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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 29 July 2026, with respect to the drawings, the specification, and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the specification and the rejections of claims 9-12, 14-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 29 July 2026, that Drumheller fails to disclose that the inwardly-extending projection is part of the insulating substrate have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Applicant's arguments, filed 29 July 2026, that Drumheller fails to recognize the issue addressed by the claimed invention have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (MPEP § 2144 (IV)). In the case at hand, Drumheller is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., ion optical elements, and addresses problems relevant in the art such as requirements for uniformity in temperature and electric field (see, e.g., Drumheller, paragraph 0011).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 3: element 314a;
FIG. 5: element 509.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumheller (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0262971 A1), hereinafter Drumheller, in view of Miller et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0222562 A1), hereinafter Miller (2006).
Regarding claim 1, Drumheller discloses an ion optical element, comprising:
an insulating substrate (paragraph 0067) having an inner channel (FIG. 2, element 18) bounded by an inner surface (FIG. 2, element 14) of the insulating substrate (FIG. 2, element 12) and extending along an axis (FIG. 1, axis 26) from a first end (FIG. 1, element 22) to a second end (FIG. 1, element 24) thereof; and
a resistive coil (FIG. 2, element 20) coupled to the inner surface (paragraph 0025) and continuously extending from the first end to the second end of the insulating substrate (FIG. 3),
wherein the resistive coil is configured to provide an electric field within the inner channel for controlling axial motion of ions therein (paragraph 0084), in response to a voltage differential maintained across the resistive coil (paragraph 0025), and
wherein the resistive coil comprises a resistive coating formed on the inner surface of the insulating substrate (paragraph 0027, resistive film).
Drumheller fails to disclose that the inner surface of the insulating substrate comprises at least one inwardly-extending projection extending radially toward said axis of the inner channel, and the resistive coating is formed on at least an innermost surface of the at least one inwardly-extending projection.
However, Miller (2006) discloses that the inner surface of the insulating substrate comprises at least one inwardly-extending projection (FIG. 5D, inwardly-extending projections of insulating substrates 502, 504) extending radially toward said axis of the inner channel (FIG. 5D, central horizontal axis of inner channel 512), and the resistive coating is formed on at least an innermost surface of the at least one inwardly-extending projection (FIG. 5D, elements 518, 520).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller to include that the inner surface of the insulating substrate comprises at least one inwardly-extending projection extending radially toward said axis of the inner channel, and the resistive coating is formed on at least an innermost surface of the at least one inwardly-extending projection, based on the teachings of Miller (2006) that removing portions of the insulating substrate to form the inwardly-extending projections reduces the adverse effects of charge build up along the ion optical element (Miller (2006), paragraph 0123).
Regarding claim 2, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion optical element of claim 1.
In addition, Drumheller discloses that the resistive coil comprises a plurality of revolutions about the inner channel (FIG. 2), wherein each revolution is separated from an adjacent revolution by uncoated portions of the insulating substrate (paragraphs 0031-0032: the “turns” of the helical pattern of the resistive film are spaced apart, i.e., separated by spaces without resistive film).
Regarding claim 9, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion optical element of claim 1.
In addition, Drumheller discloses that the insulating substrate comprises one of ceramic, polymers, silicon, and glass (paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 10, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion optical element of claim 1.
In addition, Drumheller discloses that the resistive coil exhibits a resistance between the first and second ends of the insulating substrate in a range from about 1MΩ to about 1GΩ (paragraph 0066), and wherein optionally the resistive coil exhibits a resistance between the first and second ends of the insulating substrate less than about 100 MΩ.
Regarding claim 13, Drumheller discloses a method of manufacturing an ion optical element, comprising:
forming an insulating substrate from an insulator material (paragraph 0067), the insulating substrate having an inner channel (FIG. 2, element 18) bounded by an inner surface (FIG. 2, element 14) of the insulating substrate (FIG. 2, element 12) and extending along an axis (FIG. 1, axis 26) from a first end (FIG. 1, element 22) to a second end (FIG. 1, element 24) thereof; and
coupling a resistive coil (FIG. 2, element 20) to the inner surface of the insulating substrate by forming a resistive coating on the inner surface of the insulating substrate (paragraph 0025), wherein maintaining a voltage differential across the resistive coil is configured to generate an electric field within the inner channel (paragraph 0025) for controlling axial motion of ions therein (paragraph 0084).
Drumheller fails to disclose the inner surface of the insulating substrate having at least one inwardly-extending projection extending radially toward said axis of the inner channel; wherein the forming the resistive coating on the inner surface of the insulating substrate comprises forming the resistive coating on at least an innermost surface of the at least one inwardly-extending projection.
However, Miller (2006) discloses the inner surface of the insulating substrate having at least one inwardly-extending projection (FIG. 5D, inwardly-extending projections of insulating substrates 502, 504) extending radially toward said axis of the inner channel (FIG. 5D, central horizontal axis of inner channel 512);
wherein the forming the resistive coating on the inner surface of the insulating substrate comprises forming the resistive coating on at least an innermost surface of the at least one inwardly-extending projection (FIG. 5D, elements 518, 520).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller to include the inner surface of the insulating substrate having at least one inwardly-extending projection extending radially toward said axis of the inner channel; wherein the forming the resistive coating on the inner surface of the insulating substrate comprises forming the resistive coating on at least an innermost surface of the at least one inwardly-extending projection, based on the teachings of Miller (2006) that removing portions of the insulating substrate to form the inwardly-extending projections reduces the adverse effects of charge build up along the ion optical element (Miller (2006), paragraph 0123).
Regarding claim 14, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 13 discloses the method of claim 13.
In addition, Drumheller discloses that the resistive coil is formed on the inner surface by one of atomic layer deposition and applying a resistive ink to the inner surface (paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 15, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 13 discloses the method of claim 13.
In addition, Miller (2006) discloses that the at least one inwardly-extending projection (FIG. 5D: portions of substrates 502, 504 extending toward the central horizontal axis) is formed by removing portions of the insulating substrate (paragraph 0123, lines 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) to include that the at least one inwardly-extending projection is formed by removing portions of the insulating substrate, based on the additional teachings of Miller (2006) that removing portions of the insulating substrate reduces the adverse effects of charge build up along the ion optical element (Miller (2006), paragraph 0123).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foley (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0089803 A1), hereinafter Foley.
Regarding claim 3, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion optical element of claim 1.
In addition, Drumheller discloses that the resistive coil comprises a plurality of revolutions about the inner channel (FIG. 2), wherein each revolution is separated from an adjacent revolution (paragraphs 0031-0032: the “turns” of the helical pattern of the resistive film are spaced apart).
Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) fails to disclose that each revolution is separated from an adjacent revolution by a relatively higher resistivity coating.
However, Foley discloses that each revolution (FIG. 7, element 46a) is separated from an adjacent revolution (FIG. 7, element 46b) by a relatively higher resistivity coating (paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) to include that each revolution is separated from an adjacent revolution by a relatively higher resistivity coating, based on the teachings of Foley that this configuration prevents undesirable ion collision charging (Foley, paragraph 0017).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0195557 A1), hereinafter Hanson.
Regarding claim 6, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion optical element of claim 1.
Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) fails to disclose that the ion optical element comprises a time-of-flight ion mirror.
However, Hanson discloses that the ion optical element comprises a time-of-flight ion mirror (paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) to include that the ion optical element comprises a time-of-flight ion mirror, based on the teachings of Hanson that utilizing an ion mirror improves the resolution of mass spectrometry results by passing the ions through the ion optical element multiple times (Hanson, paragraph 0013).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hopkins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0048411 A1), hereinafter Hopkins.
Regarding claim 7, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion optical element of claim 1.
Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) fails to disclose that, when a first end of the resistive coil adjacent the first end of the insulating substrate is maintained at a first DC potential and a second end of the resistive coil adjacent the second end of the insulating substrate is maintained at a second DC potential, a gradient of the electric field is substantially linear along the axis of the inner channel.
However, Hopkins discloses that, when a first end of the resistive coil adjacent the first end of the insulating substrate is maintained at a first DC potential (paragraph 0055 and FIG. 1, first end 42A) and a second end of the resistive coil adjacent the second end of the insulating substrate is maintained at a second DC potential (paragraph 0055 and FIG. 1, second end 42D), a gradient of the electric field is substantially linear along the axis of the inner channel (paragraph 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) to include that, when a first end of the resistive coil adjacent the first end of the insulating substrate is maintained at a first DC potential and a second end of the resistive coil adjacent the second end of the insulating substrate is maintained at a second DC potential, a gradient of the electric field is substantially linear along the axis of the inner channel, based on the teachings of Hopkins that this enables the ion optical element to be used in multiple different applications (Hopkins, paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 8, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion optical element of claim 1.
Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) fails to disclose at least one DC voltage source coupled to the resistive coil.
However, Hopkins discloses at least one DC voltage source coupled to the resistive coil (paragraph 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) to include at least one DC voltage source coupled to the resistive coil, based on the teachings of Hopkins that the application of DC voltage enables the ion optical element to be used in multiple different applications (Hopkins, paragraph 0055).
Claims 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as respectively applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Campbell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,021,654 A), hereinafter Campbell.
Regarding claim 11, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion optical element of claim 1.
Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) fails to disclose that the insulating substrate is a first insulating substrate, the ion optical element further comprising: a second insulating substrate having an inner channel bounded by an inner surface of the second insulating substrate and extending along an axis from a first end to a second end thereof; and a second resistive coil coupled to the inner surface of the second insulating substrate and extending from the first end to the second end of the second insulating substrate, wherein the second resistive coil is configured to provide an electric field within the inner channel of the second insulating substrate for controlling the axial motion of ions therein, in response to application of a voltage signal to the second resistive coil, wherein the inner channels of the first insulating substrate and the second insulating substrate are aligned so as to allow passage of ions between the inner channels of the first and second insulating substrates.
However, Campbell discloses that the insulating substrate is a first insulating substrate, the ion optical element further comprising:
a second insulating substrate (FIG. 7, insulating substrate 12 with length
l
2
) having an inner channel (FIG. 7, element 14) bounded by an inner surface of the second insulating substrate and extending along an axis (FIG. 7, element 28) from a first end (FIG. 7, end adjacent element 18) to a second end (FIG. 7, end adjacent element 32) thereof; and
a second resistive coil coupled to the inner surface of the second insulating substrate and extending from the first end to the second end of the second insulating substrate (FIG. 7, element 58), wherein the second resistive coil is configured to provide an electric field within the inner channel of the second insulating substrate for controlling the axial motion of ions therein (column 5, lines 22-25), in response to application of a voltage signal to the second resistive coil (column 5, lines 22-25),
wherein the inner channels (FIG. 7, inner channel 129, 132) of the first insulating substrate (FIG. 7, insulating substrate 12 with length
l
1
) and the second insulating substrate are aligned so as to allow passage of ions between the inner channels of the first and second insulating substrates (FIG. 7: the inner channels are aligned along axis 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) to include that the insulating substrate is a first insulating substrate, the ion optical element further comprising: a second insulating substrate having an inner channel bounded by an inner surface of the second insulating substrate and extending along an axis from a first end to a second end thereof; and a second resistive coil coupled to the inner surface of the second insulating substrate and extending from the first end to the second end of the second insulating substrate, wherein the second resistive coil is configured to provide an electric field within the inner channel of the second insulating substrate for controlling the axial motion of ions therein, in response to application of a voltage signal to the second resistive coil, wherein the inner channels of the first insulating substrate and the second insulating substrate are aligned so as to allow passage of ions between the inner channels of the first and second insulating substrates, based on the teachings of Campbell that this configuration simplifies the device by not requiring separate housings for the first and second insulating substrates (Campbell, column 3, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 12, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) and Campbell as applied to claim 11 discloses the ion optical element of claim 11.
In addition, Campbell discloses a middle grid (FIG. 7, element 19) of conductive elements (column 4, lines 36-40) extending across a passageway between the inner channels of the first and second insulating substrates (column 5, lines 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) and Campbell to include a middle grid of conductive elements extending across a passageway between the inner channels of the first and second insulating substrates, based on the additional teachings of Campbell that the middle grid enables selective gating of the ions between the first and second insulating substrates for various desirable applications (Campbell, column 1, lines 35-45).
Regarding claim 16, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 13 discloses the method of claim 13.
Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) fails to disclose that the insulating substrate is a first insulating substrate, the method further comprising: coupling the first insulating substrate to a second insulating substrate having a resistive coil formed on at least a surface portion of an inner channel of the second insulating substrate, wherein the first and second insulating substrates are aligned so as to allow passage of ions between the inner channels of the first and second insulating substrates.
However, Campbell discloses that the insulating substrate is a first insulating substrate, the method further comprising:
coupling the first insulating substrate (FIG. 7, insulating substrate 12 with length
l
1
) to a second insulating substrate (FIG. 7, insulating substrate 12 with length
l
2
) having a resistive coil (FIG. 7, element 58) formed on at least a surface portion of an inner channel (FIG. 7, element 14) of the second insulating substrate, wherein the first and second insulating substrates are aligned so as to allow passage of ions between the inner channels of the first and second insulating substrates (FIG. 7: the inner channels are aligned along axis 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) to include that the insulating substrate is a first insulating substrate, the method further comprising: coupling the first insulating substrate to a second insulating substrate having a resistive coil formed on at least a surface portion of an inner channel of the second insulating substrate, wherein the first and second insulating substrates are aligned so as to allow passage of ions between the inner channels of the first and second insulating substrates, based on the teachings of Campbell that this configuration simplifies the device by not requiring separate housings for the first and second insulating substrates (Campbell, column 3, lines 16-19).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumheller in view of Campbell and Miller (2006).
Regarding claim 17, Drumheller discloses an ion optic assembly for use in a mass spectrometer (paragraph 0081), comprising:
a first ion optic (FIGs. 1-2) extending from a proximal end (FIG. 1, element 22) to a distal end (FIG. 1, element 24), said first ion optic comprising a first insulating substrate (paragraph 0067) having a first lumen (FIG. 2, element 18) bounded by an inner surface of the first insulating substrate (FIG. 2, element 12) and providing a first ion passageway (FIG. 2, element 18), and said first ion optic further comprising a first resistive trace (FIG. 2, element 20) disposed on the inner surface (FIG. 2, element 14) of the first insulating substrate (FIG. 2, element 12), wherein the first resistive trace is configured to establish a first electric field within the first ion passageway, in response to flow of a current through the first resistive trace (paragraph 0025).
Drumheller fails to disclose a second ion optic extending from a proximal end to a distal end, wherein the proximal end of the second ion optic is configured to be coupled to the distal end of the first ion optic to form said ion optic assembly, said second ion optic comprising a second insulating substrate having a second lumen bounded by an inner surface of the second insulating substrate and providing a second ion passageway, and said second ion optic further comprising a second resistive trace disposed on the inner surface of the second insulating substrate, wherein said second resistive trace is configured to establish a second electric field within the second ion passageway, in response to flow of a current through the second resistive trace, and a conductive grid positioned between said first and second ion optics and configured to be maintained at a reference electric potential such that said first and second electric fields terminate on said conductive grid, wherein: the first insulating substrate comprises at least one first inwardly-extending projection extending radially toward an axis of the first lumen, and the first resistive trace is formed on at least an innermost surface of the at least one first inwardly-extending projection, or the second insulating substrate comprises at least one second inwardly-extending projection extending radially toward an axis of the second lumen, and the second resistive trace is formed on at least an innermost surface of the at least one second inwardly-extending projection.
However, Campbell discloses a second ion optic (FIG. 7, insulating substrate 12 with length
l
2
) extending from a proximal end (FIG. 7, end adjacent element 18) to a distal end (FIG. 7, end adjacent element 32), wherein the proximal end of the second ion optic is configured to be coupled to the distal end of the first ion optic to form said ion optic assembly (FIG. 7), said second ion optic comprising a second insulating substrate (FIG. 7, insulating substrate 12) having a second lumen bounded by an inner surface of the second insulating substrate and providing a second ion passageway (FIG. 7, element 14), and said second ion optic further comprising a second resistive trace disposed on the inner surface of the second insulating substrate (FIG. 7, resistive trace 58), wherein said second resistive trace is configured to establish a second electric field within the second ion passageway, in response to flow of a current through the second resistive trace (column 5, lines 22-25), and
a conductive (column 4, lines 36-40) grid (FIG. 7, element 19) positioned between said first and second ion optics (column 5, lines 5-6) and configured to be maintained at a reference electric potential such that said first and second electric fields terminate on said conductive grid (column 4, lines 36-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller to include a second ion optic extending from a proximal end to a distal end, wherein the proximal end of the second ion optic is configured to be coupled to the distal end of the first ion optic to form said ion optic assembly, said second ion optic comprising a second insulating substrate having a second lumen bounded by an inner surface of the second insulating substrate and providing a second ion passageway, and said second ion optic further comprising a second resistive trace disposed on the inner surface of the second insulating substrate, wherein said second resistive trace is configured to establish a second electric field within the second ion passageway, in response to flow of a current through the second resistive trace, and a conductive grid positioned between said first and second ion optics and configured to be maintained at a reference electric potential such that said first and second electric fields terminate on said conductive grid, based on the teachings of Campbell that this configuration simplifies the device by not requiring separate housings for the first and second insulating substrates (Campbell, column 3, lines 16-19).
Drumheller in view of Campbell fails to disclose that the first insulating substrate comprises at least one first inwardly-extending projection extending radially toward an axis of the first lumen, and the first resistive trace is formed on at least an innermost surface of the at least one first inwardly-extending projection, or the second insulating substrate comprises at least one second inwardly-extending projection extending radially toward an axis of the second lumen, and the second resistive trace is formed on at least an innermost surface of the at least one second inwardly-extending projection.
However, Miller (2006) discloses that the first insulating substrate comprises at least one first inwardly-extending projection (FIG. 5D, inwardly-extending projections of insulating substrates 502, 504) extending radially toward an axis of the first lumen (FIG. 5D, central horizontal axis of inner channel 512), and the first resistive trace is formed on at least an innermost surface of the at least one first inwardly-extending projection (FIG. 5D, elements 518, 520).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Campbell to include that the first insulating substrate comprises at least one first inwardly-extending projection extending radially toward an axis of the first lumen, and the first resistive trace is formed on at least an innermost surface of the at least one first inwardly-extending projection, based on the teachings of Miller (2006) that removing portions of the insulating substrate to form the inwardly-extending projections reduces the adverse effects of charge build up along the ion optical element (Miller (2006), paragraph 0123).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumheller in view of Campbell and Miller (2006) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Laprade (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0211894 A1), hereinafter Laprade.
Regarding claim 18, Drumheller in view of Campbell and Miller (2006) as applied to claim 17 discloses the ion optic of claim 17.
Drumheller in view of Campbell and Miller (2006) fails to disclose a first metal coating deposited on a proximal surface of said first ion optic, a second metal coating deposited on a distal surface of said first ion optic, a third metal coating deposited on a proximal surface of said second ion optic, and a fourth metal coating deposited on a distal surface of the second ion optic.
However, Laprade discloses a first metal coating (paragraph 0025, lines 17-19) deposited on a proximal surface of said first ion optic (FIG. 5, leftmost end 510 of first ion optic 502), a second metal coating (paragraph 0025, lines 17-19) deposited on a distal surface of said first ion optic (FIG. 5, rightmost end 510 of first ion optic 502), a third metal coating (paragraph 0025, lines 17-19) deposited on a proximal surface of said second ion optic (FIG. 5, leftmost end 510 of second ion optic 504), and a fourth metal coating (paragraph 0025, lines 17-19) deposited on a distal surface of the second ion optic (FIG. 5, rightmost end 510 of second ion optic 504).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Campbell and Miller (2006) to include a first metal coating deposited on a proximal surface of said first ion optic, a second metal coating deposited on a distal surface of said first ion optic, a third metal coating deposited on a proximal surface of said second ion optic, and a fourth metal coating deposited on a distal surface of the second ion optic, based on the teachings of Laprade that this configuration enables the generation of desirably uniform electric fields with a simple manufacturing process (Laprade, paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 19, Drumheller in view of Campbell, Miller (2006), and Laprade as applied to claim 18 discloses the ion optic of claim 18.
In addition, Laprade discloses a first conductive tab (FIG. 5, leftmost tab 512 on first ion optic 502) for providing a conductive path between said first resistive trace (paragraph 0022) and said first metal coating (paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Campbell, Miller (2006), and Laprade to include a first conductive tab for providing a conductive path between said first resistive trace and said first metal coating, based on the additional teachings of Laprade that this configuration enables the generation of desirably uniform electric fields with a simple manufacturing process (Laprade, paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 20, Drumheller in view of Campbell, Miller (2006), and Laprade as applied to claim 19 discloses the ion optic of claim 19.
In addition, Laprade discloses a second conductive tab (FIG. 5, rightmost tab 512 on first ion optic 502) for providing a conductive path between said first resistive trace (paragraph 0022) and said second metal coating (paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Campbell, Miller (2006), and Laprade to include a second conductive tab for providing a conductive path between said first resistive trace and said second metal coating, based on the additional teachings of Laprade that this configuration enables the generation of desirably uniform electric fields with a simple manufacturing process (Laprade, paragraph 0003).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Atamanchuk et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0264021 A1), hereinafter Atamanchuk.
Regarding claim 21, Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion optical element of claim 1.
In addition, Miller (2006) teaches a resistive material disposed on portions of the inner surface between adjacent inwardly-extending projections among the at least one inwardly-extending projection (FIG. 5D, resistive material 534, 536, 538, 540).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) to include a resistive material disposed on portions of the inner surface between adjacent inwardly-extending projections among the at least one inwardly-extending projection, based on the additional teachings of Miller (2006) that this resistive material further reduces the adverse effects of charge build up along the ion optical element (Miller (2006), paragraph 0123).
Miller (2006) further teaches that resistive material may be formed on the sides of the recesses between the inwardly-extending portions (paragraph 0122, “a charge dissipating layer 222b also is formed at the bottom and/or sides of recess 224b”), which advantageously further reduces the adverse effects of charge build up along the ion optical element (Miller (2006), paragraph 0122).
Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) fails to disclose that the resistive material is disposed on the innermost surface of the at least one inwardly-extending projection, between the at least one inwardly-extending projection and the resistive coating.
However, Atamanchuk discloses a continuous resistive material (paragraph 0046, coating 140) disposed between an innermost surface (paragraph 0046, interior surface 116) of the insulating substrate (paragraph 0031, lines 7-8 and paragraph 0046, tube 114) and a resistive coating (paragraph 0046, secondary resistive trace 120).
Since each of Drumheller, Miller (2006), and Atamanchuk are all directed toward ion transportation devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) to include the continuous resistive material disclosed in Atamanchuk such that the resistive material is disposed on the innermost surface of the at least one inwardly-extending projection, between the at least one inwardly-extending projection and the resistive coating, based on the teachings of Atamanchuk that “the primary continuous conductive coating 140 can reduce and/or minimize the influence of external electric fields on the interior of the tube 114” (Atamanchuk, paragraph 0046). MPEP 2112 (IV) recites “[I]n order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis – the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, because Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) teaches a projection in the insulating substrate with a resistive trace thereon, and it would be obvious to position a continuous conductive layer (having resistive properties) between the insulator and the resistive trace, the combination of Drumheller in view of Miller (2006) and Atamanchuk would necessarily result in the resistive material being disposed on the innermost surface of the at least one inwardly-extending projection, between the at least one inwardly-extending projection and the resistive coating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verenchikov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0242007 A1), hereinafter Verenchikov, teaches an ion optical element, comprising: an insulating substrate having an inner channel bounded by an inner surface of the insulating substrate and extending along an axis from a first end to a second end thereof; and a resistive coating coupled to the inner surface and continuously extending from the first end to the second end of the insulating substrate, wherein the inner surface of the insulating substrate comprises at least one inwardly-extending projection extending radially toward said axis of the inner channel.
Kudo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0249249 A1), hereinafter Kudo, teaches an ion optical element comprising a time-of-flight ion mirror.
Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0009053 A1), hereinafter Wu, teaches a resistive coil configured to provide an electric field for controlling axial motion of ions, in response to a voltage differential maintained across the resistive coil.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights