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 .
The applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-14, without traverse in their reply dated 5/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 15-17 were withdrawn. Claims 1-14 are considered on the merits below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 6/10/2022, 6/27/2023, 05/15/2024, 11/07/204 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 3-4 and 6-12 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.
Regarding claims 3, 6, and 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes the examiner interprets that the claims only require the limitation prior to “preferably”.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes the examiner interprets that the claims only require the limitation prior to “in particular”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" (present twice) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes the examiner interprets that the claims only require the limitation prior to “preferably”. In this case the claim only requires “at least one sensor” as the other components are only “preferable” present.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" (present twice) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes the examiner interprets that the claims only require the limitation prior to “preferably”. In this case the claim only requires “wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor” as the other components are only “preferably” present.
Further regarding claim 9, the phrase "in particular" (present twice) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes the examiner interprets that the claims only require the limitation prior to “in particular”. In this case the claim only requires “wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor” as the other components are only exemplary language recitations.
Dependent claims follow the same reasoning.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rafferty et al. (US 2014/0252215 A1, provided on the IDS on 6/10/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Rafferty describes a mass spectrometer (abstract and figures 3, 4, and 5), comprising:
a gas inlet adapted to supply a sample gas to be ionized to an ionization region of the mass spectrometer (figure 3 and [0028] “sample containing a chemical for calibrating mass spectrometer 100 may be introduced to mass analyzer 306 through an inlet port containing valve 302”),
a calibration unit adapted to supply a calibration gas to be ionized to the ionization region (figure 3 “calibrant permeation tube 204” and claim 1 “a calibrant chamber within a housing of the mass spectrometer;”),
an ionization unit adapted to ionize the sample gas and/or the calibration gas in the ionization region (figure 5 “Ionize and analyze chemical for calibration 508” and [0028] “Mass analyzer 306 may then ionize the calibrant sample and analyze it for calibrating mass spectrometer 100.”),
wherein the calibration unit comprises at least one evaporation source for generating the calibration gas by evaporating a source material ([0017] “The permeable tube may be filled with a liquid calibrant, which may evaporate through the micropores in the permeable material to form a gas in an internal calibrant chamber.” And figure 4 “heating block 402 may be used to heat the calibrant chemical in permeation tube 204.”).
Regarding claim 2, Rafferty describes the mass spectrometer according to claim 1, wherein the source material and the ionization region are arranged along a line of sight (figure 3 shows “calibrant chamber 202 (source material)” and “Mass analyzer 306 (ionization region) may then ionize the calibrant sample” are a line of sight. Examiner’s note: “a line of sight” is defined in the specification as “along a straight line that is in general not blocked by any components of the mass spectrometer” [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Rafferty describes the mass spectrometer according to claim 1, wherein the evaporation source is a thermal evaporation source, preferably a resistive evaporation source, an electron beam evaporation source or an effusion evaporation source ([0012] “FIG. 4 depicts a block diagram of an exemplary mass spectrometer having a heating block”).
Regarding claim 8, Rafferty describes the mass spectrometer according to claim 1, further comprising: at least one sensor, preferably for determining a pressure of the calibration gas, wherein the sensor is preferably arranged along a line of sight to the ionization region and/or along a line of sight to the source material ([0007] “introducing the outgassed calibrant chemical to the mass spectrometer for analysis (sensing)”).
Regarding claim 9, Rafferty describes the mass spectrometer according to claim 8, wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor, preferably an ionization vacuum gauge, more preferably a cold cathode vacuum gauge, in particular a Penning vacuum gauge, or a hot cathode vacuum gauge, in particular a Bayard-Alpert vacuum gauge or an extractor ionization gauge ([0021] “The valve may be configured such that it allows a sufficient amount of calibrant into mass spectrometer 100 to allow the calibration function to be performed without compromising the integrity of the vacuum required for operating the mass analyzer.” (i.e. vacuum gauge) And [0029] “The flow of the matrix gas 404 through chamber 202 may be supplied by a pump (not shown) external to mass spectrometer 100 or by mass spectrometer l00's pumping system 304. Valve 302 may also be an orthonormal valve. Therefore, by controlling the temperature of the tube 204 and the flow 404 of the gas over tube 204, mass spectrometer 100 may calibrate the abundance scale.” ).
Regarding claim 10, Rafferty describes the mass spectrometer according to claim 9, wherein the pressure sensor or a control unit of the mass spectrometer is adapted for determining a flow rate of the calibration gas based on the pressure of the calibration gas determined by the pressure sensor ([0031] “the flow rate 404 of the matrix gas over tube 204 is controlled.” via a control unit).
Regarding claim 12, Rafferty describes the mass spectrometer according to claim 8, further comprising: a movable cover for blocking a line of sight between the source material and the ionization region and/or a line of sight between the source material and the pressure sensor ([0021] “a cover 206”).
Regarding claim 13, Rafferty describes the mass spectrometer according to claim 1, wherein the ionization unit is an electron ionization source ([0030] “In step 508, the chemical may be ionized and analyzed for calibrating mass spectrometer 100.”).
Regarding claim 14, Rafferty describes the mass spectrometer according to claim 1, further comprising: an ion trap for storing ions of the sample gas and/or of the calibration gas, wherein the ionization region is formed inside of the ion trap ([0002] “an ion trap analyzer”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafferty et al. (US 2014/0252215 A1, provided on the IDS on 6/10/2022) in view of Parkhurst et al. (US 3,896,661).
Regarding claim 4, Rafferty describes the mass spectrometer according to claim 3, however is silent to the resistive evaporation source comprises a heated filament that is at least partially coated with the source material.
Parkhurst describes a mass spectrometer using resistive evaporation to evaporate the sample (column 5 “The metal strips 52 are preferably formed of a metal having a relatively high resistance so that this current generates sufficient heat to evaporate the substance z1, z2, etc., into the ion source of the mass spectrometer.”). Additionally Parkhurst suggest that this type of heater is advantageous because it allows for use with a wider variety of materials (column 2 lines 20-30), suggesting motivation to incorporate resistive evaporation as the heating method.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the resistive evaporation source comprises a heated filament that is at least partially coated with the source material as suggested by Parkhurst into the device of Rafferty because this would allow for use with a wider variety of materials.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafferty et al. (US 2014/0252215 A1, provided on the IDS on 6/10/2022) in view of Tom (US 6,156,578).
Regarding claim 11, Rafferty describes the mass spectrometer according to claim 8, however is silent to wherein the sensor is a quartz crystal microbalance, preferably for determining a flow rate of the calibration gas.
Tom describes that quartz crystal microbalance for use with pressure sensors and flow rates (column 11 “The quartz crystal microbalance System may be arranged to utilize the AF, change in frequency, or alternatively the rate of change of frequency, to control the temperature, Vapor pressure, flow rate, etc., of the gas component and regulate its concentration.”) Additionally, Tom suggests that a quartz crystal microbalance can give very specific data regarding gas components (column 1 lines 5-15), suggesting motivation to incorporate this type of balance when detecting gas pressure and flow rates.
Therefor it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a quartz crystal balance into the mass spectrometer of Rafferty as suggested by Tom because this would allow for obtaining very specific data regarding gas components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Reference Rafferty et al. (US 2014/0252215 A1, provided on the IDS on 6/10/2022) describes the limitations of claim 1, however fails to teach or suggest the evaporation source is a pulsed laser deposition, PLD, evaporation source (claim 5).
None of the prior art discovered describes all the limitations alone or in combination, thus the prior art fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reference Rafferty et al. (US 2014/0252215 A1, provided on the IDS on 6/10/2022) describes the limitations of claim 1, however fails to teach or suggest the source material is a metal (claim 6) or the source material is selected from the group consisting of: metal nitrides and metal oxides (claim 7).
None of the prior art discovered describes all the limitations alone or in combination, thus the prior art fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of claims 6 and 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY R BERKELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9831. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 571-272-7129. 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.
/EMILY R. BERKELEY/
Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796