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
Claims 9-21 and 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-IIII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/10/2026.
Applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues subcominations I and II do not identify separate subject matter. As stated in office action 07/10/2026, subcombination II is directed to separate subject matter such as “determining an optimal value of the second tuning parameter”.
Applicant also argues the restriction between all the groups does not establish all the requirements for restriction. However, office action on 07/10/2026 identifies how the subcombinations are independent and distinct and establishes the sub combinations present a serious search and examination burden.
Finally, applicant argues the office action 07/10/2026 does not establish a serious search or examination burden. The separate search terminology identified by the office action on 07/10/2026 establishes a serious search and examination burden. Further, as evidenced by the prior art below, a reference that teaches the features of subcombination I does not necessarily teach the specifics of subcombinations II-IIII.
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 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to disembodied software per se.
Claim 30 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim needs to specifically recite a “non-statutory” computer-readable medium. Transitory-signal carrying software is unpatentable. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a generic CRM can encompass transitory signals, thus the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“ion injection device” in claims 1, 28 and 29 interpreted to be an ion trap, an orthogonal extractor or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-3, 8 and 23 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 2 is rejected as vague and indefinite for reciting “wherein applying the plurality of acceleration voltages and/or the plurality of sets of electrode voltages comprises: varying the ion energies about a predetermined optimal value of the ion energy; and/or varying the first tuning parameter about a simulated optimal value of the first tuning parameter that corresponds to predetermined optimal values of the set of electrode voltages.” It is unclear which and/or statements correlate with each other. For example, claim 2 could be read to mean wherein applying the plurality of acceleration voltages comprises varying the first tuning parameter about a simulated optimal value of the first tuning parameter that corresponds to predetermined optimal values of the set of electrode voltages. However, the acceleration voltages and tuning parameters are separate, and it is unclear how varying the acceleration voltage is achieved by varying the first tuning parameter.
Claim 3 is rejected as vague and indefinite for reciting “preferably varied by a maximising value of a second tuning parameter corresponding to the point of inflection.” It is unclear if this limitation is optional because of the use of the word “preferably”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as optional.
Claim 8 is rejected as vague and indefinite for reciting “wherein the at least one further aberration comprises any one or more of: second-order time-of-flight aberrations with respect to ion energy; second- order time-of-flight aberrations with respect to ion coordinates; and parallel-to-point spatial focusing of ions.” It is unclear if the last limitation, beginning with “and” is optional. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as optional.
Claim 23 is rejected as vague and indefinite for reciting “determining the value of the first tuning parameter based on a number of ions injected into the mass analyser.” It is unclear if “a number” of ions is intended to be synonymous with a plurality or a specific number of ions. For the purposes of examination “a number” will be interpreted as synonymous with “a plurality”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-7, 22-23, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenbusch, Marco, et al. "The new MRTOF mass spectrograph following the ZeroDegree spectrometer at RIKEN’s RIBF facility." Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1047 (2023): 167824, hereinafter referred to as Rosenbusch in view of Kosuke Uchiyama (US 12437982 B2), hereinafter referred to as Uchiyama and in view of Anatoly Verenchikov (US9865445B2), hereinafter referred to as Verenchikov.
Regarding claim 1, Rosenbusch a method for calibrating a time-of-flight (ToF) mass analyser comprising an ion injection device (Fig. 1 below) and an ion mirror comprising a plurality of electrodes (Fig. 1 below; mirror electrodes), the method comprising: applying a plurality of acceleration voltages to cause ions to exit the ion injection device to provide to the mass analyser ions having a respective plurality of ion energies (Ions (39K+) were accelerated into the pulsed drift tube at different electric potentials 𝑉lowPDT, whereas the post-pulse voltage 𝑉highPDT was not changed (section 3; para. [0002])); measuring the resolving power of the mass analyser with a plurality of sets of electrode voltages applied to the electrodes by varying a first tuning parameter to a respective plurality of values, wherein the first tuning parameter parameterises the electrode voltages applied to the plurality of electrodes (In this way, the potentials 𝑉EjM1c,2,3,4,5 have been changed in 2−10V steps, to chose a new shape for the electric potential in the reflection region, followed by the refocusing procedure before the resolving power has been determined for each setting (section 3; para. [0006]));
PNG
media_image1.png
418
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specifications of the present disclosure explain “The first tuning parameter parameterises the electrode voltages applied to the plurality of electrodes. For example, the first tuning parameter may be a scalar value that, when changed, causes the voltages on the electrodes to vary in a particular direction in the multi-dimensional voltage space”. Rosenbusch teaches changing the voltage on the mirror electrode is 2-10V steps. Each “step” is a scalar value which parameterises the electrode voltages applied to the plurality of electrodes.
Rosenbusch fails to teach at each ion energy, measuring the resolving power of the mass analyser, determining maximising values of the first tuning parameter for each of the plurality of ion energies at which the resolving power is maximised; identifying a point of inflection in the dependence of the maximising values of the first tuning parameter on the ion energies; determining a set of calibrated operating parameters for the mass analyser based on the point of inflection, the set of calibrated operating parameters comprising a calibrated set of electrode voltages; and causing the mass analyser to operate with the calibrated operating parameters.
However, Uchiyama teaches at each ion energy, measuring the resolving power of the mass analyser (Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
602
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Uchiyama teaches tuning the voltages on the orthogonal accelerator and measuring the resolving power for each tuning voltage. A such, Uchiyama teaches at each ion energy, measuring the resolving power of the mass analyser. To be clear, Rosenbusch teaches a method of measuring resolving power for multiple sets of voltages applied to the mirror electrodes of a TOF. Rosenbuch does not explicitly teach doing this for each acceleration voltage. However, Uchiyama teaches measuring the resolving power at each acceleration voltage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Rosenbusch to measure the resolving power at each acceleration voltage. Doing so results in achieving higher sensitivity, higher mass-resolving power and higher mass accuracy.
Further, Verenchikov teaches determining maximising values at which the resolving power is maximized (Fig. 13); identifying a point of inflection in the dependence of the maximising values of the first tuning parameter on the ion energies (mixed third order aberrations are eliminated: (t|yyδ)=(t|yδ)=(t|bbδ)=0. This means the full third order focusing of the flight time, because all the remaining third order aberration coefficients in the analyzer vanish automatically because of the system symmetry with respect to the Y=0 plane (col. 8, lines 55-65)); determining a set of calibrated operating parameters for the mass analyser based on the point of inflection, the set of calibrated operating parameters comprising a calibrated set of electrode voltages; and causing the mass analyser to operate with the calibrated operating parameters (Table 4, MPA-2 mirrors).
Figure 13 of Verenchikov presents resolving power with different ion mirrors. Figure 13E presents a maximum resolving power of 300000 corresponding to the mirror-lens combination ML-2. Further, Rosenbusch teaches using a tuning parameter to tune the voltage on the mirror electrodes and measuring the resolving power. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Rosenbusch to include the teachings of Verenchikov such that maximizing values of the first tuning parameter at which the resolving power is maximized are found. Doing so results in achieving a maximum TOF resolution.
The specifications of the present disclosure explain “The point of inflection may be a point at which the dependence of the optimal first tuning parameter (τ1) vs. the acceleration voltages τ1(ε) has a change in sign in its curvature (e.g. where τ1’’(ε) = 0). Thus, the point of inflection may be a specific point in the ε-τ1 plane where the first- and the third- order TOF aberration coefficients vanish: T’(ε) = 0 and T’’’(ε)=0, where T represents the time-of-flight.” Verenchikov teaches eliminating the first and third order TOF aberration coefficients. As such, as evidenced by the present disclosure, Verenchikov identifies the point of inflection in maximizing values of the voltages applied to the mirror electrodes Verenchikov further determines a set of calibrated operating parameters for the mass analyser based on the point of inflection, the set of calibrated operating parameters comprising a calibrated set of electrode voltages , the calibrated operating parameters being Mpa-2 mirror. Verenchekov teaches using said mirrors for mass analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Rosenbusch to include the teachings of Verenchikov by determining maximising values of the first tuning parameter at which the resolving power is maximized; identifying a point of inflection in the dependence of the maximising values of the first tuning parameter on the ion energies; determining a set of calibrated operating parameters for the mass analyser based on the point of inflection, the set of calibrated operating parameters comprising a calibrated set of electrode voltages; and causing the mass analyser to operate with the calibrated operating parameters. Doing so results in maximizing resolving powers of the TOF, as taught by Verenchikov.
Regarding claim 2, Rosenbusch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein applying the plurality of acceleration voltages and/or the plurality of sets of electrode voltages comprises: varying the ion energies about a predetermined optimal value of the ion energy (Figs 7a and 7b); and/or varying the first tuning parameter about a simulated optimal value of the first tuning parameter that corresponds to predetermined optimal values of the set of electrode voltages.
In figures 7a and 7b the acceleration voltages are varied from 2400 to 2550. Therefore, they are varied around 2,475.
Regarding claim 3, Rosenbusch fails to teach the method of claim 2, wherein the calibrated set of electrode voltages is based on the predetermined optimal values of the electrode voltages varied by the maximising value of the first tuning parameter corresponding to the point of inflection , and preferably varied by a maximising value of a second tuning parameter corresponding to the point of inflection.
To be clear, predetermined optimal values of the set of electrode voltages are optional.
However, Verenchikov wherein the calibrated set of electrode voltages is based on the predetermined optimal values of the electrode voltages varied by the maximising value of the first tuning parameter corresponding to the point of inflection , and preferably varied by a maximising value of a second tuning parameter corresponding to the point of inflection.
(As an example, the geometry and potentials of mirror MPA-2 are optimized such that in the third order energy focusing mode MPA-2-3 there are reached: second order spatial focusing (t|y)=(t|b)=(t|yy)=(t|yb)=(t|bb)=0; and mixed third order aberrations are eliminated: (t|yyδ)=(t|yδ)=(t|bbδ)=0 (col. 8, lines 56-61)).
Verenchikov teaches tuning the potentials applied to the ion mirrors so as to achieve third order energy focusing, which as described above, is equivalent to finding the point of inflection.
Rosenbusch teaches calibrating electrodes by changing a tuning parameter. Verenchikov teaches tuning mirror electrode potentials corresponding to a point of inflection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Rosennusch to include the teachings of Verenchikov such that the calibrated set of electrode voltages is based on the predetermined optimal values of the electrode voltages varied by the maximising value of the first tuning parameter corresponding to the point of inflection. Doing so allows for achieving third order aberrations to vanish.
Regarding claim 4, Rosenbusch fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the set of calibrated operating parameters comprise a calibrated acceleration voltage corresponding to the ion energy at the point of inflection.
However, Verenchikov teaches wherein the set of calibrated operating parameters comprise a calibrated acceleration voltage corresponding to the ion energy at the point of inflection (Table 3) (and an accelerating potential is applied to the electrode # 5 (col. 8, lines 26-27)).
Rosenbusch teaches calibrating an acceleration voltage in Figures 7a and 7b. Table 3 of Verenchikov teaches calibrated operating parameters where the electrode #5 accelerates the ion. Table 3 corresponds to electrode potentials for achieving the elimination of third order energy focusing, which as described above, is the point of inflection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Rosenbusch to include the teachings of Verenchikov such that the set of calibrated operating parameters comprise a calibrated acceleration voltage corresponding to the ion energy at the point of inflection. Doing so allows for achieving the elimination of third order aberrations
Regarding claim 5, Rosenbusch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of calibrated operating parameters comprise a calibrated acceleration voltage (Fig. 7a and 7b).
Figures 7a and 7b of Rosenbusch show the calibration of acceleration voltages.
Rosenbusch fails to teach and wherein the method further comprises scaling the calibrated set of electrode voltages such that the calibrated acceleration voltage has a pre- determined value.
However, Verenchikov teaches scaling the calibrated set of electrode voltages such that the calibrated acceleration voltage has a pre- determined value (Table 3) (and an accelerating potential is applied to the electrode # 5 (col. 8, lines 26-27)).
The voltage applied to electrode #5 in Verenchikov is scaled to have a predetermined value as shown in Fig. 3. This value is scaled to coincide with the values applied to electrodes 1-4 so as to eliminate third order aberrations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Rosenbusch to include the teachings of Verenchikov such that the calibrated set of electrode voltages are scaled such that the calibrated acceleration voltage has a predetermined value. Doing so allows for the elimination of third order aberrations.
Regarding claim 6, Rosenbusch fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein varying the first tuning parameter causes a change in a time-of-flight aberration in the mass analyser.
However, Verenchikov teaches wherein varying the first tuning parameter causes a change in a time-of-flight aberration in the mass analyser (As an example, the geometry and potentials of mirror MPA-2 are optimized such that in the third order energy focusing mode MPA-2-3 there are reached: second order spatial focusing (t|y)=(t|b)=(t|yy)=(t|yb)=(t|bb)=0; and mixed third order aberrations are eliminated: (t|yyδ)=(t|yδ)=(t|bbδ)=0 (col. 8, lines 56-61)).
To be clear, Rosenbusch teaches changing a first tuning parameter. Verenchikov teaches changing this parameter so as to minimize TOF aberrations. It would have ben obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Rosenbusch to include the teachings of Verenchikov such that varying the first tuning parameter causes a change in a time-of-flight aberration in the mass analyser. Doing so promotes a higher resolving power.
Regarding claim 7, Rosenbusch teaches the method of claim 6, wherein varying the first tuning parameter causes a change in a first-order time-of-flight aberration in the mass analyser while substantially not causing a change in at least one further aberration in the mass analyser (The fine tuning was done by smaller changes of the potentials followed by a recovery of the focus length of the system (TOF after which a focus is achieved). When the MRTOF-MS is already tuned so that a first-order time focus is present at the chosen number of laps (section 3, para. [0004])).
Regarding claim 22, Rosenbusch fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein causing the mass analyser to operate with the calibrated operating parameters causes the ion mirror to provide at least third-order time-of-flight focusing.
However, Verenchikov teaches wherein causing the mass analyser to operate with the calibrated operating parameters causes the ion mirror to provide at least third-order time-of-flight focusing (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Rosenbusch such that the calibrated operating parameters cause the ion mirror to provide at least third-order time-of-flight focusing. Doing so lends to higher resolving power.
Regarding claim 23, Rosenbusch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of calibrated operating parameters comprises determining the value of the first tuning parameter based on a number of ions injected into the mass analyser (In this way, the potentials 𝑉EjM1c,2,3,4,5 have been changed in 2−10V steps, to chose a new shape for the electric potential in the reflection region, followed by the refocusing procedure before the resolving power has been determined for each setting (section 3, para. [0006])).
The first tuning parameter of Rosenbusch is modified as a result of measuring the resolving power after passing a number of ions through the mass analyser.
Regarding claim 27, Rosenbusch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ion injection device comprises an ion trap or an orthogonal extractor (Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 28, Rosenbusch teaches a time-of-flight (ToF) mass analyser comprising an ion injection device and an ion mirror comprising a plurality of electrodes, the ToF mass analyser configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 29, Rosenbusch fails to teach a computer program comprising instructions configured to cause a time-of- flight (ToF) mass analyser comprising an ion injection device and an ion mirror comprising a plurality of electrodes to execute the steps of the method of claim 1
Uchiyama teaches a computer program comprising instructions configured to cause a time-of- flight (ToF) mass analyser comprising an ion injection device and an ion mirror comprising a plurality of electrodes to execute the steps of the method of claim 1 (In normal cases, the control-and-processing unit 3 is actually a personal computer (PC), on which the functions in the previously described functional blocks can be implemented by executing, on the PC, dedicated control-and-processing software installed on the same PC (col. 5, lines 20-24)).
Regarding claim 30, Rosenbusch fails to teach A computer-readable medium having stored thereon the computer program of claim 29.
However, Uchiyama teaches a computer-readable medium having stored thereon the computer program of claim 29 (In normal cases, the control-and-processing unit 3 is actually a personal computer (PC), on which the functions in the previously described functional blocks can be implemented by executing, on the PC, dedicated control-and-processing software installed on the same PC (col. 5, lines 20-24)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenbusch in view of Uchiyama and Verenchikov, and in further view of Anatoly N Verenchikov (US 20130048852 A1), hereinafter referred to as Verenchikov852.
Regarding claim 8, Rosenbusch does not explicitly teach the method of claim 7, wherein the at least one further aberration comprises any one or more of: second-order time-of-flight aberrations with respect to ion energy; second- order time-of-flight aberrations with respect to ion coordinates; and parallel-to-point spatial focusing of ions.
However, Verenchikov852 teaches , wherein the at least one further aberration comprises any one or more of: second-order time-of-flight aberrations with respect to ion energy (wherein said order of the aberration compensation may be one of the group: (i) at least first-order; (ii) at least second-order relative to all spreads and including cross terms; and (iii) at least third-order relative to energy spread of ion packets (para. [0037])).
To be clear, Rosenbusch teaches first order aberration correction. However, Rosenbusch does not explicitly teach not causing a change in second-order time-of-flight aberrations. Verenchikov852 teaches correcting for only first order aberrations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device descriebd in Rosenbusch to include the teachings of Verenchikov852 such that the first order aberration compensation only influences first order aberrations. Doing so eliminates unwanted potentials and improves precise control of ions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights