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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 69, 71, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, and 84 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 79, 79, 79, 79, 81, 81, 82, 79, and 79, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 10,861,687. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 79, 79, 79, 79, 81, 81, 82, 79, and 79, of U.S. Patent No. 10,861,687 anticipate each of the limitations of claims 69, 71, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, and 84, respectively, of the immediate application.
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.
Claim(s) 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0231275.
Regarding claim 69, Park ‘275 discloses a method of mass spectrometry and/or ion mobility spectrometry (“The invention relates to the operation of trapping ion mobility spectrometers based on pushing ions by a gas flow against a counter-acting electric DC field barrier, preferably in combination with a mass analyzer as ion detector” [Abstract]) comprising: trapping ions in an ion trapping volume (“In the accumulation phase (A) ions are blown by the gas flow (16) against the rising edge of the electric field profile between z locations (20) and (23). In a trap phase (B) of only one to two milliseconds, the inflow of ions is stopped and ions assume their equilibrium position on the rising edge according to their mobility” [0005]); and then spatially separating the ions within the ion trapping volume according to at least one physicochemical property so that ions having different values of said physicochemical property are trapped in different regions of the ion trapping volume (“the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007] – the different trapping regions are illustrated in, for example, figure 2, where ions are grouped in separate locations according to ion mobility); and then driving first trapped ions out of a first region of the ion trapping volume (“ions in the scan unit (11b) are scanned by decreasing the voltage supplied to location (34) of the scan unit (11b), thereby releasing ions with higher and higher mobilities through the exit funnel (13) towards the ion detector” [0018]) and into a discontinuous ion analyzer at a first time (“the system can further comprise at least one mass analyzer located downstream of the trapping ion mobility separator. The mass analyzer can be one of an orthogonal time-of-flight mass analyzer” [0016] – an orthogonal time of flight mass analyzer is an example of a discontinuous ion analyzer, as evidenced by Green et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0284521: “a discontinuous mass analyser such as an orthogonal acceleration Time of Flight (TOF) mass analyser” [Green: 0268]), whilst retaining other trapped ions in the ion trapping volume (“ions in the scan unit (11b) are scanned by decreasing the voltage supplied to location (34) of the scan unit (11b), thereby releasing ions with higher and higher mobilities through the exit funnel (13) towards the ion detector” [0018]); analyzing said first ions in a first cycle of said discontinuous ion analyzer (“the transferred ions are further analyzed in a mass analyzer being located downstream of the trapping ion mobility separator” [0012]); driving second, trapped ions out of the ion trapping volume and into the discontinuous ion analyzer at a second, subsequent time (“a scan phase starts, in which the electric DC field barrier is steadily decreased. Ions are driven in the scan phase by the gas flow over the decreasing electric DC field barrier, thereby releasing, successively, ions from low mobilities to higher and higher mobilities from being trapped by the barrier” [0004]); and analyzing said second ions in a different cycle of said discontinuous ion analyzer (“a scan phase starts, in which the electric DC field barrier is steadily decreased. Ions are driven in the scan phase by the gas flow over the decreasing electric DC field barrier, thereby releasing, successively, ions from low mobilities to higher and higher mobilities from being trapped by the barrier. The ions can be detected in an ion detector, resulting in a mobility spectrum” [0004]).
Regarding claim 70, Park ‘275 discloses that the ions are spatially separated within the ion trapping volume according to the at least one physicochemical property so that the ions are dispersed along the ion trapping volume according to their physicochemical property values without the spatially separated trapped ions being separated by potential barriers (“the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007]).
In Park ‘275, the ions are separated along an axial electric DC field barrier, but there are no potential barriers in the regions between ions of different mobility.
Regarding claim 71, Park ‘275 discloses that whilst the first trapped ions are driven out of the first region of the ion trapping volume, the second trapped ions are caused to remain in a second region until the second trapped ions are driven out of the second region into the discontinuous ion analyzer at the second time (“a scan phase starts, in which the electric DC field barrier is steadily decreased. Ions are driven in the scan phase by the gas flow over the decreasing electric DC field barrier, thereby releasing, successively, ions from low mobilities to higher and higher mobilities from being trapped by the barrier” [0004]).
The term “releasing, successively” indicates that a time exists where first ions have been released from the first region in which they were trapped, while second ions remain in the region in which the second ions are trapped.
Regarding claim 72, Park ‘275 discloses that the ion trapping volume comprises an elongated ion trapping volume 11a and/or 11b (as illustrated in, for example, figure 2), and wherein ions having said different values of said physicochemical property are trapped in different regions along the longitudinal axis of the ion trapping volume (“the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility “ [0007]); and/or wherein the ions having said different values of said physicochemical property are trapped in the ion trapping volume at different distances from an entrance to the ion analyzer prior to being driven out of the ion trapping volume (“(b) transferring at least a subset of the accumulated ions into a trapping ion mobility separator, in which the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility; and (c) acquiring an ion mobility spectrum of the transferred ions by decreasing the height of the electric DC field barrier while ions from the ion source are further accumulated in the RF ion trap” [0007]).
Regarding claim 73, Park ‘275 discloses that said step of spatially separating the ions comprises applying a first force on the ions within the ion trapping volume in a first direction (the first axial electric DC field barrier), said force having a magnitude that is dependent upon the value of said at least one physicochemical property of the ions (“the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007]); and applying a second force (created by the gas flow) on these ions in the opposite direction (“the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007]).
Regarding claim 74, Park ‘275 discloses that said first and second forces are counterbalanced at different locations within the ion trapping volume for ions having different physicochemical property values, such that different ions are trapped at said different regions (“the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007] – see also figure 2, where ions having different mobilities are trapped in different locations/regions where the first gas force is counterbalanced by the second DC electric field force for ions having particular mobilities).
Regarding claim 76, Park ‘275 discloses that said ion trapping volume comprises one or more electrodes (“The ions can be axially trapped at the exit of the RF ion trap by applying a repelling DC potential to an exit electrode of the RF ion trap during steps (a) and (c)” [0011]) and said method comprises generating said second force by applying one or more DC potentials to said one or more electrodes so as to generate a DC voltage or DC voltage gradient that urges ions in the second direction; and/or wherein a gas flow is provided through the ion trapping volume so as to generate said second force (“the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007]).
Regarding claim 81, Park ‘275 discloses that said discontinuous ion analyzer is a time-of-flight mass analyzer (“The mass analyzer can be one of an orthogonal time-of-flight mass analyzer” [0016]), or a pulsed ion mobility analyzer.
Regarding claim 82, Park ‘275 discloses that substantially all of the ions driven out from any given trapping region are analyzed in a single cycle of the discontinuous ion analyzer (“a scan phase starts, in which the electric DC field barrier is steadily decreased. Ions are driven in the scan phase by the gas flow over the decreasing electric DC field barrier, thereby releasing, successively, ions from low mobilities to higher and higher mobilities from being trapped by the barrier. The ions can be detected in an ion detector, resulting in a mobility spectrum” [0004]).
Regarding claim 83, Park ‘275 discloses that the physicochemical property is ion mobility (“transferring at least a subset of the accumulated ions into a trapping ion mobility separator, in which the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility; and (c) acquiring an ion mobility spectrum of the transferred ions by decreasing the height of the electric DC field barrier while ions from the ion source are further accumulated in the RF ion trap” [0007]).
Regarding claim 84, Park ‘275 discloses that the physicochemical property is mass to charge ratio (“FIG. 4 shows two different profiles of the electric field, generating different ion densities near the top of the electric field profile… As indicated by the dots, high mass ions near the top of the ramp are uncompressed by the field proportional to z2/3, whereas low mass ions are compressed at the foot of the ramp” [0020]).
Regarding claim 85, Park ‘275 discloses that the magnitude of said second force (gas flow) is not dependent upon the value of said at least one physicochemical property of the ions (“the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007] – since the gas flow blows substantially all of the ions against the first force of the DC field barrier, and it is the magnitude of the DC field barrier which causes spatial separation of the ions according to mobility).
Regarding claim 86, Park ‘275 discloses a mass spectrometer and/or ion mobility spectrometer (“The invention relates to the operation of trapping ion mobility spectrometers based on pushing ions by a gas flow against a counter-acting electric DC field barrier, preferably in combination with a mass analyzer as ion detector” [Abstract]) comprising: an ion trapping volume (inside 11a or 11b); an ion separator device 11a or 11b; an ion driving device (“two voltage supply units (not shown) for the two tunnel units (11a, 11b)” [0018]); a discontinuous ion analyzer (“the system can further comprise at least one mass analyzer located downstream of the trapping ion mobility separator. The mass analyzer can be one of an orthogonal time-of-flight mass analyzer” [0016] – an orthogonal time of flight mass analyzer is an example of a discontinuous ion analyzer, as evidenced by Green et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0284521: “a discontinuous mass analyser such as an orthogonal acceleration Time of Flight (TOF) mass analyser” [Green: 0268]); and a controller (Park does not specifically identify a controller per se, but a generic controller is necessarily present as Park discloses each of the functions of the controller, as discussed below, and therefore includes at least a generic controller, as the claim does not specify a particular type or structure of the controller) arranged and configured to: trap ions within the ion trapping volume (“In the accumulation phase (A) ions are blown by the gas flow (16) against the rising edge of the electric field profile between z locations (20) and (23). In a trap phase (B) of only one to two milliseconds, the inflow of ions is stopped and ions assume their equilibrium position on the rising edge according to their mobility” [0005]); control the ion separator device so as to spatially separate the ions within the ion trapping volume according to at least one physicochemical property so that ions having different values for said physicochemical property are trapped in different regions of the ion trapping volume (“the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007] – the different trapping regions are illustrated in, for example, figure 2, where ions are grouped in separate locations according to ion mobility); and then control the ion driving device so as to drive first trapped ions out of a first region of the ion trapping volume and into the discontinuous ion analyzer at a first time (“ions in the scan unit (11b) are scanned by decreasing the voltage supplied to location (34) of the scan unit (11b), thereby releasing ions with higher and higher mobilities through the exit funnel (13) towards the ion detector” [0018]), whilst retaining other ions trapped in the ion trapping volume (“ions in the scan unit (11b) are scanned by decreasing the voltage supplied to location (34) of the scan unit (11b), thereby releasing ions with higher and higher mobilities through the exit funnel (13) towards the ion detector” [0018]); control the discontinuous ion analyzer so as to analyze said first ions in a first cycle of analysis (“the transferred ions are further analyzed in a mass analyzer being located downstream of the trapping ion mobility separator” [0012]); control the ion driving device so as to drive second trapped ions out of the ion trapping volume and into the discontinuous ion analyzer at a second, subsequent time (“a scan phase starts, in which the electric DC field barrier is steadily decreased. Ions are driven in the scan phase by the gas flow over the decreasing electric DC field barrier, thereby releasing, successively, ions from low mobilities to higher and higher mobilities from being trapped by the barrier” [0004]); and control the discontinuous ion analyzer so as to analyze said second ions in a second cycle of said analysis (“a scan phase starts, in which the electric DC field barrier is steadily decreased. Ions are driven in the scan phase by the gas flow over the decreasing electric DC field barrier, thereby releasing, successively, ions from low mobilities to higher and higher mobilities from being trapped by the barrier. The ions can be detected in an ion detector, resulting in a mobility spectrum” [0004]).
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.
Claim(s) 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0231275 in view of Park et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2012/0286156.
Regarding claim 75, Park ‘275 discloses the claimed invention except that while Park ‘275 discloses that “the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007], and that said ion trapping volume comprises one or more electrodes (“applying a repelling DC potential to an exit electrode of the RF ion trap during steps (a) and (c)” [0011]) Park ‘275 does not explicitly disclose generating said first force by applying AC or RF potentials to said electrodes so as to generate a pseudo-potential electric field that urges ions in the first direction.
Park ‘156 discloses an ion trap for spatially separating ions according to mobility (“The invention is based on the finding that all ion mobility measuring devices with electrical forces and counteracting gas flows act either as ion mobility high pass or low pass filters, each separating ions into those which pass the device and those which are held back… If the electric force drives the ions against a gas flow, the result is a mobility high pass filter; if the gas flow drives entrained ions against an electrical barrier, the result is a mobility low pass filter” [0038]), wherein a force may be generated by either a DC electric field, or by applying AC or RF potentials to said electrodes so as to generate a pseudo-potential electric field that urges ions in the first direction (“If an electric force generated by a DC potential profile or by an RF pseudopotential profile drives the ions in the direction of the original ion current from the ion source against a gas flow, a mobility high pass filter for ions with smaller cross sections than a limit is produced” [0023]) and wherein “RF and DC voltages are applied to a pattern of electrodes on the inside wall of a tube” [0028].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park ‘275 with the electric potential(s) disclosed in Park ‘156 in order to alter movement of ions through a mobility filtering ion trap device so as to select different a different order of ion mobilities (in either a high pass or low pass configuration) for analysis in a downstream mass analyzer, depending upon the types of ions which are desired for analysis, thereby improving control over the analysis of a sample by mass spectrometry.
Claim(s) 77, 78, 79, and 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0231275 in view of Green et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0028200.
Regarding claim 77, Park ‘275 discloses the claimed invention except that while Park ‘275 discloses that “the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007], Park ‘275 does not explicitly disclose that each of the steps of driving trapped ions out of a region of the ion trapping volume and into the discontinuous ion analyzer, whilst retaining other ions trapped in the ion trapping volume, comprises travelling an electric potential along at least a portion of the ion trapping volume so as to drive the ions out of the ion trapping volume.
Green discloses an ion trap for spatially separating ions according to mobility (“Ions are preferably separated temporally according to their ion mobility or according to their rate of change of ion mobility with electric field strength” [0068]), wherein the force driving trapped ions against a counterbalanced force comprises travelling an electric potential along at least a portion of the ion trapping volume (“The ion channel is preferably formed between: (i) a first DC voltage gradient, a first DC potential, a first electrostatic barrier, a first DC potential barrier or a first pseudo-potential; and (ii) a second moving DC potential barrier, a second moving electrostatic barrier, a second moving DC potential barrier or a second moving pseudo-potential barrier” [0014]) so as to drive the ions out of the ion trapping volume (“Ions may be ejected from the device, for example, by removing a portion of the barrier at point 20” [0247]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park ‘275 with the electric potential(s) disclosed in Green in order to alter movement of ions through a mobility filtering ion trap device so as to select different a different order of ion mobilities (in either a high pass or low pass configuration) for analysis in a downstream mass analyzer, depending upon the types of ions which are desired for analysis, thereby improving control over the analysis of a sample by mass spectrometry.
Regarding claim 78, Park ‘275 discloses the claimed invention except that while Park ‘275 discloses that said electric potential drives said first ions out of the ion trapping volume, and said electric potential subsequently drives said second ions out of the ion trapping volume, (“the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007]), Park ‘275 does not explicitly disclose travelling an electric potential along at least a portion of the ion trapping volume.
Green discloses an ion trap for spatially separating ions according to mobility (“Ions are preferably separated temporally according to their ion mobility or according to their rate of change of ion mobility with electric field strength” [0068]), wherein the force driving trapped ions against a counterbalanced force comprises travelling an electric potential along at least a portion of the ion trapping volume (“The ion channel is preferably formed between: (i) a first DC voltage gradient, a first DC potential, a first electrostatic barrier, a first DC potential barrier or a first pseudo-potential; and (ii) a second moving DC potential barrier, a second moving electrostatic barrier, a second moving DC potential barrier or a second moving pseudo-potential barrier” [0014]) so as to drive the ions out of the ion trapping volume (“Ions may be ejected from the device, for example, by removing a portion of the barrier at point 20” [0247]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park ‘275 with the electric potential(s) disclosed in Green in order to alter movement of ions through a mobility filtering ion trap device so as to select different a different order of ion mobilities (in either a high pass or low pass configuration) for analysis in a downstream mass analyzer, depending upon the types of ions which are desired for analysis, thereby improving control over the analysis of a sample by mass spectrometry.
Regarding claim 79, Park ‘275 discloses the claimed invention except that while Park ‘275 discloses that said electric potential drives said first ions out of the ion trapping volume, and said electric potential subsequently drives said second ions out of the ion trapping volume, (“the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007]), Park ‘275 does not explicitly disclose travelling an electric potential along at least a portion of the ion trapping volume.
Green discloses an ion trap for spatially separating ions according to mobility (“Ions are preferably separated temporally according to their ion mobility or according to their rate of change of ion mobility with electric field strength” [0068]), wherein the force driving trapped ions against a counterbalanced force comprises travelling an electric potential along at least a portion of the ion trapping volume (“The ion channel is preferably formed between: (i) a first DC voltage gradient, a first DC potential, a first electrostatic barrier, a first DC potential barrier or a first pseudo-potential; and (ii) a second moving DC potential barrier, a second moving electrostatic barrier, a second moving DC potential barrier or a second moving pseudo-potential barrier” [0014]) so as to drive the ions out of the ion trapping volume (“Ions may be ejected from the device, for example, by removing a portion of the barrier at point 20” [0247]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park ‘275 with the electric potential(s) disclosed in Green in order to alter movement of ions through a mobility filtering ion trap device so as to select different a different order of ion mobilities (in either a high pass or low pass configuration) for analysis in a downstream mass analyzer, depending upon the types of ions which are desired for analysis, thereby improving control over the analysis of a sample by mass spectrometry.
Regarding claim 80, Park ‘275 discloses the claimed invention except that while Park ‘275 discloses that said electric potential drives said first ions out of the ion trapping volume, and said electric potential subsequently drives said second ions out of the ion trapping volume, (“the transferred ions are radially confined by an RF field and are pushed by a gas flow against a rising edge of a first axial electric DC field barrier such that the transferred ions are spatially separated along the rising edge according to ion mobility” [0007]), Park ‘275 does not explicitly disclose travelling an electric potential along at least a portion of the ion trapping volume wherein the electric potential that is travelled along the ion guide is a DC potential barrier or well.
Green discloses an ion trap for spatially separating ions according to mobility (“Ions are preferably separated temporally according to their ion mobility or according to their rate of change of ion mobility with electric field strength” [0068]), wherein the force driving trapped ions against a counterbalanced force comprises travelling an electric potential along at least a portion of the ion trapping volume, wherein the electric potential that is travelled along the ion guide is a DC potential barrier or well (“The ion channel is preferably formed between: (i) a first DC voltage gradient, a first DC potential, a first electrostatic barrier, a first DC potential barrier or a first pseudo-potential; and (ii) a second moving DC potential barrier, a second moving electrostatic barrier, a second moving DC potential barrier or a second moving pseudo-potential barrier” [0014]) so as to drive the ions out of the ion trapping volume (“Ions may be ejected from the device, for example, by removing a portion of the barrier at point 20” [0247]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park ‘275 with the electric potential(s) disclosed in Green in order to alter movement of ions through a mobility filtering ion trap device so as to select different a different order of ion mobilities (in either a high pass or low pass configuration) for analysis in a downstream mass analyzer, depending upon the types of ions which are desired for analysis, thereby improving control over the analysis of a sample by mass spectrometry.
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
Prosecution Insights