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 .
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks on pages 8-9 are found to be unpersuasive because the combination of Coumans and Haas is proper.
The rejection under 103 of claim 1 applies the material of the object of Coumans to the instrument and vacuum chamber of Haas. Although Coumans is not explicitly directed to an object that is a vacuum chamber, Coumans does teach a material that is lightweight and durable (solving the problem of needing to provide improved structure that is lightweight and has improved durability, as discussed in the previous office action) and can reasonably be applied to such a field of vacuum chambers because Coumans teaches that the object can be used for various applications where a lightweight and wear resistant material is required (see [0051]-[0055]), and such is the situation at hand (see instant application, pg. 2 lines 5-8). MPEP states 2141.01(a) I. states “a reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
The remarks on page 10 are found to be unpersuasive because the thickness of the second ceramic layer is recognizable as a result-effective variable.
As stated in the previous office action, Coumans teaches the thickness of the inner ceramic layer as being a results-effective variable because adjusting the thickness (see [0048] where a suggested range of layer thickness is provided) provides the result of functioning as an electrical insulator ([0048]). The suggested range indicates that one may manipulate the layer thickness in order to achieve the desired effect of electrical insulation. This demonstrates the thickness of the inner ceramic layer as a results-effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 II (A) teaches, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). As explained above and in the previous office action, Coumans teaches the thickness of the inner ceramic layer as being a variable that achieves the result of electrical insulation. Consequently the limitation does not provide an inventive step because, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) filed on 03/05/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 mechanism for depressurizing fluid in the interior space of the vacuum chamber” in claim 1.
Interpreted as “a vacuum pump in fluid communication with the interior space of the vacuum chamber” as taught on pg. 6, lines 12-14 of the specification
“the mechanism for depressurizing the fluid is configured to reduce the pressure of the fluid in the interior space of the vacuum chamber to a pressure in a range of 10-1 mbar (10 Pa) and 10-9 mbar (10-7 Pa)." in claim 2
Interpreted as “a vacuum pump in fluid communication with the interior space of the vacuum chamber” as taught on pg. 6, lines 12-14 of the specification
“the mechanism for depressurizing the fluid is configured to reduce the pressure of the fluid in the interior space of the vacuum chamber to a pressure in a range of 10-3 mbar (10-1 Pa) and 10-8 mbar (10-6 Pa)” in claim 3.
Interpreted as “a vacuum pump in fluid communication with the interior space of the vacuum chamber” as taught on pg. 6, lines 12-14 of the specification
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 § 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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas, et. al. (US 6351983 B1), hereinafter Haas in view of Coumans (US 20180141310 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haas teaches an instrument (mass spectrometer, Col. 1, Field of the Invention), comprising:
- a vacuum chamber comprising an interior space for containing depressurized fluid (vacuum chamber 20, Col. 3, line 65, Fig. 1A), and
- a mechanism for depressurizing fluid in the interior space of the vacuum chamber (ion pump 38, Col. 3, line 39, Fig. 1A),
and a wall of the vacuum chamber delimiting at least a portion of the interior space (wall of the vacuum chamber 20 delimits the interior space as seen in Fig. 1A)
wherein the mechanism for depressurizing the fluid (ion pump 38, Col. 3, line 39, Fig. 1A) is configured to reduce the pressure of the fluid in the interior space of the vacuum chamber to a pressure in a range of 10-1 mbar (10 Pa) and 10-9 mbar (10-7 Pa) (Col. 4, lines 10-11 teaches 1x10-7 Torr, which is equivalent to 1.33x10-7mbar and is within the claimed range).
Haas does not teach wherein a wall of the vacuum chamber delimiting at least a portion of the interior space includes: - a layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset having a thickness in a range of 1- 10 mm, - a first layer of ceramic material having a thickness in a range of 40-60 pm, - a layer of aluminum having a thickness in a range of 0.5-10 mm, and - a second layer of ceramic material having a thickness in a range of 40-60 pm, wherein the first layer of ceramic material is positioned between the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset and the layer of aluminum, wherein the layer of aluminum is positioned between the first layer of ceramic material and the second layer of ceramic material, and wherein the second layer of ceramic material is positioned most to a side of an interior surface of the wall of the vacuum chamber.
Coumans teaches
- a layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset having a thickness in a range of 1- 10 mm ([0042]),
- a layer of aluminum having a thickness in a range of 0.5-10 mm ([0044]), and
- a second layer of ceramic material (outer ceramic layer 4, Fig. 2) having a thickness in a range of 40-60 pm ([0049]),
wherein the first layer of ceramic material (inner layer of ceramic material 2, Fig. 2, [0018]) is positioned between the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset (carbon fiber reinforced plastic 1, Fig. 2, [0018]) and the layer of aluminum (layer of aluminum 3, Fig. 2, [0018]) (In Fig. 2, 2 is positioned between 1 and 3), wherein the layer of aluminum (layer of aluminum 3, Fig. 2, [0018]) is positioned between the first layer of ceramic material (inner layer of ceramic material 2, Fig. 2, [0018]) and the second layer of ceramic material (outer layer of ceramic material 4, Fig. 2, [0018]) (In Fig. 2, 3 is between 2 and 4), and wherein the second layer of ceramic material (outer layer of ceramic material 4, Fig. 2, [0018]) is positioned most to a side of an interior surface of the wall of the vacuum chamber (4 is adjacent to the interior surface as seen in Fig. 2).
Coumans teaches a first layer of ceramic material (inner layer of ceramic material 2, Fig. 2) having a thickness ([0048], inner layer of the ceramic material has a thickness of at least 2 µm and preferably less than 25 µm). Coumans does not teach the thickness being in a range of 40-60 µm, however, it would be obvious to optimize the thickness of the inner layer of ceramic layer of Coumans such that the range of the claimed invention is met.
The range of thickness of the second ceramic layer could be achieved through routine experimentation because the thickness of this layer is a result-effective variable.
Optimizing the thickness of the inner ceramic layer is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Coumans teaches the thickness of the inner ceramic layer as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Paragraph [0048] teaches that the inner layer of the ceramic material has a function as an electrical insulator and that the layer has a thickness of at least 2 µm and preferably less than 25 µm. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the thickness of the inner ceramic layer and identifies said layer thickness as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the thickness of the inner ceramic layer to meet the claimed second layer of ceramic material thickness since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting that the wall of the vacuum chamber includes layers of particular materials and thicknesses positioned in a particular order.
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 Coumans because incorporating metallic and ceramic layers with fiber reinforced plastic solves the problem of low wear resistance, ([0002]-[0003]). Additionally, the presence of ceramic material between the fiber reinforced plastic and aluminum prevents galvanic corrosion and improves the wear resistance, ([0015]) and “[t]he inner layer of the ceramic material has a function as an electrical insulator,”, ([0048]). Furthermore, “in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists… Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. ” (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Regarding claim 3, Haas teaches wherein the mechanism for depressurizing the fluid (ion pump 38, Col. 3, line 39, Fig. 1A) is configured to reduce the pressure of the fluid in the interior space of the vacuum chamber to a pressure in a range of 10-3 mbar (10-1 Pa) and 10-8 mbar (10-6 Pa) (Col. 4, lines 10-11 teaches 1x10-7 Torr, which is equivalent to 1.33x10-7mbar and is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, Haas teaches the instrument being configured to perform an analysis of a sample (mass spectrometer 12, Col. 3, lines 19-20, Fig. 1A) and comprising:
- an ion source that is configured to create ions in the sample (ionization source 14, Col. 3, lines 20-21, Fig. 1A),
- electrodes which are configured to separate ions from the sample and to thereby provide separated ions (Col. 3, lines 22-32, mass selective quadrupole),
- a detector that is configured to detect the separated ions (detector 18, Col. 3, line 21, Fig. 1A),
wherein the ion source, the electrodes, and the detector are positioned in the interior space of the vacuum chamber (Col. 3, lines 18-32, Fig. 1A), and
wherein the mechanism for depressurizing fluid in the interior space of the vacuum chamber comprises a vacuum pump in fluid communication with the interior space of the vacuum chamber (ion pump 38, Col. 3, lines 64-65, Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 5, Haas teaches the instrument being a mass spectrometer (mass spectrometer 12, Col. 3, lines 19-20, Fig. 1A) in which the vacuum chamber (vacuum chamber 20, Col. 3, line 65, Fig. 1A) comprises a tube (vacuum chamber is an elongated rectangular prism as seen in Fig. 1A-1B) and at least four flanges which are attached to the tube (Col. 3, lines 33-43), and in which the vacuum pump is arranged at a first flange of the vacuum chamber (ion pump, Col. 3, lines 64-65, Fig. 1A), the mass spectrometer further comprising:
- a pressure gauge that is arranged at a second flange of the vacuum chamber and configured to regulate fluid pressure in the vacuum chamber (full range Pirani/cold cathode pressure gauge, Col. 3, lines 33-35),
- an inlet that is arranged at a third flange of the vacuum chamber and configured to receive the sample to the interior space (transfer line 22, Col. 5, lines 4-6, Fig. 1A), and
- an electronic control unit that is arranged at a fourth flange of the vacuum chamber (control board 40, Fig. 1A, Col. 4, lines 22-25), wherein the detector is positioned most to the electronic control unit in the interior space (detector 18 is in the interior space of vacuum chamber 20 and is next to the control board 40, as seen in Fig. 1A).
Although Haas does teach an elongated, hollow, rectangular prism, which some may consider to be a tube, Haas does not explicitly teach a tube, as it is more commonly defined (a long, hollow cylinder).
Since the specification of the instant application is absent persuasive evidence that a cylindrical tube-shaped vacuum chamber is significant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape from a rectangular prism to cylinder, as taught by MPEP 2144.04 IV. B., “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).”
Regarding claim 6, Haas teaches a wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A),
Haas does not teach the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset is bound to the first layer of ceramic material, and the layer of aluminum is bound to the first layer of ceramic material and the second layer of ceramic material.
Coumans teaches the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset is bound to the first layer of ceramic material, and the layer of aluminum is bound to the first layer of ceramic material and the second layer of ceramic material (Fig. 2, where the layers are shown to be bound to eachother as claimed. See also, [0028], [0034], [0035], [0039], [0041]).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting that the layer of aluminum is bound to the layers of ceramic, and the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset is bound to the first layer of ceramic material.
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 Coumans because binding metallic and ceramic layers with fiber reinforced plastic is important, [0011], and solves the problem of low wear resistance, ([0002]-[0003]). Additionally, the presence of ceramic material between the fiber reinforced plastic and aluminum prevents galvanic corrosion and improves the wear resistance, ([0015]).
Regarding claim 7, Haas teaches the wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A),
Haas does not teach the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset has a thickness in a range of 1-2 mm.
Coumans teaches the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset has a thickness in a range of 1-2 mm ([0042]).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting the carbon fiber reinforced plastic has a thickness between 1mm-3mm.
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 Coumans because “in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Regarding claim 8, Haas teaches the wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A).
Haas does not teach the layer of aluminum has a thickness in a range of 0.5-3 mm.
Coumans teaches the layer of aluminum has a thickness in a range of 0.5-3 mm ([0044]).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting the aluminum has a thickness between 0.3mm-3mm.
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 Coumans because “in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Regarding claim 9, Haas teaches the wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A).
Haas does not teach the layer of aluminum has a thickness in a range of 1-2 mm.
Coumans teaches the layer of aluminum has a thickness in a range of 1-2 mm ([0044]).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting the aluminum has a thickness between 0.3mm-2mm.
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 Coumans because “in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Regarding claim 10, Haas teaches the wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A).
Haas does not teach the ceramic material of the second layer of ceramic material has a hardness according to Vickers (HV) of at least 750.
Coumans teaches the ceramic material of the second layer of ceramic material has a hardness according to Vickers (HV) of at least 750 ([0040]).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting the ceramic layer has a hardness of at least 750 HV.
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 Coumans because the hardness of the ceramic material improves the wear resistance of the object, (Coumans, [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, Haas teaches the wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A).
Haas does not teach wherein, at the side of the wall of the vacuum chamber other than the side where the layer of aluminum is present, the second layer of ceramic material is covered by a coating, and wherein the coating is selected from a group that includes a Teflon@ coating, gold coating, copper, titanium and a diamond-like-carbon (DLC) coating.
Coumans teaches wherein, at the side other than the side where the layer of aluminum is present, the second layer of ceramic material is covered by a coating (outer ceramic layer 4, which has a side other than the side next to the aluminum layer, as seen in Fig. 2), and wherein the coating is selected from a group that includes a Teflon@ coating, gold coating, copper, titanium and a diamond-like-carbon (DLC) coating ([0065] teaches that the ceramic layer can be coated with Teflon or diamond-like-carbon).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting a Teflon or DLC coating on the side of the outer ceramic layer.
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 Coumans because further treating the ceramic surface with a coating such as Teflon or DLC allows for the reductio of friction, ([0065]).
Regarding claim 13, Haas teaches being configured to perform an analysis of a sample and comprising: - an ion source that is configured to create ions in the sample (ionization source 14, Col. 3, lines 20-21, Fig. 1A),
- electrodes which are configured to separate ions from the sample and to thereby provide separated ions (Col. 3, lines 22-32, mass selective quadrupole),
- a detector that is configured to detect the separated ions (detector 18, Col. 3, line 21, Fig. 1A),
wherein the ion source, the electrodes, and the detector are positioned in the interior space of the vacuum chamber (Col. 3, lines 18-32, Fig. 1A), and
wherein the mechanism for depressurizing fluid in the interior space of the vacuum chamber comprises a vacuum pump in fluid communication with the interior space of the vacuum chamber (ion pump 38, Col. 3, lines 64-65, Fig. 1A),
the instrument being a mass spectrometer in which the vacuum chamber comprises a tube (vacuum chamber is an elongated rectangular prism as seen in Fig. 1A-1B) and at least four flanges which are attached to the tube (Col. 3, lines 33-43), and in which the vacuum pump is arranged at a first flange of the vacuum chamber (ion pump, Col. 3, lines 64-65, Fig. 1A), the mass spectrometer further comprising:
- a pressure gauge that is arranged at a second flange of the vacuum chamber and configured to regulate fluid pressure in the vacuum chamber (full range Pirani/cold cathode pressure gauge, Col. 3, lines 33-35),
- an inlet that is arranged at a third flange of the vacuum chamber and configured to receive the sample to the interior space (transfer line 22, Col. 5, lines 4-6, Fig. 1A), and
- an electronic control unit that is arranged at a fourth flange of the vacuum chamber (control board 40, Fig. 1A, Col. 4, lines 22-25), wherein the detector is positioned most to the electronic control unit in the interior space (detector 18 is in the interior space of vacuum chamber 20 and is next to the control board 40, as seen in Fig. 1A).
Although Haas does teach an elongated, hollow, rectangular prism, which some may consider to be a tube, Haas does not explicitly teach a tube, as it is more commonly defined (a long, hollow cylinder).
Since the specification of the instant application is absent persuasive evidence that a cylindrical tube-shaped vacuum chamber is significant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape from a rectangular prism to cylinder, as taught by MPEP 2144.04 IV. B., “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” The specification of the instant application is absent persuasive evidence that a cylindrical tube-shaped vacuum chamber is significant.
Regarding claim 14, Haas teaches the wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A).
Haas does not teach the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset is bound to the first layer of ceramic material, and the layer of aluminum is bound to the first layer of ceramic material and the second layer of ceramic material, and wherein, in the wall of the vacuum chamber, the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset has a thickness in a range of 1-2 mm.
Coumans teaches the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset is bound to the first layer of ceramic material, and the layer of aluminum is bound to the first layer of ceramic material and the second layer of ceramic material (Fig. 2, where the layers are shown to be bound to eachother as claimed. See also, [0034], [0035], [0039], [0041]), and
wherein, the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset has a thickness in a range of 1-2 mm ([0042]).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting that the layer of aluminum is bound to the layers of ceramic, and the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset is bound to the first layer of ceramic material. Additionally, Coumans suggest the carbon fiber reinforced plastic has a thickness between 1mm-3mm.
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 Coumans because binding metallic and ceramic layers with fiber reinforced plastic is important, [0011], and solves the problem of low wear resistance, ([0002]-[0003]). Additionally, the presence of ceramic material between the fiber reinforced plastic and aluminum prevents galvanic corrosion and improves the wear resistance, ([0015]). Furthermore, “in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Regarding claim 15, Haas teaches the wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A).
Haas does not teach the layer of aluminum has a thickness in a range of 0.5-3 mm.
Coumans teaches the layer of aluminum has a thickness in a range of 0.5-3 mm ([0044]).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting the aluminum has a thickness between 0.3mm-3mm.
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 Coumans because “in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Regarding claim 16, Haas teaches the wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A).
Haas does not teach the ceramic material of the second layer of ceramic material has a hardness according to Vickers (HV) of at least 750. Haas does not teach wherein, at the side of the wall of the vacuum chamber other than the side where the layer of aluminum is present, the second layer of ceramic material is covered by a coating, and wherein the coating is selected from a group that includes a Teflon@ coating, gold coating, copper, titanium and a diamond-like-carbon (DLC) coating.
Coumans teaches the ceramic material of the second layer of ceramic material has a hardness according to Vickers (HV) of at least 750 ([0040]). Coumans teaches wherein, at the side other than the side where the layer of aluminum is present, the second layer of ceramic material is covered by a coating (outer ceramic layer 4, which has a side other than the side next to the aluminum layer, as seen in Fig. 2), and wherein the coating is selected from a group that includes a Teflon@ coating, gold coating, copper, titanium and a diamond-like-carbon (DLC) coating ([0065] teaches that the ceramic layer can be coated with Teflon or diamond-like-carbon).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting the ceramic layer has a hardness of at least 750 HV. Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting a Teflon or DLC coating on the side of the outer ceramic layer.
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 Coumans because the hardness of the ceramic material improves the wear resistance of the object, (Coumans, [0015]). Furthermore, treating the ceramic surface with a coating such as Teflon or DLC allows for the reductio of friction, ([0065]).
Regarding claim 18, Haas teaches being configured to perform an analysis of a sample and comprising:
- an ion source that is configured to create ions in the sample (ionization source 14, Col. 3, lines 20-21, Fig. 1A),
- electrodes which are configured to separate ions from the sample and to thereby provide separated ions (Col. 3, lines 22-32, mass selective quadrupole),
- a detector that is configured to detect the separated ions (detector 18, Col. 3, line 21, Fig. 1A),
wherein the ion source, the electrodes, and the detector are positioned in the interior space of the vacuum chamber (Col. 3, lines 18-32, Fig. 1A), and
wherein the mechanism for depressurizing fluid in the interior space of the vacuum chamber comprises a vacuum pump in fluid communication with the interior space of the vacuum chamber (ion pump 38, Col. 3, lines 64-65, Fig. 1A),
the instrument being a mass spectrometer in which the vacuum chamber comprises a tube (vacuum chamber is an elongated rectangular prism as seen in Fig. 1A-1B. Although Haas does teach an elongated, hollow, rectangular prism, which some may consider to be a tube, Haas does not explicitly teach a tube, as it is more commonly defined (a long, hollow cylinder). Since the specification of the instant application is absent persuasive evidence that a cylindrical tube-shaped vacuum chamber is significant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape from a rectangular prism to cylinder, as taught by MPEP 2144.04 IV. B., “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” The specification of the instant application is absent persuasive evidence that a cylindrical tube-shaped vacuum chamber is significant.) and at least four flanges which are attached to the tube (Col. 3, lines 33-43), and in which the vacuum pump is arranged at a first flange of the vacuum chamber (ion pump, Col. 3, lines 64-65, Fig. 1A), the mass spectrometer further comprising:
- a pressure gauge that is arranged at a second flange of the vacuum chamber and configured to regulate fluid pressure in the vacuum chamber (full range Pirani/cold cathode pressure gauge, Col. 3, lines 33-35),
- an inlet that is arranged at a third flange of the vacuum chamber and configured to receive the sample to the interior space (transfer line 22, Col. 5, lines 4-6, Fig. 1A), and
- an electronic control unit that is arranged at a fourth flange of the vacuum chamber (control board 40, Fig. 1A, Col. 4, lines 22-25), wherein the detector is positioned most to the electronic control unit in the interior space (detector 18 is in the interior space of vacuum chamber 20 and is next to the control board 40, as seen in Fig. 1A).
Although Haas teaches a wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A), Haas does not teach the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset is bound to the first layer of ceramic material, and the layer of aluminum is bound to the first layer of ceramic material and the second layer of ceramic material.
Coumans teaches the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset is bound to the first layer of ceramic material, and the layer of aluminum is bound to the first layer of ceramic material and the second layer of ceramic material (Fig. 2, where the layers are shown to be bound to each other as claimed. See also, [0028], [0034], [0035], [0039], [0041]).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting that the layer of aluminum is bound to the layers of ceramic, and the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset is bound to the first layer of ceramic material.
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 Coumans because binding metallic and ceramic layers with fiber reinforced plastic is important, [0011], and solves the problem of low wear resistance, ([0002]-[0003]). Additionally, the presence of ceramic material between the fiber reinforced plastic and aluminum prevents galvanic corrosion and improves the wear resistance, ([0015]).
Regarding claim 19, Haas teaches the wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A),
Haas does not teach the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset has a thickness in a range of 1-2 m and the layer of aluminum has a thickness in a range of 0.5-3 mm.
Coumans teaches the layer of carbon fiber reinforced thermoset has a thickness in a range of 1-2 mm ([0042]) and the layer of aluminum has a thickness in a range of 0.5-3 mm ([0044]).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting the carbon fiber reinforced plastic has a thickness between 1mm-3mm and the aluminum has a thickness between 0.3mm-3mm.
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 Coumans because “in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Claims 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US 6351983 B1), in view of Coumans (US 20180141310 A1), further in view of KR2011 (KR 20110046179 A)
Regarding claim 12, Haas teaches the instrument (mass spectrometer 12, Col. 3, lines 19-20, Fig. 1A) being of a portable nature by having a weight of 25 kg or less (Abstract).
Haas in view of Coumans does not teach having a weight of 20 kg or less.
KR2011 teaches having a weight of 20 kg or less (See 13th paragraph of “DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS” which begins “The vacuum system 32 uses a small diaphragm…”).
KR2011 modifies Haas by suggesting the instrument has a weight of 6 kg.
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 KR2011 because a total weight of 6 kg allows the system to be compact, lightweight, portable, and convenient (Last paragraph of “BACKGROUND-ART”, KR2011).
Regarding claim 17, Haas teaches the instrument (mass spectrometer 12, Col. 3, lines 19-20, Fig. 1A) being of a portable nature by having a weight of 25 kg or less (Abstract).
Haas in view of Coumans does not teach having a weight of 20 kg or less.
KR2011 teaches having a weight of 20 kg or less (See 13th paragraph of “DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS” which begins “The vacuum system 32 uses a small diaphragm…”).
KR2011 modifies Haas by suggesting the instrument has a weight of 6 kg.
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 KR2011 because a total weight of 6 kg allows the system to be compact, lightweight, portable, and convenient (Last paragraph of “BACKGROUND-ART”, KR2011).
Regarding claim 20, Haas teaches the instrument being of a portable nature by having a weight of 25 kg or less (Abstract). Haas teaches the wall of the vacuum chamber (wall of vacuum chamber 20, Fig. 1A).
Haas does not teach the ceramic material of the second layer of ceramic material has a hardness according to Vickers (HV) of at least 750. Haas does not teach wherein, at the side of the wall of the vacuum chamber other than the side where the layer of aluminum is present, the second layer of ceramic material is covered by a coating, and wherein the coating is selected from a group that includes a Teflon@ coating, gold coating, copper, titanium and a diamond-like-carbon (DLC) coating.
Coumans teaches the ceramic material of the second layer of ceramic material has a hardness according to Vickers (HV) of at least 750 ([0040]). Coumans teaches wherein, at the side other than the side where the layer of aluminum is present, the second layer of ceramic material is covered by a coating (outer ceramic layer 4, which has a side other than the side next to the aluminum layer, as seen in Fig. 2), and wherein the coating is selected from a group that includes a Teflon@ coating, gold coating, copper, titanium and a diamond-like-carbon (DLC) coating ([0065] teaches that the ceramic layer can be coated with Teflon or diamond-like-carbon).
Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting the ceramic layer has a hardness of at least 750 HV. Coumans modifies Haas by suggesting a Teflon or DLC coating on the side of the outer ceramic layer.
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 Coumans because the hardness of the ceramic material improves the wear resistance of the object, (Coumans, [0015]). Furthermore, treating the ceramic surface with a coating such as Teflon or DLC allows for the reductio of friction, ([0065]).
Haas in view of Coumans does not teach the instrument having a weight of 20 kg or less.
KR2011 teaches having a weight of 20 kg or less (See 13th paragraph of “DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS” which begins “The vacuum system 32 uses a small diaphragm…”).
KR2011 modifies Haas by suggesting the instrument has a weight of 6 kg.
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 KR2011 because a total weight of 6 kg allows the system to be compact, lightweight, portable, and convenient (Last paragraph of “BACKGROUND-ART”, KR2011).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881