced by the Wien filters), positioned downstream of the first Wien filter and upstream of the second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, lens 240), such that trajectories of the subbeams downstream of the second Wien filter are substantially mass independent (paragraph 0100, lines 15-17; FIG. 8).
Schwieters (2021) fails to disclose that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change.
However, Yip discloses Yip discloses that adjusting the first lens (paragraph 0123, lines 11-22, lens 1140) comprises determining at least one ratio (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 12-15) and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change, based on the teachings of Yip that this enables simple and efficient tuning or calibration of the mass spectrometer (Yip, paragraph 0069).
Yip discloses that the ratio determined before and after adjusting the lens is a precursor/fragment, or P/F, ratio. The disclosure of Yip demonstrates that the function of isotope ratios is known in the art of mass spectrometer calibration. Yip also shows that substituting isotope ratios for another type of ratio in mass spectrometer calibration yields the predictable result of determining if the mass spectrometer is in need of calibration based on the reproducibility of a known measurement (Yip, paragraph 0092). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 20, Schwieters (2021) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor of an apparatus (FIG. 10b shows a simulation, which processes data as disclosed in paragraph 0116; this meets the definition from Merriam-Webster.com of ‘processor’, i.e., “a component of a computer that processes data”; this also inherently meets the definition of “computer-readable medium” as disclosed in the present application’s specification at paragraph 0149), cause the apparatus to perform a method of tuning a static field mass filter of a mass spectrometer (paragraphs 0037-0039), the static field mass filter having a first Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 220) and a second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 230), the method comprising:
causing a beam of ions comprising a plurality of ion species (paragraph 0117, last sentence) to be injected through an entrance aperture (FIG. 10b, element 200) into the static field mass filter (FIG. 10b);
applying, in the first Wien filter, a first magnetic field and a first electric field having a first magnetic field strength and a first electric field strength, respectively, to deflect the beam into a respective subbeam for each ion species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0098);
applying, in the second Wien filter, a second magnetic field and a second electric field having the first magnetic field strength and the first electric field strength, respectively (paragraph 0100), to counter the deflection of the subbeams caused by the first Wien filter (FIG. 8); and
adjusting a first lens of the static field mass filter (paragraph 0119; the voltage applied to lens 240 is adjusted based on the ion optical characteristics due to the fields produced by the Wien filters), positioned downstream of the first Wien filter and upstream of the second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, lens 240), such that trajectories of the subbeams downstream of the second Wien filter are substantially mass independent (paragraph 0100, lines 15-17; FIG. 8).
Schwieters (2021) fails to disclose that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change.
However, Yip discloses that adjusting the first lens (paragraph 0123, lines 11-22, lens 1140) comprises determining at least one ratio (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 12-15) and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change, based on the teachings of Yip that this enables simple and efficient tuning or calibration of the mass spectrometer (Yip, paragraph 0069).
Yip discloses that the ratio determined before and after adjusting the lens is a precursor/fragment, or P/F, ratio. The disclosure of Yip demonstrates that the function of isotope ratios is known in the art of mass spectrometer calibration. Yip also shows that substituting isotope ratios for another type of ratio in mass spectrometer calibration yields the predictable result of determining if the mass spectrometer is in need of calibration based on the reproducibility of a known measurement (Yip, paragraph 0092). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 5, 7-8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as respectively applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Rafferty et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0252222 A1), hereinafter Rafferty.
Regarding claim 5, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses, prior to or after applying in the first Wien filter the first magnetic field and the first electric field and in the second Wien filter the second magnetic field and the second electric field, adjusting at least one further lens (paragraph 0124 and FIG. 10b: lens 300 is adjusted and receives the ion beam before the ion beam passes into the Wien filters, i.e., before the electric and magnetic fields are applied to the ion beam in the Wien filters).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip fails to disclose that the at least one further lens is adjusted to maximise intensity of the subbeams at the mass spectrometer.
However, Rafferty discloses that the at least one further lens is adjusted to maximise intensity of the subbeams at the mass spectrometer (paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip to include that the at least one further lens is adjusted to maximise intensity of the subbeams at the mass spectrometer, based on the teachings of Rafferty that maximizing subbeam intensity allows less abundant sample components to be detected (Rafferty, paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 7, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 2 discloses the method of claim 2.
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip fails to disclose, after adjusting the at least one further lens, moving the subbeams relative to the target and detecting the resulting intensity at the mass spectrometer.
However, Rafferty discloses, after adjusting the at least one further lens, moving the subbeams relative to the target and detecting the resulting intensity at the mass spectrometer (paragraph 0032; adjusting the lens voltage leads to subbeams being directed, i.e., moved, either towards or away from the lens, i.e., either towards or away from the ion trap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip to include, after adjusting the at least one further lens, moving the subbeams relative to the target and detecting the resulting intensity at the mass spectrometer, based on the teachings of Rafferty that this process allows less abundant sample components to be detected (Rafferty, paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 8, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty as applied to claim 7 discloses the method of claim 7.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses detecting at least one isotope ratio of different isotope species (paragraphs 0092, 0097).
Regarding claim 21, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty as applied to claim 7 discloses the method of claim 7.
In addition, Rafferty discloses maximizing the resulting intensity (FIG. 5 and paragraph 0032, lines 12-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty to include maximizing the resulting intensity, based on the additional teachings of Rafferty that this allows less abundant sample components to be detected (Rafferty, paragraph 0006).
Claims 12 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip (as applied to claim 10 above, in re claim 12), and further in view of Rafferty and Schwieters et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0174814 A1), hereinafter Schwieters (2018).
Regarding claim 12, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 10 discloses the method of claim 10.
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip fails to disclose that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change, in a first ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change.
However, Rafferty discloses that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens (FIG. 6A, step 602), and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises:
varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength (paragraph 0036, lines 7-10);
determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A, step 605; paragraphs 0037-0038); and
responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A, step 605 path ‘No’ leading to step 606):
changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength (FIG. 6A, step 606); and
repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip to include that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change, based on the teachings of Rafferty that this process achieves optimal resolution and sensitivity (Rafferty, paragraphs 0037-0038).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty fails to disclose determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species.
However, Schwieters (2018) discloses determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change (paragraph 0028, step (iv)) in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0028, step (iii)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty to include determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species, based on the teachings of Schwieters (2018) that this determination beneficially provides an indication of possible interference (Schwieters (2018), paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 22, Schwieters (2021) discloses a method of tuning a static field mass filter of a mass spectrometer (paragraphs 0037-0039), the static field mass filter having a first Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 220) and a second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 230), the method comprising:
causing a beam of ions comprising a plurality of ion species (paragraph 0117, last sentence) to be injected through an entrance aperture (FIG. 10b, element 200) into the static field mass filter (FIG. 10b);
applying, in the first Wien filter, a first magnetic field and a first electric field having a first magnetic field strength and a first electric field strength, respectively, to deflect the beam into a respective subbeam for each ion species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0098);
applying, in the second Wien filter, a second magnetic field and a second electric field having the first magnetic field strength and the first electric field strength, respectively (paragraph 0100), to counter the deflection of the subbeams caused by the first Wien filter (FIG. 8); and
adjusting a first lens of the static field mass filter (paragraph 0119; the voltage applied to lens 240 is adjusted based on the ion optical characteristics due to the fields produced by the Wien filters), positioned downstream of the first Wien filter and upstream of the second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, lens 240), such that trajectories of the subbeams downstream of the second Wien filter are substantially mass independent (paragraph 0100, lines 15-17; FIG. 8) and so as to focus one or more of the subbeams (paragraph 0100) towards an exit aperture (FIG. 10b, element 210) of the static field mass filter to yield one or more focused subbeams (paragraph 0100).
Schwieters (2021) fails to disclose that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change, wherein a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change, in a first ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change.
However, Yip discloses that adjusting the first lens (paragraph 0123, lines 11-22, lens 1140) comprises determining at least one ratio (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 12-15) and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change, based on the teachings of Yip that this enables simple and efficient tuning or calibration of the mass spectrometer (Yip, paragraph 0069).
Yip discloses that the ratio determined before and after adjusting the lens is a precursor/fragment, or P/F, ratio. The disclosure of Yip demonstrates that the function of isotope ratios is known in the art of mass spectrometer calibration. Yip also shows that substituting isotope ratios for another type of ratio in mass spectrometer calibration yields the predictable result of determining if the mass spectrometer is in need of calibration based on the reproducibility of a known measurement (Yip, paragraph 0092). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip fails to disclose that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change, in a first ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change.
However, Rafferty discloses that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens (FIG. 6A, step 602), and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises:
varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength (paragraph 0036, lines 7-10);
determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A, step 605; paragraphs 0037-0038); and
responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A, step 605 path ‘No’ leading to step 606):
changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength (FIG. 6A, step 606); and
repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip to include that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change, based on the teachings of Rafferty that this process achieves optimal resolution and sensitivity (Rafferty, paragraphs 0037-0038).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty fails to disclose determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species.
However, Schwieters (2018) discloses determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change (paragraph 0028, step (iv)) in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0028, step (iii)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty to include determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species, based on the teachings of Schwieters (2018) that this determination beneficially provides an indication of possible interference (Schwieters (2018), paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 23, Schwieters (2021) discloses an apparatus comprising a processor (FIG. 10b shows a simulation, which processes data as disclosed in paragraph 0116; this meets the definition from Merriam-Webster.com of ‘processor’, i.e., “a component of a computer that processes data”) configured to perform a method of tuning a static field mass filter of a mass spectrometer (paragraphs 0037-0039), the static field mass filter having a first Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 220) and a second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 230), the method comprising:
causing a beam of ions comprising a plurality of ion species (paragraph 0117, last sentence) to be injected through an entrance aperture (FIG. 10b, element 200) into the static field mass filter (FIG. 10b);
applying, in the first Wien filter, a first magnetic field and a first electric field having a first magnetic field strength and a first electric field strength, respectively, to deflect the beam into a respective subbeam for each ion species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0098);
applying, in the second Wien filter, a second magnetic field and a second electric field having the first magnetic field strength and the first electric field strength, respectively (paragraph 0100), to counter the deflection of the subbeams caused by the first Wien filter (FIG. 8); and
adjusting a first lens of the static field mass filter (paragraph 0119; the voltage applied to lens 240 is adjusted based on the ion optical characteristics due to the fields produced by the Wien filters), positioned downstream of the first Wien filter and upstream of the second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, lens 240), such that trajectories of the subbeams downstream of the second Wien filter are substantially mass independent (paragraph 0100, lines 15-17; FIG. 8) and so as to focus one or more of the subbeams (paragraph 0100) towards an exit aperture (FIG. 10b, element 210) of the static field mass filter to yield one or more focused subbeams (paragraph 0100).
Schwieters (2021) fails to disclose that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change, wherein a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change, in a first ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change.
However, Yip discloses that adjusting the first lens (paragraph 0123, lines 11-22, lens 1140) comprises determining at least one ratio (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 12-15) and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change, based on the teachings of Yip that this enables simple and efficient tuning or calibration of the mass spectrometer (Yip, paragraph 0069).
Yip discloses that the ratio determined before and after adjusting the lens is a precursor/fragment, or P/F, ratio. The disclosure of Yip demonstrates that the function of isotope ratios is known in the art of mass spectrometer calibration. Yip also shows that substituting isotope ratios for another type of ratio in mass spectrometer calibration yields the predictable result of determining if the mass spectrometer is in need of calibration based on the reproducibility of a known measurement (Yip, paragraph 0092). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip fails to disclose that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change, in a first ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change.
However, Rafferty discloses that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens (FIG. 6A, step 602), and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises:
varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength (paragraph 0036, lines 7-10);
determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A, step 605; paragraphs 0037-0038); and
responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A, step 605 path ‘No’ leading to step 606):
changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength (FIG. 6A, step 606); and
repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip to include that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change, based on the teachings of Rafferty that this process achieves optimal resolution and sensitivity (Rafferty, paragraphs 0037-0038).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty fails to disclose determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species.
However, Schwieters (2018) discloses determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change (paragraph 0028, step (iv)) in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0028, step (iii)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty to include determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species, based on the teachings of Schwieters (2018) that this determination beneficially provides an indication of possible interference (Schwieters (2018), paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 24, Schwieters (2021) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor of an apparatus (FIG. 10b shows a simulation, which processes data as disclosed in paragraph 0116; this meets the definition from Merriam-Webster.com of ‘processor’, i.e., “a component of a computer that processes data”; this also inherently meets the definition of “computer-readable medium” as disclosed in the present application’s specification at paragraph 0149), cause the apparatus to perform a method of tuning a static field mass filter of a mass spectrometer (paragraphs 0037-0039), the static field mass filter having a first Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 220) and a second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, element 230), the method comprising:
causing a beam of ions comprising a plurality of ion species (paragraph 0117, last sentence) to be injected through an entrance aperture (FIG. 10b, element 200) into the static field mass filter (FIG. 10b);
applying, in the first Wien filter, a first magnetic field and a first electric field having a first magnetic field strength and a first electric field strength, respectively, to deflect the beam into a respective subbeam for each ion species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0098);
applying, in the second Wien filter, a second magnetic field and a second electric field having the first magnetic field strength and the first electric field strength, respectively (paragraph 0100), to counter the deflection of the subbeams caused by the first Wien filter (FIG. 8); and
adjusting a first lens of the static field mass filter (paragraph 0119; the voltage applied to lens 240 is adjusted based on the ion optical characteristics due to the fields produced by the Wien filters), positioned downstream of the first Wien filter and upstream of the second Wien filter (FIG. 10b, lens 240), such that trajectories of the subbeams downstream of the second Wien filter are substantially mass independent (paragraph 0100, lines 15-17; FIG. 8) and so as to focus one or more of the subbeams (paragraph 0100) towards an exit aperture (FIG. 10b, element 210) of the static field mass filter to yield one or more focused subbeams (paragraph 0100).
Schwieters (2021) fails to disclose that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change, wherein a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change, in a first ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change.
However, Yip discloses that adjusting the first lens (paragraph 0123, lines 11-22, lens 1140) comprises determining at least one ratio (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 12-15) and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change (paragraph 0123; paragraph 0090, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change, based on the teachings of Yip that this enables simple and efficient tuning or calibration of the mass spectrometer (Yip, paragraph 0069).
Yip discloses that the ratio determined before and after adjusting the lens is a precursor/fragment, or P/F, ratio. The disclosure of Yip demonstrates that the function of isotope ratios is known in the art of mass spectrometer calibration. Yip also shows that substituting isotope ratios for another type of ratio in mass spectrometer calibration yields the predictable result of determining if the mass spectrometer is in need of calibration based on the reproducibility of a known measurement (Yip, paragraph 0092). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that adjusting the first lens comprises determining at least one isotope ratio and determining whether the adjusting results in a change in the isotope ratio which is less than a predetermined maximum change because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip fails to disclose that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change, in a first ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change in the first ratio that is greater than the predetermined maximum change.
However, Rafferty discloses that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens (FIG. 6A, step 602), and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises:
varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength (paragraph 0036, lines 7-10);
determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A, step 605; paragraphs 0037-0038); and
responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A, step 605 path ‘No’ leading to step 606):
changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength (FIG. 6A, step 606); and
repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change (FIG. 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip to include that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: varying the strength of the electric field of the first or second lens in a predetermined range including the second electric field strength; determining whether the varying results in a change, greater than a predetermined maximum change; and responsive to determining that the varying leads to a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change: changing the second electric field strength to a third electric field strength; and repeating the varying, the determining, and the changing until it is determined that the varying does not result in a change that is greater than the predetermined maximum change, based on the teachings of Rafferty that this process achieves optimal resolution and sensitivity (Rafferty, paragraphs 0037-0038).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty fails to disclose determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species.
However, Schwieters (2018) discloses determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change (paragraph 0028, step (iv)) in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0028, step (iii)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty to include determining whether a change is greater than a predetermined maximum change in a first ratio of an intensity of ion in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species, based on the teachings of Schwieters (2018) that this determination beneficially provides an indication of possible interference (Schwieters (2018), paragraph 0029).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rafferty, Schwieters (2018), and Cameron et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0253061 A1), hereinafter Cameron.
Regarding claim 13, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 10 discloses the method of claim 10.
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip fails to disclose that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: a) determining a first ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; b) changing the electric field strength of the electric field applied in the first or second lens to a third electric field strength that is lower than the second electric field strength; c) subsequent to the changing of the electric field strength applied in the first or second lens to the third electric field strength, determining a second ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for the first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for the second species of the plurality of ion species; d) changing the electric field strength of the electric field applied in the first or second lens to a fourth electric field strength that is higher than the second electric field strength; e) subsequent to the changing of the electric field strength applied in the first or second lens to the fourth electric field strength, determining a third ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for the first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for the second species of the plurality of ion species; f) determining a first difference between the first and second determined ratios and a second difference between the first and third determined ratios; g) determining whether the first and second differences are within a predetermined difference range; and h) responsive to determining that the first and second differences are not within the predetermined difference range: changing the second electric field strength to a fifth electric field strength; and repeating steps a) to h) until it is determined that the first and second differences are within the predetermined difference range.
However, Rafferty discloses that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens (FIG. 6A, step 602), and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises:
a) determining a first intensity of ions in the subbeam (FIG. 6A, first iteration, step 604 and paragraph 0036, last sentence; Merriam-Webster.com defines ‘intensity’ as “the magnitude of a quantity…per unit”; the magnitude of the spectrum resolution and/or total ion current are the magnitude of a quantity per unit, i.e., per scan);
b) changing the electric field strength of the electric field applied in the first or second lens to a third electric field strength (FIG. 6A, step 606);
c) subsequent to the changing of the electric field strength applied in the first or second lens to the third electric field strength, determining a second intensity of ions in the subbeam (FIG. 6A, step 604, subsequent iteration after first iteration, and paragraph 0036, last sentence);
d) changing the electric field strength of the electric field applied in the first or second lens to a fourth electric field strength (FIG. 6A, step 606);
e) subsequent to the changing of the electric field strength applied in the first or second lens to the fourth electric field strength, determining a third intensity of ions in the subbeam (FIG. 6A, step 604 and paragraph 0036, last sentence);
g) determining whether a parameter is within a predetermined range (FIG. 6A, step 605); and
h) responsive to determining that the parameter is not within the predetermined range (FIG. 6A, step 605 path ‘No’ leading to step 606):
changing the second electric field strength to a fifth electric field strength (FIG. 6A, step 606); and
repeating steps a) to h) until it is determined that the parameter is within the predetermined range (FIG. 6A, step 605 path ‘Yes’ leading to step 607).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) to include that a third electric field having a second electric field strength is applied in the first or a second lens, and wherein adjusting the first or second lens comprises: a) determining a first intensity of ions in the subbeam; b) changing the electric field strength of the electric field applied in the first or second lens to a third electric field strength; c) subsequent to the changing of the electric field strength applied in the first or second lens to the third electric field strength, determining a second intensity of ions in the subbeam; d) changing the electric field strength of the electric field applied in the first or second lens to a fourth electric field strength; e) subsequent to the changing of the electric field strength applied in the first or second lens to the fourth electric field strength, determining a third intensity of ions in the subbeam; g) determining whether a parameter is within a predetermined range; and h) responsive to determining that the parameter is not within the predetermined range: changing the second electric field strength to a fifth electric field strength; and repeating steps a) to h) until it is determined that the parameter is within the predetermined range, based on the teachings of Rafferty that this process achieves optimal resolution and sensitivity (Rafferty, paragraphs 0037-0038).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty fails to disclose determining a) first, c) second, and e) third ratios of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; the third electric field strength is lower than the second electric field strength; the fourth electric field strength is higher than the second electric field strength; f) determining a first difference between the first and second determined ratios and a second difference between the first and third determined ratios; and g) determining whether the first and second differences are within a predetermined difference range.
However, Cameron discloses changing the electric field strength to a third electric field strength that is lower than the second electric field strength (paragraph 0372); and changing the electric field strength to a fourth electric field strength that is higher than the second electric field strength (paragraphs 0237-0239).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip and Rafferty to include that the third electric field strength is lower than the second electric field strength; and the fourth electric field strength is higher than the second electric field strength, based on the teachings of Cameron that the varied field strengths enable easier detection of signals of interest (Cameron, paragraph 0239).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip, Rafferty, and Cameron fails to disclose determining a) first, c) second, and e) third ratios of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; f) determining a first difference between the first and second determined ratios and a second difference between the first and third determined ratios; and g) determining whether the first and second differences are within a predetermined difference range.
However, Schwieters (2018) discloses a) determining a first ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0045, step (a));
c) determining a second ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for the first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for the second species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0045, step (b));
e) determining a third ratio of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for the first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for the second species of the plurality of ion species (paragraph 0045, step (c));
f) determining a first difference between the first and second determined ratios and a second difference between the first and third determined ratios (paragraph 0049 discloses determining difference between the first and second, and second and third ratios; renumbering the ratios would result in the limitation as claimed); and
g) determining whether the first and second differences are within a predetermined difference range (paragraph 0049; the differences indicate the amount of interfering ions present in the sample, providing a quantitative measure of interference which can be compared to a threshold or maximum allowable interference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip, Rafferty, and Cameron to include determining a) first, c) second, and e) third ratios of an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a first species of the plurality of ion species and an intensity of ions in the subbeam for a second species of the plurality of ion species; f) determining a first difference between the first and second determined ratios and a second difference between the first and third determined ratios; and g) determining whether the first and second differences are within a predetermined difference range, based on the teachings of Schwieters (2018) that this determination beneficially provides an indication of possible interference (Schwieters (2018), paragraph 0029).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Welkie (U.S. Patent No. 8,921,803 B2), hereinafter Welkie.
Regarding claim 17, Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
In addition, Schwieters (2021) discloses a slit downstream of the first Wien filter and upstream of the first lens (FIG. 10b, slit formed by aperture 245 of diaphragm 255 is downstream of first Wien filter 220 and upstream of first lens 240).
Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip fails to disclose, prior to the adjusting of the second lens of the static field mass filter, narrowing a slit of the static field mass filter to a first slit width; and subsequent to the adjusting of the second lens of the static field mass filter, widening the slit to a second width.
However, Welkie discloses, prior to the adjusting of the second lens of the static field mass filter, narrowing a slit of the static field mass filter to a first slit width (column 13, lines 17-37: narrowing aperture 203 achieves a ‘similar effect’ as adjusting the lens, i.e., narrowing the aperture replaces the step of adjusting the lens, i.e., when the aperture is narrowed, the lens has not been adjusted); and
subsequent to the adjusting of the second lens of the static field mass filter (column 18, line 59 to column 19, line 9), widening the slit to a second width (column 19, lines 10-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schwieters (2021) in view of Yip to include prior to the adjusting of the second lens of the static field mass filter, narrowing a slit of the static field mass filter to a first slit width; and subsequent to the adjusting of the second lens of the static field mass filter, widening the slit to a second width, based on the teachings of Welkie that this process iteratively finds optimal conditions to reduce astigmatism issues (Welkie, column 18, line 45 to column 19, line 22).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights