DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/30/26 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
The remarks argue Sciex is directed to cleaning up to and including the front of the orifice plate, and not inside of an ion guide. This is relevant information, but this is not persuasive for two reasons.
First, as stated in the non-final, the limitation in claim 1 “for cleaning multiple elongate electrodes of an ion optical multipole device” specifies an intended use, and the rest of claim fails to recite any further structure or language directed at use in an ion guide. The recitation has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Therefore, claim 1 reads on Hansen alone, even without Sciex.
Second, the limitation “for cleaning multiple elongate electrodes of an ion optical multipole device” in apparatus claim 1 specifies an intended use, and does not require use for cleaning multiple elongate electrodes. Hansen (and the combination of Hansen and Sciex) would be physically capable of cleaning the multiple elongate electrodes. The limitation specifies an intended use or field of use, and therefore is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). It is noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
The remarks argue that Hansen fails to disclose the new limitations in claim 7 because Hansen’s intermediate space is the available space for cleaning elements to expand into during insertion. However, it is noted that Hansen teaches a further embodiment that can be used for fixing the elements in place, where stops are fixedly mounted to hold the elements and prevent them from sliding out of position (see [0085], fig 9: 12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the embodiments and provide stops for fixing the felt elements in position at the shaft, while enabling deformation and spreading out in the regions of the elements that extends radially outward from the shaft. Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
Election by Original Presentation
Newly amended claims 26 is/are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Original Group I, claim 1-25, covers an apparatus for cleaning multiple elongate electrodes of an ion optical multipole device, classified in e.g. B08B1/10, 9/087, H01J49/4255.
New Group II*, claim 26, covers a method for cleaning electrodes of an ion optical multipole device, classified in e.g. B08B1/30, 9/043.
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process of II does not require the structural details of the cleaning tool of I. The apparatus of I does not require the insertion and retrieval movement as claimed in the process of II.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 26 is/are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, these claims have been interpreted broadly in a manner that continues to read on the references of the prior rejection. Accordingly, to expedite prosecution, a 103 rejection is set forth in view of this interpretation, but it is noted that in the future, clarification along the lines of the Group II* construction will be interpreted as falling under amendments to a non-elected group of claims.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-26 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-26 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 26 is/are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 14-21, 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 20100163074 A1) in view of TripleTOF® 4600 System System User Guide (July 2014), https://sciex.jp/content/dam/SCIEX/pdf/customer-docs/user-guide/4600-system-user-guide-en.pdf [hereinafter Sciex].
Regarding claim 1, Hansen teaches a cleaning device for cleaning
at least two substantially longitudinal cleaning sections (see fig 7 or 8: 2,3, [0084]), comprising:
a first substantially longitudinal cleaning section (see e.g. 2) having a liquid absorbing material for absorbing (see [0083]) a first liquid (e.g. cleaning liquid, see [0024]); and
a second substantially longitudinal cleaning section (see e.g. 3) having a liquid absorbing material for absorbing (see [0083]) a second liquid (see e.g. cleaning liquid, [0024])
at least one handling section (see left part of 1) extending axially from the at least one cleaning section (see fig 7); and
at least one direction section extending axially from the at least one cleaning section (see fig 7), wherein the at least one cleaning section has a larger cross section than the at least one handling section (see [0083]), and wherein the at least one direction section is arranged to allow a longitudinal movement of the cleaning device in a first axial direction (see [0041,83]).
Hansen fails to explicitly disclose cleaning multiple elongate electrodes of an ion optical multipole device.
However, the recitation has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Hansen may fail to explicitly disclose the second liquid is different from the first liquid.
However, it is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the first liquid may be a different liquid comprising the second liquid e.g. consisting of used up and contaminated cleaning liquid, or a different cleaning solution used at e.g. a different time/cleaning cycle. For example, Sciex teaches utilizing one of a number of cleaning solutions (methanol, isopropanol, acetonitrile solutions) to use with swabs for cleaning mass spectrometers (see Sciex, p91-92). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Sciex in the system of Hansen to enable the ability to clean mass spectrometers while providing the advantages of the swab system of Hansen (e.g. enabling use of detachable parts, reducing uncontrolled spraying, [0010-11], easier insertion and contaminant collection, etc, [0083-84]). It is also noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section has a substantially polygonal cross-sectional shape (see rectangular shape in Hansen, fig 7: 2).
Regarding claim 3, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section has a substantially circular cross-sectional shape (see Hansen, [0082]). Note also the obviousness of adjusting the shape of the cross section to match the shape of the instrument channel (see [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Hansen fails to explicitly disclose at least one cleaning section has a substantially elliptical cross-sectional shape. However, Hansen teaches the shape of the cleaning section can be adjusted based on instrument channel size (see Hansen, [0041]), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the shape, including providing an elliptical cross-section (also note cross section of cylindrical shape is elliptical) as a routine skill in the art to match an instrument channel. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Hansen teaches at least two cleaning sections (see Hansen, fig 8: 2, 3), wherein two cleaning sections have different cross-sectional shapes and/or different cross-sectional dimensions (see fig 8, [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, Hansen teaches at least two cleaning sections (see Hansen, fig 7: 2), wherein two cleaning sections have identical cross-sectional shapes and/or cross-sectional dimensions (see fig 7, obvious variation to make some sections the same size or different sizes, [0083-84]).
Regarding claim 7, Hansen teaches a spacing section (e.g. Hansen, fig 7: 9) between the first substantially longitudinal cleaning section (e.g. 2) and the second substantially longitudinal cleaning section (3) upon insertion of the cleaning device into ion optical multipole device. Hansen may fail to explicitly disclose the spacing section configured to maintain an axial separation between the sections. However, in different embodiments, Hansen teaches the cleaning elements may be either movable on the shaft or fixed (see [0012]; see element 2 fixed on shaft [0083], alternately see use of stops fig 9: 12 on shaft to hold element 3 in position, [0085]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Hansen, including use of fixed elements, and/or use of stops to limit (maintain an axial separation) of detachable elements, as a routine skill in the art to enable the operation of the system and hold elements in a desired location. Therefore, the combined teaching of Hansen (or Hansen and Sciex) teaches a spacing section (e.g. Hansen, fig 7: 9) configured to maintain an axial separation between the first substantially longitudinal cleaning section (e.g. 2) and the second substantially longitudinal cleaning section (another section 2, or a section 3 limited in movement by stops) upon insertion of the cleaning device into ion optical multipole device (intended use).
Regarding claim 8, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section comprises a series of cleaning elements protruding from a body (see Hansen, fig 6,7, cleaning element, 2, protruding from threads, 8).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen teaches the cleaning elements comprise cleaning flanges (see Hansen, fig 7: 10, having flange shape, advantageously skims liquid out of instrument channel, [0083]).
Regarding claim 10, Hansen teaches at least some cleaning flanges protrude from the body substantially perpendicularly (see Hansen, fig 7: 10).
Regarding claim 12, Hansen teaches at least some cleaning flanges are substantially planar (see Hansen, fig 7: 10).
Regarding claim 14, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section is arranged to be compressible (see Hansen, [0084]).
Regarding claim 15, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section is capable of absorbing and releasing a cleaning liquid (see Hansen, claim 8).
Regarding claim 16, Hansen teaches at least one cleaning section comprises cellulose, natural or artificial sponge (see Hansen, [0037]), leather and/or cloth.
Regarding claim 17, Hansen teaches three cleaning sections separated by spacing sections (see Hansen, fig 7: 2, separated by sections of 9, note [0037]).
Regarding claim 18, Hansen teaches the direction section comprises at least one flexible element protruding from the body (see e.g. Hansen, fig 7 or 8: 2) and at least one blocking element (e.g. fig 9: 12, alternately see 3) arranged adjacent the flexible element for blocking any bending of the flexible element in the direction of the blocking element (see 12, blocking motion into directions towards 12, [0085]).
Regarding claim 19, Hansen teaches the flexible element comprises a flange (see e.g. Hansen, fig 7: 10 and/or 2) having a larger cross section than the blocking element (see fig 7, 9: 11,12).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex may fail to explicitly disclose the at least one handling section is at least twice as long as the cleaning sections combined. However, Hansen teaches adjusting dimensions of the cleaning portion based on instrument dimensions and operator hand ergonomics (see Hansen, [0074]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the relative lengths of the cleaning and holding sections as a routine skill in the art for a given instrument. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, Hansen teaches the handling section comprises a substantially stiff rod (see Hansen, [0041]).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex teaches two handling sections (e.g. left and right of 9 on Hansen, fig 7, under 3). It is unclear wherein one handling section at one end of the cleaning sections is at least five times as long as the other handling section at the opposite end of the one or more cleaning sections, preferably at least ten times as long. However, Hansen teaches adjusting dimensions of the cleaning portion based on instrument dimensions and operator hand ergonomics (see Hansen, [0074]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the relative lengths of the cleaning and holding section lengths as a routine skill in the art for a given instrument. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious for similar reasons as claim 20 above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the length of the handling and cleaning sections, including a configuration where at least one handling section has a length exceeding the length of the electrodes to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 25, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex teaches at least one cleaning section has a cross- section exceeding the inscribed diameter of the electrodes to be cleaned (see Hansen, [0027]).
Regarding claim 26, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex teaches a method of cleaning electrodes of an ion optical multipole device (see Sciex, p91-92) with the cleaning device according to claim 1 (see Hansen, abstract), the method comprising: inserting, in a first direction, the cleaning device into a first end of the ion optical multipole device (see Sciex, p91-92; note can read on just the skimmer cone); and retrieving, in the first direction, the cleaning device from a second end of the ion optical multipole device (see Hanson, figs 9-10, defining the cleaning device as comprising the downstream segments (reading as the downstream 3; note obviousness of duplicating 3 per fig 7/separating into halves; alternately note obviousness of providing breaking off region of fig 7 embodiment at the 9 section at the very end) and the broken off shaft portion past 11, [0012]).
Claim(s) 11, 13, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen and Sciex, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cantel (DE 202016005151 U1).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex may fail to explicitly disclose at least some cleaning flanges protrude from the body at an acute angle. However, Cantel provides a system to use angled flanges (see Cantel, fig 1: 2) to provide more effective cleaning and prevents getting stuck in a channel (see Cantel, [0003,08]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Cantel in the system of flanges of the combined prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve effectiveness of the cleaning and prevent problems with being stuck in the device, in the manner taught by Cantel.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Cantel, for similar reasons as claim 11 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Hansen, Sciex, and Cantel teaches at least some cleaning flanges are curved (see Cantel, fig 1:2; also note during compression the flanges curve and change shapes, see e.g. [0010], Hansen, [0027]).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teaching of Hansen and Sciex may fail to explicitly disclose the handling section comprises a cord or rope. However, Hansen teaches the shaft may be made of a wide range of materials with buckling resistance (see Hansen, [0041]; note e.g. steel, [0041]), and the use of cord shaped shaft materials were well known in the art. For example, Cantel teaches that a braided metal wire (cord) was known effective to provide the shaft (see e.g. Cantel, fig 2: 4), and sturdy enough to support angled flanges (see Cantel, fig 1: 2) to provide more effective cleaning and prevents getting stuck in a channel (see Cantel, [0003,08]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Cantel in the system of the prior art to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07. It is alternately noted that the cord or rope is broad enough to read on e.g. a hand loop at the end or a string to hold the device in place during drying/storage.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm 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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
