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
During a telephone conversation with attorney of record Philip Conrad on 17 August 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A, claims 1-3, 5-18, and 21-32. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 4 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., paragraph 0022, US 2016/0086784 A1; paragraph 0028, US 7,838,826 B1) 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
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more trapping diaphragms or lenses (claim 23) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 use of the terms Orbitrap®, Thermo Fisher®, and COMSOL®, 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 it appears 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claim 11: “a mass balance system being operated such that a mass balance of gaseous matter…is maintained…”;
The corresponding structures in the disclosure for performing the claimed functions are:
Claim 11: “one or more sources of vacuum, such as one or more pumps” (paragraph 0030).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10 and 12 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.
When claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938) and United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234, 55 USPQ 381 (1942).
In this case, claim 10 recites achieved results, i.e., a substantially gastight design of the one or more second RF ion guides, without reciting the particular structure, materials, or steps that achieve the result. The boundaries of the claim scope are unclear; without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Therefore, the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Similarly, claim 12 recites achieved results of a section-wise or completely substantially laminar gas flow without reciting a particular structure, material, or steps to accomplish the achieved results. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-17, 21-25, 28-30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0381241 A1), hereinafter Park (2020).
Regarding claim 1, Park (2020) discloses an apparatus for transmitting gaseous ionic sample material for subsequent analysis (FIG. 3D), comprising:
- a first vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D, element 1d) encompassing a first entrance (FIG. 3D, uppermost end of element 1d) through which gaseous matter including ionic sample material is introduced (paragraph 0103, lines 8-10), a first exit (FIG. 3D, lowermost end of element 1d) through which gaseous matter including ionic sample material leaves (paragraph 0103, lines 10-12), and one or more first RF ion guides (FIG. 3D, element 11c) for receiving and guiding ionic sample material along its way from the first entrance to the first exit (paragraph 0103, lines 8-12), the first vacuum chamber being kept in a first pressure range (paragraph 0103, lines 4-5, below 10 Pa),
- a second vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D, element 1c) encompassing a second entrance (FIG. 3D, opening at the top of element 1c, facing element 12b) through which gaseous matter including ionic sample material leaving the first vacuum chamber is introduced (paragraph 0103, lines 11-12), the second entrance being fluidically coupled to the first exit (FIG. 3D) and defining an axis (FIG. 3D, vertical axis passing through the entrance to chamber 1c), a second exit (FIG. 3D, rightward pointing arrow at the rightmost end of chamber 1c) through which gaseous matter including ionic sample material leaves (paragraph 0103, lines 14-16), and one or more second RF ion guides for receiving and guiding ionic sample material along its way from the second entrance to the second exit (FIG. 3D, second RF ion guide 302), the second vacuum chamber being kept in a second pressure range which is substantially higher than the first pressure range (paragraph 0103, lines 7-8, 100-300 Pa), and
- a first gas inlet assembly (FIG. 3D, element 5g) located substantially adjacent to the second entrance (Dictionary.com defines “adjacent” as “just before, after, or facing”; FIG. 3D shows gas inlet assembly 5g is facing the second entrance) and designed and configured to introduce gaseous matter, which does not originate from the first vacuum chamber (paragraph 0103, lines 13-14), in a direction substantially along the axis into the second vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D shows the vertical arrow at element 5g is along the vertical axis passing through the entrance to chamber 1c).
Regarding claim 5, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the first gas inlet assembly is designed and configured to introduce gaseous matter substantially one of (i) coaxially and (ii) concentrically with the axis (FIG. 3D shows gas inlet assembly 5g is coaxial with the vertical axis passing through the entrance to chamber 1c).
Regarding claim 7, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the first pressure range is on the order of 10-1 millibar and less (paragraph 0103, below 10 Pa; 1 millibar is equal to 100 Pa (“millibar”, The Macquarie Dictionary); therefore, Park (2020) discloses that the first pressure range is on the order of 0.1 millibar), and the second pressure range is a single digit-millibar range situated between 0.2 and 50 millibar (paragraph 0103, 100-300 Pa, which is equivalent to 1-3 millibar).
Regarding claim 8, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the one or more second RF ion guides (FIG. 3D, element 302) encompass one or more ion mobility separators (paragraph 0102, TIMS analyzer (paragraph 0012 discloses the TIMS analyzer as a separator)).
Regarding claim 9, Park (2020) as applied to claim 8 discloses the apparatus according to claim 8.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the one or more ion mobility separators (FIG. 3D, element 302) encompass one or more trapped ion mobility separators (paragraph 0102, TIMS analyzer (paragraph 0012 discloses the TIMS analyzer as a separator)).
Regarding claim 11, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses a mass balance system (paragraph 0103, lines 13-16).
The limitations “being operated such that a mass balance of gaseous matter being introduced into the second vacuum chamber is maintained to generate a substantially continuous or steady flow of gaseous matter within the second vacuum chamber” are functional limitations. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Park (2020) teaches the structural limitations of the mass balance system, i.e., a pump fluidically connected to the second vacuum chamber (paragraph 0103, lines 13-16). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 12, Park (2020) as applied to claim 11 discloses the apparatus according to claim 11.
The limitations “the substantially continuous or steady flow of gaseous matter is one of (i) section-wise and (ii) completely substantially laminar along its way within the second vacuum chamber” are functional limitations. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Park (2020) teaches the structural limitations of the mass balance system, i.e., a pump fluidically connected to the second vacuum chamber (paragraph 0103, lines 13-16). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 13, Park (2020) as applied to claim 11 discloses the apparatus according to claim 11.
The limitations “the substantially continuous or steady flow of gaseous matter is generated within the one or more second RF ion guides” are functional limitations. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Park (2020) teaches the structural limitations of the mass balance system, i.e., a pump fluidically connected to the second vacuum chamber (paragraph 0103, lines 13-16). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 14, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the one or more second RF ion guides encompass one or more ion guides which have at least one of (i) an RF funnel design (FIG. 3D, RF funnel 7b) and (ii) an RF tunnel design.
Regarding claim 16, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the first vacuum chamber encompasses one or more venting ports for extracting excess gaseous matter (FIG. 3D, element 5e).
Regarding claim 17, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the one or more first RF ion guides encompass at least one of (i) a stacked ring ion guide and (ii) an RF multipole assembly (FIG. 3D, RF quadrupole 11c).
Regarding claim 21, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that at least one of (i) the one or more first RF ion guides and (ii) the one or more second RF ion guides are substantially aligned along the axis (FIG. 3D: first RF ion guide 11c is aligned with the vertical axis passing through the entrance to chamber 1c).
Regarding claim 22, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
The limitations “one or more electric potentials are applied to at least one of (i) the one or more first RF ion guides and (ii) the one or more second RF ion guides, such that ionic sample material is driven in a direction substantially from the first vacuum chamber to the second vacuum chamber” are functional limitations. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Park (2020) teaches the structural limitations of the first and second RF ion guides as discussed supra. Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 23, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses one or more trapping diaphragms or lenses (FIG. 3D, lenses 12a, 12b) being located in the first vacuum chamber (paragraph 0103 discloses that vacuum chamber 1d is pumped using ports 5d, 5e, and 5f; therefore, lenses 12a and 12b, which are adjacent to ports 5d and 5f, are located in the first vacuum chamber) at least one of at (i) the first entrance (FIG. 3D: lens 12a is located at the entrance to vacuum chamber 1d), (ii) the first exit, and (iii) a position between the first entrance and the first exit.
