DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on July 7th, 2026. Claims 1-17 are pending, with claim 17 being new.
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 .
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on July 10th, 2026. These drawings are accepted and the prior objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-15 recite that the ion detector “is arranged and configured with a mode of operation such that when the primary ions impact upon the dynode and generate the first electrons and the secondary positive ions: the first electrons generated at the dynode are attracted to and detected by the electron detector; and at least some of said secondary positive ions generated at the dynode pass through the apertures of the apertured electrode.” It is unclear how the ion detector must be arranged and configured to generate such a mode of operation. No specific structures or functions are clearly related by the clause, which appears to describe desired results (such as electrons being attracted and ions passing through apertures) rather than a function (for example, application of a voltage is a function) and certainly do not describe any structures.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites “wherein the dynode, the electron detector and the apertured electrode are arranged and configured within the ion detector such that when the voltage supplies are applying the first potential, the second potential, and the third potential: the first electrons generated at the dynode are attracted to and detected by the electron detector; and at least some of said secondary positive ions generated at the dynode pass through the apertures of the apertured electrode.” It is unclear how the dynode, the electron detector and the apertured electrode must be arranged and configured. No specific structures or functions are clearly related by the clause, which appears to describe desired results (such as electrons being attracted and ions passing through apertures) rather than a function (for example, application of a voltage is a function, one that is already claimed as a function of the voltage supplies) and certainly do not describe any structures.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0195556 (Yoshinari et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshinari et al. disclose an ion detector for a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer, comprising:
a dynode arranged and configured such that primary ions to be detected by the ion detector impact upon the dynode and generate first electrons and secondary positive ions (element 6);
an electron detector (element 71); and
an apertured electrode, comprising a plurality of apertures (element 51, also element 66),
wherein the ion detector is arranged and configured with a mode of operation such that when the primary ions impact upon the dynode and generate the first electrons and the secondary positive ions: the first electrons generated at the dynode are attracted to and detected by the electron detector; and at least some of said secondary positive ions generated at the dynode pass through the apertures of the apertured electrode (does not clearly add any structure or function and appears to be merely a description of a desired result. Note that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, hence the claimed result of the secondary ions passing through the apertures is presumed inherent unless applicant can show otherwise).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshinari et al. discloses an ion detector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the apertured electrode is arranged and configured within the ion detector such that at least some of said secondary positive ions pass through said apertures and then strike a surface of the ion detector that is on the opposite side of the apertured electrode to said dynode (given suitable voltages, this will occur, further see analysis of claim 1 with respect to presumed inherency).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshinari et al. discloses an ion detector as claimed in claim 2, configured such that when said secondary positive ions strike said surface they generate second electrons, and wherein the apertured electrode is arranged within the ion detector and configured such that said second electrons are unable to reach the electron detector (inherent in mesh electrode being between the potential surfaces and electron detector, further see analysis of claim 1 with respect to presumed inherency).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshinari et al. discloses an ion detector as claimed in claim 3, wherein the ion detector is configured to provide an electric field between the dynode and the electron detector that attracts the first electrons from the dynode to the electron detector, and wherein the apertured electrode is configured to prevent the electric field between the dynode and the electron detector from attracting the second electrons towards the electron detector (see field lines in fig. 7, 9, and 11, further see analysis of claim 1 with respect to presumed inherency).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshinari et al. discloses an ion detector as claimed in claim 4, wherein the ion detector comprises voltage supplies (fig. 2, elements 9-11), and in said mode of operation the voltage supplies are configured to apply a more positive electric potential to the electron detector than is applied to the dynode (fig. 3A-B, 7, 9, & 11), and applying a more negative electric potential to the apertured electrode than is applied to the dynode (fig. 7 – top, 9 – top, 11 - top).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshinari et al. discloses an ion detector as claimed in claim 4, wherein the ion detector is configured to maintain the apertured electrode at ground potential or at a negative potential (intended use).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshinari et al. discloses an ion detector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of apertures are arranged in a two-dimensional array (“mesh electrode”).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshinari et al. discloses an ion detector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ion detector is arranged and configured to provide an electric field between the apertured electrode and the dynode to deflect primary ions away from the apertured electrode and towards the dynode such that the primary ions impact upon the dynode (field lines between mesh electrode 51 and dynode 6 in fig. 3A-B, 8, 9, & 11).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshinari et al. discloses a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer comprising the ion detector of claim 1 (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshinari et al. discloses a method of detecting ions for mass and/or ion mobility spectrometry, the method comprising:
providing an ion detector comprising a dynode, an electron detector and an apertured electrode comprising a plurality of apertures (elements 6, 71, and 51 or 66);
impacting primary ions to be detected upon the dynode to generate first electrons and secondary positive ions (“An ion beam undergone mass spectrometry is deflected by a deflection electrode system 4, travels through an ion transport unit 5 and strikes on a conversion dynode 6 through an ion beam entrance 61 formed in the conversion dynode 6.” P 29);
attracting the first electrons to the electron detector and detecting the first electrons using the electron detector (“The secondary electrons are emitted through a secondary electron exit 63, strike on an electron detecting unit 7 provided with a scintillator 71 or the like.” P 29); and
passing at least some of said secondary positive ions through the apertures of the apertured electrode (inherent in the voltages as shown for negative ions, further this is a statement of desired result and not a separate step, see MPEP 2111.04, “a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).”).
Regarding claim 17, Yoshinari et al. discloses an ion detector for a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer, comprising:
a dynode arranged and configured such that primary ions to be detected by the ion detector impact upon the dynode and generate first electrons and secondary positive ions (element 6);
an electron detector (element 71);
an apertured electrode, comprising a plurality of apertures (element 51); and
voltage supplies configured to apply a first potential to the electron detector, a second potential to the dynode, and a third potential to the apertured electrode (fig. 2, elements 9-11), wherein the first potential is a more positive electric potential than the second potential (fig. 3A-B, 7, 9, & 11), and the third potential is a more negative electric potential than the second potential (fig. 7 – top, 9 – top, 11 - top),
and wherein the dynode, the electron detector and the apertured electrode are arranged and configured within the ion detector such that when the voltage supplies are applying the first potential, the second potential, and the third potential: the first electrons generated at the dynode are attracted to and detected by the electron detector; and at least some of said secondary positive ions generated at the dynode pass through the apertures of the apertured electrode (does not clearly add any structure or function and appears to be merely a description of a desired result. Note that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, hence the claimed result of the secondary ions passing through the apertures is presumed inherent unless applicant can show otherwise).
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) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0195556 (Yoshinari et al.).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshinari et al. discloses the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether at least some of the apertures in the apertured electrode each have a shape selected from the following shapes: a square; an elongated rectangle, a circle, an oval, a triangle, a polygon, a hexagon, or a slot. Such shapes are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use any of these shapes as a matter of design choice, as applicant has not specified that these shapes serve any particular purpose and it appears the invention would work just as well with any shape of mesh.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshinari et al. discloses the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether the apertures in the apertured electrode are square and a ratio of the average width of the apertures to the average distance separating adjacent ones of the apertures is between 5 and 15, between 6 and 14, between 7 and 13, between 8 and 12, or between 9 and 11. Square shaped apertures are well known in the art, as are meshes with an the average distance separating adjacent ones of the apertures is between 5 and 15. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use square apertures as a matter of design choice, as applicant has not specified that the square shape serves any particular purpose and it appears the invention would work just as well with any shape of mesh. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a mesh with an the average distance separating adjacent ones of the apertures being between 5 and 15 as matter of routine optimization or experimentation.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshinari et al. discloses the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether the combined area of the apertures of the apertured electrode divided by the total area of the apertured electrode is: ≥ 0.5; ≥ 0.6; ≥ 0.7; ≥ 0.8; ≥ 0.9; or ≥ 0.95. Mesh electrodes wherein the combined area of the apertures of the apertured electrode divided by the total area of the apertured electrode is: ≥ 0.5; ≥ 0.6; ≥ 0.7; ≥ 0.8; ≥ 0.9; or ≥ 0.95 are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use such a mesh so that there is adequate space through which the ions may pass.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshinari et al. discloses the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether the plurality of apertures comprises at least 10 apertures. Mesh electrodes comprising at least 10 apertures are well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use such a mesh so that there is adequate space through which the ions may pass.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshinari et al. discloses the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether the average width of the apertures is between 1 and 10 mm. Mesh electrodes with an average width of the apertures is between 1 and 10 mm are well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use such a mesh so that there is adequate space through which the ions may pass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the rejections over Yoshinari, applicant argues that there is no disclosure in Yoshinari of any secondary positive ions generated at the dynode passing through the mesh electrodes.
Regarding the apparatus claims, applicants must point out a structural or functional difference between the prior art and the claimed invention. The ion detector of Yoshinari discloses every claimed structural component and carries out all the functions claimed, hence it can be assumed that secondary ions would behave the same in that ion detector of Yoshinari as in the claimed invention. Regarding the method claim, applicant must point out an action (such as applying voltages) that distinguishes the process of claimed invention from the process carried out in the prior art. The process as described in Yoshinari includes every process step and every structure of the claimed invention, hence it can be assumed that ions behave the same when undergoing the process of Yoshinari as the process of the claimed invention.
With regard to the specific voltages as shown for example in figure 7, top frame, applicant argues that mesh electrode 51 this embodiment has a potential of +300V located which is positive and therefore would repel any secondary positive ions, and therefore the ions would not pass through the apertures.
In that figure mesh electrode 51 is positively biased, but less so than the dynode (+300V is negative relative to the +2.5kV dynode) so positive ions would still even more strongly repulsed by the dynode and therefore move towards the mesh electrode.
With regards to mesh electrode 66, applicant argues that this electrode is at the same potential as the dynode which can also be largely positive and therefore repulse any secondary positive ions.
If the mesh electrode and dynode have the same voltage the repulsion or attraction from the mesh electrode and the dynode largely cancel out and the ions would be expected to continue their initial trajectories, many of which would pass through mesh electrode 66.
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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights