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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 6/18/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-22 are withdrawn.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 recite various limitations about the voltages applied to the correction electrodes “in use.” It is unclear if the “in use” limitations are a description of the structure of the correction electrodes as defined by a specific voltage applied thereto, or an intended use describing the fashion in which the electrodes could be used. This issue is further complicated by the various claims’ descriptions of corrections, e.g., more than one different applications of voltage to the correction electrodes, shortening of the drift length, increasing oscillations, mirror sags and shapes, etc. The lack of clarity as to what is or is not within the scope of the claims makes the claims indefinite.
Claims 10 and 13 recite “between the shapes required.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the shapes required.” Further, it is unclear how one is to determine a “required” shape. As such, the claims are indefinite.
Claims 10 and 13 recite, “a shape corresponding to a difference between the shapes…” It is unclear what is meant by a shape corresponding to a difference between shapes. This description could indicate literally any shape. As such, the claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0028198 A1 [Grinfeld].
Regarding Claim 1:
Grinfeld discloses a multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer comprising:
two ion-optical mirrors (Fig. 9 (71, 72)), each mirror elongated generally along a drift direction away from an ion injection point (a Y direction) (as shown in Fig. 9), each mirror opposing the other in a Z direction (The mirrors are so arranged in Fig. 9, but note in Fig. 9 the claimed Z direction is labeled the X direction), the Z direction being orthogonal to the Y direction (as shown with X and Y in Fig. 9), and wherein the two mirrors are tilted at a tilt angle such that a separation between the mirrors in the Z direction decreases as a distance along the Y direction increases (as shown in annotated Fig. 9); and
at least two correction electrodes extending along at least a portion of the Y direction in or adjacent the space between the mirrors (Fig. 9 (95-97)); and
wherein:
each correction electrode has a surface substantially parallel to the Y-Z plane (as shown in Fig. 9, the electrodes are parallel to the equivalent XY plane) and has a shape such that the surface is separated from one of the mirrors by a distance that varies along the Y direction (as shown in Fig. 9) and
in which the correction electrodes are, in use, electrically biased with voltages so as to produce, in at least a portion of the space extending between the opposing mirrors, a combined voltage offset which varies as a function of the distance along the Y direction, wherein the voltages include a first component to correct for an intended aberration arising from an intended tilt angle of the mirrors and a second component to correct for unintended aberrations arising from a range of perturbations to an ideal time of flight extending from a maximum perturbation to a minimum perturbation, wherein the second component varies between a maximum value and a minimum value; and
the shapes of the at least two correction electrodes are such that some or all the at least two correction electrodes may be energised with the voltages including the first component and the second component (paras 110-111), that varies between a maximum value and a minimum value, to generate a range of combined voltage offsets that compensate for a range of time of flight aberrations corresponding to the intended aberration arising from the intended tilt angle of the mirrors and the unintended aberrations arising from the range of perturbations to the ideal time of flight extending from the maximum perturbation to the minimum perturbation.
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
PNG
media_image1.png
786
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2:
Grinfeld discloses the multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the range of perturbations to the ideal time of flight extends from a maximum perturbation due to a maximum positive misalignment error in the mirrors to a minimum perturbation due to a maximum negative misalignment error in the mirrors.
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Grinfeld discloses the multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer of claim 2, wherein the combined voltage offset acts to shorten or lengthen an average drift length of the ions through the mirrors in the +Y direction before they are reflected and drift back through the mirrors in the −Y direction.
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Grinfeld discloses the multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer of claim 2, wherein the combined voltage offset acts to increase or decrease a number of oscillations the ions make as they drift through the mirrors.
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Grinfeld discloses the multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the range of perturbations to the ideal time of flight extends from a maximum perturbation due to a maximum positive curvature error in the mirrors to a minimum perturbation due to a maximum negative curvature error in the mirrors.
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Grinfeld discloses the multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer of claim 5, wherein the maximum positive and negative curvature errors in the mirrors correspond to curvature in the mirrors due to sag.
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Grinfeld discloses the multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer of claim 5, wherein the shape of an electrode of the at least two correction electrodes compensates for misalignment errors independently of curvature errors, and the shape of another electrode of the at least two correction electrodes compensates for curvature errors independently of misalignment errors.
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
Regarding Claim 8:
Grinfeld discloses the multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the at least two correction electrodes comprise one or more pairs of correction electrodes (Fig. 9 (95) and (96) are both electrode pairs); and
each pair of the one or more pairs of correction electrodes comprises:
a first correction electrode shaped such that when the first correction electrode is energised with a voltage having a value equal to the first component plus the maximum value of the second component, the first correction electrode generates a voltage offset that compensates for the intended aberration arising from the intended tilt angle of the mirrors and the unintended aberration arising from the maximum perturbation, and
a second correction electrode shaped such that when the second correction electrode is energised with a voltage having a value equal to the first component plus the minimum value of the second component, the second electrode generates a voltage offset that compensates for the intended aberration arising from the intended tilt angle of the mirrors and the unintended aberration arising from for the minimum perturbation.
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have defined shapes and biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
Regarding Claim 9:
Grinfeld discloses the multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer of claim 8, wherein the first and second correction electrodes are shaped such that they produce different average drift lengths of ions through the mirrors and wherein a physical length of the first and second correction electrodes in the Y direction differ. Fig. 16 (95-1 vs 96-2).
Regarding Claim 10:
Grinfeld discloses the multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the at least two correction electrodes comprise:
at least a first correction electrode having a shape to compensate for an intended time of flight aberration arising from the intended tilt angle of the mirrors when energised with a voltage equal to the first component (para 110-111); and
a second correction electrode having a shape (Fig. 9) corresponding to a difference between the shapes required such that, when energised with a voltage having a value equal to the maximum value of the second component, the second correction electrode generates a voltage offset that compensates for the maximum perturbation and, when energised with a voltage having a value equal to the minimum value of the second component, the second correction electrode generates a voltage offset that compensates for the minimum perturbation.
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld have shapes as shown in Figs. 9 and 16, they are understood to be shaped as claimed.
Regarding Claim 11:
Grinfeld discloses a method of operating a multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer comprising:
two ion-optical mirrors (Fig. 9 (71, 72)), each mirror elongated generally along a drift direction away from an ion injection point (a Y direction) (as shown in Fig. 9), each mirror opposing the other in a Z direction (The mirrors are so arranged in Fig. 9, but note in Fig. 9 the claimed Z direction is labeled the X direction), the Z direction being orthogonal to the Y direction (as shown with X and Y in Fig. 9), and wherein the two mirrors are tilted at a tilt angle such that a separation between the mirrors in the Z direction decreases as a distance along the Y direction increases (as shown in annotated Fig. 9); and
at least two correction electrodes extending along at least a portion of the Y direction in or adjacent the space between the mirrors (Fig. 9 (95-97)); and
wherein:
each correction electrode has a surface substantially parallel to the Y-Z plane (as shown in Fig. 9, the electrodes are parallel to the equivalent XY plane) and has a shape such that the surface is separated from one of the mirrors by a distance that varies along the Y direction (as shown in Fig. 9) and
in which the correction electrodes are, in use, electrically biased with voltages so as to produce, in at least a portion of the space extending between the opposing mirrors, a combined voltage offset which varies as a function of the distance along the Y direction, wherein the voltages include a first component to correct for an intended aberration arising from an intended tilt angle of the mirrors and a second component to correct for unintended aberrations arising from a range of perturbations to an ideal time of flight extending from a maximum perturbation to a minimum perturbation, wherein the second component varies between a maximum value and a minimum value; and
the shapes of the at least two correction electrodes are such that some or all the at least two correction electrodes may be energised with the voltages including the first component and the second component (paras 110-111), that varies between a maximum value and a minimum value, to generate a range of combined voltage offsets that compensate for a range of time of flight aberrations corresponding to the intended aberration arising from the intended tilt angle of the mirrors and the unintended aberrations arising from the range of perturbations to the ideal time of flight extending from the maximum perturbation to the minimum perturbation; wherein
the method comprises:
energising the mirrors to provide electric fields to cause ions to follow a zig zag path through the mirrors (see path in Fig. 9);
energising each of the at least two correction electrodes with a voltage including the first component and/or the second component such that the at least two correction electrodes generate a combined voltage offset that compensates for the intended aberration and the aberrations (paras 110, 111);
injecting ions from an ion source into the mirrors (as demonstrated by Fig. 9 ion injector (73)); and
detecting the ions with an ion detector located at the same end of the mirrors as the ion source (as demonstrated by Fig. 9 ion injector (74)).
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Grinfeld discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the at least two correction electrodes comprise one or more pairs of correction electrodes (as shown in Fig. 9 (95, 96), both of which are pairs); and
each pair of the one or more pairs of correction electrodes comprises:
a first correction electrode shaped such that when the first correction electrode is energised with a voltage having a value that equals the first component plus the maximum value of the second component, the first correction electrode generates a voltage offset that compensates for the intended aberration and the unintended aberration arising from the maximum perturbation, and
a second correction electrode shaped such that when the second correction electrode is energised with a voltage having a value equal to the first component plus the minimum value of the second component, the second correction electrode generates a voltage offset that compensates for the intended aberration and the unintended aberration arising from the minimum perturbation; and
the method comprises:
(iii) compensating for a perturbation between the maximum and minimum perturbations by energising the first correction electrode with a voltage with a value equal to a half of a first contribution plus a second contribution with a value between the maximum and minimum values (para 110-111), and energising the second correction electrode with a voltage with a value equal to a half of the first component plus the second component with the value between the maximum and minimum values (para 110-111).
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have defined shapes and biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Grinfeld discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the at least two correction electrodes comprise:
at least a first correction electrode having a shape to compensate for time of flight aberration arising from the intended tilt angle of the mirrors when energised with a voltage equal to the first component (paras 110-111); and
a second correction electrode having a shape corresponding to a difference between the shapes required such that, when energised with a voltage having the maximum value of the second component, the second correction electrode generates a voltage offset that compensates for the maximum perturbation and, when energised with a voltage having the minimum value of the second component, the second correction electrode generates a voltage offset that compensates for the minimum perturbation; and
the method comprises:
(iii) compensating for a perturbation between the maximum and minimum perturbations by energising the at least a first correction electrode with a voltage equal to the first component to compensate for the intended aberration and energising the second electrode with a voltage with a value equal to the second component having a value between the maximum and minimum values to compensate for the unintended time of flight aberrations (paras 110-111).
The above italicized limitations are rejected as indefinite above, and are interpreted as best understood in light of the application to describe an intended use of the correction electrodes. Since the correction of electrodes of Grinfeld can have defined shapes and biases applied to them, they are also able to have particular biases applied, such as those described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,629,425 describes compensating for aberrations in a multi reflection Time of Flight mass spectrometer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights