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 .
Election/Restrictions
In light of the erroneous grounds of restriction presented in the previous office action, the restriction requirement of 6/23/26 is withdrawn.
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.
Claim 19 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 19 recites, “wherein the width of the focal plane correction electrode is substantially the same in the Z direction along the length of the focal plane correction electrode in the Y direction..” The focal plane correction electrode of the instant invention has a complex shape. See e.g., instant Fig. 6. It is unclear whether “the width” and “the length” of the electrode refer to its longest length or a particular length and width at an arbitrary point on the complex shape. As such, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0366312 A1 [Hamish] in view of US 2015/0028197 A1 [Grinfeld].
Regarding Claim 1:
Hamish teaches a method of mass spectrometry in a multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer (Fig. 1) comprising a mass analyser with two mirror electrodes (Fig. 2 (71,72)) and a focal plane correction electrode (Fig. 2 (95-97)),
wherein each mirror electrode is elongated generally along a drift direction (y), each mirror electrode opposing the other in a z direction, the z direction being orthogonal to y, and the focal plane correction electrode extends along at least a portion of the drift direction in or adjacent a space between the mirror electrodes (as shown in Fig. 1, paras 29, 62), the method comprising:
injecting ions into the mirror electrodes and providing an electrical potential to the mirror electrodes that reflects the ions in the resulting ion beam and causes the ions to follow a zig zag path as they drift along the mirror electrodes (para 62, Fig. 1); and
providing focal plane correction electrodes to set a focal plane position of the ion beam (para 62) to coincide with a detector surface of an ion detector placed at the end of the ions' path through the mirror electrodes (paras 29, 62).
However, Hamish does not specify a particular electrical potential applied to the focal plane correction electrodes.
Grinfeld teaches a multi-reflection mass spectrometer (abstract) with correction electrodes (compensation electrodes in Figs. 6a, 7a-c, 9, 11, 16 et al; paras 37-47), and teaches applying a potential to those electrodes (paras 100, 101, 119, 123, 139, et al). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the compensation voltages of Grinfeld to the electrodes of Hamish since this would allow the compensation electrodes to mitigate time-of-flight aberrations. Grinfeld paras 37-40
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 1, comprising providing the electrical potential to the focal plane correction electrode to set an effective length of the ions' oscillations between the mirror electrodes such that the total effective path length of the ions causes the focal plane position of the ion beam to coincide with the detector surface of the ion detector. Hamish Paras 29, 62 – in that the correction electrodes provide a field to the ions and the ions are shown and described to reach a focal point at the detector, the electric potential provides for the claimed focal conditions.
Regarding Claim 7:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 1, comprising adjusting the electrical potential provided to the focal plane correction electrode between scans to mitigate the drift of the focal plane position of the ion beam away from the detector surface of the ion detector. Grinfeld para 139- Changing from low mass resolution mode to high mass resolution mode would entail the claimed adjustment since the high resolution mode would mitigate the drift of the focal plane position due to ion beam aberrations in the low mass resolution mode.
Regarding Claim 9:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the scans comprise a first scan and a second scan where the first scan is not a zoom mode scan and the second scan is a zoom mode scan. Grinfeld para 139- Changing from low mass resolution mode to high mass resolution mode.
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the scans comprise a first scan and a second scan, wherein the first scan is a zoom mode scan where the ions make a first number of passes up and down the mass analyser and the second scan is a zoom mode scan the ions make a second number of passes up and down the mass analyser, wherein the first and second numbers are not the same. Grinfeld para 139- Changing from low mass resolution mode to high mass resolution mode.
Regarding Claim 11:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 1, comprising providing the electrical potential to the focal plane correction electrode with a value between ±150 V. Grinfeld para 123.
Regarding Claim 12:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the mirror electrodes are segmented into electrodes that extend in the y direction and are separated in the z direction (Hamish Fig. 1 – the mirror electrodes are segmented and extend in the y direction while being separated from each other in the z direction); and
providing the electrical potential to the focal plane correction electrode comprises providing the electrical potential to the electrode of one or both the mirror electrodes closest to the space between the mirror electrodes (Grinfeld paras 41-47).
Regarding Claim 15:
Hamish teaches a method of calibrating a mass analyser in a multi-reflection time of flight mass spectrometer (Fig. 1) wherein the mass analyser comprises two mirror electrodes (Fig. 2 (71,72)) and a focal plane correction electrode extending along at least a portion of the Y direction in or adjacent the space between the mirror electrodes (Fig. 2 (95-97)),
each mirror electrode is elongated generally along a drift direction (y), each mirror electrode opposing the other in a z direction, the z direction being orthogonal to y, and the focal plane correction electrode extends along at least a portion of the drift direction in or adjacent a space between the mirror electrodes (as shown in Fig. 1, paras 29, 62), the method comprising:
injecting ions into the mirror electrodes and providing an electrical potential to the mirror electrodes that reflects the ions in the resulting ion beam and causes the ions to follow a zig zag path as they drift along the mirror electrodes (para 62, Fig. 1);
detecting ions with a detector surface of an ion detector placed at the end of the ions' path through the mirror electrodes (para 62); and
measuring the resolution of the mass analyser (paras 24-27, Fig. 7).
However, Hamish does not specifically teach:
providing a range of electrical potentials to the focal plane correction electrode and
measuring the resolution of the mass analyser at each of a plurality of electrical potentials provided to the focal plane correction electrode.
Grinfeld teaches a multi-reflection mass spectrometer (abstract) with correction electrodes (compensation electrodes in Fig. 16 (95, 96), paras 37-47), and teaches providing a range of electrical potentials to the focal plane correction electrode (paras 139) and measuring the resolution of the mass analyser at each of a plurality of electrical potentials provided to the focal plane correction electrode (para 139). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the compensation voltages of Grinfeld to the electrodes of Hamish since this would allow the compensation electrodes to mitigate time-of-flight aberrations. Grinfeld paras 37-40.
Regarding Claim 16:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 15, wherein measuring the resolution of the mass analyser at each of a plurality of electrical potentials provided to the focal plane correction electrode comprises measuring the width of a peak corresponding to number of ions as a function of the ions' m/z ratio. Hamish paras 24-27.
Regarding Claim 17:
Hamish teaches a multi-reflection time of flight mass analyser (Fig. 1)comprising:
two mirror electrodes, each mirror electrode elongated generally along a drift direction away from an ion injection point (y direction), each mirror electrode opposing the other in a z direction, the z direction being orthogonal to the y direction (Fig. 2 (71,72)) and a focal plane correction electrode extending along at least a portion of the Y direction in or adjacent the space between the mirror electrodes (Fig. 2 (95-97)); and
a controller configured to cause the mass analyser to operate in accordance with a method comprising,
injecting ions into the mirror electrodes and providing an electrical potential to the mirror electrodes that reflects the ions in the resulting ion beam and causes the ions to follow a zig zag path as they drift along the mirror electrodes (para 62, Fig. 1);
providing focal plane correction electrodes to set a focal plane position of the ion beam (para 62) to coincide with a detector surface of an ion detector placed at the end of the ions' path through the mirror electrodes (paras 29, 62).
However, Hamish does not specify a particular electrical potential applied to the focal plane correction electrodes.
Grinfeld teaches a multi-reflection mass spectrometer (abstract) with correction electrodes (compensation electrodes in Figs. 6a, 7a-c, 9, 11, et al; paras 37-47), and teaches applying a potential to those electrodes (paras 100, 101, 119, 123, et al). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the compensation voltages of Grinfeld to the electrodes of Hamish since this would allow the compensation electrodes to mitigate time-of-flight aberrations. Grinfeld paras 37-40.
Regarding Claim 18:
The above modified invention teaches the multi-reflection time of flight mass analyser of claim 17, wherein the two mirror electrodes are tilted at a tilt angle relative to one another such that the separation between the mirrors in the Z direction decreases as the distance along the Y direction increases. Hamish Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 19:
The above modified invention teaches the multi-reflection time of flight mass analyser of claim 17, wherein the width of the focal plane correction electrode is substantially the same in the Z direction along the length of the focal plane correction electrode in the Y direction. The electrodes of Hamish appear to have the same shape as those described in the invention, as such, they are determined to have substantially the same sizes as those claimed.
Regarding Claim 20:
The above modified invention teaches the multi-reflection time of flight mass analyser of claim 17, comprising a pair of focal plane correction electrodes placed on opposing sides of the ion beam's path through the mass analyser. Hamish (95-1, 95-2, 96-1, 96-2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0366312 A1 [Hamish] in view of US 2015/0028197 A1 [Grinfeld] as applied above, and further in view of US 2017/0098533 A1 [Stewart].
Regarding Claim 13:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the mirror electrodes are tilted at a tilt angle relative to one another such that the separation between the mirrors in the z direction decreases as the distance along the y direction increases (Hamish Fig. 1).
However, the above modified invention fails to teach that:
the mass analyser further comprises a time of flight correction electrode;
the method further comprises providing a further electrical potential to the time of flight correction electrode to correct a spread in the time of flight of ions along ions' path through the mirror electrodes caused by the tilt angle of the mirror electrodes; and
providing the electrical potential to the focal plane correction electrode comprises providing the electrical potential and the further electrical potential to the time of flight correction electrode.
Stewart teaches a mass analyzer comprising a time of flight mass spectrometer (abstract). Steward further teaches that the mass analyzer further comprises a time of flight correction electrode (Fig. 4 (42), paras 81-86);
the method further comprises providing a further electrical potential to the time of flight correction electrode to correct a tilt and spread in the time of flight of ions along ions' path through the mirror electrodes (paras 82, 86); and
providing the electrical potential to the focal plane correction electrode comprises providing the electrical potential and the further electrical potential to the time of flight correction electrode (paras 82, 86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the time of flight correction electrode of Stewart upstream of the detector of Hamish since this would negate requirements for high mechanical tolerances in the mass spectrometer by correcting the tilt of the ion beam. Stewart para 86.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0343561 A1 is noted for its similarity to the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights