DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0157064 A1 [Tateishi].
Regarding Claim 12:
Tateishi teaches a control method for a mass spectrometer,
the mass spectrometer including:
a plasma ion source that ionizes a sample by a plasma ion (Fig. 2 (12), para 37);
a mass filter that allows a target ion having a specific mass-to-charge ratio, of the ionized sample, to selectively pass therethrough (Fig. 2 (241), para 38);
a detector that detects the target ion (Fig. 2 (242), para 39); and
a collision cell provided between the plasma ion source and the mass filter (Fig. 2 (222), para 38),
the control method comprising:
determining whether to supply a gas to the collision cell in detection of a first target ion (paras 40-41);
when it is determined to supply the gas to the collision cell in detection of the first target ion, in preparation for detection of the first target ion, applying a voltage having a first adjustment voltage value to an electrode located on a downstream side of the collision cell in an ion traveling direction in the mass spectrometer, the first adjustment voltage value being obtained by adding an adjustment value to a first detection voltage value corresponding to the first target ion (para 41- the “without-gas analysis” anticipates this conditional limitation since it chooses not to supply gas, and thus makes this limitation optional); and
in detection of the first target ion, applying a voltage having the first detection voltage value to the electrode (para 41 describes applying voltages to electrodes downstream of the collision cell), wherein
the adjustment value is a value indicating a polarity opposite to a polarity of the first target ion (para 41), and
applying a voltage having the first detection voltage value to the electrode in detection of the first target ion includes applying a voltage having the first detection voltage value to the electrode without applying the first adjustment voltage value to the electrode when it is determined not to supply the gas to the collision cell in detection of the first target ion. Para 41- No adjustment value is applied to the electrode in the no gas supply instance with a positive ion. The adjustment voltage would be used to compensate for a negative ion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The indefiniteness rejections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The written description rejections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that Tateishi does not anticipate method claim 12 because it only discloses the no-gas limitations. The is not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II). In the instant case, the with-gas operations are contingent limitations since they only need be performed when it is determined to supply gas to the collision cell. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the invention requires a determination of either supplying gas or not supplying gas, and then the steps associated with that determination. The disclosure of Tateishi describes a determination to not supply gas to the collision cell, and then the claimed application of a first detection voltage without a first adjustment voltage. As such, it describes the steps necessary to anticipate the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0185210 A1 is noted for its similarity to the instant application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights