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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, for having a broader scope than can be enabled. Claim 1 recites “calculating a first alpha function for the first compound” . The claim does not specify the method of calculation or the data used to make the calculation. The scope of the claim is therefore so broad as to cover any possible method of calculating alpha functions, even if not disclosed or even if unknown to the applicant. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claims 5-6 further specify the method of calculation and are therefore not rejected on these grounds. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, for having a broader scope than can be enabled. Claim 1 recites “calculating a second alpha function for the second compound”. The claim does not specify the method of calculation or the data used to make the calculation. The scope of the claim is therefore so broad as to cover any possible method of calculating alpha functions, even if not disclosed or even if unknown to the applicant. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Unlike the calculation of the first alpha function, the calculation of the second alpha function is not further specified in claims 5-6, so the rejection encompasses those claims as well. Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, for having a broader scope than can be enabled. Claim 22 recites “calculating a first alpha function for the first compound”, “calculating a second alpha function for the second compound”, and “calculating a third alpha function for the third compound”. The claim does not specify the method of calculation or the data used to make the calculation. The scope of the claim is therefore so broad as to cover any possible method of calculating alpha functions, even if not disclosed or even if unknown to the applicant. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claims 1 , 5-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, for having a broader scope than can be enabled. Claim 1 recites “determining operation parameters of the DMS to achieve sufficient separation of the first compound and the second compound, based on the first alpha function and the second alpha function”. The specification in enabling for the determination of separation field values to achieve sufficient separation of the first compound and the second compound, based on the first alpha function and the second alpha function, but does not provide for the determination of any other operation parameter from the first and second field separation values. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claims 2-4 and 7 limit the operation parameters to separation field values and therefore have a scope commensurate with the enabled scope and are not rejected on these grounds. Amending claim 2 into claim 1 will overcome this ground of rejection. Claims 12 , 16 , and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, for having a broader scope than can be enabled. Claim 1 2 recites “determining operation parameters of the DMS to achieve sufficient separation of the first compound and the second compound, based on the first mathematical function and the second mathematical function”. The specification in enabling for the determination of separation field values to achieve sufficient separation of the first compound and the second compound, based on the first function and the second function, but does not provide for the determination of any other operation parameter from the first and second field separation values. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claims 13-15 & 17 limit the operation parameters to separation field values and therefore have a scope commensurate with the enabled scope and are not rejected on these grounds. Amending claim 13 into claim 12 will overcome this ground of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 appl icant 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. The claims recite determining parameters “to achieve sufficient separation of the first compound and the second compound”. It is unclear how much separation would be considered “sufficient”. Claims 1-2 and 5-11 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 “determining operation parameters of the DMS to achieve sufficient separation of the first compound and the second compound, based on the first alpha function and the second alpha function”. It is unclear how the operation parameters are determined from the first and second alpha functions. Claims 3-4 specify the method of determination and are not rejected on these grounds. Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “ wherein when the DMS operates with the range of separation field values, an absolute value of a difference between the first alpha function and the second alpha function is equal to or larger than a threshold alpha function difference. ” A difference of alpha functions is a mathematical construct, and the absolute difference of that mathematical construct at any particular separation field will be the same regardless of whether a DMS is operating at that separation field or not. Therefore, it is unclear what it means for this to occur “when the DMS operates with the range of separation field values”. It is suggested applicant amend to claim a set of calculations, rather than a DMS operation. For example, the following claim language overcomes the rejection: Claim 3: The automated method of claim 2, further comprising: setting a threshold alpha function difference sufficient for separation of the first and second compound, and determining a range of separation field values for which an absolute value of a difference between the first alpha function and the second alpha function is equal to or larger than a threshold alpha function difference. Claims 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: repeating the setting of the separation voltage and adjusting the compensation voltage. Claim 5 recites “ generating a sample plot for each of a plurality of different separation voltage settings of the DMS ” but only recites taking data at a single separation voltage. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the actual calculation. Claim 5 recites a method of calculating the first alpha function which comprises the setting and adjustment of voltages in a DMS and the generation of a sample plot. No calculation step for calculating the alpha function is included, therefore it is unclear how the claimed method can result in calculating the first alpha function. Claim 6 recites a transformation step that results in the first alpha function. Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “ transforming the sample plots into the first alpha function. ” It is unclear how the sample plots are transformed into the first alpha function. Claims 12-18 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. Claim 12 recites “ wherein the first mathematical function has an input comprising a SV-related parameter and a value comprising a CoV -related parameter ”. It is unclear what it means for a mathematical function to have a value, since a function is a mathematical construct that takes input values and produces output values, rather than being a value itself. For the purposes of comparison to prior art, examiner will assume applicant intends to claim that the output comprises a CoV -related parameter. Claim 14 is 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 14 recites “ wherein when the DMS operates with the range of separation field values, an absolute value of a difference between the first mathematical function and the second mathematical function is equal to or larger than a threshold mathematical function difference. ” A difference of mathematical functions is a mathematical construct, and the absolute difference of that mathematical construct at any particular separation field will be the same regardless of whether a DMS is operating at that separation field or not. Therefore, it is unclear what it means for this to occur “when the DMS operates with the range of separation field values”. It is suggested applicant amend to claim a set of calculations, rather than a DMS operation. For example, the following claim language overcomes the rejection: Claim 14: The automated method of claim 13 , further comprising: setting a threshold mathematical function difference sufficient for separation of the first and second compound, and determining a range of separation field values for which an absolute value of a difference between the first mathematical function and the second mathematical function is equal to or larger than a threshold mathematical function difference. Claim 23 is 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 23 recites “ an alpha function difference sufficient to separate any two of the first compound, the second compound, and the third compound. ” It is unclear how much separation would be considered “sufficient”. 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- 4 , 8- 11 , and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mathematical type without significantly more. Claim 1 recites an automated method of operating a mass spectrometer (MS) comprising a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS), the automated method comprising: introducing a first compound to the DMS; calculating a first alpha function for the first compound; introducing a second compound to the DMS; calculating a second alpha function for the second compound; and determining operation parameters of the DMS to achieve sufficient separation of the first compound and the second compound, based on the first alpha function and the second alpha function. With the exception of introducing the compounds to the DMS, the process steps are purely mathematical, consisting of the calculation of alpha functions and the determination of parameters. The introduction of the compounds is clearly extrasolutional , since it is never claimed that the compounds are actually analyzed or that the determined operation parameters or alpha functions are used in any such analysis. Claims 2-4 recite additional mathematical details, but consist exclusively of mathematical calculations. Claims 8-11 recite additional details of the introduction of the compounds to the DMS, but still fail to recite performing any analysis on the compounds, or tie the introduction of the compounds to the calculation steps. Claim 22 recites an a utomated method of operating a mass spectrometer (MS) comprising a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS), the automated method comprising: introducing a first compound to the DMS; calculating a first alpha function for the first compound; introducing a second compound to the DMS; calculating a second alpha function for the second compound; introducing a third compound to the DMS; calculating a third alpha function for the third compound; subtracting the first alpha function from the second alpha function to determine a first difference function; subtracting the first alpha function from the third alpha function to determine a second difference function; subtracting the second alpha function from the third alpha function to determine a third difference function; identifying a threshold alpha function difference; and determining a separation field value such that an absolute value of the first difference function, an absolute value of the second difference function, and an absolute value of the third difference function are equal to or greater than the threshold alpha function difference. As with claim 1, claim 22 recites purely mathematical steps with the exception of introducing the compounds to the DMS. The process consists of the calculation of alpha functions, subtracting the alpha functions from each other, and comparing the difference functions with a threshold. The introduction of the compounds is clearly extrasolutional , since it is never claimed that the compounds are actually analyzed or that the determined operation parameters or alpha functions are used in any such analysis. Claim 23 consists of a mathematical relationship. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1- 2 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by “Characterization of narcotics using differential mobility spectrometry” ( Pavlacka et al.) . Regarding claim 1, Pavlacka et al. discloses an automated method of operating a mass spectrometer (MS) comprising a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS), the automated method comprising : introducing a first compound to the DMS (“ To calculate specific alpha coefficients, sets of measured data are shown in Table 2. ” ) ; calculating a first alpha function for the first compound (“ α2 and α4 can be calculated based on experimentally obtained values of CV and RF voltage. α2 and α4 coefficients can be then calculated by systems of equations where only α2 and α4 are unknown parameters ” ) ; introducing a second compound to the DMS (“ To calculate specific alpha coefficients, sets of measured data are shown in Table 2. ” ) ; calculating a second alpha function for the second compound (“ α2 and α4 can be calculated based on experimentally obtained values of CV and RF voltage. α2 and α4 coefficients can be then calculated by systems of equations where only α2 and α4 are unknown parameters ”) ; and determining operation parameters of the DMS to achieve sufficient separation of the first compound and the second compound, based on the first alpha function and the second alpha function (“ at RF = 1480 V, where the biggest differences of position of product ion peak were observed. ”) . Regarding claim 2, Pavlacka et al. discloses the automated method of claim 1, wherein the operation parameters of the DMS comprise a range of separation field values of the DMS (“ at RF = 1480 V, where the biggest differences of position of product ion peak were observed. ” , note that examiner is interpreting “range” to include the possibility of a single value, based on claim 4 which determines a range as a single value ) . Regarding claim 5, Pavlacka et al. discloses the automated method of claim 1, wherein calculating the first alpha function comprises: setting a separation voltage (SV) of the DMS (“ RF was applied from 500 to 1500 V. ” ) ; adjusting a compensation voltage ( CoV ) of the DMS (“ Values of compensation voltage were swept from −40 to +15 V in 0.28 V steps. ” ) ; while adjusting the CoV , concurrently monitoring an analytical signal from the MS; and based at least in part on monitoring the analytical signal, generating a sample plot for each of a plurality of different separation voltage settings of the DMS, wherein each sample plot comprises a mass spectrometer signal intensity versus the CoV (“ To calculate specific alpha coefficients, sets of measured data are shown in Table 2. ”) . Regarding claim 6, Pavlacka et al. discloses the automated method of claim 5 , further comprising transforming the sample plots into the first alpha function (“ Summary of nonlinear alpha function for all measured narcotics is summarized in Table 3. ”) . Regarding claim 7, Pavlacka et al. discloses the automated method of claim 2 , further comprising: setting a test separation field of the DMS within the range of separation field values; and introducing a test sample to the DMS, wherein the test sample comprises at least one of the first compound and the second compound (“ Five common illicit drugs were analyzed by DMS in the temperature range of 75–120 °C (amplitudes from 500 to 1500 V for the separation voltage), at RF = 1480 V, where the biggest differences of position of product ion peak were observed. ”) . Regarding claim 8, Pavlacka et al. discloses the automated method of claim 2 , further comprising ionizing the first compound and the second compound prior to introducing the first compound and the second compound to the DMS (“ To calculate specific alpha coefficients, sets of measured data are shown in Table 2. ”, where ionization is inherent in measurement with DMS) . Regarding claim 9, Pavlacka et al. discloses the automated method of claim 8 , further comprising introducing with the first compound a DMS transport gas comprising at least one of nitrogen and nitrogen with a chemical modifier (“ Dried air purified by activated carbon and dewatered by molecular sieve was used as a carrier gas. ”, where nitrogen is a major component of air) . Regarding claim 10, Pavlacka et al. discloses the automated method of claim 8 , further comprising setting a composition of the DMS transport gas prior to ionizing the first compound (“ Dried air purified by activated carbon and dewatered by molecular sieve was used as a carrier gas. ”) . Claim(s) 12- 13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0328934 (Campbell et al.). Regarding claim 12, Campbell et al. discloses an automated method of operating a mass spectrometer (MS) comprising a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS), the automated method comprising: (a) analyzing a first compound, wherein analyzing a first compound comprises: introducing the first compound to the DMS at each of a plurality of separation voltages (SVs); while introducing the first compound at each of the plurality of SVs, adjusting a compensation voltage ( CoV ) of the DMS; while adjusting the CoVs for each of the plurality of SVs, concurrently monitoring an analytical signal from the MS; based at least in part on monitoring the analytical signal, identifying a CoV optimum for each of the plurality of SVs and generating a first mathematical function based at least in part on the CoV optimum for each of the plurality of SVs, wherein the first mathematical function has an input comprising a SV-related parameter and a value comprising a CoV -related parameter (fig. 9-10); (b) analyzing a second compound, wherein analyzing a second compound comprises: introducing the second compound to the DMS at each of a plurality of separation voltages (SVs); while introducing the second compound at each of the plurality of SVs, adjusting a compensation voltage ( CoV ) of the DMS; while adjusting the CoVs for each of the plurality of SVs, concurrently monitoring an analytical signal from the MS; based at least in part on monitoring the analytical signal, identifying a CoV optimum for each of the plurality of SVs ; and generating a second mathematical function based at least in part on the CoV optimum for each of the plurality of SVs, wherein the second mathematical function has an input comprising a SV-related parameter and a value comprising a CoV -related parameter ( fig. 9-10 ); and (c) determining operation parameters of the DMS to achieve sufficient separation of the first compound and the second compound, based on the first mathematical function and the second mathematical function ( “ maximum separation occurring at various CoV /SV settings, with SV voltages of about 2500 to about 4000 volts, demonstrating varying separation between the functional group substitutions at the 5-, 6-, and 7-positions ” P 67 ). Regarding claim 13, Campbell et al. discloses the automated method of claim 12, wherein the operation parameters of the DMS comprise a range of separation field values of the DMS (“ maximum separation occurring at various CoV /SV settings, with SV voltages of about 2500 to about 4000 volts, demonstrating varying separation between the functional group substitutions at the 5-, 6-, and 7-positions ” P 67) . Regarding claim 15, Campbell et al. discloses the automated method of claim 1 3 , subtracting the first mathematical function from the second mathematical function to determine a difference function; identifying a global maximum in an absolute value of the difference function; and determining a separation field value associated with the global maximum (“ maximum separation occurring at various CoV /SV settings, with SV voltages of about 2500 to about 4000 volts, demonstrating varying separation between the functional group substitutions at the 5-, 6-, and 7-positions ” P 67) . Regarding claim 16, Campbell et al. discloses the automated method of claim 12, wherein the SV-related parameter is one of the SV and a separation field, and wherein the CoV -related parameter is one of the CoV and a compensation field (fig. 9-10) . Regarding claim 17, Campbell et al. discloses the automated method of claim 1 3 , setting a test separation field of the DMS with the range of separation field values; and introducing a test sample to the DMS, wherein the test sample comprises at least one of the first compound and the second compound (“ adjusting at least one of a compensation voltage and a separation voltage of the differential mobility spectrometer to maximize transmission therethrough of one species of the ionized labeled analytes relative other species of the ionized labeled analytes. ” P 7) . Regarding claim 18, Campbell et al. discloses the automated method of claim 12, further comprising ionizing the first compound and the second compound prior to introducing the first compound and the second compound to the DMS (“ Ions 102 (e.g., ionized labeled analytes) can be generated by an ion source (not shown) ” P 46) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim (s) 3-4 & 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Characterization of narcotics using differential mobility spectrometry” ( Pavlacka et al.) . Regarding claim 3, Pavlacka et al. discloses the claimed invention except for an absolute value of a difference between the first alpha function and the second alpha function being equal to or larger than a threshold alpha function difference. Thresholding is a well-known method of determining when a value is large enough for the intended purpose, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method Pavlacka to determine the acceptable range of separation field values by taking those values for which an absolute value of a difference between the first alpha function and the second alpha function being equal to or larger than a threshold alpha function difference because the alpha function difference is a known measure of the separation of the ion peaks in CoV , and this ensure the peaks are separated to some minimal level needed for discrimination. Regarding claim 4, Pavlacka et al. discloses the claimed invention except for subtracting the first alpha function from the second alpha function to determine a difference function; identifying a global maximum in an absolute value of the difference function; and determining a separation field value associated with the global maximum. Finding global maximums is a well-known analytical technique, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Pavlacka et al. to determine the separation field this way because the alpha function difference is a known measure of the separation of the ion peaks in CoV , and the global maximum would ensure the biggest difference in ion peaks, as Pavalacka is designed to do (“ at RF = 1480 V, where the biggest differences of position of product ion peak were observed. ”), even in the case where the separation field at the global maximum is not one of the values directly for the calculation of the alpha function. Regarding claim 22, Pavlacka et al. discloses automated method of operating a mass spectrometer (MS) comprising a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS), the automated method comprising : introducing a first compound to the DMS (“ To calculate specific alpha coefficients, sets of measured data are shown in Table 2. ” ) ; calculating a first alpha function for the first compound (“ α2 and α4 can be calculated based on experimentally obtained values of CV and RF voltage. α2 and α4 coefficients can be then calculated by systems of equations where only α2 and α4 are unknown parameters ” ) ; introducing a second compound to the DMS (“ To calculate specific alpha coefficients, sets of measured data are shown in Table 2. ” ) ; calculating a second alpha function for the second compound (“ α2 and α4 can be calculated based on experimentally obtained values of CV and RF voltage. α2 and α4 coefficients can be then calculated by systems of equations where only α2 and α4 are unknown parameters ” ) ; introducing a third compound to the DMS (“ To calculate specific alpha coefficients, sets of measured data are shown in Table 2. ” ) ; calculating a third alpha function for the third compound (“ α2 and α4 can be calculated based on experimentally obtained values of CV and RF voltage. α2 and α4 coefficients can be then calculated by systems of equations where only α2 and α4 are unknown parameters ”) . Pavlacka et al. does not disclose subtracting the first alpha function from the second alpha function to determine a first difference function; subtracting the first alpha function from the third alpha function to determine a second difference function; subtracting the second alpha function from the third alpha function to determine a third difference function; identifying a threshold alpha function difference; and determining a separation field value such that an absolute value of the first difference function, an absolute value of the second difference function, and an absolute value of the third difference function are equal to or greater than the threshold alpha function difference. Thresholding is a well-known method of determining when a value is large enough for the intended purpose, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method Pavlacka to determine the acceptable range of separation field values by taking those values for which an absolute value of a difference s between the function s being equal to or larger than a threshold alpha function difference because the alpha function difference is a known measure of the separation of the ion peaks in CoV , and this ensure the all 3 peaks are separated to some minimal level needed for discrimination. Regarding claim 23, Pavalacka et al. discloses the automated method of claim 22, wherein the threshold alpha function difference is an alpha function difference sufficient to separate any two of the first compound, the second compound, and the third compound (intended result of the already claimed thresholding, and therefore non-limiting, see MPEP 2111.04, However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). ) . Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ( Pavlacka et al.) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2018/0328934 (Campbell et al.). Regarding claim 11 , Pavlacka et al discloses the automated method of claim 8, further comprising introducing the first compound with the DMS transport gas comprising nitrogen (“ Dried air purified by activated carbon and dewatered by molecular sieve was used as a carrier gas. ”, where nitrogen is a major component of air). Pavlack a et al. does not disclose the transport gas comprising a first amount of nitrogen with a first amount of the chemical modifier, and a second amount of nitrogen with a second amount of the chemical modifier . Campbell et al. discloses a method of operating a mass spectrometer comprising a differential mobility spectrometer where a first compound is introduced discretely with the DMS transport gas comprising nitrogen, a first amount of nitrogen with a first amount of the chemical modifier (fig. 9-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Pavlacka et al. to include the chemical modifier of Campbell et al. to vary the separation between compounds to ensure better discrimination, as disclosed by Campbell (“ In some cases, this can increase the separation between analytes labeled with different labels. ”). It would further has been obvious to discreetly introduce with first and second amounts of chemical modifier and gas to determine the alpha function in various configurations. Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0328934 (Campbell et al.). Regarding claim 14, Campbell et al. discloses the claimed invention except for an absolute value of a difference between the first mathematical function and the second mathematical function being equal to or larger than a threshold mathematical function difference. Thresholding is a well-known method of determining when a value is large enough for the intended purpose, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method Campbell et al. to determine the acceptable range of separation field values by taking those values for which an absolute value of a difference between the first and second function s being equal to or larger than a threshold function difference to ensure the peaks are separated to some minimal level needed for discrimination. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5782 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Robert Kim can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881