DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/29/25 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in claim 1.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 10-18 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-9, 19-20 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-6, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Syage et al. (US 6211516 B1) [hereinafter Syage] in view of Chutjian et al. (US 20010042826 A1) [hereinafter Chutjian].
Regarding claim 1, Syage teaches an ion gun, comprising:
a confinement vessel (see figs 2,6,7 vessel holding entire assembly, e.g. outer walls of the assembly, the room, etc) defining a chamber therein (see e.g. figs 2,6,7);
a plasma source (see e.g. photoionizer, 202, cathode, 226) configured to provide ions in said chamber; and
at least one acceleration and focusing electrode (e.g. repeller cage and/or anode cage, see col 3, lines 39-47) disposed within said chamber and positioned to receive ions from said plasma source (see fig 6), and to accelerate and focus said ions received (see fig 3, natural result of electrode in that shape) to be delivered to an underlying surface (e.g. detector, 234),
wherein said at least one acceleration and focusing electrode is structured to provide an aperture therethrough (see figs 2,3 col 3, lines 39-47) to provide optical access to an optical device (see laser assembly, 210, 224) including a light source (see laser, 210),
wherein said ions are delivered to said underlying surface (see 234; alternately see 320) to
Syage may fail to explicitly disclose delivering the ions to “treat” the surface.
However, in a different embodiment, Syage teaches using ion traps for analysis, which remove neutral molecules not necessary for analysis (see col 6, lines 44-46). Furthermore, Chutjian teaches a system using gold coatings to dissipate the charge of ions that strike the entrance electrode, and partially protect downstream electrodes (see Chutjian, [0053]), comprising wherein the system delivers ions to treat an underlying surface (impacts surface of ion trap, naturally causing surface treatment). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Chutjian in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve operation of the system, including enabling use of ion trap analysis, removing neutral molecules, and/or protecting electrodes, in the manner taught by Chutjian.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Syage and Chutjian teaches said at least one acceleration and focusing electrode comprises a basket electrode formed in a cylindrical shape (see Syage, see fig 6: 228), and arranged to accelerate and focus said ions in an axial direction of said basket electrode (see col 6, lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Syage and Chutjian teaches said at least one acceleration and focusing electrode further includes a shield (see e.g. Syage, fig. 6: 230, 218) arranged substantially perpendicular to and spaced apart from said basket electrode in an axial direction therefrom, said shield defining an aperture therethrough (see fig 6).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Syage and Chutjian teaches said at least one acceleration and focusing electrode is less than 1.5 cm in height (total volume is 1cm3 so either diameter or height will be less than 1.5cm).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Syage and Chutjian teaches said underlying surface (see Chutjian, [0053], fig 5: 36) is a surface of an ion trap (see Chutjian, fig 5).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Syage and Chutjian teaches a first voltage source (required for intended operation of system) connected to said basket electrode to provide a voltage VB (see Syage, col 6, lines 56-59); and a second voltage source (required for intended operation of system) connected to said shield to provide a voltage Vs (see e.g. 128).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Syage and Chutjian teaches the underlying surface is an inner surface of an ion trap (see Chutjian, fig 5: 38, extending inside 24, [0053]) and the ion gun is incorporated into the ion trap (see Stage, fig 6, incorporated into same assembly).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Syage and Chutjian teaches the underlying surface includes a layer of gold deposited thereon (see Chutjian, [0053]).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Syage and Chutjian, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Рябчиков et al. (RU2658293C1) [hereinafter Ananin].
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Syage and Chutjian teaches said second voltage source provides a voltage Vs of at least 0 V to VB (see 4.5V, Syage, col 4, table 2). Syage fails to explicitly disclose said first voltage source provides a voltage VB of at least 100 V to 2 kV. However, Syage teaches adjusting the voltage to balance sensitivity and noise (see Syage, col 5, lines 42-49). it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the voltages to find a balanced range as a routine skill in the art for different ion species with different characteristics for generating secondary ions and/or different analysis modes, including a voltage between 100V and 2kV, as a routine skill in the art. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Nevertheless, it is noted that the use of higher voltages was well known in the art. For example, Ananin teaches applying 300V to a grid electrode for applications involving ionization of titanium ions (see Ananin, translation, p6, col 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Ananin in the system of the prior art to try to analyze different types of ions with different ionization schemes, including trying the voltage ranges explicitly taught by Ananin.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Syage and Chutjian fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Ananin, for similar reasons as claim 7 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Syage, Chutjian, and Ananin teaches said first voltage source provides a voltage VB of at least 200 V to 500 V (see Ananin, 300V, translation, p6, col 3), and said second voltage source provides a voltage Vs of at least 0 V to VB (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Syage and Chutjian fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Ananin, for similar reasons as claim 7 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Syage, Chutjian, and Ananin teaches said first voltage source provides a voltage VB of 300 V (see Ananin, 300V, translation, p6, col 3), and said second voltage source provides a voltage Vs of 300 V or less (see fig 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am – 5:30 pm M-T, and every other Friday.
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 on (571) 272 – 2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 – 8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881