DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020039371 A1 [Hager] in view of US 8,835,834 B2 [Sugiyama].
Regarding Claim 1:
Hager teaches an ion mass filter for use in a mass spectrometer, comprising:
a plurality of rods arranged in a multipole configuration to provide a passageway through which ions can travel (Fig. 14 (130a, b)), said plurality of rods being configured for application of RF voltages thereto to generate an electromagnetic field within said passageway for providing radial confinement of the ions (see e.g. Fig. 10) and further configured for application of a DC voltage thereto (para 15),
at least two pairs of auxiliary electrodes interspersed between said plurality of rods, wherein one pair forms a first pole of the auxiliary electrodes and the other pair form a second pole of the auxiliary electrodes (Fig. 14 (140a, 140b)),
at least a first DC voltage source for applying DC bias voltages to the auxiliary electrodes (Fig. 14 (1410, 1420)), and
a controller in communication with said at least one DC voltage source (para 18) for causing said DC voltage source to a bias voltage differential between said poles (para 100-102).
However, Hager fails to teach that the controller is further configured to cause the DC voltage source to switch polarities of the bias voltage differential between the poles according to a predefined temporal schedule.
Sugiyama teaches a quadrupole with auxiliary electrodes in the form of vanes (Fig. 14 (200a-h)), wherein a DC voltage is applied to the vanes. 11:17-57. Further, Sugiyama specifies reversing the polarities of the bias voltages applied to the electrodes at a specified time for switching between cation and anion measurements. 11:13-16; Fig. 15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the temporal scheduled auxiliary electrode polarity switching of Sugiyama to Hager since this would facilitate switching between cations and anions during a mass spectrometry measurement.
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the ion mass filter of claim 1, further comprising an RF voltage source configured to apply RF voltages to said plurality of rods. Hager Para 64
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the ion mass filter of claim 1, further comprising at least a second DC voltage source configured to apply a DC voltage to said plurality of rods. Hager Para 64.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the ion mass filter of claim 3, wherein the DC voltage applied to said plurality of rods and the DC bias voltages applied to said auxiliary electrodes are configured to generate an electromagnetic field within said passageway such that an interaction of the ions with the electromagnetic field results in ions having m/z ratios within a target range experiencing stable trajectories and ions having m/z ratios outside said target range experiencing unstable trajectories. Hager Paras 61-62 discuss ion selection and filtering, which is the effect being described above.
Regarding Claim 5:
The above modified invention teaches the ion mass filter of claim 4, wherein the switching of the polarity of the bias voltage differential between said poles allows substantially equal accumulation of the unstable ions on said first and said second pole of the auxiliary electrodes. This limitation is an intended use, not a recitation of the structure of the device or the fashion in which it functions. As such, it does not carry patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the ion filter of claim 1, wherein said plurality of electrodes comprises four rods arranged in a quadrupole configuration such that each of said auxiliary electrodes is disposed between two of said plurality of rods. See Hager Fig. 14.
Regarding Claim 11:
The above modified invention teaches the ion filter of claim 1, wherein said auxiliary electrodes comprise a plurality of T-shaped auxiliary electrodes. See Hager Fig. 14.
Regarding Claim 12:
The above modified invention teaches the ion filter of claim 11, wherein each of said T-shaped auxiliary electrodes comprises a backplate and a stem extending radially from said backplate. See Hager Fig. 14.
Regarding Claim 13:
The above modified invention teaches the ion filter of claim 1, wherein said RF voltages have a frequency in a range of about 0.1 MHz to about 5 MHz. See Hager paras 74, 124, et al.
Regarding Claim 14:
The above modified invention teaches the high pass filter of claim 13, wherein said RF voltages have an amplitude in a range of about 10 volts to about 5 kilovolts. See Hager paras 74, 124, et al.
Regarding Claim 15:
The above modified invention teaches the ion filter of claim 1, wherein said DC voltage applied to said plurality of multipole rods is in a range of about −250 volts to about +250 volts. Hager Para 124.
Regarding Claim 16:
The above modified invention teaches the ion filter of claim 15, wherein said DC bias voltages are in a range of about −8 kilovolts volts to about +8 kilovolts. Hager Para 124.
Regarding Claim 17:
Hager teaches a mass spectrometer, comprising:
an ion filter comprising (fig. 14, abstract):
a plurality of rods arranged in a multipole configuration to provide a passageway through which ions can travel (Fig. 14 (130a, b)), said plurality of rods being configured for application of RF voltages thereto to generate an electromagnetic field within said passageway for providing radial confinement of the ions (see e.g. Fig. 10) and further configured for application of a DC voltage thereto (para 15),
at least two pairs of auxiliary electrodes interspersed between said plurality of rods, wherein one pair forms a first pole of the auxiliary electrodes and the other pair form a second pole of the auxiliary electrodes (Fig. 14 (140a, 140b)),
wherein the DC bias voltages applied to the auxiliary electrodes are configured relative to said DC voltage applied to said plurality of rods such that ions having m/z ratios within a target range experience stable trajectories as they pass through the passageway and ions having m/z ratios outside said target range experience unstable trajectories so as to be deposited on one of said pairs of the auxiliary electrodes based on an electric charge of the ions and the polarities of the DC bias voltages applied to said auxiliary electrodes relative to said DC voltage (the above wherein clause describes an intended result of a DC bias application to the aux electrodes, not an actual occurrence. Hager, at para 88, describes applying the recited DC biases, and further describes both filtering, i.e., ions impacting the electrodes, and selecting, i.e., ions passing through the filter. As such, Hager teaches the claimed structure, and further describes the same intended results.).
However, Hager fails to teach that the DC bias voltages are configured such that a bias voltage differential between two poles formed by the at least two pairs of auxiliary electrodes switches according to a predefined temporal schedule.
Sugiyama teaches a quadrupole with auxiliary electrodes in the form of vanes (Fig. 14 (200a-h)), wherein a DC voltage is applied to the vanes. 11:17-57. Further, Sugiyama specifies reversing the polarities of the bias voltages applied to the electrodes at a specified time for switching between cation and anion measurements. 11:13-16; Fig. 15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the temporal scheduled auxiliary electrode polarity switching of Sugiyama to Hager since this would facilitate switching between cations and anions during a mass spectrometry measurement.
Regarding Claim 18:
The above modified invention teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 17, wherein the mass spectrometer is configured such that at least a portion of said unstable ions is deposited on the pair of the auxiliary electrodes that is maintained at a DC bias voltage that is positive relative to said DC voltage applied to said multipole rods when said ions have a negative electric charge and at least a portion of said unstable ions is deposited on the pair of the auxiliary electrodes that is maintained at a DC bias voltage that is negative relative to the DC voltage applied to said multipole rods when the ions have a positive electric charge. This limitation is an intended use, not a recitation of the structure of the device or the fashion in which it functions. As such, it does not carry patentable weight. Furthermore, unstable ions are inherently deposited throughout the ion filter, as is explained in the instant background.
Regarding Claim 19:
The above modified invention teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 17, further comprising at least one DC voltage source configured to apply said DC voltage to said plurality of multipole rods and said DC bias voltages to said auxiliary electrodes. Hager Fig. 14 (1410, 1420).
Claims 8-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hager in view Sugiyama and further in view of US 3,725,700 [Turner].
Regarding Claim 8:
The above modified invention teaches the ion filter of claim 1, but it does not specify that its controller is configured to cause the first DC voltage source to switch the polarity of the DC bias voltage differential between the first and the second poles of the auxiliary electrodes in successive sample runs.
Turner teaches a quadrupole mass filter (2:16-26) including auxiliary electrodes interspersed between (1:34-50), wherein the DC voltage source to switches the polarity of the DC bias voltage differential between the first and the second poles of the auxiliary electrodes (1:45-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to implement the DC bias changing of Turner in the controller of Hager such that in between sample runs the bias is switched. This would have been obvious because Turner specifies that the biases should be changed over time so as to compensate for changes in ion peak shape and sensitivity. Turner 1:50-55.
Regarding Claim 9:
The above modified invention teaches the ion filter of claim 1, but fails to teach that said controller is configured to cause the first DC voltage source to switch the polarity of the DC bias voltage differential between the first and the second poles in response to detection of a degradation in performance of said ion filter.
Turner teaches a quadrupole mass filter (2:16-26) including auxiliary electrodes interspersed between (1:34-50), wherein the DC voltage source to switches the polarity of the DC bias voltage differential between the first and the second poles of the auxiliary electrodes (1:45-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to implement the DC bias changing of Turner in the controller of Hager such that the bias is switched. This would have been obvious because Turner specifies that the biases should be changed over time so as to compensate for changes in ion peak shape and sensitivity, i.e., filter performance. Turner 1:50-55.
Regarding Claim 20:
The above modified invention teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 19, further comprising a controller in communication with said at least one DC voltage source (para 18), but fails to teach that the controller is configured to cause said DC voltage source to switch a polarity of the DC bias voltage differential between said pair of the auxiliary electrodes so as to change the pair of the auxiliary electrodes on which said unstable ions are deposited.
Turner teaches a quadrupole mass filter (2:16-26) including auxiliary electrodes interspersed between (1:34-50), wherein the DC voltage source to switches the polarity of the DC bias voltage differential between the first and the second poles of the auxiliary electrodes (1:45-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to implement the DC bias changing of Turner in the controller of Hager such that in between sample runs the bias is switched, thus changing where unstable ions are deposited. This would have been obvious because Turner specifies that the biases should be changed over time so as to compensate for changes in ion peak shape and sensitivity. Turner 1:50-55.
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 18-20 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 18 was amended to recite, “said DC bias voltages are configured such that a bias voltage differential between two poles formed by the at least two pairs of auxiliary electrodes switches…” Voltages are electric potential differences. It is entirely unclear how a potential difference can be “configured” at all, let alone “configured such that [it] switches.” Switching a voltage is achieved not by the potential difference, but by the application of energy. The claim, as drafted, suggests that there one voltage might have a particular ability to switch that is absent in another voltage. This is clearly not true, and, as such, the claim is rendered indefinite by such language. The claim will be examined as though it addressed similar structure to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
The indefiniteness rejections of the previous action are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that the newly claimed configurations of the controller of claim 1 and the DC bias voltages of claim 17 are neither taught nor suggested by Hager. It is agreed that Hager does not teach the claimed switching; however, Sugiyama teaches switching DC biases on a schedule in order to switch between cation and anion analysis. In the rejections above, the proposed combination of Hager and Sugiyama teaches the claim limitation at issue.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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