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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., page 1, lines 21-23) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the waste receptacle (claims 13-14) and the one or more magnets (claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figure 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference character 535 is used to refer to both “third molecules” and “the further ionisation region” (see, e.g., page 22, lines 7-14).
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms UNIX®, Linux®, and Windows®, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, when read in light of the instant specification, covers both non-transitory and transitory forms of signal transmission. The specification defines the computer-readable medium as “any data storage device that can store data, which can thereafter be read by a computer system” (page 34, lines 23-24) and provides examples (page 34, lines 15-30) such as random-access memory or magnetic tapes (non-transitory media), or network coupled computer systems, including wireless networks (transitory signals). Transitory signals are held to be non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134; MPEP 2106 – 2106.03.
The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be overcome by amending the claim such that the claim falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter, for example, amending the claim to encompass only non-transitory computer-readable media.
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 4, 8-10, 12, and 21-22 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.
Regarding claim 4, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 4 as “The electron impact ion source according to claim 1, wherein the ion source further comprises a separation element between the first ionisation region and the second ionisation region
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “greater than the length”, and the claim also recites “at least ten times greater than the length” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 8 as “The electron impact ion source according to claim 7, wherein the mean free path is greater than the length
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the length” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “less than the length” to mean “less than [[the]]a length of the respective first and/or second ionisation region.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the plane of the one or more ion source electrodes” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the plane of the one or more ion source electrodes” to mean “[[the]]a plane of [[the ]]one or more ion source electrodes.”
Regarding claim 12, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Furthermore, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “the first and/or second molecules comprise calibrant molecules”, and the claim also recites “the calibrant molecules preferably comprise perfluorokerosene (PFK) or perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 12 as “The electron impact ion source according to claim 1, wherein the first and/or second molecules comprise calibrant molecules
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “a mean free path…is more than half a length”, and the claim also recites “greater than the length” and “at least ten times greater than the length”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 21 as “The method according to claim 20, wherein a mean free path of the first and/or second molecules is more than half a length of the first and/or second ionisation region along a dimension parallel to the first axis
Claim 22 recites the limitations “the dimension” in line 2 and “the length” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “a spread of the first molecules and/or second molecules along the dimension is less than the length” to mean “a spread of the first molecules and/or second molecules along [[the]]a dimension parallel to the first axis is less than [[the]]a length of the first and/or second ionisation region along the dimension.”
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 16-18, 22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Javahery et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0258093 A1), hereinafter Javahery.
Regarding claim 1, Javahery discloses an electron impact ion source (FIG. 7, paragraphs 0059-0060) comprising:
a first electron impact ionisation region (FIG. 7, element 702) comprising an aperture (FIG. 7, element 720) configured to receive first molecules into the first ionisation region (paragraph 0059), the first ionisation region being configured to receive an electron beam along a first axis (FIG. 7, electron beam emitted by electron source 701 along the horizontal axis) to generate a first ion beam along the first axis from the first molecules (paragraphs 0059-0060); and
a second, separate electron impact ionisation region (FIG. 7, element 703) comprising an inlet (FIG. 7, element 730) configured to receive second molecules into the second ionisation region (paragraph 0059), the second ionisation region configured to receive the electron beam along the first axis to generate a second ion beam along the first axis from the second molecules (paragraphs 0059-0060).
Regarding claim 2, Javahery as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 1.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the inlet is configured to receive the second molecules along a second axis that intersects the first axis to ionise the second molecules (FIG. 7: the second molecules are received from inlet 730 along the vertical axis of the figure, which intersects the horizontal, i.e., first axis) and/or the aperture is configured to receive the first molecules along a receiving axis that intersects the first axis to ionise the first molecules (FIG. 7: the first molecules are received from aperture 720 along the vertical axis of the figure, which intersects the horizontal, i.e., first axis).
Regarding claim 3, Javahery as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 1.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the second ionisation region is spatially separated from the first ionisation region (paragraph 0059, lines 8-10) such that the first molecules are predominantly ionised in the first ionisation region (paragraph 0059, lines 10-13) and the second molecules are predominantly ionised in the second ionisation region (paragraph 0059, lines 13-15; paragraph 0060, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Javahery as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 1.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the ion source further comprises a separation element between the first ionisation region and the second ionisation region (FIG. 7, separation element 710, walls of ion guides 702, 703).
Regarding claim 9, Javahery as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 1.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the first and/or second ionisation region is configured such that:
a spread of the respective first molecules and/or second molecules along a dimension parallel to the first axis is less than the length; and/or
a spread of the respective first molecules and/or second molecules does not intersect a plane of one or more ion source electrodes (FIG. 7: the first molecules 720 are guided by a path toward the leftmost end of ion guide 702, away from ion source electrode/lens 710).
Regarding claim 10, Javahery as applied to claim 2 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 2.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the second ionisation region is configured such that the second axis does not intersect the plane of the one or more ion source electrodes (FIG. 7: the second molecules 730 are introduced along the vertical, i.e., second axis, which is spatially separated from ion source electrode/lens 710); and/or
the first ionisation region is configured such that the receiving axis does not intersect the plane of one or more ion source electrodes (FIG. 7: the first molecules 720 introduced along the vertical, i.e., receiving axis, are guided by a path toward the leftmost end of ion guide 702, away from ion source electrode/lens 710).
Regarding claim 11, Javahery as applied to claim 2 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 2.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (FIG. 7: the first and second molecules are received from aperture 720 and inlet 730, respectively, along the vertical axis of the figure, which intersects the horizontal, i.e., first axis).
Regarding claim 16, Javahery discloses a method of electron ionisation comprising:
receiving an electron beam into a first ionisation region (FIG. 7, element 702) along a first axis (FIG. 7, electron beam emitted by electron source 701 along the horizontal axis) and generating, by the electron beam, a first ion beam along the first axis from first molecules (FIG. 7, first molecules supplied through aperture 720) in the first ionisation region (paragraphs 0059-0060); and
receiving the electron beam into a second, separate ionisation region (FIG. 7, element 703) along the first axis and generating, by the electron beam, a second ion beam along the first axis from second molecules (FIG. 7, second molecules supplied through inlet 730) in the second ionisation region (paragraphs 0059-0060).
Regarding claim 17, Javahery as applied to claim 16 discloses the method according to claim 16.
In addition, Javahery discloses receiving second molecules into the second ionisation region along a second axis that intersects the first axis to generate the second ion beam (FIG. 7: the second molecules are received from inlet 730 along the vertical axis of the figure, which intersects the horizontal, i.e., first axis) and/or receiving first molecules into the first ionisation region along a receiving axis that intersects the first axis to generate the first ion beam (FIG. 7: the first molecules are received from aperture 720 along the vertical axis of the figure, which intersects the horizontal, i.e., first axis).
Regarding claim 18, Javahery as applied to claim 16 discloses the method according to claim 16.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the second ionisation region is spatially separated from the first ionisation region (paragraph 0059, lines 8-10) such that the first molecules are predominantly ionised in the first ionisation region (paragraph 0059, lines 10-13) and the second molecules are predominantly ionised in the second ionisation region (paragraph 0059, lines 13-15; paragraph 0060, lines 4-6); and/or
a separation element is arranged between the first ionisation region and the second ionisation region (FIG. 7, separation element 710, walls of ion guides 702, 703); and/or
wherein at least one of the first and second ionisation regions is an ionisation chamber.
Regarding claim 22, Javahery as applied to claim 17 discloses the method according to claim 17.
In addition, Javahery discloses that a spread of the first molecules and/or second molecules along the dimension is less than the length; and/or
a spread of the first molecules and/or second molecules does not intersect a plane of one or more ion source electrodes (FIG. 7: the first molecules 720 are guided by a path toward the leftmost end of ion guide 702, away from ion source electrode/lens 710); and/or
the second axis does not intersect the plane of the one or more ion source electrodes (FIG. 7: the second molecules 730 are introduced along the vertical, i.e., second axis, which is spatially separated from ion source electrode/lens 710); and/or
a receiving axis along which the first molecules are received into the first ionisation region does not intersect the plane of the one or more ion source electrodes (FIG. 7: the first molecules 720 introduced along the vertical, i.e., receiving axis, are guided by a path toward the leftmost end of ion guide 702, away from ion source electrode/lens 710).
Regarding claim 25, Javahery as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Javahery discloses a controller configured to operate an analytical instrument comprising an electron impact ion source (paragraphs 0028, 0032).
Regarding claim 26, Javahery as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 1.
In addition, Javahery discloses an analytical instrument (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 27, Javahery as applied to claim 26 discloses the analytical instrument according to claim 26.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the analytical instrument comprises a mass spectrometer (paragraph 0032).
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 5-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javahery as evidenced by Butler, S. (Ed.), (2017), “Torr”, in The Macquarie Dictionary (7th ed.), hereinafter Butler.
Regarding claim 5, Javahery as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 1.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the first ionisation region is configured to operate at a pressure on the order of mTorr (Javahery, paragraph 0059, lines 5-6). The instant specification discloses that “[h]igh vacuum may correlate to a pressure in the range of
1
×
10
-
6
Pa to 0.1 Pa…and ultra-high vacuum may correspond to a pressure in the range of
1
×
10
-
9
Pa to
1
×
10
-
6
Pa” (page 18, lines 3-5), and Butler defines 1 Torr as equal to 133.32237 Pa. Therefore, 1 mTorr is equal to 0.13332237 Pa.
Optimizing the operating pressure of an ionisation region is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Javahery teaches that “in ion guides operating in an elevated pressure, ions are susceptible to collide with the background gas” (paragraph 0016). As such, Javahery identifies the operating pressure of an ionisation region as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., variations in the number of collisions between ions and background gas. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the operating pressure of an ionisation region and identifies said pressure as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the operating pressure of an ionisation region to meet the claimed vacuum pressure since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Javahery as applied to claim 5 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 5.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the first ionisation region is configured to operate at a pressure on the order of mTorr (Javahery, paragraph 0059, lines 5-6). The instant specification discloses that “[h]igh vacuum may correlate to a pressure in the range of
1
×
10
-
6
Pa to 0.1 Pa…and ultra-high vacuum may correspond to a pressure in the range of
1
×
10
-
9
Pa to
1
×
10
-
6
Pa” (page 18, lines 3-5), and Butler defines 1 Torr as equal to 133.32237 Pa. Therefore, 1 mTorr is equal to 0.13332237 Pa.
Optimizing the operating pressure of an ionisation region is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Javahery teaches that “in ion guides operating in an elevated pressure, ions are susceptible to collide with the background gas” (paragraph 0016). As such, Javahery identifies the operating pressure of an ionisation region as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., variations in the number of collisions between ions and background gas. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the operating pressure of an ionisation region and identifies said pressure as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the operating pressure of an ionisation region to meet the claimed vacuum pressure since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, Javahery as applied to claim 16 discloses the method according to claim 16.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the first ionisation region is configured to operate at a pressure on the order of mTorr (Javahery, paragraph 0059, lines 5-6). The instant specification discloses that “[h]igh vacuum may correlate to a pressure in the range of
1
×
10
-
6
Pa to 0.1 Pa…and ultra-high vacuum may correspond to a pressure in the range of
1
×
10
-
9
Pa to
1
×
10
-
6
Pa” (page 18, lines 3-5), and Butler defines 1 Torr as equal to 133.32237 Pa. Therefore, 1 mTorr is equal to 0.13332237 Pa.
Optimizing the operating pressure of an ionisation region is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Javahery teaches that “in ion guides operating in an elevated pressure, ions are susceptible to collide with the background gas” (paragraph 0016). As such, Javahery identifies the operating pressure of an ionisation region as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., variations in the number of collisions between ions and background gas. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the operating pressure of an ionisation region and identifies said pressure as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the operating pressure of an ionisation region to meet the claimed vacuum pressure since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 20, Javahery as applied to claim 19 discloses the method according to claim 19.
In addition, Javahery discloses that the first ionisation region is configured to operate at a pressure on the order of mTorr (Javahery, paragraph 0059, lines 5-6). The instant specification discloses that “[h]igh vacuum may correlate to a pressure in the range of
1
×
10
-
6
Pa to 0.1 Pa…and ultra-high vacuum may correspond to a pressure in the range of
1
×
10
-
9
Pa to
1
×
10
-
6
Pa” (page 18, lines 3-5), and Butler defines 1 Torr as equal to 133.32237 Pa. Therefore, 1 mTorr is equal to 0.13332237 Pa.
Optimizing the operating pressure of an ionisation region is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Javahery teaches that “in ion guides operating in an elevated pressure, ions are susceptible to collide with the background gas” (paragraph 0016). As such, Javahery identifies the operating pressure of an ionisation region as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., variations in the number of collisions between ions and background gas. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the operating pressure of an ionisation region and identifies said pressure as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the operating pressure of an ionisation region to meet the claimed vacuum pressure since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 7-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javahery as respectively applied to claims 6 and 20 above, in view of Iwasaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086758 A1), hereinafter Iwasaki.
Regarding claim 7, Javahery as applied to claim 6 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 6.
Javahery fails to disclose that the electron impact ion source is configured such that a mean free path of the first and/or second molecules is more than half a length of the respective first and/or second ionisation region along a dimension parallel to the first axis.
However, optimizing the mean free path of the molecules is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Iwasaki teaches that “…the mean free path of the residual gas increases, and the collision frequency between the cluster ion beam and the residual gas decreases. As a result, an effect is obtained in which attenuation of the cluster ion beam can be suppressed” (paragraph 0071). As such, Iwasaki identifies the mean free path of the molecules (“residual gas”) as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., decreasing attenuation of the ion beam. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the mean free path of the molecules and identifies said mean free path as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the mean free path of the molecules to meet the claimed mean free path since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 8, Javahery in view of Iwasaki as applied to claim 7 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 7.
Optimizing the mean free path of the molecules is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Iwasaki teaches that “…the mean free path of the residual gas increases, and the collision frequency between the cluster ion beam and the residual gas decreases. As a result, an effect is obtained in which attenuation of the cluster ion beam can be suppressed” (paragraph 0071). As such, Iwasaki identifies the mean free path of the molecules (“residual gas”) as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., decreasing attenuation of the ion beam. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the mean free path of the molecules and identifies said mean free path as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the mean free path of the molecules to meet the claimed mean free path since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 21, Javahery as applied to claim 20 discloses the method according to claim 20.
Javahery fails to disclose that a mean free path of the first and/or second molecules is more than half a length of the first and/or second ionisation region along a dimension parallel to the first axis.
However, optimizing the mean free path of the molecules is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Iwasaki teaches that “…the mean free path of the residual gas increases, and the collision frequency between the cluster ion beam and the residual gas decreases. As a result, an effect is obtained in which attenuation of the cluster ion beam can be suppressed” (paragraph 0071). As such, Iwasaki identifies the mean free path of the molecules (“residual gas”) as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., decreasing attenuation of the ion beam. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the mean free path of the molecules and identifies said mean free path as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the mean free path of the molecules to meet the claimed mean free path since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javahery as respectively applied to claims 1 and 16 above, in view of Srivastava (U.S. Patent No. 4,973,840 A), hereinafter Srivastava.
Regarding claim 12, Javahery as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 1.
Javahery fails to disclose that the first and/or second molecules comprise calibrant molecules.
However, Srivastava discloses that the first and/or second molecules comprise calibrant molecules (column 8, lines 45-50).
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 Javahery to include that the first and/or second molecules comprise calibrant molecules, based on the teachings of Srivastava that calibrant gases enable proper calibration of the transmission efficiency of a mass spectrometer (Srivastava, column 8, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 23, Javahery as applied to claim 16 discloses the method according to claim 16.
However, Srivastava discloses that the first and/or second molecules comprise calibrant molecules (column 8, lines 45-50).
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 Javahery to include that the first and/or second molecules comprise calibrant molecules, based on the teachings of Srivastava that calibrant gases enable proper calibration of the transmission efficiency of a mass spectrometer (Srivastava, column 8, lines 45-50).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javahery as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Hirakawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0393409 A1), hereinafter Hirakawa.
Regarding claim 13, Javahery as applied to claim 2 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 2.
However, Hirakawa discloses a waste receptacle (FIG. 2, element 20; Dictionary.com defines ‘receptacle’ as ‘a container, device, etc., that receives or holds something’; paragraph 0041 discloses that “exhaust port 20 may be disposed such that the gas in the analysis chamber 30 is forcibly exhausted by means of an exhaust fan or the like”; therefore, exhaust port 20 is a device that receives the gas) positioned along the receiving axis (paragraph 0099 and FIG. 2: the receiving axis is the vertical axis along which sample gas is introduced at injection port 16) to receive un-ionised molecules (paragraph 0043).
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 Javahery in view of Iwasaki to include a waste receptacle positioned along the receiving axis to receive un-ionised molecules, based on the teachings of Hirakawa that this arrangement reduces noise (Hirakawa, paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 14, Javahery in view of Hirakawa as applied to claim 13 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 13.
Making at least one of the waste receptacles removable is an obvious matter of design choice which would not modify the operation of the device and would not produce any new or unexpected result. 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 Javahery in view of Hirakawa to include that at least one of the waste receptacles is removable, because it may be desirable to remove the waste receptacle in situations requiring greater access for device repair, replacement, or alignment adjustments. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) and MPEP 2144.04 V.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javahery as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Russ et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0375209 A1), hereinafter Russ.
Regarding claim 15, Javahery as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron impact ion source according to claim 1.
Javahery fails to disclose one or more magnets configured to generate an axial magnetic field to guide electrons and ions along a common axis.
However, Russ discloses one or more magnets (FIG. 1, elements 132) configured to generate an axial magnetic field to guide electrons and ions (paragraph 0024) along a common axis (FIG. 1, axis 124).
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 Javahery to include one or more magnets configured to generate an axial magnetic field to guide electrons and ions along a common axis, based on the teachings of Russ that this improves emittance from the ionization chamber (Russ, paragraph 0024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mullen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0214147 A1), hereinafter Mullen, teaches first and/or second molecules comprising calibrant molecules, wherein the calibrant molecules comprise perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA).
Loeffler (U.S. Patent No. 9,607,800 B1), hereinafter Loeffler, teaches that the second ionization region is configured such that the second axis does not intersect the plane of the one or more ion source electrodes.
Komaru et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0178876 A1), hereinafter Komaru, teaches a waste receptacle positioned along the receiving axis to receive un-ionised molecules.
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