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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “wherein the scavenger gas having a lower ionization energy than the carrier gas.” The claim appears to contain a typographical/grammatical error (incorrect tense).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-8 and 16 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.
*Note: there appears to be an error in the dependency of claims 4-8, resulting in some of the 112(b) rejections below.
Claim 6, which currently depends from claim 4, recites “wherein each of the scavenger gas species has a lower ionization energy than the carrier gas.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, which currently depends from claim 4, recites “wherein the scavenger gas includes methane and ammonia.” This limitation contradicts the limitation of claim 4 from which claim 7 depends. Consequently, it is unclear if the scavenger gas is isobutane or if the scavenger gas includes methane and ammonia, or some combination of isobutane with methane and ammonia.
Claim 8, which currently depends from claim 6, recites “wherein the ammonia is at a concentration of between about 1% and about 10%.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “wherein each of the carrier gas species has a lower ionization energy than the carrier gas.” The claim is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for ‘the carrier gas species’ in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear how the carrier gas species can have a lower ionization energy than itself. The claim is believed to contain a typographical error. Consequently, the claim will be interpreted as reading “wherein the scavenger gas species has a lower ionization energy than the carrier gas” for examination purposes.
NOTE: The application appears to have an error in the dependency of claims 4-8. (See the 112(b) rejections above.) For clarity and the purposes of examination, the Examiner has assumed that the dependency of claims 1-10 mirrors that of claims 11-20, such that claim 4 depends on claim 1, claim 5 depends on claim 1, claim 6 depends on claim 5, claim 7 depends on claim 5, and claim 8 depends on claim 7, all others being the same. The prior art rejections below have been written with this assumption of dependency.
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, 3, 9, 10-11, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Correale, et. al. (US 20110006201 A1), hereinafter Correale.
Regarding claim 1, Correale teaches a system for performing gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) using a carrier gas other than helium (GC-MS analysis apparatus [0006], Fig. 1, [0009] teaches carrier gas could be N2 or H2 or Argon) comprising:
a gas chromatography instrument (GC, [0006]) including an injection port (injector device (21), Fig. 1, [0007]) and a gas chromatography column (column (19), Fig. 1, [0007]);
a carrier gas source coupled to an injection port of a gas chromatography instrument (carrier gas (G1), Fig. 1, [0009]);
a mass spectrometry instrument (MS, [0006], Fig. 1) including an ionization chamber (S1 with ionic source (11) and ionic guide (35), Fig. 1, [0009]) and a mass analyzer (S2 with ionic guide (39), quadrupole analyser (41) and detector (43), [0010]-[0011], Fig. 1), the ionization chamber fluidly coupled with the gas chromatography column (GC and MS are fluidly coupled via outlet aperture (17), [0007], [0009], Fig. 1); and
a scavenger gas supply for providing a scavenger gas to the ionization chamber (other gases (G2) are supplied to ionic source (11) through conduit (27), [0009], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Correale teaches wherein the scavenger gas is methane (interpreted scavenger gas, other gases (G2), can be methane, [0009]).
Regarding claim 9, Correale teaches wherein the carrier gas is nitrogen (carrier gas (G1) can be N2, [0009]).
Regarding claim 10, Correale teaches wherein the carrier gas is hydrogen (carrier gas (G1) can be H2, [0009]).
Regarding claim 11, Correale teaches a method of reducing peak tailing and reactions (intended use) when using a carrier gas other than helium for gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (GC-MS analysis apparatus [0006], Fig. 1, [0009] teaches carrier gas could be N2 or H2 or Argon), comprising:
separating compounds using a gas chromatography column (GC, [0006], column (19), Fig. 1, [0007]) using a carrier gas other than helium ([0009] N2 or H2 or Argon);
providing the column output to an ionization chamber of a mass spectrometer (outlet aperture (17) of GC provides column output to ionization chamber of MS, [0007], [0009], Fig. 1);
providing a scavenger gas to the ionization chamber of the mass spectrometer (other gases (G2) are supplied to ionic source (11) through conduit (27), [0009], Fig. 1);
ionizing the compounds in the presence of the carrier gas and the scavenger gas ([0009]); and
analyzing the ionized compounds using the mass spectrometer ([0010]-[0011], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Correale teaches wherein the scavenger gas is methane (interpreted scavenger gas, other gases (G2), can be methane, [0009]).
Regarding claim 19, Correale teaches wherein the carrier gas is nitrogen (carrier gas (G1) can be N2, [0009]).
Regarding claim 20, Correale teaches wherein the carrier gas is hydrogen (carrier gas (G1) can be H2, [0009]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Correale (US 20110006201 A1), as evidenced by the instant application, Zheng, et. al., hereinafter Zheng.
Regarding claim 2, Correale, as evidenced by the instant application, teaches wherein the scavenger gas having a lower ionization energy than the carrier gas ([0009] teaches N2 or H2 as the carrier gas and methane as the interpreted scavenger gas. Methane has a lower ionization energy than either of the carrier gases, as evidenced by [0043] of the instant application. See MPEP 2112 II., which teaches that there “is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.”).
Regarding claim 12, Correale, as evidenced by the instant application, teaches wherein the scavenger gas having a lower ionization energy than the carrier gas ([0009] teaches N2 or H2 as the carrier gas and methane as the interpreted scavenger gas. Methane has a lower ionization energy than either of the carrier gases, as evidenced by [0043] of the instant application. See MPEP 2112 II., which teaches that there “is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.”).
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Correale (US 20110006201 A1) in view of Boyden, et. al. (US 20190079092 A1), hereinafter Boyden.
Regarding claim 4, although Correale teaches other gases [0009] can be used for chemical ionisation, and teaches methane as a particular example, Correale does not explicitly teach wherein the scavenger gas is isobutane.
Boyden teaches wherein the scavenger gas is isobutane ([0093] teaches isobutane as a reagent gas in the ion source of the ionization chamber).
Boyden modifies Correale by suggesting the scavenger gas is isobutane.
Since Boyden and Correale are both directed to mass spectrometry, including GC-MS, 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 Boyden because isobutane is a suitable reagent gas for performing chemical ionization in the ionization step of mass spectrometry, (Boyden, [0093]).
Regarding claim 14, although Correale teaches other gases [0009] can be used for chemical ionisation, and teaches methane as a particular example, Correale does not explicitly teach wherein the scavenger gas is isobutane.
Boyden teaches wherein the scavenger gas is isobutane ([0093] teaches isobutane as a reagent gas in the ion source of the ionization chamber).
Boyden modifies Correale by suggesting the scavenger gas is isobutane.
Since Boyden and Correale are both directed to mass spectrometry, including GC-MS, 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 Boyden because isobutane is a suitable reagent gas for performing chemical ionization in the ionization step of mass spectrometry, (Boyden, [0093]).
Claims 5, 7-8, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Correale (US 20110006201 A1) in view of Muntean (US 20120286150 A1).
Regarding claim 5, although Correale teaches other gases [0009] can be used for chemical ionisation, and teaches methane as a particular example, Correale does not explicitly teach wherein the scavenger gas includes two or more gas species.
Muntean teaches wherein the scavenger gas includes two or more gas species ([0017] teaches the interaction gas can be a combination of methane and ammonia).
Muntean modifies Correale by suggesting the scavenger gas can include two gas species.
Since both inventions are directed to GC-MS, 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 Muntean because incorporating an interaction gas such as the combination of methane and ammonia can improve identification of unknown ionized molecules, (Muntean, [0017]).
Regarding claim 7, although Correale teaches other gases [0009] can be used for chemical ionisation, and teaches methane as a particular example, Correale does not explicitly teach wherein the scavenger gas includes methane and ammonia.
Muntean teaches wherein the scavenger gas includes methane and ammonia ([0017]).
Muntean modifies Correale by suggesting the scavenger gas includes methane and ammonia.
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 Muntean because incorporating an interaction gas such as the combination of methane and ammonia can improve identification of unknown ionized molecules, (Muntean, [0017]).
Regarding claim 8, although Correale teaches other gases [0009] can be used for chemical ionisation, and teaches methane as a particular example, Correale does not explicitly teach wherein the ammonia is at a concentration of between about 1% and about 10%.
Muntean teaches that a combination of methane and ammonia can be used as the interaction gas (interpreted scavenger gas), but does not explicitly teach wherein the ammonia is at a concentration of between about 1% and about 10%. However, Muntean demonstrates that the interaction gas is a results-effective variable, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the claimed range of the concentration percentage of ammonia through routine experimentation. In particular, Muntean teaches that “the interaction gas can be a chemically reactive gas for a chemical modification of the analyte ion, such as methane, ammonia or a combination thereof. By means of a chemical modification, identification of unknon ionized molecules may be improved.” Muntean demonstrates that the choice of interaction gas has an effect on its interaction with the analyte ions to produce a chemical modification. See MPEP 2144.05 II, which teaches “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. Since Muntean suggests a combination of ammonia and methane as the interaction gas, and that the interaction gas ha the effect of chemically modifying the analyte ions, it would be obvious that one could experiment with the concentration of ammonia in the methane/ammonia combination in order to achieve the range of 1-10% concentration of ammonia. Therefore, the claim is obvious in view of Muntean.
Regarding claim 15, although Correale teaches other gases [0009] can be used for chemical ionisation, and teaches methane as a particular example, Correale does not explicitly teach wherein the scavenger gas includes two or more gas species.
Muntean teaches wherein the scavenger gas includes two or more gas species ([0017] teaches the interaction gas can be a combination of methane and ammonia).
Muntean modifies Correale by suggesting the scavenger gas can include two gas species.
Since both inventions are directed to GC-MS, 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 Muntean because incorporating an interaction gas such as the combination of methane and ammonia can improve identification of unknown ionized molecules, (Muntean, [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, although Correale teaches other gases [0009] can be used for chemical ionisation, and teaches methane as a particular example, Correale does not explicitly teach wherein the scavenger gas includes methane and ammonia.
Muntean teaches wherein the scavenger gas includes methane and ammonia ([0017]).
Muntean modifies Correale by suggesting the scavenger gas includes methane and ammonia.
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 Muntean because incorporating an interaction gas such as the combination of methane and ammonia can improve identification of unknown ionized molecules, (Muntean, [0017]).
Regarding claim 18, although Correale teaches other gases [0009] can be used for chemical ionisation, and teaches methane as a particular example, Correale does not explicitly teach wherein the ammonia is at a concentration of between about 1% and about 10%.
Muntean teaches that a combination of methane and ammonia can be used as the interaction gas (interpreted scavenger gas), but does not explicitly teach wherein the ammonia is at a concentration of between about 1% and about 10%. However, Muntean demonstrates that the interaction gas is a results-effective variable, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the claimed range of the concentration percentage of ammonia through routine experimentation. In particular, Muntean teaches that “the interaction gas can be a chemically reactive gas for a chemical modification of the analyte ion, such as methane, ammonia or a combination thereof. By means of a chemical modification, identification of unknon ionized molecules may be improved.” Muntean demonstrates that the choice of interaction gas has an effect on its interaction with the analyte ions to produce a chemical modification. See MPEP 2144.05 II, which teaches “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. Since Muntean suggests a combination of ammonia and methane as the interaction gas, and that the interaction gas ha the effect of chemically modifying the analyte ions, it would be obvious that one could experiment with the concentration of ammonia in the methane/ammonia combination in order to achieve the range of 1-10% concentration of ammonia. Therefore, the claim is obvious in view of Muntean.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Correale (US 20110006201 A1) in view of Muntean (US 20120286150 A1), as evidenced by Zheng (instant application).
Regarding claim 6, although Correale teaches other gases [0009] can be used for chemical ionisation, and teaches methane as a particular example, Correale does not explicitly teach wherein each of the scavenger gas species has a lower ionization energy than the carrier gas.
Muntean, as evidenced by the instant application, teaches wherein each of the scavenger gas species has a lower ionization energy than the carrier gas (Muntean teaches methan and ammonia as species of the interaction gas, [0017]. Methane and ammonia have lower ionization energies than either of hydrogen or nitrogen gas (the carrier gases of the combination, as taught by Correale), as evidenced by [0043] of the instant application. See MPEP 2112 II., which teaches that there “is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.”).
Regarding claim 16, although Correale teaches other gases [0009] can be used for chemical ionisation, and teaches methane as a particular example, Correale does not explicitly teach wherein each of the scavenger gas species has a lower ionization energy than the carrier gas.
Muntean, as evidenced by the instant application, teaches wherein each of the scavenger gas species has a lower ionization energy than the carrier gas (Muntean teaches methan and ammonia as species of the interaction gas, [0017]. Methane and ammonia have lower ionization energies than either of hydrogen or nitrogen gas (the carrier gases of the combination, as taught by Correale), as evidenced by [0043] of the instant application. See MPEP 2112 II., which teaches that there “is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.”).
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