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 .
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 multi-turn orbit (claim 16) and the multi-reflection orbit (claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Furthermore, the incorporation of essential material in the specification (page 23, line 20, Multi Turn TOFMS to page 24, line 25, Multi Reflection TOFMS) by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
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 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 1-18 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.
Claims 1-2, 12, and 18 recite the limitation "the flight time". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the flight time” to mean “the time of flight
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one of the flight space formation electrodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “at least one of the flight space formation electrodes” to mean “
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, 4-6, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiro (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0088460 A1), hereinafter Oshiro, in view of Hideaki (JP Patent No. 2009277376 A), hereinafter Hideaki (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Oshiro discloses a time-of-flight mass spectrometer (paragraph 0043) comprising:
a flight space formation electrode (FIG. 3, elements 242, 243, 244, 246) configured to form a flight space (FIG. 3, area enclosed by electrodes 244, 246) for separating ions derived from a component contained in a sample according to a mass-to-charge ratio (paragraphs 0043, 0047);
an ion detection unit configured to detect ions that have flown in the flight space (FIG. 3, detector 245);
a voltage switching unit (FIGs. 3 and 5, voltage application unit 3 and power sources P1 to P4) configured to switch a voltage to be applied to the flight space formation electrode from a first voltage for flying ions of a first polarity to a second voltage for flying ions of a second polarity at a given switching timing (paragraphs 0058-0059); and
an ion information acquisition unit configured to obtain a time of flight during which the ion flies in the flight space or a mass-to-charge ratio of the ion (paragraph 0043) based on a detection result of the ions of the second polarity obtained by the ion detection unit after the voltage has been switched by the voltage switching unit (paragraph 0059).
Oshiro fails to disclose a correction information storage unit configured to store correction information related to a deviation in time of flight or a mass-to-charge ratio associated with an elapsed time from the switching timing; and a correction unit configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit according to an elapsed time from the switching timing when the detection result of the ion is obtained using the correction information stored in the correction information storage unit.
However, Hideaki discloses a correction information storage unit (FIG. 1, element 11) configured to store correction information related to a deviation in time of flight or a mass-to-charge ratio (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph; and page 7, last paragraph to page 8, first paragraph: the correction information compensates voltage or phase fluctuations, which occur due to deviations in ion mass) associated with an elapsed time from the switching timing (page 8, paragraph 3: the elapsed time starting from t = 0); and
a correction unit (FIG. 1, element 7) configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph) according to an elapsed time from the switching timing when the detection result of the ion is obtained using the correction information stored in the correction information storage unit (page 8, paragraph 2).
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 Oshiro to include a correction information storage unit configured to store correction information related to a deviation in time of flight or a mass-to-charge ratio associated with an elapsed time from the switching timing; and a correction unit configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit according to an elapsed time from the switching timing when the detection result of the ion is obtained using the correction information stored in the correction information storage unit, based on the teachings of Hideaki that this improves mass accuracy with low cost (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 1.
In addition, Hideaki discloses a correction information acquisition unit which is configured to create or change the correction information (page 5, last paragraph).
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki to include a correction information acquisition unit which is configured to create or change the correction information, based on the additional teachings of Hideaki that this enables the correction information to be created or stored in a variety of useful formats (Hideaki, page 5, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 4 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 4.
In addition, Oshiro discloses an ion source (FIG. 3, element 20) which is configured to generate ions derived from components contained in the sample (paragraph 0045); and a sample introduction unit (FIG. 3, element 201) which is configured to introduce a sample into the ion source (paragraph 0045).
Oshiro fails to explicitly disclose introducing a known sample into the ion source; however, while "[f]eatures of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally" (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also MPEP § 2173.05(g)), "[f]unctional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function" (see MPEP 2114). In the case at hand, the ESI probe 201 of Oshiro is capable of introducing a known sample into the ion source; therefore, the claim limitation “a sample introduction unit which is configured to introduce a known sample into the ion source” is met by the teachings of Oshiro.
In addition, Hideaki discloses that the correction information acquisition unit is configured to create or change the correction information based on a change in a time-of-flight or a mass-to-charge ratio over time from the switching timing obtained from an intensity signal of ions derived from the known sample (page 5, last paragraph).
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki to include that the correction information acquisition unit is configured to create or change the correction information based on a change in a time-of-flight or a mass-to-charge ratio over time from the switching timing obtained from an intensity signal of ions derived from the known sample, based on the additional teachings of Hideaki that this enables the correction information to be created or stored in a variety of useful formats (Hideaki, page 5, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 4 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 4.
In addition, Hideaki discloses that the correction information acquisition unit is configured to store a model function corresponding to correction information related to an elapsed time from the switching timing (page 8, paragraph 2) and a deviation in time of flight or a mass-to-charge ratio (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph), and create or change the correction information by changing a parameter value included in the model function (page 8, paragraph 2).
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki to include that the correction information acquisition unit is configured to store a model function corresponding to correction information related to an elapsed time from the switching timing and a deviation in time of flight or a mass-to-charge ratio, and create or change the correction information by changing a parameter value included in the model function, based on the additional teachings of Hideaki that the model function enables compensation for multiple variables to be determined in advance and applied in real time (Hideaki, page 8, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 13, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 1.
In addition, Oshiro discloses that an elapsed time from the switching timing is less than five seconds (claim 13 of the present application generically discloses “an elapsed time” (emphasis added); paragraph 0059 of Oshiro discloses that the switching timing occurs at the end of the “predetermined time period”; therefore, 1 second after the end of the “predetermined time period”, an elapsed time from the switching timing is equal to 1 second).
Regarding claim 14, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 1.
In addition, Oshiro discloses that the flight space formation electrode includes a flight tube (paragraph 0052, flight tube 246) to which a high voltage with an absolute value of 1 kV or more is applied (paragraph 0053: flight tube 246 is connected to power source P2; paragraph 0058: power source P2 applies a voltage of -7 kV).
Regarding claim 15, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 1.
In addition, Oshiro discloses that the flight space formation electrode includes a reflectron (FIG. 3, reflectron 244) to which a high voltage with an absolute value of 500 V or more is applied (paragraph 0055: reflectron 244 is connected to power source P3; paragraph 0058: power source P3 applies a voltage of +2 kV).
Regarding claim 17, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 1.
In addition, Oshiro discloses that the flight space formation electrode included an ion ejection electrode (FIG. 3, element 242) to which a voltage is applied in a pulsed manner (paragraph 0043), and which ejects ions of the second polarity toward the flight space by the applied voltage (paragraph 0047).
Oshiro fails to disclose a magnitude of the voltage applied to the ion ejection electrode. However, optimizing the voltage applied to an electrode is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Oshiro teaches that “a pulse voltage is applied, in a predetermined cycle, to a pair of electrodes arranged in an orthogonal acceleration unit to forward ions into a flight space” (Oshiro, paragraph 0043). As such, Oshiro identifies the voltage applied to the electrodes as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., ejecting ions into the flight space. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the voltage applied to an ion ejection electrode and identifies said voltage as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the voltage applied to the ejection electrode to meet the claimed voltage since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 18, Oshiro discloses a time-of-flight mass spectrometry method (paragraph 0043) comprising:
a voltage switching step of switching a voltage to be applied to a flight space formation electrode (FIG. 3, elements 244, 246) which is configured to form a flight space (FIG. 3, area enclosed by electrodes 244, 246) for separating ions derived from a component contained in a sample according to a mass-to-charge ratio (paragraphs 0043, 0047), from a first voltage for flying ions of a first polarity to a second voltage for flying ions of a second polarity at a given switching timing (paragraphs 0058-0059); and
an ion information acquisition step of obtaining a time of flight during which the ions fly in the flight space or a mass-to-charge ratio of the ions (paragraph 0043) based on a detection result of the ions of the second polarity obtained by an ion detection unit (FIG. 3, detector 245) which is configured to detect ions that have flown in the flight space after the voltage has been switched by the voltage switching step (paragraph 0059).
Oshiro fails to disclose a correction step of correcting the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained in the ion information acquisition step according to an elapsed time from the switching timing when the detection result of the ion is obtained using correction information in which an elapsed time from the switching timing is associated with information on a deviation in the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio.
However, Hideaki discloses a correction step of correcting the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained in the ion information acquisition step (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph) according to an elapsed time from the switching timing when the detection result of the ion is obtained using correction information (page 8, paragraph 2) in which an elapsed time from the switching timing is associated (page 8, paragraph 3: the elapsed time starting from t = 0) with information on a deviation in the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph; and page 7, last paragraph to page 8, first paragraph: the correction information compensates voltage or phase fluctuations, which occur due to deviations in ion mass).
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 Oshiro to include a correction step of correcting the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained in the ion information acquisition step according to an elapsed time from the switching timing when the detection result of the ion is obtained using correction information in which an elapsed time from the switching timing is associated with information on a deviation in the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio, based on the teachings of Hideaki that this improves mass accuracy with low cost (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasufumi (JP Patent No. H10106484 A), hereinafter Yasufumi (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 2, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 1, including that the correction information is a correction value corresponding to an elapsed time from the switching timing (Hideaki: page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph; and page 7, last paragraph to page 8, first paragraph: the correction information compensates voltage or phase fluctuations, which occur due to deviations in ion mass; page 8, paragraph 3: the elapsed time starting from t = 0; see claim 1 supra).
Oshiro in view of Hideaki fails to disclose that the correction unit is configured to add the correction value stored in the correction information storage unit to the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit.
However, Yasufumi discloses that the correction unit is configured to add the correction value (page 5, paragraph beginning “[t]he data is corrected…”) stored in the correction information storage unit (FIG. 1, element 24) to the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit (page 5, paragraph beginning “[t]he data is corrected…”).
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki to include that the correction unit is configured to add the correction value stored in the correction information storage unit to the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit, based on the teachings of Yasufumi that this improves the accuracy of mass spectrometry (Yasufumi, page 3, paragraph beginning “[t]hat is, since the change…”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikegami et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352525 A1), hereinafter Ikegami.
Regarding claim 3, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 1, including that the correction information corresponds to an elapsed time from the switching timing (Hideaki: page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph; and page 7, last paragraph to page 8, first paragraph: the correction information compensates voltage or phase fluctuations, which occur due to deviations in ion mass; page 8, paragraph 3: the elapsed time starting from t = 0; see claim 1 supra).
Oshiro in view of Hideaki fails to disclose that the correction information is a correction coefficient, and the correction unit is configured to multiply the time of flight or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit by a correction coefficient stored in the correction information storage unit.
However, Ikegami discloses that the correction information is a correction coefficient (paragraph 0083, normalization coefficient G'), and
the correction unit is configured to multiply the data obtained by the ion information acquisition unit by a correction coefficient stored in the correction information storage unit (paragraph 0083).
Ikegami discloses that the correction coefficient is multiplied by the intensity value data, not the mass-to-charge ratio; however, Ikegami also discloses that the intensity data is related to the mass-to-charge data (Ikegami, paragraph 0003). Furthermore, while "[f]eatures of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally" (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also MPEP § 2173.05(g)), "[f]unctional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function" (see MPEP 2114). The correction unit (normalization calculation processing part 23) of Ikegami is capable of multiplying the mass-to-charge ratio by the correction coefficient; therefore, the claimed limitation of "the correction unit is configured to multiply the time of flight or the mass-to-charge ratio...by a correction coefficient" is met.
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki to include that the correction information is a correction coefficient, and the correction unit is configured to multiply the time of flight or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit by a correction coefficient stored in the correction information storage unit, based on the teachings of Ikegami that this improves analysis accuracy (Ikegami, paragraph 0086).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Mizutani (U.S. Patent No. 8,907,274 B2), hereinafter Mizutani (2014).
Regarding claim 7, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 6 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 6.
Oshiro in view of Hideaki fails to disclose that the model function includes, as a parameter, a value of at least one of electric resistance, inductance, or capacitance in a simplified circuit connected to a power supply unit that applies a voltage to the flight space formation electrode, and the correction information acquisition unit is configured to acquire the correction information by changing at least one value of the parameter values included in the model function.
However, Mizutani (2014) discloses that the model function includes, as a parameter, a value of at least one of electric resistance, inductance, or capacitance in a simplified circuit (column 5, lines 15-22) connected to a power supply unit that applies a voltage to the flight space formation electrode (column 4, lines 55-67), and
the correction information acquisition unit is configured to acquire the correction information by changing at least one value of the parameter values included in the model function (column 9, lines 41-56).
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki to include that the model function includes, as a parameter, a value of at least one of electric resistance, inductance, or capacitance in a simplified circuit connected to a power supply unit that applies a voltage to the flight space formation electrode, and the correction information acquisition unit is configured to acquire the correction information by changing at least one value of the parameter values included in the model function, based on the teachings of Mizutani (2014) that this ensures the mass-resolving power of the system is kept at a desirable level (Mizutani (2014), column 5, lines 15-39).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiro in view of Hideaki and Mizutani (2014) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mizutani (WO Patent No. 2010023706 A1), hereinafter Mizutani (2010) (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 8, Oshiro in view of Hideaki and Mizutani (2014) as applied to claim 7 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 7, including a simplified circuit connected to the power supply unit (Mizutani (2014), column 4, lines 55-67 and column 5, lines 15-22; see claim 7 supra).
Oshiro in view of Hideaki and Mizutani (2014) fails to disclose that the model function is a voltage response function including values of electric resistance and capacitance as parameters.
However, Mizutani (2010) discloses that the model function is a voltage response function including values of electric resistance and capacitance as parameters (page 4, paragraph 3).
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki and Mizutani (2014) to include that the model function is a voltage response function including values of electric resistance and capacitance as parameters, based on the teachings of Mizutani (2010) that this reduces high frequency noise (Mizutani (2010), page 4, paragraph 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiro in view of Hideaki and Mizutani (2014) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mizutani (2010), as evidenced by The Penguin Dictionary of Science, “Q factor (quality factor)”.
Regarding claim 9, Oshiro in view of Hideaki and Mizutani (2014) as applied to claim 7 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 7, including a simplified circuit connected to the power supply unit (Mizutani (2014), column 4, lines 55-67 and column 5, lines 15-22; see claim 7 supra).
Oshiro in view of Hideaki and Mizutani (2014) fails to disclose that the model function is a damped response function including at least a value of inductance as a parameter, and the correction information acquisition unit is configured to change the damped response function by changing the value of the inductance to acquire the correction information.
However, Mizutani (2010) discloses that the model function is a damped response function including at least a value of inductance as a parameter (page 4, paragraph 3), and
the correction information acquisition unit is configured to change the damped response function by changing the value of the inductance to acquire the correction information (page 4, paragraph 3).
Mizutani (2010) does not explicitly refer to the model function as a “damped response function”. However, the Penguin Dictionary of Science defines the Q factor, or quality factor, as being associated with the function describing a damped system, and Mizutani (2010) discloses that the Q factor is adjusted by changing the value of inductance; therefore, Mizutani discloses that the model function is a damped response function including at least a value of inductance as a parameter, and the correction information acquisition unit is configured to change the damped response function by changing the value of the inductance to acquire the correction information.
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki and Mizutani (2014) to include that the model function is a damped response function including at least a value of inductance as a parameter, and the correction information acquisition unit is configured to change the damped response function by changing the value of the inductance to acquire the correction information, based on the teachings of Mizutani (2010) that this reduces high frequency noise (Mizutani (2010), page 4, paragraph 2).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kajihara (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0215238 A1), hereinafter Kajihara, and Franzen (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,348 A), hereinafter Franzen.
Regarding claim 10, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 1.
Oshiro in view of Hideaki fails to disclose an ion ejector configured to be controlled to perform a measurement event in which an operation of ejecting ions derived from a sample component into the flight space is periodically performed a plurality of times, wherein the ion information acquisition unit is configured to obtain a flight time in which the ions fly in the flight space or a mass-to-charge ratio of the ions based on a result of integrating or averaging intensity signals of the ions obtained for each of a plurality of ion emission operations performed in the measurement event, and the correction unit is configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit according to an elapsed time from the switching timing to the start of the measurement event and a predetermined delay time from the start of the measurement event.
However, Kajihara discloses an ion ejector (FIG. 1) configured to be controlled to perform a measurement event in which an operation of ejecting ions derived from a sample component into the flight space is periodically performed a plurality of times (paragraph 0075), wherein
the ion information acquisition unit is configured to obtain a flight time in which the ions fly in the flight space or a mass-to-charge ratio of the ions based on a result of integrating or averaging intensity signals of the ions obtained for each of a plurality of ion emission operations performed in the measurement event (paragraph 0080), and
the correction unit is configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit according to an elapsed time from the switching timing to the start of the measurement event (paragraph 0024).
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki to include an ion ejector configured to be controlled to perform a measurement event in which an operation of ejecting ions derived from a sample component into the flight space is periodically performed a plurality of times, wherein the ion information acquisition unit is configured to obtain a flight time in which the ions fly in the flight space or a mass-to-charge ratio of the ions based on a result of integrating or averaging intensity signals of the ions obtained for each of a plurality of ion emission operations performed in the measurement event, and the correction unit is configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit according to an elapsed time from the switching timing to the start of the measurement event, based on the teachings of Kajihara that this improves mass resolving power and accuracy while reducing detection failures (Kajihara, paragraph 0030).
Oshiro in view of Hideaki and Kajihara fails to disclose that the correction unit is configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio according to a predetermined delay time from the start of the measurement event.
However, Franzen discloses that the correction unit is configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio according to a predetermined delay time from the start of the measurement event (column 3, lines 25-45).
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki and Kajihara to include that the correction unit is configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio according to a predetermined delay time from the start of the measurement event, based on the teachings of Franzen that this advantageously enables simultaneous focusing of ions having a wide range of masses (Franzen, column 3, lines 45-51).
Regarding claim 11, Oshiro in view of Hideaki, Kajihara, and Franzen as applied to claim 10 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 10.
Franzen fails to explicitly disclose that the predetermined delay time is 1/2 of a time taken for the measurement event. However, optimizing the delay time is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Franzen teaches that “[b]y varying the time constants τ and
t
1
…the best conditions for wide-range focusing can be easily found” (Franzen, column 10, lines 1-3). As such, Franzen identifies the delay time (“time lag”) τ as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., adjustments in wide-range focusing. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the delay time and identifies said delay time as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the delay time to meet the claimed time since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kajihara.
Regarding claim 12, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 1.
In addition, Oshiro discloses a voltage monitoring unit configured to acquire a monitor voltage corresponding to a voltage applied to at least one of the flight space formation electrodes (paragraph 0058, element 43).
Oshiro in view of Hideaki fails to disclose that the correction unit is configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit according to an elapsed time from the switching timing and the monitor voltage.
However, Kajihara discloses that the correction unit is configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit according to an elapsed time from the switching timing (paragraph 0024) and the monitor voltage (paragraph 0065).
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki to include that the correction unit is configured to correct the flight time or the mass-to-charge ratio obtained by the ion information acquisition unit according to an elapsed time from the switching timing and the monitor voltage, based on the teachings of Kajihara that this improves mass resolving power and accuracy while reducing detection failures (Kajihara, paragraph 0030).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoyes et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,741,376 B2), hereinafter Hoyes.
Regarding claim 16, Oshiro in view of Hideaki as applied to claim 1 discloses the time-of-flight mass spectrometer according to claim 1.
Oshiro in view of Hideaki fails to disclose that the flight space formation electrode includes an electrode that forms a multi turn orbit in which ions turn around a plurality of times or a multi reflection orbit in which ions are reflected a plurality of times by an electric field.
However, Hoyes discloses that the flight space formation electrode includes an electrode that forms a multi turn orbit in which ions turn around a plurality of times or a multi reflection orbit in which ions are reflected a plurality of times by an electric field (column 16, lines 49-52).
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 Oshiro in view of Hideaki to include that the flight space formation electrode includes an electrode that forms a multi turn orbit in which ions turn around a plurality of times or a multi reflection orbit in which ions are reflected a plurality of times by an electric field, based on the teachings of Hoyes that this enables a more compact design which requires less space to operate (Hoyes, column 20, lines 32-47).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishihara (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0092913 A1), hereinafter Ishihara, teaches a multi-turn time-of-flight mass spectrometer in which ions turn around an orbit a plurality of times.
Yamaguchi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0006768 A1), hereinafter Yamaguchi, teaches a time-of-flight mass spectrometer comprising: a flight space formation electrode configured to form a flight space for separating ions derived from a component contained in a sample according to a mass-to-charge ratio; an ion detection unit configured to detect ions that have flown in the flight space; a voltage switching unit configured to switch a voltage to be applied to the flight space formation electrode.
Shimomura (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0012740 A1), hereinafter Shimomura, teaches a mass spectrometer comprising a correction unit configured to multiply a signal value by a correction coefficient.
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