DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 May 2026.
It is noted that additionally, claims 24 and 26-29 were found to directed towards fig. 7. Since figures 5-6 are elected without traverse, claims 24 and 26-29 are additionally withdrawn herewith.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in United Kingdom on 24 October 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB2215732.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the control circuit must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Note: while figure 4a shows a control circuit 150. This box is not sufficient to demonstrate the circuitry (i.e. switches, power sources, etc…) necessary to perform the required functional limitations of claims 1, 11 and 19.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 11, 19-23, 25 and 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lacks written description for requiring “a control circuit configured to apply a set of oscillatory voltages to the array of electrodes to repel the ions from the array of electrodes, each electrode in the array of electrodes having a different phase to each adjacent electrode; apply a trapping voltage to at least one of the one or more further electrodes to force the ions towards the array of electrodes, the set of oscillatory voltages and the trapping voltage thereby trapping the ions within the trapping region; cease application of the set of oscillatory voltages to the array of electrodes during a delay period; apply a focusing voltage to at least one of the one or more further electrodes, during the delay period, to force the ions towards the array of electrodes; and apply an extraction voltage to at least one of the array of electrodes and/or the one or more further electrodes, after the delay period, to extract the ions from the trapping region.”
Specifically, the claimed control circuit is configured to perform a number of steps to achieve a desired results of applying voltages, ceasing voltages for a period, applying a voltage during the period and applying a voltage after the period. Paragraph [0047] of the instant published specification recites “The control circuit 150 may comprise logic for applying voltages to the various electrodes of the apparatus of the present disclosure. The control circuit 150 may also perform certain actions (e.g. adjust voltages on electrodes) based on received measurements (e.g. charge measurements in the trapping region). The control circuit 150 may be formed using conventional techniques and so is not described in further detail, for clarity and brevity”.
That is, to achieve the desired results the specification suggests the control circuit may comprise logic for applying voltages or perform certain actions, however the control circuit is formed using conventional techniques.
However, the specification also points out that a “delayed extraction type process is described between a quench of RF (i.e. when oscillatory voltages cease to be applied to the RF carpet) and application of the extraction field, between which only a small DC field is applied, which allows the trapped ion planes of different m/z to come into better alignment at the point of extraction and which therefore reduces mass-dependent resolution loss” ([0028]).
That is, the inventive concept of this application is the process as claimed. However, the claim is written as an apparatus, wherein the specification is silent as to any structure to perform the claimed function except to suggest the control circuit may comprise logic. The term may suggests that logic is not required, therefore the method may be performed by conventional power sources, however the specification is silent with respect to performing the method via RF/DC power sources. Alternatively, interpreting the controller as having logic (i.e. computer implemented functional limitations), the specification is silent with respect to any algorithm to perform the claimed steps and instead relies on “conventional techniques not described”.
MPEP 2161.01 (I) recites:
“Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed”
In this case, the specification refers to the same language of configuring a control circuit for applying voltages to electrodes, ceasing voltages, applying focusing voltage to electrode(s) and applying an extraction voltage to electrodes, however the specification is devoid of any suggestion as to any steps/procedure for performing the computer function. That is, how the control circuit applies the various voltages and ceases their operation for a delay period and the timings of the applications of voltages of claim 1.
MPEP 2161.01 (I) further recites:
“It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement”
While writing logic to perform the claimed functions may have been within the skill of the art, the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. That is, the specification teaches the control circuit may have logic that may be formed conventionally and suggests the inventive concept is the procedure of delayed extraction, however is notably silent as to how the controller achieves the claimed functions (i.e. via various power sources, timers, switches, etc.. or merely the manual operation of a conventional power source).
Lastly, as evidenced by Giles US 2010/0072362, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a circuit to achieve functions of ceasing and initiating voltage supplies to include a specific arrangement of sources and switches (see for instance fig. 11 and paragraph [0123]). However, unlike Giles, the instant specification is completely silent as to how the functional result is achieved raising the issue of possession as required by 35 USC 112(a).
Therefore, claim 1 fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC 112(a).
Claims 11 and 19 additionally fail to meet the written description requirement for defining a control unit configured to perform functions, wherein the specification is silent with respect to how the functional results are achieved.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
For the purposes of examination the control circuit will be given the broader interpretation of any power source(s) or circuit which are cable of functioning in the claimed manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 11, 19-23, 25 and 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 lacks enabling disclosure for a control circuit to perform the claimed functionality. Specifically, the instant specification is devoid of any structure to make a circuit suitable to perform the claimed functionality of claim 1. MPEP 2164.06 (a) (I) recites: “Enablement serves the dual function of ensuring adequate disclosure of the claimed invention and of preventing claims broader than the disclosed invention. Broad claim language is used at the peril of losing any claim that cannot be enabled across its full scope. … Similarly in Auto. Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1283, 84 USPQ2d 1108, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2007), a claim limitation means responsive to the motion of a mass was construed to include both mechanical and electronic side impact sensors for performing the function of initiating an occupant protection apparatus. The specification did not disclose any details or circuitry for electronic side impact sensors, and thus, failed to apprise one of ordinary skill how to make and use the electronic sensor”
Here, the specification merely suggests the functionality is performed. Paragraph [0047] of the instant published specification recites “The control circuit 150 may comprise logic for applying voltages to the various electrodes of the apparatus of the present disclosure. The control circuit 150 may also perform certain actions (e.g. adjust voltages on electrodes) based on received measurements (e.g. charge measurements in the trapping region). The control circuit 150 may be formed using conventional techniques and so is not described in further detail, for clarity and brevity”.
However, since the circuit is necessary to perform the claimed functionality one of ordinary skill in the art is not given enough information to make and use the claimed control circuit. The state of the prior art is discussed with reference to figure 5, where the specification recites “FIG. 5 shows a further embodiment, which is an adaptation to an RF carpet trap of the type described by Giles in US-2019/0103263A1”
Giles does not disclose an RF carpet trap. It appears that the adaption is the pressure regions applied to the trap shown in figure 5. However, there is no disclosure as to how the control circuit is coupled to the electrodes of figure 5 so as to achieve the claimed functional result. Therefore, given that there is no disclosure as to how the circuit is integrated on an adapted RF carpet based on the type described by Giles, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be given enough information to make and use the claimed invention.
Additionally, figure 4 shows a control circuit 150 however it is shown only in box form. MPEP 2164.06(a) I recites “A disclosure of an electrical circuit apparatus, depicted in the drawings by block diagrams with functional labels, was held to be nonenabling in In re Gunn, 537 F.2d 1123, 1129, 190 USPQ 402, 406 (CCPA 1976), where there was no indication in the specification as to whether the parts represented by boxes were "off the shelf" or must be specifically constructed or modified for applicant’s system. Also there were no details in the specification of how the parts should be interconnected, timed and controlled so as to obtain the specific operations desired by the applicant.”
Here, similarly there is no disclosure as to how the parts of the control circuit are integrated so as to perform the claimed function of claim 1.
As per MPEP 2164.06(a):
“An adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function. The claim before the court in In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 182 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1974), was directed to a system which comprised several component parts (e.g., computer, timing and control mechanism, A/D converter, etc.) only by generic name and overall ultimate function. The court concluded that there was not an enabling disclosure because the specification did not describe how "complex elements known to perform broadly recited functions in different systems would be adaptable for use in Appellant’s particular system with only a reasonable amount of experimentation" and that "an unreasonable amount of work would be required to arrive at the detailed relationships appellant says that he has solved." 500 F.2d at 566, 182 USPQ at 302”.
Here, while the specification appears to suggest the function of claim 1 is the inventive concept (see paragraph [0028]) the specification points to the actual structure (i.e. control circuit) as being conventional and not described. As the control circuit is imperative to achieve the claimed function, the specification is non-enabling for the control circuit to perform the claimed function of claim 1.
MPEP 2161 recites:
“The specification need not teach what is well known in the art. However, applicant cannot rely on the knowledge of one skilled in the art to supply information that is required to enable the novel aspect of the claimed invention when the enabling knowledge is in fact not known in the art. ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 941, 94 USPQ2d 1823, 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2010)”
Here, the process is the novel feature, however it is implemented on some undisclosed control circuit. Paragraph [0047] of the specification relies on conventional skill in the art. However, the process is only enabled via the control circuit. Therefore, the applicant cannot relay on the knowledge of one skilled in the art to supply information (i.e. the actual control circuit) that is required to enable the novel aspect of the claimed invention (i.e. the functional steps of claim 1) when the enabling knowledge is in fact not known to the art. In other words, the specification contends that the process is not known to the art, however to implement the process a control circuit formed conventionally must be formed. Since the disclosure is absent as to any circuit to perform the process, the specification fails to provide adequate information to make and use the claimed device.
There is no disclosure of any working examples of a control circuit nor direction as to how to configure the control circuit to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, taken together there is not enough information for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed control circuit to perform the claimed functions.
Claims 11 and 19 are non-enabling for similar reasons as claim 1 above.
All dependent claims fail to meet the enablement requirement by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 19.
For the purposes of examination the claims will be interpreted to be either 1) circuits the perform similar functionality and 2) controllable power sources attached to electrodes that are capable of performing such functionality.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 19-23, 25 and 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite for reciting “a control circuit configured to…” because it is not clear what is and is not covered by the claim. Specifically, the instant specification teaches the control circuit “may have logic” and may be formed via conventional techniques ([0028]). Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim is merely a power source (i.e. circuit) that may be operable to perform the claimed steps or if the claim requires the steps to be performed by programmed logic. In the former case, control of power supplies to an ion trap is well known to the art (as discussed herein below), in the latter case the instant specification fails to disclose any algorithm or indeed any structural components between the control circuit and the trap or any algorithm to perform the claimed steps raising issues under 112(a) discussed above.
Claims 11 and 19 are vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed above.
Further claim 19 is vague and indefinite for reciting “the trapping region having a relatively low-pressure region and a relatively high pressure region” because it is not clear what the high and low pressure region are high and low relative to. Therefore it is not clear whether the pressure regions have the same pressure wherein that pressure is high and low respectively relative to higher and lower pressures or if the claim is suggesting the regions are high and low relative to each other.
All dependent claims are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 19.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 36 is vague and indefinite for reciting “a relatively low pressure region and a relatively high pressure region” for the same reasons as discussed above in claim 19. Moreover, it is not clear whether this is referring to a separate second low and high pressure region or the same defined in claim 19.
Regarding claim 39, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giles (US pgPub 2010/0072362).
Regarding claim 1, Giles teaches an apparatus for trapping ions (figs 32a-35), comprising:
an array of electrodes (72), the electrodes of the array extending along a surface of the apparatus (best seen in figure 32(a));
one or more further electrodes (71) that are distinct from the array of electrodes (as seen in figure 32(a));
a trapping region for receiving the ions, defined by the array of electrodes and the one or more further electrodes (region between 71 and 72, see paragraph [0212] for RF trapping waveform applied to 73-77 thus trapping between 71 and 72); and
a control circuit ([0212]) configured to:
apply a set of oscillatory voltages to the array of electrodes to repel the ions from the array of electrodes, each electrode in the array of electrodes having a different phase to each adjacent electrode ([0212] RF trapping waveform applied to all plate electrodes 73-77 in figures 32(a)-(b));
apply a trapping voltage to at least one of the one or more further electrodes to force the ions towards the array of electrodes, the set of oscillatory voltages and the trapping voltage thereby trapping the ions within the trapping region (DC waveform for trapping ([0212]);
cease application of the set of oscillatory voltages to the array of electrodes during a delay period ([0218]-[0219] teaches a delay extraction applied to 71/72. Paragraph [0210] teaches plates reproduce a quadrupole field (i.e. similar to the embodiment of figures 10-11 applied to the plate form). Figure 10 shows an end of the oscillatory voltages applied to x and y rods, thus oscillatory voltages are stopped in figure 32 to all plates for delayed extraction);
apply a focusing voltage to at least one of the one or more further electrodes, during the delay period (fig. 10, VY delay. Fig. 32a, since the plate electrodes act as quadrupoles ([0210]), at least one y rod is part of an electrode of the upper array 71), to force the ions towards the array of electrodes ([0118] x rods are set to zero and y rods are set to a voltage. Thus for ions of the same polarity as the voltage on y electrodes of the upper array are forced towards the lower array 72); and apply an extraction voltage to at least one of the array of electrodes and/or the one or more further electrodes, after the delay period, to extract the ions from the trapping region (as seen in figure 10 as applied to figures 32-35).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above. Moreover, Giles teaches the control circuit configured to…apply a trapping voltage, wherein the trapping voltage is a time-varying direct current, DC, voltage that increases in magnitude over time ([0212] teaches a dc waveform, [0090] teaches a DC potential gradient suggesting the device is capable of increasing or decreasing over time, which is sufficient to cover the claimed increasing magnitude).
Claim 19 is broader in scope and anticipated as discussed above. Here, it is interpreted that the relatively high and low pressures are relative to arbitrary higher or lower pressures. Thus even if the pressure in Giles is the same, a region is high compared to an arbitrary lower pressure and a region is low compared to an arbitrary higher pressure.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 19 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitehouse (USPN 7,365,317) (submitted with IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Whitehouse teaches an apparatus for trapping ions (figs 1-2), comprising:
an array of electrodes (sphere electrodes 3a-3D repeating pattern RF electrodes (col. 14, lines 37-42)), the electrodes of the array extending along a surface of the apparatus (as seen in figure 1);
one or more further electrodes (grid electrodes 20 and 45) that are distinct from the array of electrodes (as seen in figure 2);
a trapping region for receiving the ions, defined by the array of electrodes and the one or more further electrodes (col. 14, lines 62-66 teaches electrostatic electrodes receive DC potential to control ion motion and trapping near RF surface, thus forming a trapping region between 20/45 and surface formed by sphere electrodes); and
a control circuit (circuit to apply voltages to 3a-3D and 20/45) configured to:
apply a set of oscillatory voltages to the array of electrodes to repel the ions from the array of electrodes, each electrode in the array of electrodes having a different phase to each adjacent electrode (col. 14, lines 25-28 and lines 37-42 teach opposite RF phases to adjacent spherical electrodes);
apply a trapping voltage to at least one of the one or more further electrodes to force the ions towards the array of electrodes, the set of oscillatory voltages and the trapping voltage thereby trapping the ions within the trapping region (col. 14, lines 62-66);
cease application of the set of oscillatory voltages to the array of electrodes during a delay period; apply a focusing voltage to at least one of the one or more further electrodes, during the delay period, to force the ions towards the array of electrodes; and apply an extraction voltage to at least one of the array of electrodes and/or the one or more further electrodes, after the delay period, to extract the ions from the trapping region (since the device is capable of applying RF voltages to 3a-3d and DC trapping voltages to 20/45 the device is capable of ceasing application of voltages to the array of spherical electrodes for a time period, applying a focusing voltage to 20/45 during such delay and after extracting via a voltage to electrodes 20/40 or spherical electrodes. That is, the claim is written as a device and must be structurally distinguished over the prior art. MPEP 2114 (II). That is, here “configured to” is interpreted as capable of as the claims do not require any structural requirement that would necessitate the narrower interpretation of the functions necessarily occurring. This is supported for instance by paragraph [0028] which disclosed this application is directed towards “a delayed extraction type process”—in other words the claims attempt to define an apparatus to claim a method by using a controller—however the specification is notably silent with respect to any specific structural circuitry of the claimed “control circuit”. Therefore, the specification does not preclude a conventional power source (i.e. control circuitry) which is configured to perform the claimed method of adjustment.).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above. Moreover, White house teaches the control circuit configured to…apply a trapping voltage, wherein the trapping voltage is a time-varying direct current, DC, voltage that increases in magnitude over time. Since Whitehouse teaches DC voltages are applied to the electrodes to control ion motion and trapping near the RF surface (col. 14, lines 62-66), the DC voltage is inherently adjustable thus capable of being time-varying and increasing in magnitude over time.
Claim 19 is broader in scope and anticipated as discussed above. Here, it is interpreted that the relative high and low pressures are relative to arbitrary higher or lower pressures. Thus even if the pressure in Whitehouse is the same, a region is high compared to an arbitrary lower pressure and a region is low compared to an arbitrary higher pressure.
Regarding claim 33, Whitehouse teaches wherein at least one of the array of electrodes and the one or more further electrodes comprises an extraction electrode and the control circuit is configured to apply an extraction voltage to the extraction electrode (col. 14, lines 62-67 through col. 15, lines 1-2 teach electrostatic electrodes 20 and 45 wherein DC is applied during the acceleration of ions away from the RF surface assembly 1).
Regarding claim 34, Whitehouse teaches wherein the extraction voltage has a greater magnitude than a magnitude of the trapping voltage (by adjusting the DC voltage to 20/45 relative to RF voltage applied to 3a-3d the magnitude would be higher).
Regarding claim 35, Whitehouse teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to apply: the trapping voltage to the extraction electrode to trap ions within the trapping region; and the extraction voltage to the extraction electrode to extract the ions from the trapping region (see discussion in claim 1).
Regarding claim 36, Whitehouse teaches wherein the trapping region has a relatively low-pressure region and a relatively high-pressure region and wherein the extraction electrode extends along the relatively low-pressure region (as discussed above in claim 19, wherein 45/20 extend over the region thus over any arbitrary region defined as a low-pressure region).
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (USPN 9,812,311)
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches an apparatus for trapping ions (figs 1a and 1b), comprising:
an array of electrodes (230), the electrodes of the array extending along a surface of the apparatus (as seen in figure 1a and 1b);
one or more further electrodes (electrodes on upper layer 210) that are distinct from the array of electrodes (col. 6, lines 38-45);
a trapping region for receiving the ions, defined by the array of electrodes and the one or more further electrodes (col. 6, lines 49-52 (i.e. between substrate 210 and 215 each containing electrodes)); and
a control circuit (circuit to apply voltages to electrodes of 210/215) configured to:
apply a set of oscillatory voltages to the array of electrodes to repel the ions from the array of electrodes, each electrode in the array of electrodes having a different phase to each adjacent electrode (col. 6, lines 64-67 through col. 7, lines 1-2 teaches out of phase RF on neighboring electrodes to inhibit charged particles from approaching either of the parallel surfaces);
apply a trapping voltage to at least one of the one or more further electrodes to force the ions towards the array of electrodes, the set of oscillatory voltages and the trapping voltage thereby trapping the ions within the trapping region (col. 6, lines 53-63 teaches DC fields applied and/or superimposed such that RF and DC fields confine ions);
cease application of the set of oscillatory voltages to the array of electrodes during a delay period; apply a focusing voltage to at least one of the one or more further electrodes, during the delay period, to force the ions towards the array of electrodes; and apply an extraction voltage to at least one of the array of electrodes and/or the one or more further electrodes, after the delay period, to extract the ions from the trapping region (since the device is capable of applying RF voltages and DC trapping voltages the device is capable of ceasing application of voltages to the array of electrodes for a time period, applying a focusing voltage to DC electrodes 230 or to 220 during such delay and after extracting. That is, the claim is written as a device and must be structurally distinguished over the prior art. MPEP 2114 (II). That is, here “configured to” is interpreted as capable of as the claims do not require any structural requirement that would necessitate the narrower interpretation of the functions necessarily occurring).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above. Moreover, Anderson teaches the control circuit configured to…apply a trapping voltage, wherein the trapping voltage is a time-varying direct current, DC, voltage that increases in magnitude over time. Since Anderson teaches DC voltages are applied to the electrodes to control ion motion and trapping near the RF surface (col. 6, lines 53-64), the DC voltage is inherently adjustable thus capable of being time-varying and increasing in magnitude over time.
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.
Claim(s) 19-23, 25, 30-32 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson and further in view of Giles (US pgPub 2019/0103263) (submitted with IDS).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson teaches all commensurate limitations to claim 1 with the exception of the trapping region having a lower and higher pressure region.
However Giles suggests a trapping region having a lower and higher region (fig. 3a, [0145] teaches chamber 324 at a lower pressure than chamber 303, wherein figure 3a is a linear ion trap ([0142]))
Giles modifies Anderson by segmenting the trap into a lower and higher pressure region.
Since both inventions are directed towards ion traps, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the pressure regions via the restrictor of Giles in the device of Anderson because it would facilitate thermal equilibrium in the higher pressure region while moving ions towards the low pressure region thereby avoiding the problems typically associated with extracting ions from a relatively high pressure environment ([0027]).
Regarding claim 20, Anderson in view of Giles teaches wherein the array of electrodes extends along the relatively low-pressure region of the trapping region and along the relatively high-pressure region of the trapping region (Giles shows electrode segments in both low and high pressure regions).
Regarding claim 21, Anderson in view of Giles teaches a gas restrictor between the relatively low-pressure region and the relatively high-pressure region (Giles, [0151] wall 327).
Regarding claim 22, Anderson in view of Giles teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to apply a voltage, preferably a DC voltage, to the gas restrictor (Giles, 370 comprised of electrodes 372-375, [0159] fig. 3a shows DC voltage 340 applied at 370) to: trap ions in the relatively high-pressure region (via raising the DC voltage seen in 340 of figure 3 at 370).
Regarding claim 23, Anderson in view of Giles teaches a second surface, the second surface opposing the array of electrodes, wherein the gas restrictor extends from the second surface and towards the array of electrodes (Giles, fig. 3a, via wall 327 370 extends towards array of electrode segments supported on the bottom surface (surface 306 interpreted as second surface), surface supporting segments 302 are interpreted to be the array of electrodes).
Regarding claim 25, Anderson in view of Giles teaches the relatively high-pressure region has a pressure of from 0.1 to 2 x 10-2 mbar; and/or the relatively low-pressure region has a pressure of from 0.5 to 5 x 10-3 mbar (Giles, [0077]).
Regarding claim 30, Anderson teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to apply the trapping voltage to the one or more further electrodes after the ions have entered the trapping region (inherent to trap ions as discussed in citations above).
Regarding claim 31, Anderson teaches wherein the trapping voltage has a magnitude that is smaller than a magnitude of the set of oscillatory voltages applied to the array of electrodes (since voltages are adjustable, the device of Anderson is capable of setting such a magnitude )
Regarding claim 32, Anderson teaches wherein the trapping voltage is a DC voltage (col. 6, lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 37, Anderson teaches wherein the one or more further electrodes comprise one or more barrier electrodes positioned around a perimeter of the trapping region (electrodes 220 around perimeter), and the control circuit is configured to apply a barrier voltage to the one or more barrier electrodes to trap the ions within the trapping region (col. 6, lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 38, Anderson teaches wherein: the control circuit is configured to apply the set of oscillatory voltages and the trapping voltage (see discussion above in claim 19) such that the ions are positioned at a first range of distances from the array of electrodes (inherent to the apparatus of figure 1b); and the barrier voltage defines a potential barrier that extends to at least the first range of distances from the array of electrodes (barrier voltage applied to guard electrodes 220 see col. 6, lines 53-63).
Regarding claim 39, Anderson in view of Giles teaches an apparatus for trapping ions according to claim 21 (Anderson as modified by Giles above); and a mass analyser configured to receive ions from the apparatus for trapping ions, preferably wherein the mass analyser is a time-of-flight mass analyser (see fig. 10 of Anderson).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights