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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
An ion detector;
A pusher;
A time of flight region.
No new matter should be entered.
Figures 4 and 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
The abstract exceeds 150 words in length.
The abstract includes legal phraseology.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 8-9 and 13-14 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the fragmentation or reaction device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the fragmentation or reaction device” to mean “[[the]]a fragmentation or reaction device”.
Claim 9 is rejected because of its dependence on claim 8.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the pulse sequence time periods”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “a portion of one or more of the pulse sequence time periods” to mean “a portion of one or more during which the consecutive pushes occur”.
Claim 14 is rejected because of its dependence on claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verenchikov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0048852 A1), hereinafter Verenchikov.
Regarding claim 13, a first embodiment of Verenchikov (FIGs. 2-3), hereinafter Embodiment A, discloses a method of mass spectrometry comprising:
providing a time of flight (TOF) mass analyser (FIG. 2, element 22) having an ion detector (FIG. 2, element 25) and a pusher (FIG. 2, element 23) that, when pulsed, pushes ions into a time of flight region to the detector (FIG. 2 and paragraph 0076: orthogonal accelerator 23 is pulsed by string generator 28 to push ions into TOF mass analyser 22 to detector 25);
mass analysing ions in the TOF mass analyser so as to obtain data relating to the ions (paragraph 0077, lines 6-7, 13-15), wherein said mass analysing comprises pulsing the pusher according to a pulse sequence that consists of consecutive pushes (FIG. 3, pulse strings) that are arranged such that the duration between any pair of pushes in the pulse sequence is different to the duration between any other pair of pushes within the pulse sequence (paragraph 0077, lines 10-11);
determining that one or more species of ions arrive at the TOF mass analyser during only a portion of one or more of the pulse sequence time periods (FIG. 3: detector signal 34 shows ions arriving during only a portion of pulse sequence time period T);
combining data obtained by the mass analyser during the one or more pulse sequence time periods (FIG. 3, summed encoded spectrum); and
decoding this combined data (FIG. 3, decoded spectrum).
An additional embodiment (Algorithm for MS-MS, paragraphs 0120-0123) of Verenchikov, hereinafter Embodiment B, discloses combining only data obtained by the mass analyser during said portion of the one or more pulse sequence time periods (paragraph 0121, step b; data corresponding to a part of a time period in which a threshold number of ions do not arrive at the TOF mass analyser is rejected).
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 Embodiment A of Verenchikov to include combining only data obtained by the mass analyser during said portion of the one or more pulse sequence time periods, based on the teachings of Verenchikov that this improves the efficiency of decoding spectra (Verenchikov, paragraph 0121).
Regarding claim 15, Embodiment A of Verenchikov discloses a TOF mass analyser (FIG. 2, element 22) comprising:
an ion detector (FIG. 2, element 25) and a pusher (FIG. 2, element 23) that, when pulsed, pushes ions into a time of flight region to the detector (FIG. 2 and paragraph 0076: orthogonal accelerator 23 is pulsed by string generator 28 to push ions into TOF mass analyser 22 to detector 25); and
control circuitry (paragraph 0025) configured to:
mass analyse ions, so as to obtain data relating to the ions (paragraph 0077, lines 6-7, 13-15), by pulsing the pusher according to a plurality of consecutive pulse sequences (FIG. 3, pulse strings) during a plurality of respective pulse sequence time periods (FIG. 3, period T), wherein each pulse sequence consists of consecutive pushes that are arranged such that the duration between any pair of pushes in the pulse sequence is different to the duration between any other pair of pushes within the pulse sequence (paragraph 0077, lines 10-11);
determine that one or more species of ions arrive at the TOF mass analyser during only a portion of one or more of the pulse sequence time periods (FIG. 3: detector signal 34 shows ions arriving during only a portion of pulse sequence time period T);
combine data obtained by the mass analyser during the one or more pulse sequence time periods (FIG. 3, summed encoded spectrum); and
decode the combined data to obtain mass spectral data representative of the mass to charge ratios of the one or more species (FIG. 3, decoded spectrum; paragraph 0075).
Embodiment B of Verenchikov discloses combining only data obtained by the mass analyser during said portion of the one or more pulse sequence time periods (paragraph 0121, step b; data corresponding to a part of a time period in which a threshold number of ions do not arrive at the TOF mass analyser is rejected).
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 Embodiment A of Verenchikov to include combining only data obtained by the mass analyser during said portion of the one or more pulse sequence time periods, based on the teachings of Verenchikov that this improves the efficiency of decoding spectra (Verenchikov, paragraph 0121).
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verenchikov in view of Giles et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0110303 A1), hereinafter Giles (‘303).
Regarding claim 1, an embodiment of Verenchikov (FIGs. 6-7), hereinafter Embodiment C, discloses a method of mass spectrometry comprising:
a) providing a mass spectrometer having an ion separator (FIG. 7, element 74) for separating ions according to a physicochemical property (paragraph 0106, ion mobility and/or mass), and a time of flight (TOF) mass analyser (paragraph 0007 discloses that the term EMS, or Electrostatic mass spectrometers, includes time of flight mass spectrometers) having an ion detector (paragraph 0107, line 19, EMS detector) and a pusher (FIG. 7, element 75) that, when pulsed, pushes ions into a time of flight region to a detector (paragraph 0107, lines 16-19);
b) performing a survey scan (paragraph 0107, lines 19-20; the survey scan is performed by performing separation and acquiring the signal for the entire IMS cycle) comprising: performing a separation cycle during which a packet of precursor ion species is separated in the ion separator (paragraph 0107, line 20, IMS cycle) such that precursor ion species having different values of the physicochemical property elute from the ion separator at different times (paragraph 0106, “sequential release”); and then mass analysing the separated precursor ion species, or fragment or product ions derived therefrom (paragraph 0107, lines 15-20), in the TOF mass analyser (paragraph 0107, line 19) so as to obtain first mass spectral data (paragraph 0107, lines 21-22);
c) determining, from the first mass spectral data, a time window over which one of the precursor ion species, or fragment or product ions derived therefrom, were mass analysed by the TOF mass analyser (paragraph 0112, lines 5-7);
d) performing another separation cycle (paragraph 0107, line 20: multiple IMS cycles) during which another packet of precursor ion species is separated in the ion separator (paragraph 0107, line 20, IMS cycle) such that precursor ion species having different values of the physicochemical property elute from the ion separator at different times (paragraph 0106, “sequential release”); and then
e) mass analysing the precursor ion species separated in step d), or fragment or product ions derived therefrom, in the TOF mass analyser (paragraph 0107, lines 21-22) so as to obtain second mass spectral data (paragraph 0107, lines 21-22: EMS peaks are obtained for “each ionic component”), wherein this mass analysing comprises pulsing the pusher according to a plurality of consecutive pulse sequences (FIG. 7, OA strings) during a plurality of respective pulse sequence time periods (FIG. 7, periods
T
1
,
T
2
,
T
3
), wherein each pulse sequence consists of consecutive pushes that are arranged such that the duration between any pair of pushes in the pulse sequence is different to the duration between any other pair of pushes within the pulse sequence (paragraph 0107, lines 16-18);
f) selecting mass spectral data, from the second mass spectral data, that was obtained during a time period corresponding to said time window of the survey scan, so as to obtain selected data (paragraph 0112, lines 5-7; the selected data are the groups of peaks);
g) repeating steps d) (paragraph 0107, line 20: multiple IMS cycles) and e) (paragraph 0107, lines 21-22: EMS peaks are obtained for “each ionic component”) at least one further time; and
i) decoding (FIG. 7, decoder 77) data to obtain mass spectral data representative of the mass to charge ratios of the ions detected by the TOF mass analyser (paragraph 0112, spectra decoding).
Verenchikov fails to disclose g) repeating step f) at least one further time such that multiple sets of said selected data are obtained; h) combining said multiple sets of selected data so as to obtain combined data; and then decoding the combined data.
However, Giles (‘303) discloses g) repeating steps d) (paragraph 0156, lines 1-4; “parent ions may then again be separated”, emphasis added), e) (paragraph 0165, lines 1-5), and f) (paragraph 0166, “data in the isolated range of the first physico chemical property”, emphasis added; paragraph 0155 discloses that the first physico-chemical property is drift time) at least one further time such that multiple sets of said selected data are obtained (paragraph 0166, last sentence; the sets of selected data are combined);
h) combining said multiple sets of selected data so as to obtain combined data (paragraph 0166, last sentence, “combining data”); and then
i) decoding the combined data to obtain mass spectral data (paragraph 0166, 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 Embodiment C of Verenchikov to include g) repeating steps d) to f) at least one further time such that multiple sets of said selected data are obtained; h) combining said multiple sets of selected data so as to obtain combined data; and then decoding the combined data, based on the teachings of Giles (‘303) that these steps improve the efficiency of data acquisition by obtaining more useful data without requiring a higher sample quantity, and producing an increased duty cycle of the system (Giles (‘303), paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 3, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Giles (‘303) discloses that said time window has the same duration as said time period in step f) (paragraph 0168).
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 Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) to include that said time window has the same duration as said time period in step f), based on the additional teachings of Giles (‘303) that this advantageously increases the duty cycle of the system (Giles (‘303), paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 4, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Embodiment C of Verenchikov discloses that the selected mass spectral data obtained in step f) includes mass spectral data obtained during multiple different ones of the pulse sequence time periods of step e) (paragraph 0113, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 5, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1, including the combined data (Giles (‘303), paragraph 0166; see claim 1 supra).
In addition, Embodiment C of Verenchikov discloses that the data is decoded based on knowledge of the pulse sequence used in each of said plurality of pulse sequence time periods (paragraph 0113, lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 6, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Embodiment C of Verenchikov discloses that said decoding assigns data corresponding to ions that have been detected to mass to charge ratios (paragraph 0114, lines 1-2), and determines that a mass to charge ratio peak has been detected only when more than a threshold number of ions are assigned to a given mass to charge ratio (paragraph 0114, lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 7, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Embodiment C of Verenchikov discloses fragmenting or reacting precursor ion species in a fragmentation or reaction device (FIG. 7, element 80) between steps d) and e) (FIG. 7: the flow chart shows fragmentation device 80 after IMS 74 (step d), separation) and before EMS 76 (step e), mass analysing)) so that said mass analysing in step e) comprises mass analysing the resulting fragment or product ions (paragraph 0108, lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 10, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Embodiment C of Verenchikov discloses that the first physicochemical property is ion mobility (paragraph 0106).
Regarding claim 11, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
An additional aspect of Verenchikov (Accumulating Ion Guides, paragraphs 0093-0094), hereinafter Embodiment D, discloses that during the survey scan of step b) said mass analysing comprises pulsing the pusher in a manner such that the duration between any pair of adjacent pusher pulses is equal to or greater than the time of flight from the pusher to the detector of the maximum mass to charge ratio ions that are pushed by the pusher (paragraph 0094, lines 9-11).
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 Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) to include that during the survey scan of step b) said mass analysing comprises pulsing the pusher in a manner such that the duration between any pair of adjacent pusher pulses is equal to or greater than the time of flight from the pusher to the detector of the maximum mass to charge ratio ions that are pushed by the pusher, based on the additional teachings of Verenchikov that this improves the overall duty cycle of the pusher by avoiding spectral overtake (Verenchikov, paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 12, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Embodiment C of Verenchikov discloses a mass spectrometer comprising:
an ion separator (FIG. 7, element 74) for separating ions according to a physicochemical property (paragraph 0106, ion mobility and/or mass);
a time of flight (TOF) mass analyser (paragraph 0007 discloses that the term EMS, or Electrostatic mass spectrometers, includes time of flight mass spectrometers) having an ion detector (paragraph 0107, line 19, EMS detector) and a pusher (FIG. 7, element 75) that, when pulsed, pushes ions into a time of flight region to a detector (paragraph 0107, lines 16-19); and
control circuitry (paragraph 0116).
Regarding claim 14, Embodiment A of Verenchikov as applied to claim 13 discloses the method of claim 13.
Embodiment B of Verenchikov discloses determining a time window over which the one or more species of ions arrive at the TOF mass analyser (paragraph 0121, step a, signals spaced according to pulse sequence); and
using said time window to determine the portion of the one or more of the pulse sequence time periods during which the one or more species of ions arrive at the TOF mass analyser (paragraph 0121, step b).
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 Embodiment A of Verenchikov to include determining a time window over which the one or more species of ions arrive at the TOF mass analyser; and using said time window to determine the portion of the one or more of the pulse sequence time periods during which the one or more species of ions arrive at the TOF mass analyser, based on the teachings of Verenchikov that this improves the efficiency of decoding spectra (Verenchikov, paragraph 0121).
Embodiment C of Verenchikov discloses performing a survey scan (paragraph 0107, lines 19-20; the survey scan is performed by performing separation and acquiring the signal for the entire IMS cycle), prior to said step of mass analysing ions (paragraph 0107, line 15, “After IMS separation”), in which said one or more species of ions are mass analysed (paragraph 0107, lines 15-20) by the TOF mass analyser (paragraph 0107, line 19).
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 Embodiments A and B of Verenchikov to include performing a survey scan, prior to said step of mass analysing ions, in which said one or more species of ions are mass analysed by the TOF mass analyser, based on the teachings of Verenchikov that the survey scan improves the dynamic range of the detector (Verenchikov, paragraph 0107).
Verenchikov fails to disclose determining the time window from the survey scan.
However, Giles (‘303) discloses performing a survey scan (paragraph 0152), prior to said step of mass analysing ions (paragraph 0020, lines 1-3); and
determining the time window from the survey scan (paragraph 0155, ion mobility drift time).
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 Embodiments A-C of Verenchikov to include determining the time window from the survey scan, based on the teachings of Giles (‘303) that these steps improve the efficiency of data acquisition by obtaining more useful data without requiring a higher sample quantity, and producing an increased duty cycle of the system (Giles (‘303), paragraph 0021).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giles et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0200594 A1), hereinafter Giles (‘594).
Regarding claim 2, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) fails to disclose that step c) comprises determining a first time delay between the start time of the separation cycle in the survey scan and the start time of said time window; and wherein the method comprises setting said time period in step f) to begin after a second time delay from the start time of said another separation cycle in step d), wherein said first time delay is the same as the second time delay.
However, Giles (‘594) discloses that step c) comprises determining a first time delay (paragraph 0217, delay term D) between the start time of the separation cycle in the survey scan (paragraph 0215, start time of the transit time across the ion mobility separation device) and the start time of said time window (paragraph 0215, ion arrival time at mass analyser 8); and wherein the method comprises setting said time period in step f) to begin after a second time delay from the start time of said another separation cycle in step d), wherein said first time delay is the same as the second time delay (paragraphs 0214-0217: the delay time D is determined and accounted for, i.e., canceled out, by varying the drift field strength).
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 Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) to include that step c) comprises determining a first time delay between the start time of the separation cycle in the survey scan and the start time of said time window; and wherein the method comprises setting said time period in step f) to begin after a second time delay from the start time of said another separation cycle in step d), wherein said first time delay is the same as the second time delay, based on the teachings of Giles (‘594) that this improves accuracy of ion identification by compensating for unknown but reproducible causes of delay time errors (Giles (‘594), paragraphs 0070-0072).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bateman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0001084 A1), hereinafter Bateman.
Regarding claim 8, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Embodiment C of Verenchikov discloses providing a mass filter that filters ions (paragraph 0106, line 5).
Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) fails to disclose that the mass filter is provided between the ion separator and the fragmentation or reaction device so as to only transmit ions having a restricted value, or range of values, of mass to charge ratio at any given time; and controlling the mass filter to vary said value, or range of values, as ions elute from the ion separator so as to transmit different species of ions towards the fragmentation or reaction device at different times.
However, Bateman discloses that the mass filter (FIG. 6, element 5) is provided between the ion separator (FIG. 6, element 4) and the fragmentation or reaction device (FIG. 6, element 6) so as to only transmit ions having a restricted value, or range of values, of mass to charge ratio at any given time (paragraph 0108); and controlling the mass filter to vary said value, or range of values, as ions elute from the ion separator so as to transmit different species of ions towards the fragmentation or reaction device at different times (paragraph 0108).
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 Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) to include that the mass filter is provided between the ion separator and the fragmentation or reaction device so as to only transmit ions having a restricted value, or range of values, of mass to charge ratio at any given time; and controlling the mass filter to vary said value, or range of values, as ions elute from the ion separator so as to transmit different species of ions towards the fragmentation or reaction device at different times, based on the teachings of Bateman this configuration is advantageous for the purposes of transmitting only ions of a particular charge state for mass analysis (Bateman, paragraph 0084) and obtaining a high duty cycle (Bateman, paragraph 0109).
Regarding claim 9, Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) and Bateman as applied to claim 8 discloses the method of claim 8.
In addition, Bateman discloses that the mass filter is controlled to vary said value, or range of values, over a cycle time that is synchronised with the separation cycle of step d) (paragraph 0024).
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 Embodiment C of Verenchikov in view of Giles (‘303) and Bateman to include that the mass filter is controlled to vary said value, or range of values, over a cycle time that is synchronised with the separation cycle of step d), based on the additional teachings of Bateman that this synchronization is advantageous for the purposes of transmitting only ions of a particular charge state for mass analysis (Bateman, paragraph 0084) and obtaining a high duty cycle (Bateman, paragraph 0109).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verenchikov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0032952 A1), hereinafter Verenchikov (‘952), teaches pulsing a pusher according to a plurality of consecutive pulse sequences during a plurality of respective pulse sequence time periods, wherein each pulse sequence consists of consecutive pushes that are arranged such that the duration between any pair of pushes in the pulse sequence is different to the duration between any other pair of pushes within the pulse sequence.
Verenchikov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,881,780 B2), hereinafter Verenchikov (‘780), teaches that the combined data is decoded based on knowledge of the pulse sequence used in each of said plurality of pulse sequence time periods.
Kenny et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0236700 A1), hereinafter Kenny, teaches performing a survey scan comprising: performing a separation cycle during which a packet of precursor ion species is separated in the ion separator such that precursor ion species having different values of the physicochemical property elute from the ion separator at different times.
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