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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a generator” in claims 1 and 8, and “a gas supplier” in claim 1.
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 § 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 1-14 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 1 recites:
An ion analyzer configured to analyze an ion dissociated by an effect of a radical, the ion analyzer comprising:
a generator configured to generate a radical from a source gas;
a gas supplier configured to supply a gas mixture as the source gas to the generator during an analysis, the gas mixture prepared by mixing a first gas which is a source for a radical having oxidizing power or which itself has oxidizing power, and a second gas which is a source for a radical having reducing power or which itself has reducing power, at a predetermined ratio specified so that an efficiency of dissociation by the radical originating from the first gas is not lower than that in a case where the second gas is not mixed; and
a reaction chamber into which a radical generated by the generator is introduced and within which an ion originating from a sample is dissociated by the radical coming in contact with the ion.
Referring to claim 1, it appears that the claim has recited insufficient structure for obtaining the recited function/result of “so that an efficiency of dissociation by the radical originating from the first gas is not lower than that in a case where the second gas is not mixed”. In particular, page 16, paragraph 35 of the specification discloses in connection with Fig. 3:
FIG. 3 shows that the ion intensity increased rapidly and noticeably when the hydrogen gas was additionally introduced from the state where steam was solely used as the source gas. The reason for this result can be inferred as follows: Due to the reducing effect of the hydrogen radical generated from the hydrogen gas, the oxides formed on the surface of the electrodes were removed, so that the electric field created by the multipole ion guide 133 and other components was approximately restored to its intended state, which resulted in the recovery of the ion passage efficiency and further to the recovery of the efficiency of the radical-induced dissociation.
(emphasis added)
Similarly, page 4, paragraphs 9-10 of the specification disclose:
However, for example, in the case of a liquid chromatograph mass spectrometer which includes a liquid chromatograph connected to the front end of a mass spectrometer, an analysis of a single sample often requires a lengthy period of time, which in some cases may cause analysis sensitivity to deteriorate due to the gradual contamination of an electrode or similar member as time passes from the beginning of the analysis. Another problem is that, once an electrode or similar member has been seriously contaminated, a considerable period of time is required to remove oxides by supplying hydrogen radical in the device maintenance process.
(emphasis added)
The present invention has been developed to solve these problems. Its primary objective is to provide an ion analyzer and an ion analyzing method which can improve the efficiency of radical-induced dissociation by preventing or reducing the contamination of an electrode or similar member due to a radical used for the radical-induced dissociation.
(emphasis added)
Similarly, page 7, paragraph 14 of the specification discloses:
Thus, the ion analyzer and the ion analyzing method according to the previously described modes of the present invention can prevent or reduce contamination of an electrode or similar member due to a radical used for the radical-induced dissociation, while performing an analysis. This prevents the efficiency of the radical-induced dissociation from deteriorating during the analysis, so that a satisfactory level of analysis sensitivity can be maintained.
(emphasis added)
It seems clear from at least these portions of the disclosure that the recited function/result of “so that an efficiency of dissociation by the radical originating from the first gas is not lower than that in a case where the second gas is not mixed” arises from the interaction between the radical having reducing power (or the source gas for this radical) and structure in the form of an electrode or similar member. However, the present claim language does not clearly require an electrode or similar member. Consequently, the claim does not appear to recite the requisite structure for obtaining the claimed function/result. As such, the boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what structure allows the function/result to be obtained. The recited function/result does not clearly follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function/result requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the generator, gas supplier and reaction chamber. The analogous issue is present in independent claim 8. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Further, regarding the claim 1 recitation “a reaction chamber into which a radical generated by the generator is introduced and within which an ion originating from a sample is dissociated by the radical coming in contact with the ion”, the examiner notes that this language has a scope in which only one of the generated radicals (e.g., only a radical having oxidizing power) is introduced into the reaction chamber. However, according to the specification, the function/result of “so that an efficiency of dissociation by the radical originating from the first gas is not lower than that in a case where the second gas is not mixed” appears to be obtained when both of the radical having oxidizing power and the radical having reducing power are both introduced into the reaction chamber (e.g., collision cell 132, see, e.g., Fig. 1), since this is where the dissociation is effected by the radical having oxidizing power and where the beneficial effect of the radical having reducing power upon an electrode or similar member is obtained. In the case in which only one of the generated radicals is introduced into the reaction chamber, which falls within the scope of the present claim language, it is not clear how the function/result of “so that an efficiency of dissociation by the radical originating from the first gas is not lower than that in a case where the second gas is not mixed” would be obtained. The analogous issue is present in independent claim 8. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claims is clear.
Claims 2-7 and claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence from claims 1 and 8, respectively.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the predetermined ratio is specified so that a flow rate of hydrogen gas is greater than 0 and not greater than 2, with a flow rate of steam defined as 1”. Regarding the recitation of “hydrogen gas”, the examiner presumes that the hydrogen gas constitutes the “a second gas which is a source for a radical having reducing power or which itself has reducing power” of claim 1, but this is not sufficiently clear from claim 2. Further, regarding the recitation of “a flow rate of steam”, the examiner presumes that the steam constitutes the “a first gas which is a source for a radical having oxidizing power or which itself has oxidizing power” of claim 1, but this is not sufficiently clear from claim 2. Claim 9 depends directly from claim 8 and lacks clarify for the analogous reasons. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence from claim 2, and claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence from claim 9.
Examiner Comment
Applicant-cited WO 2021/053865 to Takahashi et al. (Takahashi) is regarded as the closest prior art of record to the inventions of claims 1 and 8. With reference to corresponding US 2022/0344140 as a translation of Takahashi, Takahashi discloses an ion analyzer configured to analyze an ion dissociated by an effect of a radical (Takahashi, e.g., Fig. 1). Takahashi discloses a generator configured to generate a radical from a source gas (Takahashi, e.g., Fig. 1, radical generation/irradiation unit 5) and a gas supplier configured to supply first and second source gases to the generator (Takahashi, e.g., Fig. 1, first and second gas supply sources 52, 53). Takahashi discloses the first gas is a source for a radical having oxidizing power or which itself has oxidizing power and the second gas is a source for a radical having reducing power or which itself has reducing power (Takahashi, e.g., paragraph 22). Takahashi discloses a reaction chamber into which a radical generated by the generator is introduced and within which an ion originating from a sample is dissociated by the radical coming in contact with the ion (Takahashi, e.g., Fig. 1, ion trap 2). Takahashi as considered and understood by the examiner, taken alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest a gas supplier that is configured to supply a gas mixture as the source gas to the generator during an analysis, the gas mixture prepared by mixing a first gas which is a source for a radical having oxidizing power or which itself has oxidizing power, and a second gas which is a source for a radical having reducing power or which itself has reducing power, at a predetermined ratio specified so that an efficiency of dissociation by the radical originating from the first gas is not lower than that in a case where the second gas is not mixed, as required by claim 1. Analogously, Takahashi does not appear to teach or fairly suggest a step of supplying a gas mixture as the source gas to the generator during an analysis, the gas mixture prepared by mixing a first gas which is a source for a radical having oxidizing power or which itself has oxidizing power, and a second gas which is a source for a radical having reducing power or which itself has reducing power, at a predetermined ratio specified so that an efficiency of dissociation by the radical originating from the first gas is not lower than that in a case where the second gas is not mixed, as required by claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0166928 to Takahashi et al. relates to relates to a device for analyzing data obtained by mass spectrometry, a mass spectrometry device, a method for analyzing data obtained by mass spectrometry, and a computer program product; see, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraph 45, “The raw material gas may contain, for example, at least one of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, hydrogen peroxide, and water vapor”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571) 270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak, can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights