DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…A chamber having a distal end…”. The capitalization should be removed.
Claim 13 includes a claim status “(Original)” at the end of the claim. This appears to be a typographical error and should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell et al. (US PGPub 2014/0264009, hereinafter Campbell).
Regarding claim 1, Campbell discloses an apparatus for ion focusing (this approach would enable… (3) focusing of ions of interest into the MS orifice, see paragraph [0017]), the apparatus comprising:
a chamber having a distal end and a proximal end (mass analysis system 10, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0017]; proximal end depicted as first ion inlet 26, distal endd depicted as second ion inlet 28, see Fig. 1);
a first ion source positioned to introduce a first beam of ions into the chamber near the distal end and directed toward the proximal end (ion source 13 produces ions 15 into an ion path 22 toward intersection 31, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0017]); and
a second ion source positioned to introduce a second beam of ions oppositely charged to the first beam of ions the chamber near the proximal end and directed toward the distal end (ion source 12 produces ions 14 into an ion path 20 toward intersection 31, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0017]; these two ion beams can be of opposite polarity, see paragraph [0017]);
wherein the first and second ion source are positioned such that the second beam of ions interacts with the first beam of ions to focus the first beam of ions as it travels from the distal end toward the proximal end (these reactions can occur at the intersection of the two DMS devices or somewhere within the mass spectrometer, see paragraph [0017]; precursor and reagent ions can be produced for performing ion/ion reactions…to enable focusing of ions of interest into the MS orifice, see paragraph [0017]. The instant application observes when oppositely charged ions are directed to interact in opposing directions, a result of focusing occurs in the ion guide (see paragraph [0038] of the instant application. As the devices are arranged similarly, the resulting interaction would be inherent to allow a first beam of ions to be focused into the MS orifice of Campbell).
Regarding claim 2, Campbell discloses the chamber is an atmospheric ion guide (DMS has been interfaced with a MS to take advantage of the atmospheric pressure, see paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Campbell discloses a plurality of electrodes along walls of the chamber (DMS 16 includes at least three filter electrodes 18, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Campbell discloses the plurality of electrodes are of the same polarity as the first beam of ions (two ion beams can be of opposite polarity, see paragraph [0017]; voltage source 24 can provide voltages to the at least one of the filter electrodes 18 to generate the electric field, see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 7, Campbell discloses the first and second ion sources are independently selected from the group consisting of ESI, APCI, APPI, DESI, MALDI, and LAESI (ion sources 12 and 13 can be any suitable ion source including the following, see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 13, Campbell discloses a mass spectrometer positioned near an opening of the distal end of the chamber, the opening positioned at a focal point of the first beam of ions (mass spectrometer 32 can receive some or all of the selected portion of ions 14 and 15, see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Campbell discloses a method for focusing ions (this approach would enable… (3) focusing of ions of interest into the MS orifice, see paragraph [0017]), the method comprising:
introducing a first beam of ions near a distal end of a chamber and directed toward a proximal end of the chamber (ion source 13 produces ions 15 into an ion path 22 toward intersection 31, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0017]); and
introducing a second beam of ions oppositely charged to the first beam of ions near the proximal end of the chamber and directed toward the distal end such that the second beam of ions interacts with the first beam of ions to focus the first beam of ions as it travels from the distal end toward the proximal end (ion source 12 produces ions 14 into an ion path 20 toward intersection 31, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0017]; these two ion beams can be of opposite polarity, see paragraph [0017]; these reactions can occur at the intersection of the two DMS devices or somewhere within the mass spectrometer, see paragraph [0017]; precursor and reagent ions can be produced for performing ion/ion reactions…to enable focusing of ions of interest into the MS orifice, see paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, Campbell discloses the chamber is an atmospheric ion guide (DMS has been interfaced with a MS to take advantage of the atmospheric pressure, see paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, Campbell discloses applying a voltage to a plurality of electrodes along walls of the chamber (DMS 16 includes at least three filter electrodes 18, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0018]; voltage source 24 can provide voltages to the at least one of the filter electrodes 18 to generate the electric field, see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 18, Campbell discloses the voltage is of a same polarity as the first beam of ions (two ion beams can be of opposite polarity, see paragraph [0017]; voltage source 24 can provide voltages to the at least one of the filter electrodes 18 to generate the electric field, see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 20, Campbell discloses introducing the first and second beams of ions from ion sources independently selected from the group consisting of ESI, APCI, APPI, DESI, MALDI, and LAESI (ion sources 12 and 13 can be any suitable ion source including the following, see paragraph [0018]).
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 3, 6, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of McCauley et al. (US PGPub 2020/0020518, hereinafter McCauley).
Regarding claim 3, Campbell discloses the ion guide is non-linear (e.g. non-parallel, see Fig. 2). Campbell does not explicitly disclose the ion guide is curved.
McCauley discloses a multipole assembly 1000 forming an ion guide in the shape of a curve (see paragraphs [0095-0096]).
McCauley modifies Campbell by suggesting the ion guide is curved.
Since both inventions are drawn to mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Campbell by providing a multipole assembly to form a curved ion guide for the purpose of guiding the ions away from neutral background gases to improve detection resolution.
Regarding claim 6, Campbell discloses the plurality of electrodes are positioned successively along the chamber walls from the distal end to the proximal end (DMS includes at least three electrodes 18, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0018]).
Campbell fails to disclose the electrodes are separated by dielectric material, and supplied with progressively lower voltages from the distal end to the proximal end.
McCauley discloses a multipole assembly 1000 forming an ion guide in the shape of a curve (see paragraphs [0095-0096]). McCauley discloses the electrodes are held and separated by dielectric materials (e.g. glass, ceramic, etc., see paragraphs [0064] and [0096]). McCauley teaches separation by a dielectric material advantageously provides electrically insulating the electrodes from sensitive components (see paragraph [0078]).
McCauley further teaches voltages can be applied to each electrode to confine and guide ions within the ion guide (see paragraph [0097]). While McCauley does not explicitly teach progressively lower voltages, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made set a desired gradient of voltages to the electrodes to shape the electric field, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
McCauley modifies Campbell by providing a dielectric support structure between the electrodes with controllable voltages applied to the electrodes.
Since both inventions are drawn to mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Campbell by providing a dielectric support structure between the electrodes for the purpose of electrically insulating the electrodes from sensitive components as taught by McCauley.
Regarding claim 16, Campbell discloses the ion guide is non-linear (e.g. non-parallel, see Fig. 2). Campbell does not explicitly disclose the ion guide is curved.
McCauley discloses a multipole assembly 1000 forming an ion guide in the shape of a curve (see paragraphs [0095-0096]).
McCauley modifies Campbell by suggesting the ion guide is curved.
Since both inventions are drawn to mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Campbell by providing a multipole assembly to form a curved ion guide for the purpose of guiding the ions away from neutral background gases to improve detection resolution.
Regarding claim 19, Campbell discloses the plurality of electrodes are positioned successively along the chamber walls from the distal end to the proximal end (DMS includes at least three electrodes 18, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0018]).
Campbell fails to disclose the electrodes are separated by dielectric material, and supplied with progressively lower voltages from the distal end to the proximal end.
McCauley discloses a multipole assembly 1000 forming an ion guide in the shape of a curve (see paragraphs [0095-0096]). McCauley discloses the electrodes are held and separated by dielectric materials (e.g. glass, ceramic, etc., see paragraphs [0064] and [0096]). McCauley teaches separation by a dielectric material advantageously provides electrically insulating the electrodes from sensitive components (see paragraph [0078]).
McCauley further teaches voltages can be applied to each electrode to confine and guide ions within the ion guide (see paragraph [0097]). While McCauley does not explicitly teach progressively lower voltages, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made set a desired gradient of voltages to the electrodes to shape the electric field, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
McCauley modifies Campbell by providing a dielectric support structure between the electrodes with controllable voltages applied to the electrodes.
Since both inventions are drawn to mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Campbell by providing a dielectric support structure between the electrodes for the purpose of electrically insulating the electrodes from sensitive components as taught by McCauley.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Taghioskoui (US PGPub 2020/0015717, hereinafter Taghioskoui).
Regarding claim 8, Campbell discloses the first ion source comprises an ESI. Campbell fails to teach the ESI is specifically an nESI.
Taghioskoui teaches an ionization source may include solid probe assisted nano-ESI (see paragraph [0158]).
Taghioskoui modifies Campbell by suggesting the ion source comprises a nano-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 Campbell by providing an ion source be a nano-ESI for the purpose of providing a simple substitution of one known element for another (e.g. ion source) to obtain predictable results (providing ions).
Regarding claim 9, Campbell discloses the second ion source comprises APCI (ion sources 12 and 13 can be any suitable ion source including the following (e.g. APCI), see paragraph [0018]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Jordan (US PGPub 2021/0134578, hereinafter Jordan).
Regarding claim 10, Campbell discloses first and second ion source as arranged in claim 1, where the ion beams interact to focus the first beam of ion as it travels from the distal end toward the proximal end (these reactions can occur at the intersection of the two DMS devices or somewhere within the mass spectrometer, see paragraph [0017]; precursor and reagent ions can be produced for performing ion/ion reactions…to enable focusing of ions of interest into the MS orifice, see paragraph [0017]).
Campbell fails to disclose a third ion source positioned to introduce a third beam of ions oppositely charged to the first beam of ions into the chamber near the proximal end and directed toward the distal end, wherein the first, send, and third ion sources are positioned such that the second beam and third beams of ions interact with the first beam of ions to focus the first beam of ions as it travels from the distal end toward the proximal end.
Jordan teaches two ion sources 209 mounted opposite from one another both perpendicular to a beam line through a reaction chamber (see Fig. 2 and abstract).
Jordan modifies Campbell by arranging the second ion source to be opposite a third ion source to interact with the first ion 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 Campbell by arranging the second ion source to be opposite a third ion source to interact with the first ion source since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Campbell and Jordan discloses the second and third ion sources 209 are positioned to introduce ions into the chamber at sidewalls of the chamber 203 (see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0072] of Jordan).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Campbell and Jordan discloses the second and third ion sources 209 are positioned approximately opposite each other on the side walls of the chamber 203 (see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0072] of Jordan).
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878