DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 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 recites the limitation “sending a signal…”. According to MPEP 21733.05(g), “without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim” which makes the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claims 2-8 are indefinite as they do not further limit the “sending a signal…” limitation to establish a particular structure, material, or steps as dependent on claim 1 above.
Claim 5 further recites the limitation "the library alpha plot" in fourth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 further recites the limitations “the experimental alpha plot” and "the library alpha plot" in second and third lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 further recites the limitations “the experimental alpha plot” and "the library alpha plot" in second and third lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “sending a signal…” making the claim indefinite commensurate in scope with independent claim 1, recited above.
Claims 10-17 are indefinite as they do not further limit the “sending a signal…” limitation to establish a particular structure, material, or steps as dependent on claim 9 above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “sending an operational condition signal…” making the claim indefinite commensurate in scope with independent claim 1, recited above.
Claims 19 and 20 are indefinite as they do not further limit the “sending an operational signal…” limitation to establish a particular structure, material, or steps as dependent on claim 18 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (e.g. mathematical concepts) without significantly more. MPEP 2106 (III) provides the flow chart for determining whether a claim is subject matter eligible. The analysis that follows shows the claims fail to meet the eligibility requirement.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is as follows (citations taken from the instant application):
A method of operating a system comprising a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS) and a mass spectrometer (Fig. 4 shows a system 400 including a DMS 410 and a mass spectrometer 420 being operated, see paragraph [0027] – however not significantly more as directed towards well understood routine and conventional activity, see paragraph [0002]), the method comprising:
introducing a sample to the DMS (Fig. 4 depicts samples are received in an OPI, where they are aspirated towards an ESI 440, see paragraph [0027] – however not significantly more as directed towards well understood routine and conventional activity as discussed in the background in paragraph [0002]);
analyzing the sample with the DMS (DMS 410 performs a diagnostic experiment to at least one precursor ion, see paragraph [0028] – however not significantly more than a field of use for a step of data gathering);
generating data based at least in part on an analyte ion generated from the sample and at least one transport gas composition (ions 150 enter DMS 100 in a transport gas at opening 160, see paragraph [0022]; processor 430 is used to control or provide instructions to DMS 410 to analyze (e.g. generate) data collected, see paragraph [0030]. This step is a mathematical concept (i.e. conversion of a detected signal in the DMS and/or MS into data performed on a processor);
accessing library data of the analyte ion from a library (sample library 445 may be integral with the processor 430, see paragraph [0030]. This step is an abstract idea done on a processor);
comparing the generated data to the library data (paragraph [0039] teaches comparison (e.g. mental process) of the generated data to the library data); and
sending a signal when the generated data deviates from the library data by more than a predetermined threshold (paragraph [0039] teaches comparing the difference to a threshold value and to send a signal. MPEP 2106.03(I) states a signal is considered a non-statutory category of invention).
The abstract ideas (e.g. mathematical concepts and mental processes) are not integrated into a practical application because the relationship to the components and operation of the DMS and mass spectrometer does not add significantly more.
The introduction of a sample into the DMS and subsequent analysis is a field of use. MPEP 2106(I) states “An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”. Here, the introduction and analysis of a sample into a mass spectrometer is well-understood, routine and conventional as discussed in the background of the instant application (see paragraph [0002]).
Generating data based at least in part on an analyte ion is a step of data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(b)(III) recites “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.” Here, a step of generating data in part on an analyte ion in the DMS is incidental to the primary process of comparing the result to a database via the claimed mathematical concepts.
Comparing the data to a database (e.g. library) and sending a signal when the data deviates from a predetermined threshold do not add significantly more because the abstract ideas does nothing to change or improve the DMS and MS, or its effects, but rather act as a comparison step for a user. Such a step cannot be reasonably considered a practical application, because it is simply a comparison of data without any further practical use. Furthermore, a comparison may be done as a mental process by a human, or by hand on using a pen or paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)). Additionally, sending a signal is a non-statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(I)) and could be performed by a user, by voice or hand gestures, to indicate to a colleague that the comparison deviates from data in a catalogue (i.e. library data), thus a mental process. Furthermore, the limitation “when the generated data deviates” is considered to be a contingent limitation. MPEP 2111.04(II) states “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Thus, if the generated data does not exceed the threshold, sending a signal is not required.
The dependent claims do not obviate the above issues. Claims 2 and 8 further recites limitations regarding the field of use of the DMS (e.g. setting and adjusting voltages and introducing a sample) and monitoring an analytical signal is merely a mathematical concept not adding significantly more. Claims 3-7 further describe mathematical concepts not adding significantly more (e.g. generating a sample plot, accessing a library, transforming plots, comparing plots, setting a threshold are all instructions applied to a processor).
Regarding claim 9, the analysis is similar in scope with claim 1 above and therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons as discussed above.
Dependent claims 10-17 do not further add significantly more to the abstract ideas (e.g. applying instructions set forth in independent claim 9 for the same reasons as stated for the dependent claims 2-8 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, the analysis is similar in scope with claim 1 above and therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons as discussed above.
Dependent claim 19 further describes the abstract idea (sending an operational condition) of claim 18 but does not add significantly more.
Therefore, the independent claims 1, 9 and 18 fail to meet the patent eligibility requirements of 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19 all further limit the abstract idea of their respective independent claim and thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jarvis et al. (US PGPub 2018/0269048, hereinafter Jarvis).
Regarding claim 1, Jarvis discloses a method of operating a system comprising a DMS and a MS (a method is disclosed for enabling a DMS device based on when a MS/MS scan is performed, see paragraph [0014]), the method comprising:
introducing a sample to the DMS (DMS device receives the ion beam from the ion source, see paragraph [0011]);
analyzing the sample with the DMS (DMS device 200 is on and ions are separated, see paragraph [0042]; control module includes a plurality of parameters into include a DMS enable parameter necessary to enable the DMS device for the corresponding compound of interest of the MS/MS scan, see paragraph [0020]);
generating data based at least in part on an analyte ion generated from the sample and at least one transport gas composition (ions 250 enter DMS device 200 in a transport gas at open 260, see paragraph [0040]; processor 530 obtains the measured product ion spectrum of the ion MS/MS scan, see paragraph [0075]);
accessing library data of the analyte ion from a library (processor 530 searches the database for a known product ion spectrum of the compound of interest, see paragraph [0075]);
comparing the generated data to the library data (compares the known product ion spectrum to the measured product ion spectrum, see paragraph [0075]); and
sending a signal when the generated data deviates from the library data by more than a predetermined threshold (if the known product does not match the measured product ion within a predetermined threshold level, processor 530 sets the DMS enable parameter to a value that enables DMS device 510 for subsequent scans, see paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 2, Jarvis discloses setting a separation voltage of the DMS, adjusting a compensation voltage of the DMS (in the first mode, DMS device 200 is on, SV and CoV voltages are applied, see paragraph [0042]); and
while adjusting the CoV, concurrently monitoring an analytical signal from the DMS wherein the generated data is based at least in part on monitoring the analytical signal (rapid switching of the CoV allows the user to concurrently monitory many different compounds, see paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Jarvis discloses generating data comprises generating a sample plot for each of a plurality of different separation voltage settings of the DMS, wherein each sample plot comprises a MS signal intensity versus the CoV (rapid switching of the CoV allows the user to concurrently monitory many different compounds, see paragraph [0041]; processor 530 searches the database for a known product ion spectrum of the compound of interest, see paragraph [0075]; processor 530 sets the DMS enable parameter to a value that enables DMS device 510 for subsequent scans, see paragraph [0075]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view Kaufman et al. (US PGPub 2005/0040330, hereinafter Kaufman).
Regarding claim 4, Jarvis fails to disclose wherein accessing library data comprises accessing a library alpha plot for the analyte ion at a predetermined transport gas condition.
Kaufman discloses field-dependent mobility of a species can be expressed as an alpha function (e.g. a unique signature for a species, device-independent, see paragraph [0050]). Kaufman further teaches when defining the alpha function, two closely related detection data sets are used (i.e. at least two different but close field conditions, see paragraphs [0050-0052], including a predetermined transport gas condition, exemplified in paragraph [0199]). Kaufman discloses the unique alpha function for the species is used to compare detected and computed data to a store of known data (e.g. library) to identify the species of detected ions (see paragraph [0053]).
Kaufman modifies Jarvis by suggesting when accessing library data comprises a library alpha plot for the analyte.
Since both inventions are drawn to DMS devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing a library data comprises library alpha plots for the sample for the purpose of rapid identification due to the unique alpha signature of detection for each species, device-independent, as taught by Kaufman.
Regarding claim 5, Jarvis fails to disclose transforming the sample plots into an experimental alpha plot; and comparing the experimental alpha plot to the library alpha plot.
Kaufman discloses field-dependent mobility of a species can be expressed as an alpha function (e.g. a unique signature for a species, device-independent, see paragraph [0050]). Kaufman teaches for a detected unknown compound, data is collected for the sample under test for at least two field conditions, processed, and comparison of the detection data computed as an alpha function (e.g. transformed into an experimental alpha plot) for comparison for identification (see paragraph [0169]).
Kaufman modifies Jarvis by suggesting transforming the sample plot into an experimental alpha plot.
Since both inventions are drawn to DMS devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing a library data comprises library alpha plots for the sample for the purpose of rapid identification due to the unique alpha signature of detection for each species, device-independent, as taught by Kaufman.
Regarding claim 6, Jarvis fails to disclose the predetermined threshold is a maximum absolute alpha difference between the experimental alpha plot and the library alpha plot such that a shift in CoV space is less than about 0.8 V.
Kaufman discloses field-dependent mobility of a species can be expressed as an alpha function (e.g. a unique signature for a species, device-independent, see paragraph [0050]). Kaufman further teaches when defining the alpha function, two closely related detection data sets are used (i.e. at least two different but close field conditions, see paragraphs [0050-0052]). While Kaufman does not explicitly disclose the difference between the alpha plot and the library plot to be less than 0.8 V, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to set the threshold for comparison as obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). That is, if a difference between the values would be greater than a set amount (e.g. 0.8 V), the unique signature of the sample can be deemed too different from the comparing model.
Kaufman modifies Jarvis by suggesting when accessing library data comprises a library alpha plot for the analyte.
Since both inventions are drawn to DMS devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing a library data comprises library alpha plots for the sample for the purpose of rapid identification due to the unique alpha signature of detection for each species, device-independent, as taught by Kaufman.
Regarding claim 7, Jarvis fails to disclose the predetermined threshold is a maximum absolute alpha difference between the experimental alpha plot and the library alpha plot such that a shift in CoV space is less than about 0.4 V.
Kaufman discloses field-dependent mobility of a species can be expressed as an alpha function (e.g. a unique signature for a species, device-independent, see paragraph [0050]). Kaufman further teaches when defining the alpha function, two closely related detection data sets are used (i.e. at least two different but close field conditions, see paragraphs [0050-0052]). While Kaufman does not explicitly disclose the difference between the alpha plot and the library plot to be less than 0.8 V, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to set the threshold for comparison as obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). That is, if a difference between the values would be greater than a set amount (e.g. 0.4 V), the unique signature of the sample can be deemed too different from the comparing model.
Kaufman modifies Jarvis by suggesting when accessing library data comprises a library alpha plot for the analyte.
Since both inventions are drawn to DMS devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing a library data comprises library alpha plots for the sample for the purpose of rapid identification due to the unique alpha signature of detection for each species, device-independent, as taught by Kaufman.
Claims 4-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view Schneider et al. (“Differential mobility spectrometer/mass spectrometry history, theory, design optimization, simulations, and applications”, Mass Spectrometer Reviews, 2016, provided in IDS filed 3/7/2024 and as applicant admitted prior art in paragraph [0039] of the instant application, hereinafter Schneider).
Regarding claim 4, Jarvis fails to disclose wherein accessing library data comprises accessing a library alpha plot for the analyte ion at a predetermined transport gas condition.
Schneider discloses comparing the alpha functions of the experimental data under specified conditions (e.g. library alpha plot including cell geometry, gas flows, temperatures, and fields) to data generated from simulations (Fig. 30A-C shows a comparison of the experimental data and that generated from simulations, see page 716, “C. DMS simulations and verification of the DMS [alpha]”, first column first and second paragraphs). Here, the experimental data to which the simulation is being compared to, is stored in a database or library.
Schneider modifies Jarvis by suggesting accessing a library includes a library alpha plot for the analyte.
Since both inventions are drawn to DMS devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing a library data comprises library alpha plots for the sample for the purpose of being able to access and compare the closest approximation of the correct alpha function for identification as taught by Schneider (see page 716, “C. DMS simulations and verification of the DMS [alpha]”, second column, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Jarvis fails to disclose when comparing the generated data to the library data comprises transforming the sample plots into an experimental alpha plot; and comparing the experimental alpha plot to the library alpha plot.
Schneider discloses comparing the alpha functions of the experimental data under specified conditions (e.g. library alpha plot including cell geometry, gas flows, temperatures, and fields) to data generated from simulations (Fig. 30A-C shows a comparison of the experimental data and that generated from simulations, see page 716, “C. DMS simulations and verification of the DMS [alpha]”, first column first and second paragraphs). Here, the experimental data to which the simulation is being compared to, is stored in a database or library.
Schneider modifies Jarvis by suggesting transforming the sample plots for comparison to the stored alpha plots.
Since both inventions are drawn to DMS devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing a library data comprises library alpha plots for the sample for the purpose of being able to access and compare the closest approximation of the correct alpha function for identification as taught by Schneider (see page 716, “C. DMS simulations and verification of the DMS [alpha]”, second column, second paragraph).
Regarding claims 6-7, Jarvis fails to disclose the predetermined threshold is a maximum alpha difference between the experimental alpha plot and the library alpha plot such that a shift in CoV space is less than about 0.4 V.
Schneider discloses comparing the alpha functions of the experimental data under specified conditions (e.g. library alpha plot including cell geometry, gas flows, temperatures, and fields) to data generated from simulations (Fig. 30A-C shows a comparison of the experimental data and that generated from simulations, see page 716, “C. DMS simulations and verification of the DMS [alpha]”, first column first and second paragraphs). Schneider discloses for simulated and experimental data differences be less than 0.4 V as the values are within reasonable experimental error with high precision (see page 716, “C. DMS simulations and verification of the DMS [alpha]”, first column last paragraph).
Schneider modifies Jarvis by suggesting the predetermined threshold of the difference in CoV space to be less than about 0.4 V.
Since both inventions are drawn to DMS devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing a library data comprises library alpha plots for the sample for the purpose of being within experimental error and a high precision of simulation of the alpha function as taught by Schneider (see page 716, “C. DMS simulations and verification of the DMS [alpha]”, first column, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Jarvis discloses a method of operating a system comprising a DMS and a mass spectrometer (a method is disclosed for enabling a DMS device based on when a MS/MS scan is performed, see paragraph [0014]), the method comprising:
comparing the generated data to the library data (compares the known product ion spectrum to the measured product ion spectrum, see paragraph [0075]); and
sending an operational condition signal based at least in part on the comparison (if the known product does not match the measured product ion within a predetermined threshold level, processor 530 sets the DMS enable parameter to a value that enables DMS device 510 for subsequent scans, see paragraph [0075]).
Jarvis fails to disclose generating a standard sample alpha curve based at least in part on an analyte ion generated from a standard sample and at least one transport gas composition and comparing the standard sample alpha curve to a known alpha curve.
Schneider discloses comparing the alpha functions of the experimental data under specified conditions (e.g. library alpha plot including cell geometry, gas flows, temperatures, and fields) to data generated from simulations (Fig. 30A-C shows a comparison of the experimental data and that generated from simulations, see page 716, “C. DMS simulations and verification of the DMS [alpha]”, first column first and second paragraphs). Here, the experimental data to which the simulation is being compared to, is stored in a database or library.
Schneider modifies Jarvis by suggesting generating a standard sample alpha curve for comparison to a known alpha curve.
Since both inventions are drawn to DMS devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by generating a standard sample alpha curve for comparison to a known alpha curve for the purpose of being able to access and compare the closest approximation of the correct alpha function for identification as taught by Schneider (see page 716, “C. DMS simulations and verification of the DMS [alpha]”, second column, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, Jarvis discloses the operational condition signal comprises a warning (when the spectrum does not match within a predetermined threshold level, the changing of the DMS parameters is considered a warning, see paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 20, Jarvis discloses the operational condition signal initiates an introduction of a subject sample to the DMS (when the spectrum does not match within a predetermined threshold level, the DMS parameters are changed (e.g. a signal is sent) for subsequent scans (further introduction of a subject sample), see paragraph [0075]).
Claims 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view of Datwani et al. (US PGPub 2019/0157060, hereinafter Datwani).
Regarding claim 8, Jarvis fails to disclose ejecting the sample with a droplet ejector into an OPI; and aspirating the sample from the OPI to the ionization source.
Datwani discloses ejecting the sample with a droplet ejector into an open port (ADE transport extremely small droplets of an analyte containing fluid into a sampling tip of a continuous flow sampling probe, see paragraph [0072]; continuous flow sampling probe refers to a substantially coaxial tube, opening at the sampling end (also referred to as an “open port” and “sampling tip”, see paragraph [0065]). Datwani teaches the ADE is advantageously used to substantially reduce time between samples (see paragraph [0072]).
Datwani modifies Jarvis by suggesting using an ADE to eject sample droplets to an open port interface.
Since both inventions are drawn to mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing an ADE to eject sample droplets to an open port interface for the purpose of substantially reducing time between samples as taught by Datwani (see paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 9, Jarvis discloses a system for analyzing a sample (DMS device based on when a MS/MS scan is performed, see paragraph [0014]), the system comprising:
a sample ejector for ejecting a standard sample from a sample source (DMS device receives the ion beam from the ion source, see paragraph [0011]);
an ionization source (ion source 505, see paragraph [0064]);
a DMS disposed proximate the ionization source, wherein the ionization source is configured to deliver the sample to the DMS (DMS device 510 receives the ion beam from ion source 505, see paragraph [0065]);
a mass spectrometer (mass spectrometer 520 receives the ion beam from DMS device 510, see paragraph [0067]);
a processor (processor 530, see paragraph [0063]); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations (processor 530 capable of send and receiving control information and data to and from DMS device 510 and mass spectrometer 520, see paragraph [0068]) comprising:
introducing the standard sample to the DMS (DMS device 510 receives the ion beam from ion source 505, see paragraph [0065]);
analyzing the standard sample with the DMS (DMS device 200 is on and ions are separated, see paragraph [0042]; control module includes a plurality of parameters into include a DMS enable parameter necessary to enable the DMS device for the corresponding compound of interest of the MS/MS scan, see paragraph [0020]);
generating data based at least in part on an analyte ion generated from the standard sample and at least one transport gas composition (ions 250 enter DMS device 200 in a transport gas at open 260, see paragraph [0040]; processor 530 obtains the measured product ion spectrum of the ion MS/MS scan, see paragraph [0075]);
accessing library data of the analyte ion from a library (processor 530 searches the database for a known product ion spectrum of the compound of interest, see paragraph [0075]);
comparing the generated data to the library data (compares the known product ion spectrum to the measured product ion spectrum, see paragraph [0075]); and
sending a signal when the generated data deviates from the library data by more than a predetermined threshold (if the known product does not match the measured product ion within a predetermined threshold level, processor 530 sets the DMS enable parameter to a value that enables DMS device 510 for subsequent scans, see paragraph [0075]).
Jarvis fails to disclose an OPI for receiving the ejected sample and the ionization source coupled to the OPI.
Datwani discloses ejecting the sample with a droplet ejector into an open port (ADE transport extremely small droplets of an analyte containing fluid into a sampling tip of a continuous flow sampling probe, see paragraph [0072]; continuous flow sampling probe refers to a substantially coaxial tube, opening at the sampling end (also referred to as an “open port” and “sampling tip”, see paragraph [0065]; the sample received from the open end of a sampling probe is ionized by an ionization chamber 112, see paragraph [0096]). Datwani teaches the ADE is advantageously used to substantially reduce time between samples (see paragraph [0072]).
Datwani modifies Jarvis by suggesting using an ADE to eject sample droplets to an open port interface coupled to an ionization source.
Since both inventions are drawn to mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing an ADE to eject sample droplets to an open port interface for ionization for the purpose of substantially reducing time between samples as taught by Datwani (see paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Jarvis fails to disclose ejecting the sample with a droplet ejector into an OPI; and aspirating the sample from the OPI to the ionization source.
Datwani discloses ejecting the sample with a droplet ejector into an open port (ADE transport extremely small droplets of an analyte containing fluid into a sampling tip of a continuous flow sampling probe, see paragraph [0072]; continuous flow sampling probe refers to a substantially coaxial tube, opening at the sampling end (also referred to as an “open port” and “sampling tip”, see paragraph [0065]). Datwani teaches the ADE is advantageously used to substantially reduce time between samples (see paragraph [0072]).
Datwani modifies Jarvis by suggesting using an ADE to eject sample droplets to an open port interface.
Since both inventions are drawn to mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing an ADE to eject sample droplets to an open port interface for the purpose of substantially reducing time between samples as taught by Datwani (see paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, Jarvis discloses mass analyzing each of the plurality of ejected subject samples with a MS prior to introducing the standard sample to the DMS (during the MS/MS scan step, for each user defined MS/MS scan of one or more user defined MS/MS scans, the DMS device is enabled or disabled according to the DMS enable parameter of the MS/MS scan and one or more parameters of the DMS device are set according to the one or more DMS parameters, see paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Jarvis discloses ejecting a first subset of the plurality of subject samples from the sample source prior to introducing the standard sample to the DMS (during the MS/MS scan step, for each user defined MS/MS scan of one or more user defined MS/MS scans, the DMS device is disabled according to the DMS enable parameter of the MS/MS scan and one or more parameters of the DMS device are set according to the one or more DMS parameters, see paragraph [0017]); and
mass analyzing the first subset of the plurality of ejected subject samples with the MS prior to introducing the standard sample to the DMS (during the MS/MS scan step, for each user defined MS/MS scan of one or more user defined MS/MS scans, the DMS device is disabled according to the DMS enable parameter of the MS/MS scan and one or more parameters of the DMS device are set according to the one or more DMS parameters, see paragraph [0017]);
ejecting a second subset of the plurality of subset samples from the sample source subsequent to introducing the standard sample to the DMS (during the MS/MS scan step, for each user defined MS/MS scan of one or more user defined MS/MS scans, the DMS device is enabled according to the DMS enable parameter of the MS/MS scan and one or more parameters of the DMS device are set according to the one or more DMS parameters, see paragraph [0017]).
While Jarvis does not explicitly disclose terminating ejection of the sample based at least in part on the sending of the signal (i.e. when the generated data deviates from the library data by more than a predetermined threshold), a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize when the generated data deviates from a compared library data more than a predetermined threshold, the sample does not have a comparison available in the library, and the ejection of the sample should be terminated.
Regarding claim 13, Jarvis discloses ejecting the plurality of subject samples from the sample source subsequent to introducing the standard sample to the DMS (during the MS/MS scan step, for each user defined MS/MS scan of one or more user defined MS/MS scans, the DMS device is disabled according to the DMS enable parameter of the MS/MS scan and one or more parameters of the DMS device are set according to the one or more DMS parameters, see paragraph [0017]).
While Jarvis does not explicitly disclose terminating ejection of the sample based at least in part on the sending of the signal (i.e. when the generated data deviates from the library data by more than a predetermined threshold), a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize when the generated data deviates from a compared library data more than a predetermined threshold, the sample does not have a comparison available in the library, and the ejection of the sample should be terminated.
Regarding claim 14, Jarvis discloses an ion source 505 ionizes a sample producing an ion beam (see paragraph [0065]).
Jarvis fails to explicitly disclose the ionization source comprises ESI.
Datwani discloses a variety of ionization techniques to ionize a sample for mass spectrometry, specifically ESI (see paragraph [0101]).
Datwani modifies Jarvis by suggesting an ionization source to be an ESI.
Since both inventions are drawn to mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing an ionization source from a variety of well known ionization techniques as taught by Datwani (see paragraph [0101]) with a reasonable expectation of predictable results (i.e. ionizing a sample to form an ion beam for mass spectrometry).
Regarding claim 15, Jarvis discloses the memory comprises the library (processor 530 searches the database for a known product ion spectrum of the compound of interest, see paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 16, Jarvis fails to disclose the sample source comprises a sample plate comprising a plurality of wells, and wherein the standard sample is disposed in a standard well of the plurality of wells.
Datwani discloses the providing a fluid sample from individual microtiter plate wells to a mass spectrometer with an ADE (see paragraph [0009]). Datwani teaches the ADE is advantageously used to substantially reduce time between samples (see paragraph [0072]).
Datwani modifies Jarvis by suggesting using an ADE to provide samples from a microtiter plate well.
Since both inventions are drawn to mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing an ADE to eject sample droplets to an open port interface for the purpose of substantially reducing time between samples as taught by Datwani (see paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 17, Jarvis fails to disclose receiving an identification signal associated with the standard well.
Datwani discloses the providing a fluid sample from individual microtiter plate wells to a mass spectrometer with an ADE (see paragraph [0009]). Datwani teaches the ADE is advantageously used to substantially reduce time between samples (see paragraph [0072]). Datwani further discloses the individual wells serve as reservoirs, each with an individual systematic addressable feature (see paragraph [0077]).
Datwani modifies Jarvis by using an ADE to provide samples from a microtiter plate well that are individual systematically addressable (e.g. easily identifiable).
Since both inventions are drawn to mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Jarvis by providing an ADE to eject sample droplets to an open port interface for the purpose of substantially reducing time between samples as taught by Datwani (see paragraph [0072]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881