DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 July 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first amplitude adjuster”, “second amplitude adjuster”, “phase adjuster” and detector must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Specifically, the drawings are devoid of any amplitude adjusters. Moreover, figure 8 shows a “phase adjuster” in block format, however there is no disclosure of the actual circuit to perform the phase adjustment. Additionally, there is no depicted structure of the claimed “phase discriminator” or “PID” or feedback mechanism. Lastly, the claimed detector for detecting amplitude is merely shown as “measurement circuit 1” and “measurement circuit 2” in figure 8 (elements 600 and 700 respectively), without any showing of the circuits to achieve the claimed functions.
No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lacks written description for “a phase adjustor in communication with said first RF generator and said second RF generator to adjust phase output of at least one of said first RF generator and said second RF generator so as to adjust a phase differential between said first RF voltage and said second RF voltage to be within a desired range”
Specifically, the claimed adjuster is required to achieve the results of adjusting the phase differential, however the specification is devoid of any structure to achieve the claimed voltage adjustment results.
MPEP 2163.03(V) recites: “ An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved ”
Here, the result is disclosed for instance in paragraph [0086] of the published application which recites:
“ a phase adjustor 300 is provided in communication with the first RF generator 100 and the second RF generator 200 to adjust the variable phase output of the second RF generator 200 so as to maintain a phase differential between the first and second RF voltages at or in proximity of a predetermined value or within a desired range. By way of example, the predetermined value for the phase differential can be −180 degrees. However, the present teachings are not limited thereto, and the target phase differential value can be set by a user for optimal performance of the ion processing device. In some embodiments, the target phase differential value can be determined in-situ by monitoring one or more performance metrics”
That is, the disclosure is devoid of any structure of the phase adjuster to achieve the claimed function of adjusting the phase differential. The specification merely discusses that the phase differential is adjusted or tuned. The instant specification further suggests that a relative phase shift compared to an optimal value leads to a quick degradation in the electron capture efficiency (see paragraph [0073]). The specification teaches that the phases are controlled via digital feedback circuitry to ensure the phases differential remain within a predefined range ([0074]). However, the specification is devoid as to how this circuitry performs the claimed result of adjustment.
MPEP 2161 (I) recites:
It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Here, while it is not clear whether the claimed adjuster is a circuit or a computer, the specification is silent with respect to how the feedback is used to adjust the phase differential, therefore claim 1 fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC § 112(a).
Similarly, claim 4 lacks written description for “phase discriminator” and claim 7 requires a detector to detect amplitude and feedback circuitry, however the specification is devoid of any structure to achieve the claimed results.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizutani (WO2010/023706)(copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Mizutani teaches a system (fig. 1) for applying RF voltages (via 41/44) to an ion processing device (2) having at least two pole electrode sets (21/23 and 22/24), configured for use in a mass spectrometer (title), the system comprising:
a first RF generator (41) configured to generate a first RF voltage and apply to a first pole electrode set (41 to 21/23);
a second RF generator (44) configured to generate a second RF voltage and apply to a second pole electrode set (44 to 21/23);
a first amplitude adjustor configured to adjust an amplitude of said first RF voltage (controller 49 controls amplitudes of high frequency generation units, thus requiring a first amplitude adjuster);
a second amplitude adjustor configure to adjust an amplitude of said second RF voltage (controller 49 controls amplitudes of high frequency generation units, thus requiring a second amplitude adjuster); and
a phase adjustor (fig. 4, phase correction section 57) in communication with said first RF generator and said second RF generator to adjust phase output of at least one of said first RF generator and said second RF generator so as to adjust a phase differential between said first RF voltage and said second RF voltage to be within a desired range (as seen in figure 4, 57 is indirectly in communication with 41/44 and paragraph [0040] teaches phase deviation can be adjusted to cancel out high frequency noise. Note the phase output is adjusted at the detector circuit to remove noise from the spectrum).
Regarding claim 2, Mizutani teaches wherein said first RF voltage has a fixed phase output, and said second RF voltage has a variable phase output, and wherein said variable phase output of said second RF voltage is configured to be adjusted by said phase adjustor (since there are two RF generators, one is capable of being operated as fixed and the other is capable of being operable as variable).
Regarding claim 3, Mizutani teaches wherein said ion processing device comprises any of an mass filter (2 is a mass filter).
Regarding claim 4, Mizutani teaches a phase discriminator for determining the phase differential between said first RF voltage and said second RF voltage and generating a signal indicative of said phase differential ([0040] teaches correction of misalignment of phases thus requiring a discriminator to determine the misalignment); a feedback circuitry for receiving said signal and adjusting the phase of said second RF voltage so as to maintain said phase differential to a predetermined value ([0040] via phase corrector).
Regarding claim 5, Mizutani teaches wherein the predetermined value is about -180 degrees ([0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Mizutani teaches wherein said phase discriminator is in communication with said first pole electrode set and said second pole electrode set, thereby measuring the phase differential therebetween ([0040]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanai et al. (US pgPub 2013/0200256)
Regarding claim 1, Kanai et al. teaches a system (fig. 2) for applying RF voltages (via 102a/102b) to an ion processing device (105) having at least two pole electrode sets (108a-1/a-2 and 108b-1/b-2), configured for use in a mass spectrometer (title), the system comprising:
a first RF generator (102a) configured to generate a first RF voltage and apply to a first pole electrode set (102a to 108a-1/a-2);
a second RF generator (102b) configured to generate a second RF voltage and apply to a second pole electrode set (102b to 108b-1/b-2);
a first amplitude adjustor (103a) configured to adjust an amplitude of said first RF voltage ([0036]);
a second amplitude adjustor (103b) configure to adjust an amplitude of said second RF voltage ([0036]); and
a phase adjustor (104) in communication with said first RF generator and said second RF generator to adjust phase output of at least one of said first RF generator and said second RF generator so as to adjust a phase differential between said first RF voltage and said second RF voltage to be within a desired range ([0038] correcting a difference between the drive frequency and the resonance frequency such that they are aligned (i.e. adjust the phase of both drive frequencies to match the resonant frequency)).
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marquette (US pgPub 2006/0163472) (submitted with IDS)
Regarding claim 1, Marquette et al. teaches a system (fig. 1) for applying RF voltages (via 148/152) to an ion processing device (112) having at least two pole electrode sets (122/124 and 126/128, note while paragraph [0034]teaches a ring configuration, paragraph [0026] teaches 126/128 may be separate electrodes), configured for use in a mass spectrometer (title), the system comprising:
a first RF generator (148) configured to generate a first RF voltage and apply to a first pole electrode set (148 to 126/128);
a second RF generator (152) configured to generate a second RF voltage and apply to a second pole electrode set (152 applies RF to 124/122 see paragraph [0035]);
a first amplitude adjustor configured to adjust an amplitude of said first RF voltage ([0034] teaches 144 controls 148 to control the amplitude of the RF waveform);
a second amplitude adjustor configure to adjust an amplitude of said second RF voltage ([0035] teaches 144 is connected to RF waveform generator 152 to control the amplitude of the RF voltage); and
a phase adjustor ([0056] –[0057] teach shifting supplemental waveform phase by software or hardware, phase adjuster interpreted to be part of 144) in communication with said first RF generator and said second RF generator to adjust phase output of at least one of said first RF generator and said second RF generator (144 is in communication with both 148 and 152) so as to adjust a phase differential between said first RF voltage and said second RF voltage to be within a desired range (phase adjustment as taught in paragraphs [0052] and [0056-0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Marquette teaches wherein said first RF generator, said second RF generator, or both are implemented as a digital circuitry (via computer 144).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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) 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (Jones et al., “simple radio-frequency power source for ion guides and ion traps”, 1997) (submitted with IDS of 22 February 2024) in view of Kanai.
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches a system (fig. 1) for applying RF voltages (via Tank coil of figure 1 towards two separate paths after “Ctune” of opposite phases, see page 3357, left column last paragraph) to an ion processing device (Guide/trap of figure 1) having at least two pole electrode sets (black set and white set of figure 1), configured for use in a mass spectrometer (abstract teaches trapping conditions for different mass ranges, thus configured for using in a mass spectrometer), the system comprising:
a first RF generator configured to generate a first RF voltage and apply to a first pole electrode set (see annotated figure below);
a second RF generator configured to generate a second RF voltage and apply to a second pole electrode set (see annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image1.png
743
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a phase adjustor (fig. 1, “balance cap”, see page 3361, paragraph bridging left and right columns teaches compensating for small imbalances in the load compactor by one phase a variable air-spaced capacitor in parallel with the fixed capacitor allows (i.e. balance capacitor is a phase adjustor)) in communication with said first RF generator and said second RF generator to adjust phase output of at least one of said first RF generator and said second RF generator (Balance cap is in communication with both rf outputs via the Tank coil or the tuning cap which divide the signals towards each outlet) so as to adjust a phase differential between said first RF voltage and said second RF voltage to be within a desired range (same paragraph teaches the phase on B should be approximately equal to that of the fixed capacitor on A, i.e. the desired range is where the phases are about equal).
Jones fails to disclose a first amplitude adjustor configured to adjust an amplitude of said first RF voltage; a second amplitude adjustor configure to adjust an amplitude of said second RF voltage.
However, Kanai teaches a first amplitude adjustor (103a) configured to adjust an amplitude of said first RF voltage ([0036]);
a second amplitude adjustor (103b) configure to adjust an amplitude of said second RF voltage ([0036]); and
Kanai modifies Jones by suggesting amplitude adjustors applied to each RF generator output.
Since both inventions are directed towards RF power supplies for multipolar devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the amplitude adjusters of Kanai in the device of Jones because it would facilitate the reduction of the difference between the resonance frequency and the drive frequency even when the amplitude difference between the RF signals has been adjusted ([0012], therefore improving the trapping efficiency ([0008])).
Regarding claim 2, Jones teaches wherein said first RF voltage has a fixed phase output (via fixed blocking capacitor in figure 1), and said second RF voltage has a variable phase output (via variable balance capacitor in figure 1, note paragraph bridging left and right columns on page 3361), and wherein said variable phase output of said second RF voltage is configured to be adjusted by said phase adjustor (paragraph bridging left and right columns on page 3361).
Regarding claim 3, Jones teaches wherein said ion processing device comprises any of an ion guide, an ion device with multiple poles, an ion trap, an ion-ion reaction device, ion-electron reaction device, ion-neutral reaction device, and an ion mass filter (guide or trap, see figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Jones teaches an additional RF amplifier between an input signal and output signal, said additional RF amplifier comprising a resonant tank coil (tank coil, see figure 1).
Claim(s) 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai in view of Baba (US pgPub 2019/0378703).
Regarding claim 14, Kanai fails to disclose wherein said system drives an RF ion trap configured to simultaneously trap ions and introduce electrons for ion-electron reaction.
However, Baba teaches wherein said system drives an RF ion trap configured to simultaneously trap ions and introduce electrons for ion-electron reaction ([0044]).
Baba modifies Kanai by suggesting a branched ion trap.
Since both inventions are directed towards ion traps, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kanai to include the branched features with ECD, because it would enable fragmentation to facilitate MSn analysis therefore providing more complete information about the sample
Regarding claim 15, Kani in view of Baba teaches wherein relative balance of amplitudes of said first and second RF voltages is adjusted to minimize the RF field-induced distortion along the axis of electron introduction (Kani teaches amplitudes may be adjusted, therefore by modification by Baba the device is capable of achieving the claimed result)
Regarding claim 16, Kani in view of Baba teaches wherein said phase differential between said first and second RF voltages is adjusted to minimize the RF field-induced distortion along the axis of electron introduction (Kanai is capable of adjusting the phase, therefore when modified by Baba is capable to achieve the desired result).
Regarding claim 17, Kani in view of Baba teaches wherein said RF ion trap is capable of introducing ions and collecting products, and at least one port is provided for introducing electrons (as seen in figures 3a of Baba).
Regarding claim 18, Kani in view of Baba teaches wherein said RF ion trap is implemented in a branched configuration (Baba, figure 3a).
Regarding claim 19, Kani in view of Baba teaches said RF ion trap with the branched configuration comprises: a plurality of L-shaped rods arranged relative to one another to provide an axial passageway having an inlet for receiving a plurality of ions and an outlet through which ions are allowed to leave the axial passageway, and a transverse passageway having at least one inlet for receiving electrons generated by an electron source, wherein said plurality of L-shaped rods form an ion guide providing a passageway for transmission of ions therethrough, wherein said axial and transverse passageways intersect at an electron-ion interaction region in which at least a portion of the received electrons interact with at least a portion of the received ions, and wherein said RF ion trap is configured to ensure that electrons remain substantially close to a central axis of said transverse passageway while propagating along said transverse passageway (as seen in figure 3A of Baba).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights