Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of acquiring data and using the data to perform analysis of the data, which is a mathematical calculation. The analysis of the data includes using the second mass spectrum to interpret at least one mass peak comprising two or more coalesced mass peaks in the first spectrum by determining a peak intensity and an m/z ratio associated with each of the two or more coalesced mass peaks. This is a mathematical concept as evidenced by pg. 17 last paragraph to pg. 18 first full paragraph of the instant specification which teaches mathematical comparison of the two spectrums. Additionally, in claim 3, identifying a coalesced mass peak based on the peak intensity and the m/z ratio determined for that peak using the second mass spectrum is a mathematical calculation as evidenced by pg. 17 last paragraph to pg. 18 first full paragraph of the instant specification which teaches mathematically constructing a third mass spectrum from the first and second spectrum data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data gathering steps (present in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) required to perform the analysis do no not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are recited at a high level of generality, and using a time-of-flight mass analyzer to acquire mass spectra at various ion beam intensities is well-understood, routine and conventional, as evidenced by [0054] of Green, et. al. (US 20170098531 A1). Additionally, the additional elements in claims 6 and 9 recite only the idea of a solution or outcome (claim 6: selecting a second lower ion beam intensity to reduce probability of ion coalescence, claim 9: no substantial loss of ions during the ion beam modulation) but fail to recite details of how the outcome is accomplished.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “using the second mass spectrum to interpret at least one mass peak comprising two or more coalesced mass peaks, if any, in the first mass spectrum.” This limitation is not adequately supported by the disclosure. MPEP 2163 I states, “[t]o satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention”. The instant application teaches on pg. 17, “the frequency domain signal obtained at two different ion beam intensities can be compared with one another to interpret one or more coalesced mass peaks, if any, present in the frequency domain signal associated with the higher intensity ion beam. This disclosure does not provide adequate written description because it is not clear in what manner the frequency domain signal obtained at two different ion beam intensities are compared, and it is not clear how this comparison is used to interpret the one or more coalesced mass peaks present in the frequency domain signal associated with the higher intensity ion beam. Consequently, it is not clear how the second mass spectrum is used to interpret at least one mass peak comprising two or more coalesced mass peaks in the first mass spectrum. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of written description to reasonably suggest possession of the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the step of interpreting the at least one mass peak comprises determining a peak intensity and an m/z ratio associated with each of said two or more coalesced mass peaks.” This limitation is not adequately supported by the disclosure. MPEP 2163 I states, “[t]o satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention”. Pg. 9 recites “The interpretation of the coalesced mass peaks can include deriving accurate mass peak heights and m/z ratios (e.g., via accurate determination of the centroid time) corresponding to those mass peaks.” It is not clear how accurate determination of the centroid time is performed and specifically how the accurate determination of the centroid time is used to determine the accurate mass peak heights and m/z ratios in order to interpret the at least one mass peak comprising two or more coalesced mass peaks in the first mass spectrum using the second mass spectrum. There are no steps, flow charts, algorithms detailing this process and how the result is accomplished. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of written description to reasonably suggest possession of the invention.
Claim 3 recites “generating a third mass spectrum in which each of the coalesced mass peaks is identified based on the peak intensity and the m/z ratio determined for that coalesced mass peak using the second mass spectrum.” This limitation is not adequately supported by the disclosure. MPEP 2163 I states, “[t]o satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention”. Pg. 9 recites that “the first and the second mass spectra can be optionally used to generate a third mass spectrum (herein also referred to as a composite mass spectrum) in which all mass peaks, including the coalesced mass peaks in the first mass spectrum, are depicted with accurate peak heights and m/z values. In other words, the mass information contained in the first and the second mass spectra can be utilized to construct the composite mass spectrum.” There is no steps, prose, flow chart, or algorithm to detail how the first and second mass spectra can be utilized to construct the composite/third mass spectrum. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of written description to reasonably suggest possession of the invention.
Claims 2-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 2.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for modulating an intensity of said ion beam” in claim 18.
This limitation will be interpreted as described on pg. 6 in the bottom two paragraphs of the specification and in claims 19 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green, et. al. (US 20170098531 A1; from IDS filed 10/17/2024), hereinafter Green‘531.
Regarding claim 1, Green’531 teaches a method of operating a mass spectrometer ([0002]), comprising:
acquiring a first mass spectrum of a plurality of ions at a first ion beam intensity ([0154]),
acquiring a second mass spectrum of said plurality of ions at a second ion beam intensity lower than the first ion beam intensity (consecutive spectra in which the intensity of the ion beam decreases, [0154]), and
using the second mass spectrum to interpret at least one mass peak comprising two or more coalesced mass peaks, if any, in the first mass spectrum (The m/z ratios and/or intensities of peaks measured in the low intensity data are used to determine which peaks, if any, in the high intensity data comprise coalesced peaks, [0154]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 4, Green’531 teaches further comprising modulating an intensity of the ion beam to generate an intensity-modulated ion beam such that said first and said second ion beam intensities correspond to different ion beam intensities during a cycle of the ion beam intensity modulation, and wherein optionally one of said two different ion beam intensities corresponds to a maximum of the ion beam intensity modulation and the other one of said two different ion beam intensities corresponds to a minimum of the ion beam intensity modulation ([0154] data sets are generated with different intensities (intensity is increased or decreased), such that the smallest intensity used is the minimum and the largest intensity used is the maximum).
Regarding claim 6, Green’531 teaches wherein said second lower ion beam intensity is selected so as to reduce probability of ion coalescence ([0154]-[0155] teaches as the intensity decreases, doublets may reappear (no coalescence) whereas higher intensities may cause intensity-related coalescence).
Regarding claim 8, Green’531 teaches wherein said first and second mass spectra are acquired using a time-of-flight (Tof) mass analyzer ([0076]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green’531 (US 20170098531 A1), as evidenced by Rusinov, et. al. (US 20180277346 A1), hereinafter Rusinov.
Regarding claim 7, Green’531 does not explicitly teach wherein said two or more coalesced mass peaks correspond to mass peaks associated with two or more different isotopes of an analyte; however, Green’531 teaches the coalescence of mass peaks relating to ions with mass-to-charge ratios in close proximity to each other, and it is well known in the field of mass spectrometery that close proximity mass-to-charge ratios comprise different isotopes of an analyte, as evidenced by Rusinov ([0072], [0081], [0126]).
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 5, 10-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green’531 (US 20170098531 A1) in view of Green, et. al. (US 20210202226 A1; from IDS filed 10/17/2024), hereinafter Green’226.
Regarding claim 5, Green’531 does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of the maximum intensity of the intensity modulated ion beam relative to the minimum intensity thereof is in a range of about 2 to about 20.
Green’226 teaches wherein a ratio of the maximum intensity of the intensity modulated ion beam relative to the minimum intensity thereof is in a range of about 2 to about 20 ([0361]).
Green’226 modifies Green’531 by suggesting the ratio of maximum intensity to minimum intensity of the modulated ion beam is 10.
Since both Green’531 and Green’226 are directed to mass spectrometry, Green’226 renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 10, Although Green’531 teaches modulating the beam intensity ([0154]), Green’531 does not teach wherein said step of modulating the intensity of the ion beam comprises: bunching ions in the ion beam to generate a plurality of ion packets temporally separated from one another, transmitting said ion packets to a pusher electrode of the ToF mass analyzer, and periodically applying a voltage pulse to the pusher electrode of the ToF mass analyzer to direct ions received at the pusher electrode to a field free region of the mass analyzer.
Green’226 teaches bunching ions in the ion beam to generate a plurality of ion packets temporally separated from one another, transmitting said ion packets to a pusher electrode of the ToF mass analyzer, and periodically applying a voltage pulse to the pusher electrode of the ToF mass analyzer to direct ions received at the pusher electrode to a field free region of the mass analyzer ([0010]-[0013], [0067], Fig. 1, [0257]-[0261]).
Green’226 modifies Green’531 by suggesting the method by which the beam intensity is modulated, since Green’531 does not describe how the beam intensity modulation is accomplished.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Green’226 because Green’226 provides a method for generating both high and low intensity data that is useful for correcting saturated and/or distorted data, (Green’226, [0015]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 11, Green ‘531 does not teach wherein a temporal width of the ion packets relative to a temporal spacing between the ion packets is selected so as to cause the ion beam intensity modulation at a detector disposed downstream of said ToF mass analyzer and configured to receive ions exiting the ToF mass analyzer, and wherein, optionally, the temporal width of the ion packets is in a range of about 0.5 ms to about 50 ms.
Green’226 teaches wherein a temporal width of the ion packets relative to a temporal spacing between the ion packets is selected so as to cause the ion beam intensity modulation at a detector disposed downstream of said ToF mass analyzer and configured to receive ions exiting the ToF mass analyzer ([0263]-[0276], Figs. 2A-2C and 3A-3C), and wherein, optionally, the temporal width of the ion packets is in a range of about 0.5 ms to about 50 ms ([0235]).
Green’226 modifies Green’531 by suggesting controlling the temporal width relative to a temporal spacing between the ion packets in order to cause ion beam intensity modulation at a detector disposed downstream of said ToF mass analyzer and configured to receive ions exiting the ToF mass analyzer and the temporal width of the ion packets is in the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Green’226 because Green’226 provides a method through the timings for generating both high and low intensity data that is useful for correcting saturated and/or distorted data, (Green’226, [0015]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Green’531 does teach wherein a ratio of temporal spacing between successive ones of the ion packets relative to said temporal width of the ion packets is in a range of about 2 to about 20.
Green’226 teaches a time T1/T2 during which ions are accumulated in an accumulation region (ion packet formed—the ion packet has a temporal width) and a time Tinj during which ions are ejected from the ion accumulation device (ion packet released after a certain amount of time determines the temporal spacing of the ion packet) (see Figs. 2A-2C), such that a ratio of temporal spacing between successive ones of the ion packets relative to said temporal width of the ion packets is in a range of about 2 to about 20 could be achieved via routine experimentation. These time durations are shown to be a results- effective variable since the timings effect whether the ion accumulation results in low or high intensity data, ultimately having an impact on the mass spectrums produced (see Figs. 2A-2C,3A-3C, and 4A-4B). Consequently one of ordinary skill in the art could experiment with the ratio of the temporal spacing between ion packets relative to the temporal width of the ion packets to achieve the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 13, Green’531 does not teach wherein the step of bunching the ions comprises: trapping ions associated with the ion beam in an ion trap, and periodically releasing at least a portion of the trapped ions and transmitting the released ions to mass analyzer.
Green’226 teaches trapping ions associated with the ion beam in an ion trap, and periodically releasing at least a portion of the trapped ions and transmitting the released ions to mass analyzer ([0017]-[0019]).
Green’226 modifies Green’531 by suggesting the mechanism by which the beam intensity is modulated, since Green’531 does not describe how the beam intensity modulation is accomplished.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Green’226 because Green’226 provides a method for generating both high and low intensity data that is useful for correcting saturated and/or distorted data, (Green’226, [0015]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Green’531 does not teach wherein the ions are released from the ion trap at a frequency in a range of about 1 kHz to about 20 kHz.
Green’226 teaches a time T1/T2 during which ions are accumulated in an accumulation region (ion packet formed—the ion packet has a temporal width), a time Tims during which the ions travel through a mobility separator, and a time Tinj during which ions are ejected from the ion accumulation device (ion packet released after a certain amount of time determines the temporal spacing of the ion packet) (see Figs. 2A-2C), such that releasing the ions from the ion trap at a frequency in a range of about 1kHz to about 20 kHz could be achieved via routine experimentation. The timing is shown to be a results- effective variable since the timings effect whether the ion accumulation results in low or high intensity data, ultimately having an impact on the mass spectrums produced (see Figs. 2A-2C,3A-3C, and 4A-4B). Consequently one of ordinary skill in the art could experiment with the frequency of ion release from the ion trap in order to achieve the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 18, Green’531 teaches a mass spectrometer ([0002]), comprising:
an ion source for ionizing at least one analyte in a sample ([0070]),
at least one ion guide for receiving the ions and generating an ion beam ([0072]),
a mass analyzer configured to generate mass detection data corresponding to at least two different intensities of the ion beam ([0076]), and
an analysis module configured to receive said mass detection data and process said mass detection data to generate two mass spectra each corresponding to one of said ion intensities (Software, [0151], [0154]-[0160]),
wherein the analysis module is further configured to compare the two mass spectra to interpret one or more coalesced mass peaks, if any, identified in the mass spectrum associated with the higher ion intensity ([0154]-[0160]).
Although Green’531 teaches modulating an intensity of said ion beam ([0154]), Grean’531 does not specifically teach the means for modulating an intensity of said ion beam as interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) (See “Claim Interpretation” section above).
Green’226 teaches a means for modulating an intensity of said ion beam as interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)—see the rejection of claim 19 below, which demonstrates how the means for modulating an intensity of said ion beam, as interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), is obvious in view of Green’226. Also see the rejection of claim 20 further below, which demonstrates how the means for modulating an intensity of said ion beam, as interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), is obvious in view of Bateman, et. al.
Regarding claim 19, Green’531 does not explicitly teach wherein said means for modulating the intensity of the ion beam comprises: an ion trap for receiving said ion beam and a controller in communication with said ion trap and configured to periodically release ions from the ion trap so as to achieve a modulation of the ion beam intensity at an ion detector of said mass analyzer.
Green’226 teaches wherein said means for modulating the intensity of the ion beam comprises: an ion trap for receiving said ion beam (ion trap 2, Fig. 1, [0257]-[0261]) and a controller in communication with said ion trap and configured to periodically release ions from the ion trap so as to achieve a modulation of the ion beam intensity at an ion detector of said mass analyzer ([0255]).
Green’226 modifies Green’531 by suggesting the mechanism by which the beam intensity is modulated, since Green’531 does not describe how the beam intensity modulation is accomplished.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Green’226 because Green’226 provides a method for generating both high and low intensity data that is useful for correcting saturated and/or distorted data, (Green’226, [0015]-[0017]).
Claims 9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green’531 (US 20170098531 A1) and Green’226 (US 20210202226 A1) in view of Bateman, et. al. (EP 1365437; from IDS filed 10/17/2024), hereinafter Bateman.
Regarding claim 9, the combination does not explicitly teach said ion beam modulation is performed without a substantial loss of ions.
Bateman teaches ion beam modulation is performed without a substantial loss of ions ([0010], [0025], where ‘substantial’ is understood as defined on pg. 9 of the instant specification).
Bateman modifies the combination by suggesting a first mode without a substantial loss of ions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bateman because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 15, the combination does not teach wherein said step of modulating the intensity of the ion beam comprises applying voltage pulses to an electrode positioned in a path of the ion beam having an aperture through which the ions can pass.
Bateman teaches wherein said step of modulating the intensity of the ion beam comprises applying voltage pulses to an electrode positioned in a path of the ion beam having an aperture through which the ions can pass ([0019-[0026], [0050]).
Bateman modifies the combination by suggesting that modulating the intensity of the ion beam comprises applying voltage pulses to an electrode positioned in a path of the ion beam having an aperture through which the ions can pass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bateman because Bateman provides a method by which the intensity of the ion beam can be modulated, which Green’531 does not explicitly provide. Modulating the intensity, as done by Bateman, allows mass spectra to be collected in two modes such that when mass spectral data obtained in the first mode suffers from saturation, the spectral data from the second mode can be used instead, (Bateman, Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, the combination does not teach wherein the voltage pulses are configured to periodically remove some ions from the ion beam to achieve the intensity modulation of the ion beam.
Bateman teaches the voltage pulses are configured to periodically remove some ions from the ion beam to achieve the intensity modulation of the ion beam ([0019]-[0026], [0050]).
Bateman modifies the combination by suggesting the voltage pulses are configured to periodically remove some ions from the ion beam to achieve intensity modulation of the beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bateman because Bateman provides a method by which the intensity of the ion beam can be modulated, which Green’531 does not explicitly provide. Modulating the intensity, as done by Bateman, allows mass spectra to be collected in two modes such that when mass spectral data obtained in the first mode suffers from saturation, the spectral data from the second mode can be used instead, (Bateman, Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, the combination does not teach wherein said electrode is positioned in a path of the ion beam at a location at which the ion beam is at least partially homogenized or at a location at which the ion beam is not homogenized.
Bateman teaches the electrode is positioned in a path of the ion beam at a location at which the ion beam is at least partially homogenized or at a location at which the ion beam is not homogenized ([0019]-[0026], [0050], ions may be deflected in either the y or z direction thereby achieving non-homogenized or partially homogenized beams respectively).
Bateman modifies the combination by suggesting the electrode is positioned at a location where the beam is at least partially or not homogenized.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bateman because Bateman provides a method by which the intensity of the ion beam can be modulated, which Green’531 does not explicitly provide. Modulating the intensity, as done by Bateman, allows mass spectra to be collected in two modes such that when mass spectral data obtained in the first mode suffers from saturation, the spectral data from the second mode can be used instead, (Bateman, Abstract). Specifically, z-focusing is preferred to other ways of altering the ion transmission efficiency since it has been found to minimize any change in resolution, mass position, and spectral skew, (Bateman, [0021]).
Claims 2-3, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green’531 (US 20170098531 A1) in view of Bateman, et. al. (EP 1365437), hereinafter Bateman.
Regarding claim 2, Green’531 does not teach wherein the step of interpreting the at least one mass peak comprises determining a peak intensity and an m/z ratio associated with each of said two or more coalesced mass peaks.
Bateman teaches the step of interpreting the at least one mass peak comprises determining a peak intensity and an m/z ratio associated with each of said two or more coalesced mass peaks ([0050], where when the mass peak of the first mode is interpreted, it is determined whether there is coalescence of the peak and if so, the mass peaks of the first mode are determined by looking to the mass peaks of the second mode, which are not coalesced, and replace the coalesced mass peak of the first mode).
Bateman modifies Green’531 by suggesting interpreting the at least one mass peak comprises determining a peak intensity and m/z ratio associated with each of said two or more coalesced mass peaks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bateman because Bateman takes the interpretation beyond just determining if there is coalescence of mass peaks in a high intensity mode, and creates a method to de-coalesce the data using the data from a lower intensity mode, (Bateman, [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Green’531 does not teach further comprising generating a third mass spectrum in which each of the coalesced mass peaks is identified based on the peak intensity and the m/z ratio determined for that coalesced mass peak using the second mass spectrum.
Bateman teaches generating a third mass spectrum in which each of the coalesced mass peaks is identified based on the peak intensity and the m/z ratio determined for that coalesced mass peak using the second mass spectrum (spectrum generated when replacing distorted data of the first mode mass spectrum with corresponding data from the second mode mass spectrum, ([0050]).
Bateman modifies Green’531 by suggesting generating a third mass spectrum in which each of the coalesced mass peaks is identified based on the peak intensity and the m/z ratio determined for that coalesced mass peak using the second mass spectrum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bateman because Bateman takes the interpretation beyond just determining if there is coalescence of mass peaks in a high intensity mode, and creates a method to de-coalesce the data using the data from a lower intensity mode by generating a third mass spectrum, (Bateman, [0050]).
Regarding claim 20, Green’531 does not teach wherein said means for modulating the ion intensity comprises: an electrode positioned in a path of said ion beam and having an aperture configured to allow passage of the ion beam therethrough, an adjustable DC voltage source configured to apply DC voltage to said electrode, and a controller in communication with said adjustable DC voltage source for modulating the DC voltage applied to said electrode so as to modulate passage of the ion beam through said electrode aperture.
Bateman teaches said means for modulating the ion intensity comprises: an electrode positioned in a path of said ion beam and having an aperture configured to allow passage of the ion beam therethrough ([0019]), an adjustable DC voltage source configured to apply DC voltage to said electrode ([0023]), and a controller in communication with said adjustable DC voltage source for modulating the DC voltage applied to said electrode so as to modulate passage of the ion beam through said electrode aperture ([0057]-[0058]).
Bateman modifies Green’531 by suggesting the mechanism by which the beam intensity is modulated, since Green’531 does not describe how the beam intensity modulation is accomplished.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bateman because Bateman provides a method for generating both high and low intensity data that is useful for correcting saturated and/or distorted data, (Bateman, Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights