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 .
Drawings
Figures 3, 4A, and 5A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
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. 2: AP
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 1-11 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 same time interval” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the claim does not recite a “time interval”, nor does the claim recite another time interval to which a time interval may be compared to determine if said time intervals are “the same”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the step of starting collecting the data is executed at the same time interval” to mean that the method steps are repeated for a plurality of cycles, and the time interval between consecutive steps of starting collecting the data (e.g., the time interval between starting collecting the data in the first cycle and starting collecting the data in the second cycle; the time interval between starting collecting the data in the second cycle and starting collecting the data in the third cycle, etc.) is constant. This interpretation is based on the disclosure of the present application at, e.g., paragraphs 0017-0018, paragraph 0023, and FIG. 4B.
Claims 2-11 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (JP Patent No. 2016053500 A), hereinafter Tanaka (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a method for controlling a mass analyzer (FIG. 1, element 2) including a prefilter (FIG. 1, element 22) at a preceding stage of a multipole mass filter (FIG. 1, element 25), the method comprising:
a step of starting collecting data (page 4, paragraph beginning “When performing MS / MS analysis…”) showing a result of measurement of the number of ions of a sample by the mass analyzer (page 4, paragraph beginning “The ion detector 26…”); and
a step of collecting the data that starts to be collected (page 4, paragraph beginning “The ion detector 26…”), wherein
the step of starting collecting the data is executed at the same time interval (page 4, paragraph beginning “When the target compound…”; the measurement time range is “the same” and does not need to be set “for each analysis”), and
a time length for collecting the data in the step of collecting the data varies depending on a degree of space charge generated in the prefilter or a degree of sensitivity reduction of the mass analyzer (page 5, paragraph beginning “This equation (1)…”) caused by the space charge (the instant specification discloses that space charge occurs “[w]hen the number of ions introduced into the mass spectrometer is large” (paragraph 0003); Tanaka discloses a large number of ions introduced into the mass spectrometer (page 4, paragraph beginning “When the target compound is determined…”)).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Tanaka discloses a step of determining the time length (page 5, paragraph beginning “This equation (1)…”), wherein
in the step of determining the time length, a parameter representing the number of ions shown in the data collected in the step of collecting the data is acquired (page 5, paragraph beginning “The ion intensity signal…”), and
in the step of determining the time length, the time length is determined according to the parameter (page 5, paragraph beginning “The ion intensity signal…” to paragraph beginning “This equation (1)…”; the number of ions (ion intensity signal) is stored in data collection unit 31 and used to create a mass chromatogram, said mass chromatogram being used to calculate the SN ratio, said SN ratio being used to calculate the time length).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka as applied to claim 1 discloses the method for controlling a mass analyzer according to claim 1.
In addition, Tanaka discloses a mass analyzer (FIG. 1, element 2) comprising a prefilter (FIG. 1, element 22) at a preceding stage of a multipole mass filter (FIG. 1, element 25), the mass analyzer comprising:
a controller that executes the method for controlling a mass analyzer (FIG. 1, central control unit 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Schwartz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,572,022 A), hereinafter Schwartz.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka as applied to claim 2 discloses the method according to claim 2.
Tanaka fails to disclose that the parameter is the number of ions shown in the data collected in the step of collecting the data executed at least once before, and at a time point when the time length determined according to the parameter is reached, the step of collecting the data is ended, and a timing is waited at which a step of starting collecting next data is executed.
However, Schwartz discloses that the parameter is the number of ions shown in the data collected in the step of collecting the data executed at least once before (column 5, lines 30-40), and
at a time point when the time length determined according to the parameter is reached (column 10, lines 29-37, gate time), the step of collecting the data is ended, and a timing is waited at which a step of starting collecting next data is executed (column 10, lines 29-47).
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 Tanaka to include that the parameter is the number of ions shown in the data collected in the step of collecting the data executed at least once before, and at a time point when the time length determined according to the parameter is reached, the step of collecting the data is ended, and a timing is waited at which a step of starting collecting next data is executed, based on the teachings of Schwartz that this rule reduces saturation and space charge in the mass spectrometer (Schwartz, column 5, lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka in view of Schwartz as applied to claim 3 discloses the method according to claim 3.
In addition, Schwartz discloses that, in the step of determining the time length, the time length is determined by referring to time length data showing a rule for determining the time length, and
the time length data shows the rule such that
the larger the number of ions, the smaller the time length (column 13, lines 30-35).
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 Tanaka in view of Schwartz to include that, in the step of determining the time length, the time length is determined by referring to time length data showing a rule for determining the time length, and the time length data shows the rule such that the larger the number of ions, the smaller the time length, based on the additional teachings of Schwartz that this rule reduces saturation and space charge in the mass spectrometer (Schwartz, column 5, lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka as applied to claim 2 discloses the method according to claim 2.
Tanaka fails to disclose that a step of waiting for a timing at which a step of starting collecting next data is executed after the step of collecting the data is completed, wherein the step of determining the time length is executed in the step of waiting.
However, Schwartz discloses that a step of waiting for a timing at which a step of starting collecting next data is executed after the step of collecting the data is completed (column 10, lines 29-37), wherein
the step of determining the time length is executed in the step of waiting (column 10, lines 35-47).
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 Tanaka to include that a step of waiting for a timing at which a step of starting collecting next data is executed after the step of collecting the data is completed, wherein the step of determining the time length is executed in the step of waiting, based on the teachings of Schwartz that this rule reduces saturation and space charge in the mass spectrometer (Schwartz, column 5, lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka in view of Schwartz as applied to claim 3 discloses the method according to claim 3.
In addition, Schwartz discloses that the step of determining the time length is executed in a residual time after completion of the step of collecting the data and before start of collecting next data (column 10, lines 29-47).
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 Tanaka in view of Schwartz to include that the step of determining the time length is executed in a residual time after completion of the step of collecting the data and before start of collecting next data, based on the additional teachings of Schwartz that this rule reduces saturation and space charge in the mass spectrometer (Schwartz, column 5, lines 30-40).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Chelur et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0355603 A1), hereinafter Chelur.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka as applied to claim 2 discloses the method according to claim 2.
Tanaka fails to disclose that the parameter is a count number of the number of ions in the step of collecting the data, and when the parameter reaches a threshold value in the step of collecting the data, the step of collecting the data is ended at a time point of the parameter reaching the threshold value in the step of collecting the data, and a timing is waited at which a step of starting collecting next data is executed.
However, Chelur discloses that the parameter is a count number of the number of ions in the step of collecting the data (paragraph 0006, lines 2-3), and
when the parameter reaches a threshold value in the step of collecting the data (paragraph 0006, lines 2-3), the step of collecting the data is ended at a time point of the parameter reaching the threshold value in the step of collecting the data (paragraph 0006, lines 2-6), and a timing is waited at which a step of starting collecting next data is executed (paragraph 0006, lines 2-6).
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 Tanaka to include that the parameter is a count number of the number of ions in the step of collecting the data, and when the parameter reaches a threshold value in the step of collecting the data, the step of collecting the data is ended at a time point of the parameter reaching the threshold value in the step of collecting the data, and a timing is waited at which a step of starting collecting next data is executed, based on the teachings of Chelur that this extends the useful lifetime of the ion detector (Chelur, paragraph 0005).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sugiyama et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0326027 A1), hereinafter Sugiyama.
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Tanaka fails to disclose a step of causing the mass analyzer to execute processing other than collecting the data in a residual time after completion of the step of collecting the data and before start of collecting next data.
However, Sugiyama discloses a step of causing the mass analyzer to execute processing other than collecting the data (paragraph 0054) in a residual time after completion of the step of collecting the data and before start of collecting next data (FIG. 8, isolation period).
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 Tanaka to include a step of causing the mass analyzer to execute processing other than collecting the data in a residual time after completion of the step of collecting the data and before start of collecting next data, based on the teachings of Sugiyama that this reduces space charge effects (Sugiyama, paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka in view of Sugiyama as applied to claim 7 discloses the method according to claim 7.
In addition, Sugiyama discloses that the processing other than collecting the data is processing of discharging ions accumulated in the prefilter (paragraph 0054 and associated heading, “Discharge from the Isolation Process”).
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 Tanaka in view of Sugiyama to include that the processing other than collecting the data is processing of discharging ions accumulated in the prefilter, based on the additional teachings of Sugiyama that this reduces space charge effects (Sugiyama, paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka in view of Sugiyama as applied to claim 7 discloses the method according to claim 7.
In addition, Sugiyama discloses that the processing other than collecting the data is processing of acquiring a mass spectrum of a sample to be measured by the mass analyzer (paragraph 0042).
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 Tanaka in view of Sugiyama to include that the processing other than collecting the data is processing of acquiring a mass spectrum of a sample to be measured by the mass analyzer, based on the additional teachings of Sugiyama that this improves the signal to noise ratio by correcting for space charge effects even in the event of large variations in different scans (Sugiyama, paragraphs 0052-0053).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cox et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0355611 A1), hereinafter Cox, teaches a method for controlling a mass analyzer including a multipole mass filter, the method comprising: a step of starting collecting data showing a result of measurement of the number of ions of a sample by the mass analyzer; and a step of collecting the data that starts to be collected; wherein when a count number of the number of ions in the step of collecting the data reaches a threshold value in the step of collecting the data, the step of collecting the data is ended at a time point of the parameter reaching the threshold value in the step of collecting the data, and a timing is waited at which a step of starting collecting next data is executed.
Maeda (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0134577 A1), hereinafter Maeda, teaches a step of discharging ions accumulated in the prefilter in a residual time after completion of the step of collecting the data and before start of collecting next data.
Tanner et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,140,638 A), hereinafter Tanner, teaches a method for controlling a mass analyzer including a prefilter at a preceding stage of a multipole mass filter.
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