Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/778,127

MASS SPECTROMETRY METHOD FOR FLUOROETHER COMPOUND

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 19, 2024
Priority
Jan 28, 2022 — JP 2022-012348 +1 more
Examiner
MCCORMACK, JASON L
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Daikin Industries Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
877 granted / 1037 resolved
+24.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1071
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
76.0%
+36.0% vs TC avg
§102
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§112
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1037 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 § 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6 attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. Claim 6 recites an ion “used as a precursor ion” in the method according to claim 5 (dependent upon claim 1). Neither of claims 1 and/or 5 recite a precursor ion and do not describe any process involving a precursor ion. Therefore, and since claim 6 merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, it is unclear how the precursor ion of claim 6 is to be used. See MPEP 2173.05(q). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-5 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding independent claim 1; Yamaguchi et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0169887 discloses a mass spectrometry method (“An inexpensive electrospray mass spectrometer capable of performing measurements consecutively” [Abstract]), the method comprising: preparing a sample solution (“The sample in solution in the capillary is electrostatically sprayed as charged droplets by the action of the electric field” [0004]), ionizing the sample solution to produce an ion (“The novel electrospray mass spectrometer is a single instrument capable of both analysis in the ESI mode and analysis in the cold-spray ionization mode” [0034]), and mass-separating the ions to determine the mass of the ions, wherein in the production of the ions (“The ion source 20 supplies the ions which the spectrometer 30 separates by mass-to-charge ratio” [0033]), the sample solution is sprayed together with an atomizing gas (“a mixture of droplets of the sample and the nebulizing gas is electrostatically sprayed from the front end of the nebulization nozzle” [0035]) at 330°C or lower (“A room-temperature nebulizing gas” [0035]) to produce a droplet, and the produced droplet is brought into contact with a dry gas at 190°C or lower (“A heating-and-drying gas heated to about +100 to 300° C. is admitted into the first desolvation chamber 5 from a gas inlet port 6… The heating-and-drying gas and the radiative heat cooperate to vaporize the solvent molecules in the sample droplets” [0035]). However, Yamaguchi does not disclose that the sample solution contains a fluoroether compound, a fluorine-containing compound, and a solvent. Additionally, although Yamaguchi discloses that, in the ionization process, “the liquid droplets are dried and desolvated” [0035], Yamaguchi does not disclose ionizing the fluoroether compound and the fluorine-containing compound in the sample solution and also removing the solvent to produce an ion of the fluoroether compound and an ion of the fluorine-containing compound. Nakano U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0204223 discloses an ionization method wherein “heating and collision provide the effect and function of promoting ionization and removing the solvent” [0014], but does not perform this desolvation on a sample solution contains a fluoroether compound, a fluorine-containing compound, and a solvent. Schleifer et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2009/0159794 similarly discloses an ionization method wherein “drying gas interacts with the analyte ions in the ionization region to remove any remaining solvent from the aerosol 73 provided from the thermal liquid jetting device 70A” [0024], but also fails to teach removing solvent from a sample solution containing a fluoroether compound, a fluorine-containing compound, and a solvent Comando U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0203137 discloses a mass spectrometry method for a fluorine-containing compound (“qualitative and quantitative analysis of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy) propanoic acid in water “ [0002]), the method comprising: preparing a sample solution containing, the fluorine-containing compound and a solvent (“qualitative and quantitative analysis of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy) propanoic acid in water “ [0002]), ionizing the fluorine-containing compound in the sample solution (“the LC/MS/MS includes electrospray ionization (ESI)” [0006]) and also removing the solvent (“an inert drying gas (typically nitrogen) that is used to promote the removal of solvent from aerosol particles in spray ionization” [0048]) to produce an ion of the fluorine-containing compound (“ionization of the GenX-containing eluent by ESI 220” [0202]), wherein in the production of the ions, the sample solution is sprayed together with an gas at 330°C or lower (“a probe gas temperature of approximately 120° C. to approximately 160° C” [Abstract]) to produce a droplet, and the produced droplet is brought into contact with a dry gas at 190°C or lower (“a sheath gas heater setting of approximately 150° C. to approximately 275° C” [Abstract]). However, Comando does not disclose a fluoroether compound, and therefore does not disclose ionizing a fluoroether compound and a fluorine-containing compound in a sample solution and also removing the solvent to produce an ion of the fluoroether compound and an ion of the fluorine-containing compound. Additionally, Comando does not disclose that the probe gas is a nebulizing gas, and Comando does not disclose mass-separating the ions to determine the mass of the ions. The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a mass spectrometry method for a fluoroether compound and a fluorine-containing compound different from the fluoroether compound, the method comprising: spraying a sample solution containing the fluoroether compound, the fluorine-containing compound and a solvent together with an atomizing gas at 330°C or lower to produce a droplet, and the produced droplet is brought into contact with a dry gas at 190°C or lower; and mass-separating an ion of the fluoroether compound and an ion of the fluorine-containing compound to determine the mass of the ions; wherein the solvent is removed from the sample solution during ionizing the fluoroether compound and the fluorine-containing compound in the sample solution. Regarding dependent claims 2-5; these claims are allowable at least for their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon independent claim 1. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-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. /JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 19, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12683117
MULTIPLE PARTICLE BEAM SYSTEM WITH A MIRROR MODE OF OPERATION, METHOD FOR OPERATING A MULTIPLE PARTICLE BEAM SYSTEM WITH A MIRROR MODE OF OPERATION AND ASSOCIATED COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT
3y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12683118
SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY-BASED SAMPLE ANALYSIS
3y 0m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12683114
ELECTRON BEAM MODULATION DEVICE AND ELECTRON BEAM MODULATION METHOD
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12680973
SECONDARY ELECTRON DETECTOR FOR ION BEAM SYSTEMS
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12676283
METHOD FOR PARTICLE BEAM-INDUCED PROCESSING OF A DEFECT OF A MICROLITHOGRAPHIC PHOTOMASK
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.0%)
2y 1m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1037 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month