The limitations “the one or more trapping diaphragms or lenses being temporarily supplied with one or more electric trapping potentials which substantially hinder the propagation of ionic sample material” are functional limitations. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Park (2020) teaches the structural limitations of the lenses as discussed supra. Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 24, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses at least one of a (i) mass analyzer (FIG. 3D, TIMS analyzer 302) and (ii) fragmentation, activation or reaction cell, being in fluidic communication with the second exit (FIG. 3D shows analyzer 302 is in fluidic communication with the exit at the rightmost end of chamber 1c).
Regarding claim 25, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses a third vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D, chamber 1b) encompassing a third entrance (FIG. 3D, element 2) through which gaseous matter including ionic sample material is introduced (paragraph 0053, lines 3-5), a third exit (FIG. 3D, lowermost end of chamber 1b), being fluidically coupled to the first entrance (FIG. 3D), through which gaseous matter including ionic sample material leaves (FIG. 3D, gaseous matter 8a), one or more venting ports for extracting excess gaseous matter (FIG. 3D, element 5b), and one or more deflectors for redirecting and guiding ionic sample material along its way from the third entrance to the third exit (FIG. 3D, deflectors 6a), the third vacuum chamber being substantially kept in a third pressure range which is substantially higher than the first pressure range (paragraph 0103, lines 6-7: 1000-3000 Pa).
Regarding claim 28, Park (2020) as applied to claim 25 discloses the apparatus according to claim 25.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the third entrance encompasses one or more transfer tubes or capillaries (FIG. 3D, transfer capillary 2).
Regarding claim 29, Park (2020) as applied to claim 25 discloses the apparatus according to claim 25.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the one or more deflectors are designed and configured such as to deflect ionic sample material by an angle of more than 45° from a direction of introduction towards the third exit (FIG. 3D: the direction of introduction is the horizontal direction; the ionic sample material 8a is deflected to the vertical direction towards the third exit; therefore, the ionic sample material is deflected by an angle of 90°).
Regarding claim 30, Park (2020) as applied to claim 25 discloses the apparatus according to claim 25.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the third entrance is in fluidic communication with an ion source (FIG. 3D, ion source 3a).
Regarding claim 32, Park (2020) discloses a method for transmitting gaseous ionic sample material for subsequent analysis, comprising:
- introducing gaseous matter including ionic sample material (paragraph 0103, lines 8-10) into a first vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D, element 1d) through its entrance (FIG. 3D, uppermost end of element 1d),
- receiving and guiding ionic sample material (paragraph 0103, lines 8-12) along its way from the entrance to an exit of the first vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D, lowermost end of element 1d) using one or more first RF ion guides within the first vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D, RF ion guide 11c),
- releasing gaseous matter including ionic sample material through the exit of the first vacuum chamber (paragraph 0103, lines 8-12), in so doing, keeping the first vacuum chamber in a first pressure range (paragraph 0103, lines 4-5, below 10 Pa; removing gas from the chamber inherently has an effect on the pressure in the chamber),
- introducing gaseous matter including ionic sample material being released from the first vacuum chamber (paragraph 0103, lines 11-12) into a second vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D, element 1c) through its entrance (FIG. 3D, opening at the top of element 1c, facing element 12b), being fluidically coupled to the exit of the first vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D) and defining an axis (FIG. 3D, vertical axis passing through the entrance to chamber 1c),
- receiving and guiding ionic sample material along its way from the entrance to an exit of the second vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D, rightward pointing arrow at the rightmost end of chamber 1c) using one or more second RF ion guides within the second vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D, second RF ion guide 302),
- releasing gaseous matter including ionic sample material through the exit of the second vacuum chamber (paragraph 0103, lines 14-16), in so doing, keeping the second vacuum chamber in a second pressure range which is substantially higher than the first pressure range (paragraph 0103, lines 7-8, 100-300 Pa; removing gas from the chamber inherently has an effect on the pressure in the chamber), and
- introducing gaseous matter, which does not originate from the first vacuum chamber (paragraph 0103, lines 13-14), at a position substantially adjacent to the entrance of the second vacuum chamber (Dictionary.com defines “adjacent” as “just before, after, or facing”; FIG. 3D shows gas inlet assembly 5g is facing the second entrance) in a direction substantially along the axis into the second vacuum chamber (FIG. 3D shows the vertical arrow at element 5g is along the vertical axis passing through the entrance to chamber 1c).
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (2020).
Regarding claim 27, Park (2020) as applied to claim 25 discloses the apparatus according to claim 25.
In addition, Park (2020) discloses that the third pressure range is a millibar range situated between 0.2 and 50 millibar (paragraph 0103, 1000-3000 Pa; 1 millibar is equal to 100 Pa (“millibar”, The Macquarie Dictionary); therefore, Park (2020) discloses that the third pressure range is in the range of 10-30 millibar).
Park (2020) fails to disclose that the third pressure range is a single digit-millibar range. However, "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The range of 10-30 millibar disclosed in Park (2020) may encompass both single-digit pressure ranges (e.g., a range of 5 millibar from 10-15 millibar, or a range of 7 millibar from 17-24 millibar) and multi-digit pressure ranges (e.g., a range of 12 millibar from 14-26 millibar, or a range of 16 millibar from 11-27 millibar), wherein the multi-digit pressure range is at most a range of 20 millibar (i.e., the range from 10-30 millibar). 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 Park (2020) to include that the third pressure range is a single digit-millibar range situated between 0.2 and 50 millibar because the disclosed range is only slightly broader than the claimed range.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Franzen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0039350 A1), hereinafter Franzen (2011).
Regarding claim 2, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Park (2020) fails to disclose that the first gas inlet assembly encompasses one or more nozzles.
However, Franzen (2011) discloses that the first gas inlet assembly encompasses one or more nozzles (FIG. 2, nozzles 24, 26).
The disclosure of Franzen (2011) demonstrates that the function of nozzles is known in the art of gas transfer for mass spectrometry. Franzen also shows that substituting nozzles for another gas inlet assembly in a gas transfer apparatus yields the predictable result of accelerating the gas as it is introduced into the chamber (paragraph 0021, lines 16-17). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). 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 Park (2020) to include that the first gas inlet assembly encompasses one or more nozzles because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 3, Park (2020) in view of Franzen (2011) as applied to claim 2 discloses the apparatus according to claim 2.
In addition, Franzen (2011) discloses that the one or more nozzles encompass a plurality of individual nozzles (FIG. 2, nozzles 24, 26).
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 Park (2020) in view of Franzen (2011) to include that the one or more nozzles encompass a plurality of individual nozzles, because this modification amounts to nothing more than a duplication of parts, and the applicant has not provided evidence that the plurality of individual nozzles produces a new and unexpected result as compared to a single nozzle. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kennedy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0364314 A1), hereinafter Kennedy.
Regarding claim 6, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Park (2020) fails to disclose one or more transfer tubes or capillaries fluidically coupling the second entrance with the first exit.
However, Kennedy discloses one or more transfer tubes or capillaries (FIG. 1, element 12) fluidically coupling the second entrance (FIG. 1, entrance at leftmost end of chamber 15) with the first exit (FIG. 1, exit at rightmost end of chamber 11).
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 Park (2020) to include one or more transfer tubes or capillaries fluidically coupling the second entrance with the first exit, based on the teachings of Kennedy that the transfer capillary prevents undesirable droplets from entering the mass spectrometer (Kennedy, paragraph 0027).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Franzen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0228492 A1), hereinafter Franzen (2012).
Regarding claim 10, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Park (2020) fails to disclose that the one or more second RF ion guides encompass a substantially gastight design.
However, Franzen (2012) discloses that the one or more second RF ion guides encompass a substantially gastight design (paragraph 0027, last sentence).
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 Park (2020) to include that the one or more second RF ion guides encompass a substantially gastight design, based on the teachings of Franzen (2012) that this prevents undesirable escaping of the gas outside the ion guide (Franzen (2012), paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 15, Park (2020) as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Park (2020) fails to disclose that the one or more second RF ion guides encompass one or more stacked ring ion guides.
However, the disclosure of Franzen (2012) demonstrates that the function of stacked ring ion guides is known in the art of mass spectrometry. Franzen (2012) also shows that substituting a stacked ring ion guide for another ion guide design in an apparatus for transmitting gaseous ionic sample material for subsequent analysis yields the predictable result of controlling the location and trajectory of ions within the ion guide. “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). 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 Park (2020) to include that the one or more second RF ion guides encompass one or more stacked ring ion guides because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (2020) as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0121170 A1), hereinafter Park (2011).
Regarding claim 18, Park (2020) as applied to claim 17 discloses the apparatus according to claim 17.
Park (2020) fails to disclose that the stacked ring ion guide encompasses one or more electrode rings having multipolar design.
However, Park (2011) discloses that the stacked ring ion guide encompasses one or more electrode rings having multipolar design (paragraph 0027, lines 19-23).
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 Park (2020) to include that the stacked ring ion guide encompasses one or more electrode rings having multipolar design, based on the teachings of Park (2011) that this configuration enables a smooth transition between RF fields in different sections of the apparatus (Park (2011), paragraph 0027, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 26, Park (2020) as applied to claim 25 discloses the apparatus according to claim 25.
Park (2020) fails to disclose an RF funnel fluidically coupling the third exit with the first entrance for guiding and conditioning ionic sample material.
However, Park (2011) discloses an RF funnel (FIG. 5, element 191) fluidically coupling the third exit (FIG. 5, exit at rightmost end of chamber 171) with the first entrance (FIG. 5, entrance at leftmost end of chamber 175) for guiding and conditioning ionic sample material (paragraph 0060).
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 Park (2020) to include an RF funnel fluidically coupling the third exit with the first entrance for guiding and conditioning ionic sample material, based on the teachings of Park (2011) that this improves focusing of ions as they are transmitted into the first chamber (Park (2011), paragraph 0060).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (2020) as applied to claim 25 above, in view of Jolliffe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,916,969 B2), hereinafter Jolliffe.
Regarding claim 31, Park (2020) as applied to claim 25 discloses the apparatus according to claim 25.
Park (2020) fails to disclose a second gas inlet assembly located substantially adjacent to the third exit and designed and configured to introduce gaseous matter into the third vacuum chamber.
However, Jolliffe discloses a second gas inlet assembly (FIG. 1, assembly comprising elements 50, 51, 48, and 80) located substantially adjacent to the third exit (FIG. 1, outlet aperture 34) and designed and configured to introduce gaseous matter (column 4, lines 14-17) into the third vacuum chamber (FIG. 1, element 30).
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 Park (2020) to include a second gas inlet assembly located substantially adjacent to the third exit and designed and configured to introduce gaseous matter into the third vacuum chamber, based on the teachings of Jolliffe that this arrangement improves separation of ions of interest from charged droplets which are not of interest (Jolliffe, column 4, lines 22-33).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Papanastasiou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0049285 A1), hereinafter Papanastasiou, teaches an apparatus for transmitting gaseous ionic sample material for subsequent analysis, comprising: a first vacuum chamber encompassing a first entrance, and a first exit through which gaseous matter including ionic sample material leaves, the first vacuum chamber being kept in a first pressure range, and a second vacuum chamber encompassing a second entrance through which gaseous matter including ionic sample material leaving the first vacuum chamber is introduced, the second entrance being fluidically coupled to the first exit and defining an axis, and a second exit through which gaseous matter including ionic sample material leaves.
Kato (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0122069 A1), hereinafter Kato, teaches a gas inlet assembly located substantially adjacent to a second entrance and designed and configured to introduce gaseous matter, which does not originate from a first chamber, in a direction substantially along the axis into the second vacuum chamber.
Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0061500 A1), hereinafter Yang, teaches a gas inlet assembly comprising one or more nozzles.
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