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 with traverse of the first embodiment species (Fig. 1) in the reply filed on 19 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, allegedly, the search for first embodiment species would necessarily include a search for the remaining species embodiments and that this would not constitute an unreasonable search for the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because each of the identified species have specific structural elements with specific functional shapes and specific cooperation between the specific structural elements and their associated functional shapes, as clearly disclosed in the instant specification, each of which must be searched in the prior art by the Examiner, resulting in a burdensome search and overall consideration if all the species were to be examined. Currently, claims 1-7 are pending and under examination and are directed to elected first embodiment species (Fig. 1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The instant filed specification is objected to, due to the fact I lacks the required headings for portion, such as, but not limited to, BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION and “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS.” The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because all of the thick, hand-drawn lines pointing to the various drawing elements within the instant Figures obscures the drawing elements depicted within the Figures. For example, the thickly hand-drawn line for (13a) covers/obscures the depiction of the sample gas discharge end and other structural details within the drawings. The Examiner strongly suggests replacing all the thick hand-drawn lines with thinner and more precise lines to all the structural elements. In addition, instant dependent claims 5 and 6 employ the limitation “conically” in regards to the flow body and/or tubular ionization chamber. The instant drawings only employ a cross-section, lengthwise of the ion mobility spectrometer, and do not depict cross-section views, into and out of the page, of the flow body or tubular ionization chamber, and it is unclear if the “conically” term is referring to a three-dimensional aspect, or a two-dimensional aspect of the flow body and/or tubular ionization chamber, which is necessary for a complete illustration of the claimed limitations recited in instant dependent claims 5 and 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Instant independent claim 1, in line 3, employs the incorrect reference number (8) for “an ionization device .” The correct reference number is (9), as employed in the rest of the claim. Claims 2-7 are similarly objected to due to their dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 the limitation "the end face (14a)" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 are similarly rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sample discharge end (13a)" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 are similarly rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the region" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 are similarly rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 are similarly rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the volume stream" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the end" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “slight” in regards to a “distance” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slight” in regards to a distance is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although the instant specification appears to indicate that “slight distance” is “approximately between 1mm and 3mm,” this fails to provide definiteness, due to the term “approximately.”
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s cited prior art reference DE 102008029 A1 to Baether et al. Baether et al. disclose an ion mobility spectrometer (1) (see Fig. 1 and entire reference and English translation) having a tubular ionization chamber (2) that has a sample gas inlet (3) and a gas outlet (4), and having an ionization device (7) arranged within the ionization chamber, as well as having a tubular drift chamber (8) which is separated from the ionization chamber by means of an ion shutter grid (9), wherein the ionization device is arranged on the end face of a cylindrical flow body (the body/housing surrounding the ionization device) arranged in the ionization chamber wherein the ionization device has a planar contact surface (23) which is oriented parallel to and at a slight distance from the ion shutter grid, transverse to the longitudinal axis of the ionization chamber, wherein the sample gas inlet has a sample gas feed line (see Fig. 1, inlet and outlet are flow conduits/lines), a sample discharge end of which opens directly into a region of the contact surface of the ionization device (see Fig. 1, inlet clearly opens directly into the region of the contact surface), meeting all the limitations of instant independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102008029 A1 to Baether et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 4,551,624 to Spangler et al. Baether et al. disclose an ion mobility spectrometer having all of the elements stated previously. Baether et al. does not explicitly disclose a through-flow regulator for regulating a volume stream in regards to the sample gas inlet and the drift gas inlet, as recited in instant dependent claim 2. As a preliminary matter, the individual volumetric flow rates of the sample gas to the sample gas inlet, as well as the to the drift gas inlet must be controlled/regulated, that is, these flow rates are critical to the overall functional operation of the ion mobility spectrometer to not only ionize the sample gas, but to control the overall flow rate through the ion mobility spectrometer, and cannot be arbitrarily chosen. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would provide flow regulating means, including, but not limited to, controllable pumps/fluid movers, valves, restrictors, to control the overall flow rates of the sample and carrier/drift gas into the ion mobility spectrometer disclosed by Baether et al. to perform the spectroscopy measurements with accuracy, meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 2. Evidence of flow/volume regulation/control of gases in regards to operation of an ion mobility spectrometer is disclosed by Spangler et al. Spangler et al disclose an ion mobility spectrometer system (see Fig. 4 and entire reference) wherein a sample pump (44) is employed to introduce a sample gas into a sample inlet/port (40) and a cell pump to introduce a carrier/drift gas into the drift chambers (12, 14) through conduits (58, 60, 62, 64) as well as flow control valves (68, 74) which control the flow rates of the inlet gases (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 34 and col. 9, lines 32-65). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to provide flow regulating means, valves, pumps, etc., to control the volume stream into the inlets of the ion mobility spectrometer disclosed by Baether et al., as taught by Spangler et al., thus providing the necessary/required volume flow rates/velocities of the sample gas and carrier/drift gas for accurate measurements to be performed, meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102008029 A1 to Baether et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 5,574,277 to Taylor. Baether et al. disclose an ion mobility spectrometer having all of the elements stated previously. Baether et al. does not explicitly disclose that the sample gas feed line is integrated into the flow body and extends along the longitudinal axis of the ionization chamber, as recited in instant dependent claims 3 and 4, respectively. Taylor discloses an ion mobility spectrometer (see Fig. 2, and entire reference) wherein a sample gas feed line (18) extends along a longitudinal axis of an ionization chamber wherein ionization source (10) is placed, and is integrally formed in a body (34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the flow body of Baether et al. to integrate the sample gas feed line extending along the longitudinal axis of the ionization chamber, as taught by Taylor, thus improving sensitivity by introducing the sample gas with gas flow into the ion mobility spectrometer in the region of the ionizing source, in a direction counter to the flow of the drift gas source, as well as other benefits (see Taylor, col. 1, line 56 to col. 2, line 25), thus meeting all the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 3 and 4.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102008029 A1 to Baether et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0048411 to Hopkins et al. Baether et al. disclose an ion mobility spectrometer having all of the elements stated previously. Baether et al. does not explicitly disclose the flow body is configured to narrow conically, proceeding from the ionization device or wherein the tubular ionization chamber is configured to narrow conically toward an end that faces away from the ion shutter grid, as recited in instant dependent claims 5 and 6, respectively. Hopkins et al. disclose a ion mobility spectrometer (see entire reference) wherein the portions of the ionization device narrow conically in stages to provide different flow speeds, to provide controlled variation in speed within the ion mobility spectrometer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the flow body and tubular ionization chamber of the ion mobility spectrometer disclosed by Baether et al., to narrow conically, as taught by Hopkins et al. to provide greater control on the separation of ions (see Abstract of Hopkins et al.) thus meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 5 and 6.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102008029 A1 to Baether et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2014/0151545 to Denton et al. Baether et al. disclose an ion mobility spectrometer having all of the elements stated previously. Baether et al. does not explicitly disclose a measurement dive including the ion mobility spectrometer having gas chromatography pre-separation connected to the sample gas inlet of the ion mobility spectrometer, as recited in instant dependent claim 7. Denton et al. disclose a measurement device (see entire reference) including an ion mobility spectrometer (see Fig. 1 and entire reference) and also having gas chromatography pre-separation connected to the sample gas inlet of the ion mobility spectrometer (see para 0070). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date toe employ the ion mobility spectrometer disclosed by Baether et al., in a measurement device having gas chromatography pre-separation connected to the sample gas inlet of the ion mobility spectrometer, wherein the gas chromatograph provides for separation of molecular species prior to the ion mobility spectrometer, since this pre-separation allows quantitative analysis of sample/analyte mixtures and semi-quantitative analysis of even more complex sample mixtures (see para 0070), meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855