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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejection of claim 15 under 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to appreciate that a counteractive force to the first gas flow was needed and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to employ a second gas stream, to direct ions to the ion guide.
Murray teaches a gas supply passage configured to “alleviate or reduce the amount of contaminants reaching the laser optics (Murray; pg. 2, lines 21-22)”. Whitehouse teaches a gas channel 348 through which a gas flow enters and sweeps past the sample spot to help direct MALDI generated ions into the guide. Therefore, 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 Murray to include the teachings of Whitehouse by incorporating gas channel 348 for the additional benefits of directing the ions into the ion guide.
Next, applicant argues that a second gas stream employed to counteract the reduction in analyte ion transmission caused by the first gas stream, without negating the protective purpose of the first gas stream and without requiring additional electric fields constitutes a non-obvious contribution over the prior art.
As amended claim 1 recites “a first gas port arranged to supply a first gas stream so as to urge material generated at the target plate away from the one or more optical element; and a second, different gas port arranged to supply a second gas stream that urges ions from the target plate, towards and into the ion guide, wherein the second gas stream counteracts the effect of the first gas stream on the ion transmission through the ion guide so as to thereby increase ion transmission through the ion guide.” To be clear, the first gas stream and second gas stream are not positively recited, and as written, work to further limit the first and second gas ports. The added limitation does not impose any additional structure on the first and second gas ports. As explained by paragraphs [0047]-[0048] of the specifications “the levels of first and second gas flows from the first and second gas ports 38,40, respectively, may be controlled so as to achieve an acceptable target level of transmission of ions through the ion guide 26 and/or an acceptable level of protection for the optics. This may be achieved by providing gas flow regulators for adjusting the rate at which the gas streams flow through the first and/or second gas ports 38,40.” Therefore, it is not the structure of the first and second gas ports which achieve the result of the new limitation, but the gas flow regulators. See rejection below.
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 1-19 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 effect" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, claim 1 recites the limitation "the ion transmission" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 10-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul Murray (WO 2020065312 A1), hereinafter referred to as Murray, in view of Craig Whitehouse (US 20020175278 A1), hereinafter referred to as Whitehouse.
Regarding claim 1, Murray teaches an ion source assembly comprising: a target plate for holding a sample to be analysed (The embedded sample is then positioned on a metal plate and a laser pulse is directed on to the target sample (pg. 1, lines 15-17));
a laser for ionising the sample on the target plate so as to form analyte ions (The laser pulse impinging upon the target sample causes analyte material to be ablated and desorbed from the target sample. Analyte ions are generated by analyte material being protonated and deprotonated in a hot plume of gaseous molecules which is released from the target (pg. 1, lines 15-21));
one or more optical elements (beam steering mirror 48);
an ion guide for guiding the analyte ions (ion guide 27);
a first gas port arranged to supply a first gas stream so as to urge material generated at the target plate away from the one or more optical element (gas supply passage 43);
Murray fails to teach and a second, different gas port arranged to supply a second gas stream that urges ions from the target plate, towards and into the ion guide wherein the second gas stream counteracts the effect of the first gas stream on the ion transmission through the ion guide so as to thereby increase ion transmission through the ion guide.
However, Whitehouse teaches and a second, different gas port (gas channel 348) arranged to supply a second gas stream that urges ions from the target plate, towards and into the ion guide (The gas flow 353 sweeping past sample spot 357 through lens aperture 350 helps to direct MALDI generated ions 361 into ion guide volume 358 where they are trapped radially by the RF fields during operation of multipole ion guide 352 (para. [0074])) wherein the second gas stream counteracts the effect of the first gas stream on the ion transmission through the ion guide so as to thereby increase ion transmission through the ion guide.
The limitation “wherein the second gas stream counteracts the effect of the first gas stream on the ion transmission through the ion guide so as to thereby increase ion transmission through the ion guide” imposes no additional structure on the second gas port.
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 Murray to include the teachings of Whitehouse by adding a second gas port to a portion of the wall of the ionization chamber of Murray adjacent to the target. The second gas port allows for the supply of gas that aids in directing ions into the ion guide.
Regarding claim 2, Murray teaches the ion source assembly of claim 1, comprising an enclosure housing the target plate, the ion guide and the one or more optical elements (ionisation chamber 41), wherein the first gas port is arranged to supply the first gas stream through a wall of the enclosure (Fig. 3 as annotated below).
Murray fails to teach and the second gas port is arranged to supply the second gas stream through a wall of the enclosure.
However, Whitehouse teaches and the second gas port is arranged to supply the second gas stream through a wall of the enclosure (Fig. 20 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 3, Murray teaches the ion source assembly of claim 2, wherein the first gas port is arranged in the wall of the enclosure adjacent to or proximate the one or more optical elements (Fig. 3 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Murray fails to teach the ion source assembly of claim 2, wherein the second gas port is arranged in the wall of the enclosure adjacent to or proximate the target plate.
However, Whitehouse teaches the ion source assembly of claim 2, wherein the second gas port is arranged in the wall of the enclosure adjacent to or proximate the target plate (Fig. 20 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
630
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Murray teaches the ion source assembly of any one of claim 2, wherein the enclosure is sealed gas-tight (In one embodiment, the ionisation chamber 41 is a vacuum chamber (pg. 13, lines 22-23)), apart from the first gas port, and a further orifice for allowing ions transmitted by the ion guide to leave the enclosure (Fig. 3 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
581
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A vacuum chamber is inherently sealed gas tight.
Murray fails to teach the second gas port.
However, Whitehouse teaches the second gas port (gas channel 348).
Regarding claim 6, Murray teaches the ion source assembly of any preceding claim 1, wherein the one or more optical element is any one, or any combination, of the following: a window for transmitting a laser beam from the laser to the target plate (window 6); a mirror for reflecting a laser beam from the laser; a camera; and a mirror for reflecting visible light, optionally to a camera.
Regarding claim 7, Murray fails to teach the ion source assembly of any preceding claim 1, comprising a first gas flow regulator configured to be adjustable so as to adjust the rate at which the first gas stream flows through the first gas port; and/or a second gas flow regulator configured to be adjustable so as to adjust the rate at which the second gas stream flows through the second gas port.
However, Whitehouse teaches a first gas flow regulator configured to be adjustable so as to adjust the rate at which the first gas stream flows through the first gas port; and/or a second gas flow regulator configured to be adjustable so as to adjust the rate at which the second gas stream flows through the second gas port (The flow rate of gas flow 305 can be adjusted by changing the gas flow rate setting of gas flow valve manually or automatically through programmed control to achieve optimal analytical performance (para. [0069])).
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 Murray to include the teachings of Whitehouse by introducing the automatically adjustable gas flow regulator for the second gas stream taught by Murray, in view of Whitehouse. Adjusting the gas flow rate facilitates achieving the optimum analytical performance (Whitehouse; para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 10, Murray teaches the ion source assembly of claim 1, configured to maintain the pressure at the first and/or second gas port below atmospheric pressure (The ionisation chamber 41 may be held at atmospheric pressure or may be held below atmospheric pressure (pg. 13, lines 20-22)).
Regarding claim 11, Murray teaches the ion source assembly of any preceding claim 1, wherein the ion source assembly is a MALDI ion source assembly (MALDI ion source 1).
Regarding claim 12, Murray teaches a mass and/or mobility spectrometer comprising the ion source assembly of claim 1 (The ion guide 27 subsequently directs the ionised material through the ionisation chamber 41 and into a mass spectrometer which is attached to the ionisation chamber 41. The ionised sample can then be analysed by the mass spectrometer (pg. 16, lines 7-10)) (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Murray teaches the spectrometer of claim 12, wherein the ion source assembly comprises an enclosure housing the ion guide (ionization chamber 41), wherein the enclosure includes an orifice for allowing ions to pass from the ion guide out of the enclosure (Fig. 3 as annotated below), and wherein the spectrometer further comprises a vacuum chamber arranged adjacent the orifice to receive the ions (The ion guide 27 subsequently directs the ionised material through the ionisation chamber 41 and into a mass spectrometer which is attached to the ionisation chamber 41. The ionised sample can then be analysed by the mass spectrometer (pg. 16, lines 7-10)).
PNG
media_image3.png
581
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A vacuum chamber is inherent to the mass spectrometer of Murray. Any mass spectrometer requires a vacuum chamber to receive ions.
Regarding claim 16, Murray teaches a method of ionising an analytical sample comprising: providing an ion source assembly as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above);
providing an analytical sample on the target plate (Fig. 3 as annotated below);
illuminating the sample with a laser beam (Fig. 3 as annotated below) from the laser so as to form analyte ions and other material (The laser pulse impinging upon the target sample causes analyte material to be ablated and desorbed from the target sample. Analyte ions are generated by analyte material being protonated and deprotonated in a hot plume of gaseous molecules which is released from the target (pg. 1, lines 15-21));
supplying a first gas stream through the first gas port (gas supply passage 43) so as to urge said other material away from the one or more optical element (The flow of gas travels substantially towards the outlet end 23 of the light passage 21 (pg. 8, lines 11-13));
Outlet end 23 is in a direction away from the one or more optical elements.
PNG
media_image4.png
533
768
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Murray fails to teach and supplying a second gas stream through the second gas port so as to urge the analyte ions from the target plate, towards and into the ion guide.
However, Whitehouse teaches and supplying a second gas stream through the second gas port (gas channel 348) so as to urge the analyte ions from the target plate, towards and into the ion guide (The gas flow 353 sweeping past sample spot 357 through lens aperture 350 helps to direct MALDI generated ions 361 into ion guide volume 358 where they are trapped radially by the RF fields during operation of multipole ion guide 352 (para. [0074])).
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 Murray to include the teachings of Whitehouse by adding a second gas port to a portion of the wall of the ionization chamber of Murray adjacent to the target. The second gas port allows for the supply of gas that aids in directing ions into the ion guide.
Regarding claim 17, Murray fails to teach the method of claim 16, comprising varying the rate at which the first gas stream flows through the first gas port; and/or varying the rate at which the second gas stream flows through the second gas port.
However, Whitehouse teaches varying the rate at which the first gas stream flows through the first gas port; and/or varying the rate at which the second gas stream flows through the second gas port (The flow rate of gas flow 305 can be adjusted by changing the gas flow rate setting of gas flow valve manually or automatically through programmed control to achieve optimal analytical performance).
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 Murray to include the teachings of Whitehouse by introducing the automatically adjustable gas flow regulator for the second gas stream taught by Murray, in view of Whitehouse. Adjusting the gas flow rate of both gas flows facilitates achieving the optimum analytical performance (Whitehouse; para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 18, Murray teaches the method of claim 16, comprising maintaining the pressure at the first and/or second gas port below atmospheric pressure (The ionisation chamber 41 may be held at atmospheric pressure or may be held below atmospheric pressure (pg. 13, lines 20-22)).
Regarding claim 19, Murray teaches a method of mass and/or mobility spectrometry comprising: a method of ionising an analytical sample as claimed in claim 18 (see rejection for claim 18 above); and mass and/or mobility analysing said analyte ions, or ions derived therefrom (The ion guide 27 subsequently directs the ionised material through the ionisation chamber 41 and into a mass spectrometer which is attached to the ionisation chamber 41. The ionised sample can then be analysed by the mass spectrometer (pg. 16, lines 7-10)).
Regarding claim 20, Murray teaches an ion source assembly comprising: a target plate for holding a sample to be analysed (Fig. 3 as annotated below);
an ionisation device (an ionisation assembly 40) for ionising the sample on the target plate so as to form analyte ions (The laser pulse impinging upon the target sample causes analyte material to be ablated and desorbed from the target sample. Analyte ions are generated by analyte material being protonated and deprotonated in a hot plume of gaseous molecules which is released from the target (pg. 1, lines 15-21));
an ion guide for guiding the analyte ions (ion guide 27);
a first gas port arranged to supply a first gas stream so as to urge material generated at the target plate away from one or more surfaces to be protected from said material (gas supply passage 43) (Embodiments described herein also combine the delivery of a cooling gas, with a method of generating a gas shield, to protect the laser optics by reducing the amount of ablated material adsorbed on the optics (pg. 2, lines 24-27));
PNG
media_image5.png
533
768
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Murray fails to teach and a second, different gas port arranged to supply a second gas stream that urges ions from the target plate, towards and into the ion guide.
However, Whitehouse teaches and a second, different gas port arranged to supply a second gas stream that urges ions from the target plate, towards and into the ion guide (The gas flow 353 sweeping past sample spot 357 through lens aperture 350 helps to direct MALDI generated ions 361 into ion guide volume 358 where they are trapped radially by the RF fields during operation of multipole ion guide 352 (para. [0074])).
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 Murray to include the teachings of Whitehouse by adding a second gas port to a portion of the wall of the ionization chamber of Murray adjacent to the target. The second gas port allows for the supply of gas that aids in directing ions into the ion guide.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray in view of Whitehouse as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zoltan Takats (CN 113040831 A), hereinafter referred to as Takats.
Regarding claim 8, Murray fails to explicitly teach the ion source assembly of any preceding claim 1, comprising a first pump for pumping the first gas stream into the first gas port; and/or a second pump for pumping the second gas stream into the second gas port.
However, Takats teaches a first pump for pumping the first gas stream into the first gas port; and/or a second pump for pumping the second gas stream into the second gas port (pump 11) (pump device arranged and adapted to direct the aerosol, smoke or steam 5 to the inlet (abstract)).
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 Murray to include the teachings of Takats by adding a first pump for pumping the first gas stream into the first gas port. Adding a pump at the gas ports facilitates the introduction of gas into the enclosure.
Regarding claim 9, Murray fails to teach the ion source assembly of claim 8, wherein the first pump is configured to be controllable to vary the rate at which it pumps the first gas stream into the first gas port; and/or wherein the second pump is configured to be controllable to vary the rate at which it pumps the second gas stream into the second gas port.
However, Takats teaches wherein the first pump is configured to be controllable to vary the rate at which it pumps the first gas stream into the first gas port; and/or wherein the second pump is configured to be controllable to vary the rate at which it pumps the second gas stream into the second gas port (The pump can be arranged and adapted to apply varying flow rates and/or pressures of gas to the nozzle (para. [n0861])).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray and Whitehouse as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of Hideyuki Akiyama (US 20170148617 A1), hereinafter referred to as Akiyama.
Regarding claim 14, Murray fails to teach the spectrometer of claim 13, comprising a detector configured to detect a parameter related to the level of transmission of analyte ions by the ion guide through the orifice (intensity), wherein the spectrometer comprises control circuitry configured to automatically control the first and/or second gas flow based on the value of the detected parameter.
However, Akiyama teaches a detector (detector 118) configured to detect a parameter related to the level of transmission of analyte ions by the ion guide through the orifice (The quadrupole mass filter 116 functions as a mass separator passing only gas component G within a certain mass range such that the detector 118 may identify and quantify the gas component G (para. [0078])), wherein the spectrometer comprises control circuitry configured to automatically control the first and/or second gas flow based on the value of the detected parameter (A flow rate control device 216 determines whether or not peak intensity of the detection signal received from the detection signal determining unit 214 is within a threshold range. When the peak intensity is out of the threshold range, the flow rate control device 216 controls the opening ratio of the mass flow controller 42a (para. [0076])).
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 Murray to include the teachings of Akiyama by placing detector 118 at the orifice and including control circuitry configured to automatically control the first and second gas flow based on the value of the detected parameter. The detector and control circuitry allow optimization of the number of analyte ions transmitted to the mass spectrometer.
Regarding claim 15, Murray fails to teach the spectrometer of claim 14, wherein the control circuitry is configured to automatically vary the first and/or second gas flow rate until the value of the detected parameter indicates that the transmission of analyte ions has been increased, e.g. to at least a threshold or optimum value.
However, Akiyama teaches the spectrometer of claim 14, wherein the control circuitry is configured to automatically vary the first and/or second gas flow rate until the value of the detected parameter indicates that the transmission of analyte ions has been increased, e.g. to at least a threshold or optimum value (Therefore, in case of the ion-suppression, the flow rate control device 216 determines the peak intensity of the detection signal of the mass spectrometer 110 received from the detection signal determining unit 214 is less than a threshold value. Next, the flow rate control device 216 transmits a control signal to the mass flow controller 42a to increase the opening ratio. Therefore, the flow rate of the mixed gas M introduced into the ion source 50 is reduced, and the ionization of the accessory substances and the degradation of the detection signal are prevented (para. [0103])).
.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights