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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 8 and 15 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Concerning claim 4, the search did not find or make obvious ion guide of claim 3, wherein, at an exit of the ion guide, the outer electrodes are separated by a third distance equal to a fourth distance separating the inner electrodes..
Concerning claim 8, the search did not find or make obvious the ion guide of claim 7, wherein: the first cross-sectional shape is a tear drop shape; and the second cross-sectional shape is a circular shape.
Concerning claim 15, the search did not find or make obvious the mass spectrometer of claim 14, wherein: the first cross-sectional shape is a tear drop shape; and the second cross-sectional shape is a circular shape.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MUNTEAN et al. (US 20090294663 A1).
Regarding claim 1, MUNTEAN discloses an ion guide having a curved path (fig. 2, 200) for use in a mass spectrometer [0002] [0022], the ion guide comprising:
inner electrodes (fig. 2, 216, 218) extending along a length of the ion guide and forming an inner curvature of the curved path the ion guide; and
outer electrodes (212, 214) extending along the length of the ion guide and forming an outer curvature of the curved path of the ion guide;
wherein, at an entrance to the ion guide, the inner electrodes and the outer electrodes are configured (fig. 4; via 402, 404, 406, 408) to create, when energized, a field gradient between the outer electrodes and the inner electrodes (fig. 4; via 402, 404, 406, 408 via VRF and VDEFLECT).
Regarding claim 10, MUNTEAN discloses that a mass spectrometer [0002] [0022], comprising:
a power supply (inherent) ; and
an ion guide (fig. 2, 200) having a curved path [0022], the ion guide comprising:
inner electrodes (fig. 2, 216, 218) extending along a length of the ion guide and forming an inner curvature of the curved path [0022] of the ion guide; and
outer electrodes (212, 214) extending along the length of the ion guide and forming an outer curvature of the curved path of the ion guide;
wherein, at an entrance to the ion guide, the inner electrodes and the outer electrodes are configured (fig. 4; via 402, 404, 406, 408) to create, when energized, a field gradient between the outer electrodes and the inner electrodes, the field gradient configured to confine ions within the curved path of the ion guide (fig. 4; via 402, 404, 406, 408 via VRF and VDEFLECT)..
Regarding claim 17, MUNTEAN discloses that a method of directing ions along a curved path of an ion guide (fig. 2, 200) in a mass spectrometer [0002] [0022], comprising:
directing ions through an entrance to the ion guide (fig. 2; 200) in the mass spectrometer [0002] [0022], the ion guide comprising:
inner electrodes (fig. 2, 216, 218) that extend along a length of the ion guide and form an inner curvature of the curved path [0022] the ion guide; and
outer electrodes (212, 214) that extend along the length of the ion guide and form an outer curvature of the curved path of the ion guide;
energizing the inner electrodes and the outer electrodes, wherein, at the entrance to the ion guide, the inner electrodes and the outer electrodes create (fig. 4; via 402, 404, 406, 408) a field gradient between the outer electrodes and the inner electrodes, the field gradient configured to confine the ions within the curved path of the ion guide (fig. 4; via 402, 404, 406, 408 via VRF and VDEFLECT).
Regarding claim 7, MUNTEAN discloses that each of the outer electrodes (fig. 2; 212, 214) has a first cross-sectional shape (inherent) at the entrance to the ion guide and a second cross-sectional shape (inherent) at an exit of the ion guide.
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.
2. Claim(s) 2, 11-12, 14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNTEAN et al. (US 20090294663 A1) in view of SHIOKAWA et al. (WO 2011081188 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 18, MUNTEAN discloses wherein the field gradient comprises: an inner field gradient near the inner electrodes (fig. 2, 216, 218) ; and an outer field gradient near the outer electrodes (212, 214) ; wherein the outer field gradient RF and VDEFLECT)..
But MUNTEAN fails to disclose wherein the outer field gradient is greater than the inner field gradient.
SHIOKAWA , however, discloses a curved ion guide (fig. 6) wherein the field gradient comprises: an inner field gradient near the inner electrodes (160a ,160c) ; and an outer field gradient near the outer electrodes (160b ,160d) ; wherein the outer field gradient is greater than the inner field gradient at the entrance to the ion guide (pgs. 20-22) (the shape of the outer pair of electrodes is set differently with respect to the inner electrodes such that the field gradient within the ion guide is greater near the outer electrodes to compensate for the influence of centrifugal force).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MUNTEAN, with outer field gradient is greater than the inner field gradient, as taught by SHIOKAWA, to use to compensate for the influence of centrifugal force (pgs. 20-22).
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 12 and 19, SHIOKAWA discloses wherein the outer electrodes (fig. 6; 160b ,160d) have a geometric characteristic different (different shapes, at least) from the inner electrodes (160a, 160c) and configured to cause the outer field gradient to be greater than the inner field gradient (pgs. 20-22) (the shape of the outer pair of electrodes is set differently with respect to the inner electrodes such that the field gradient within the ion guide is greater near the outer electrodes to compensate for the influence of centrifugal force); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 11 or 18, see previous.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 14, SHIOKAWA discloses wherein, at the entrance to the ion guide, the outer electrodes (fig. 6; 160b, 160d) each have a first cross-sectional shape different from a second cross-sectional shape of each of the inner electrodes (160a, 160c); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 11 or 18, see previous.
2. Claim(s) 3, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNTEAN et al. (US 20090294663 A1) in view of DOUGLAS et al. (US 20050067564 A1).
Regarding claim 3, and 20, MUNTEAN discloses wherein, at the entrance to the ion guide, the outer electrodes (212, 214) are separated by a first distance
But MUNTEAN fails to disclose the outer electrodes (212, 214) are separated by a first distance smaller than a second distance separating the inner electrodes (fig. 2, 216, 218) .
DOUGLAS, however, discloses an ion guide multipole (fig. 13) (fig. 21) with outer electrodes (412, 418) are separated by a first distance smaller than a second distance separating the inner electrodes (416, 414).[0165-0166] [0173] (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MUNTEAN, with the above claimed multipole spacing, as taught by DOUGLAS, to use as a substitution of one known ion guide multipole spacing for another to obtain predictable results of improving the performance of the multipole field with respect to ion selection and ion fragmentation (abstract).
2. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNTEAN et al. (US 20090294663 A1) in view of SHIOKAWA et al. (WO 2011081188 A1).; hereinafter “the combined references”, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in light of DOUGLAS et al. (US 20050067564 A1).
Regarding claim 13, MUNTEAN discloses wherein, at the entrance to the ion guide, the outer electrodes (212, 214) are separated by a first distance
But MUNTEAN fails to disclose the outer electrodes (212, 214) are separated by a first distance smaller than a second distance separating the inner electrodes (fig. 2, 216, 218) .
DOUGLAS, however, discloses an ion guide multipole (fig. 13) (fig. 21) with outer electrodes (412, 418) are separated by a first distance smaller than a second distance separating the inner electrodes (416, 414).[0165-0166] [0173] (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MUNTEAN, with the above claimed multipole spacing, as taught by DOUGLAS, to use as a substitution of one known ion guide multipole spacing for another to obtain predictable results of improving the performance of the multipole field with respect to ion selection and ion fragmentation (abstract).
2. Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNTEAN et al. (US 20090294663 A1) in view of Thomson et al. (US 5847386 A).
Regarding claim 5, MUNTEAN discloses wherein the outer electrodes (212, 214) comprise a first outer electrode and a second outer electrode that are separated by a distance
Regarding claim 6, MUNTEAN discloses wherein a first distance separating the outer electrodes (212, 214) at the entrance to the ion guide
But MUNTEAN fails to disclose a first outer electrode and a second outer electrode that are separated by a distance that changes along the length of the ion guide; and/or
a first distance separating the outer electrodes at the entrance to the ion guide is smaller than a second distance separating the outer electrodes at an exit of the ion guide.
Thomson, however, discloses an ion guide (fig. 2) that has a first outer electrode (62a) and a second outer electrode (62a) that are separated by a distance that changes along the length (66 to 67) of the ion guide (62a’s separation increases towards exit 67) ; and
a first distance separating the outer electrodes (fig. 2; 62a) at the entrance (66) to the ion guide is smaller than a second distance separating the outer electrodes (62a) at an exit (67) of the ion guide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MUNTEAN, with the above claimed electrode separations, as taught by Thomson, to use as a substitution of one known ion guide electrode separation configuration for another to obtain predictable ion guidance results.
2. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNTEAN et al. (US 20090294663 A1) in view of Rebettge et al. (US 20060027745 A1).
Regarding claims 9, MUNTEAN discloses wherein: the outer electrodes (212, 214) comprise a first outer electrode and a second outer electrode; the first outer electrode has
But MUNTEAN fails to disclose first outer electrode has an extension in a direction of second outer electrode; and the second outer electrode has an extension in a direction of the first outer electrode
Rebettge, however, discloses a multipole ion guide (figs. 5-6; 4, 6) (fig. 8, 11, 12) with electrodes (4, 6) (11, 12) that have extensions toward the other electrodes /that has a first outer electrode (top 4) (11) has an extension in a direction of second outer electrode (bottom 6) (other 11 or a 12) ; and the second outer electrode (bottom 6) (other 11 or a 12) has an extension in a direction of the first outer electrode (top 4) (other 11 or a 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MUNTEAN, with first outer electrode has an extension in a direction of second outer electrode; and the second outer electrode has an extension in a direction of the first outer electrode, as taught by Rebettge, to use as a substitution of one known ion guide electrode shape configuration for another to obtain predictable ion guidance results.
2. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MUNTEAN et al. (US 20090294663 A1) in view of SHIOKAWA et al. (WO 2011081188 A1).; hereinafter “the combined references”, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in light of Rebettge et al. (US 20060027745 A1).
Regarding claim 16, MUNTEAN discloses wherein: the outer electrodes (212, 214) comprise a first outer electrode and a second outer electrode; the first outer electrode has
But the combined references fails to disclose first outer electrode has an extension in a direction of second outer electrode; and the second outer electrode has an extension in a direction of the first outer electrode
Rebettge, however, discloses a multipole ion guide (figs. 5-6; 4, 6) (fig. 8, 11, 12) with electrodes (4, 6) (11, 12) that have extensions toward the other electrodes /that has a first outer electrode (top 4) (11) has an extension in a direction of second outer electrode (bottom 6) (other 11 or a 12) ; and the second outer electrode (bottom 6) (other 11 or a 12) has an extension in a direction of the first outer electrode (top 4) (other 11 or a 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of the combined references, with first outer electrode has an extension in a direction of second outer electrode; and the second outer electrode has an extension in a direction of the first outer electrode, as taught by Rebettge, to use as a substitution of one known ion guide electrode shape configuration for another to obtain predictable ion guidance results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Smyth whose telephone number is 571-270-1746. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00AM - 6:00PM; Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW SMYTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights