DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
In view of the amendments to the independent claims, the applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-20 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting have been fully considered.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the arguments are persuasive and the rejection is overcome. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-13 has been withdrawn.
The arguments regarding claims 13 and 16 and their respective dependent claims are found to be unpersuasive because Krutchinsky, et. al. (US 20140217281 A1), previously cited, teaches the amended claim limitation, rendering the claims obvious.
Prior art rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103
In view of the amendments to the independent claims, the applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the arguments are persuasive and the rejection is overcome. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-13 has been withdrawn.
The arguments regarding claims 13 and 16 and their respective dependent claims are found to be unpersuasive because Krutchinsky, et. al. (US 20140217281 A1), previously cited, teaches the amended claim limitation, rendering the claims obvious.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 in view of Krutchinsky (US 20140217281 A1).
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 teaches a spectrometry system (intended use), comprising: an ionization chamber to be maintained at atmospheric-pressure (an atmospheric-pressure ionization chamber); a reduced-pressure chamber to be maintained at sub-atmospheric pressure (a reduced-pressure chamber configured for maintaining a high sub-atmospheric pressure therein); and an ion transfer device comprising an inlet in the ionization chamber and an outlet in the reduced-pressure chamber (an ion transfer device comprising an inlet in the ionization chamber and an outlet in the reduced-pressure chamber), wherein the ion transfer device defines an ion path from the inlet to the outlet (an ion transfer device…defining an ion path from the inlet to the outlet).
U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 does not explicitly teach “and includes a main bore having an inside diameter smaller than an inside diameter of the outlet, wherein the ion transfer device further comprises a conical section that terminates to a cylindrical section at the outlet, and wherein the conical section extends from a wall that is disposed between the conical section and a straight bore section and that is substantially orthogonal to the straight bore section that is fluidly coupled to the main bore.”
Krutchinksy teaches includes a main bore having an inside diameter smaller than an inside diameter of the outlet (150 in Fig. 5B), wherein the ion transfer device further comprises a conical section (section of 150 after 160 that diverges conically as seen in Fig. 5B) that terminates to a cylindrical section at the outlet (end of 150 (outlet) is cylindrical as seen in Figs. 5A and 5B), and wherein the conical section extends from an internal wall (wall at the end of 160 in Figs. 5A and 5B. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, this wall can be considered “internal” because it is internal to the conical portion, not extending beyond the conical portion, Figs. 5A, 5B) that is disposed between the conical section and a straight bore section (section 160 of 150 is straight (no bends)) and that is substantially orthogonal to the straight bore section that is fluidly coupled to the main bore (perpendicular wall at the end of 160 in Figs. 5A and 5B).
Krutchinsky modifies the combination by suggesting a main bore with a conical section fluidly coupling the main bore to the outlet via a straight bore section, the conical section extending from an internal wall that is orthogonal to the straight bore section.
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 Krutchinsky because a slowly diverging conical duct provides a superior interface as an ion transfer device for coupling ions from the ion source at atmosphere to a mass spectrometer at vacuum, demonstrating an improved total transmitted current, (Krutchinsky, [0035]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 in view of Krutchinsky (US 20140217281 A1), further in view of Newton (US 20180068840 A1).
Regarding claim 13, see above (Paragraph 14.)
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 teaches the reduced-pressure chamber (claim 1).
U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 does not explicitly teach a vacuum housing to receive ions from the reduced-pressure chamber; and an ion analyzer in the vacuum housing.
Newton teaches a vacuum housing (vacuum housing, [0010]) to receive ions from the reduced-pressure chamber ([0027]); and an ion analyzer in the vacuum housing (a mass analyzer disposed in the vacuum housing, [0010]).
Newton modifies U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 by suggesting a mass analyzer in a vacuum housing that receives ions from the reduced-pressure chamber of U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1.
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 Newton because a mass analyzer allows a mass spectra to be obtained that provides quantitative and qualitative information regarding components of a sample. The mass analyzer operates in a controlled high vacuum environment (Newton, [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 does not explicitly teach the ion analyzer comprises an ion mobility drift cell or a mass analyzer.
Newton teaches the ion analyzer comprises an ion mobility drift cell or a mass analyzer (mass analyzer, [0027]).
Newton modifies U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 by suggesting a mass analyzer.
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 Newton because a mass analyzer allows a mass spectra to be obtained that provides quantitative and qualitative information regarding components of a sample (Newton, [0002]).
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 in view of Krutchinsky (US 20140217281 A1).
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 teaches a method implemented by a spectrometry system to analyze a sample (a method for analyzing a sample (claim 12)), the method comprising: producing, based on performance of atmospheric-pressure ionization, ions from the sample in an ionization chamber (performing atmospheric-pressure ionization to produce ions from the sample in an ionization chamber (claim 12)); transferring the ions from the ionization chamber to a reduced-pressure chamber maintained at a sub-atmospheric pressure (transferring the ions into a reduced-pressure chamber maintained at high sub-atmospheric pressure (claim 12)); and subjecting the ions emitted into the reduced-pressure chamber to an electric field that accelerates the ions to a collision energy that is effective to induce ion activation of the ions without voltage breakdown (subjecting the ions transferred into the reduced-pressure chamber to an electric field that accelerates the ions to a collision energy, wherein the collision energy is effective to cause collisional heating of ions in the reduced-pressure chamber without voltage breakdown (claim 12)).
U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 does not explicitly teach “an ion transfer device” or “wherein the ion transfer device comprises a conical section that terminates to a cylindrical section, and wherein the conical section extends from an internal wall that is disposed between the conical section and a bore and that is substantially orthogonal to a bore of the ion transfer device.”
Krutchinsky teaches wherein the ion transfer device further comprises a conical section that terminates to a cylindrical section (middle conical part of 150 terminates to cylindrical section as seen in Figs. 5A and 5B), and wherein the conical section extends from an internal wall that is disposed between the conical section and a bore (wall between 160 of 150 and the middle conical part of 150, as seen in Figs. 5A and 5B, this wall can be considered “internal” because it is internal to the conical portion, not extending beyond the conical portion) and that is substantially orthogonal to the bore of the ion transfer device (Figs. 5A and 5B).
Krutchinsky modifies Kurulugama by suggesting that the ion transfer device can comprise a conical section that terminates to a cylindrical section and the conical section extends from an internal wall that is substantially orthogonal to a bore of the ion transfer device.
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 Krutchinsky because a slowly diverging conical duct provides a superior interface as an ion transfer device for coupling ions from the ion source at atmosphere to a mass spectrometer at vacuum, demonstrating an improved total transmitted current, (Krutchinsky, [0035]).
Regarding claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 teaches wherein transferring the ions further comprises emitting the ions from an outlet of the ion transfer device (wherein transferring the ions comprises transferring the ions through an ion transfer device (claim 13)), and wherein subjecting the ions emitted into the reduced-pressure chamber to the electric field further comprises imparting a potential difference between the outlet and an electrode in the reduced- pressure chamber to accelerate the ions to the collision energy (subjecting the ions to the electric field comprises imparting a potential difference between the ion transfer device and an electrode assembly in the reduced-pressure chamber to accelerate the ions to the collision energy (claim 13)).
Claims 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 in view of Krutchinsky (US 20140217281 A1), further in view of Papanastasiou, et. al. (US 20150340218 A1).
Regarding claim 16, see above (Paragraph 15.)
Regarding claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 teaches ions emitted into the reduced-pressure chamber (transferring the ions into a reduced-pressure chamber (claim 12)), and an electric field (an electric field (claim 12)).
U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 does not explicitly teach wherein the ions and neutral gas molecules are emitted into the reduced-pressure chamber as an expanding beam comprising a low-gas density zone enveloped by a high-gas density region that includes a gas density that is higher than the low-gas density zone, further comprising: positioning the electric field in overlapping relation to the low-gas density zone.
Papanastasiou teaches wherein the ions and neutral gas molecules (buffer gas molecules [0159]) are emitted as an expanding beam (free jet expansion of the free jet stream, Fig. 1, [0042],[0057]) comprising a low-gas density zone (region 108, Fig. 1 is low density comparted to surround high density high velocity boundary 109, [0054]) enveloped by a high-gas density region (high velocity boundary 109, [0054], Fig. 1) that includes a gas density that is higher than the low-gas density zone ([0054], generally [0040]-[0062]).
Papanastasiou modifies U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 by suggesting that the ions are emitted as an expanding beam comprising a low-gas density region enveloped by a high-gas density region. Further, Papanastasiou modifies Kurulugama by suggesting a low-gas density zone such that the electric field overlaps this zone.
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 Papanastasiou because emitting ions as an expanding beam is well-known in the art (art-known equivalent, see MPEP 2144.06 (II))) and is typically how ions are emitted in mass spectrometry systems due to characteristic properties of gas and ion flow as taught by Papanastasiou ([0040]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 teaches transferring the ions (transferring the ions into a reduced-pressure chamber (claim 12)).
U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 does not explicitly teach controlling the expanding beam such that the low-gas density zone transitions to a Mach disk.
Papanastasiou teaches controlling the expanding beam such that the low-gas density zone transitions to a Mach disk ([0040]-[0062]).
Papanastasiou modifies U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 by suggesting transferring the ions further comprises controlling the expanding beam such that the low-gas density zone transitions to a Mach disk.
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 Papanastasiou because emitting ions as an expanding beam such that a Mach disk is created is well-known in the art (art-known equivalent, see MPEP 2144.06 (II))) and is a feature of attempts of the under-expanded gas flow to arrive into equilibrium with the background gas pressure and temperature, (Papanastasiou, [0047]).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 in view of Krutchinsky (US 20140217281 A1), further in view of Welkie, et. al. (US 20180286657 A1), hereinafter Welkie.
Regarding claim 16, see above (Paragraph 15.)
Regarding claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 teaches transferring the ions (transferring the ions into a reduced-pressure chamber (claim 12)), and a reduced-pressure chamber (reduced-pressure chamber (claim 12)).
U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 does not explicitly teach wherein transferring the ions further comprises emitting the ions into an ion guide positioned in the reduced-pressure chamber.
Welkie teaches an ion guide ([0009] one or more ion guides to transfer ions).
Welkie modifies U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1 by suggesting an ion guide positioned in the reduced-pressure chamber of U.S. Patent No. 9916968 B1.
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 Welkie because implementing an ion guide to transfer ions allows for improved mass analyzer performance and improved sensitivity (Welkie, [0009], [0010])
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.
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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurulugama (US 20180053640 A1) in view of Krutchinsky (US 20140217281 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kurulugama teaches a spectrometry system (spectrometry system 100, Fig. 1, [0032]), comprising: an ionization chamber (ionization chamber 104, [0034], Fig. 1) to be maintained at atmospheric-pressure ([0034]); a reduced-pressure chamber (reduced-pressure chamber 128, [0034], Fig. 1) to be maintained at sub-atmospheric pressure ([0034]); an ion transfer device (ion transfer device 132, [0035], Fig. 1) comprising an inlet in the ionization chamber (inlet 136 in ionization chamber 104, [0035], Fig. 1) and an outlet in the reduced-pressure chamber (outlet 138 in reduced-pressure chamber 128, [0035], Fig. 1), wherein the ion transfer device defines an ion path from the inlet to the outlet ([0035], Fig. 1).
Kurulugama does not teach includes a main bore having an inside diameter smaller than an inside diameter of the outlet, wherein the ion transfer device further comprises a conical section that terminates to a cylindrical section at the outlet, and wherein the conical section extends from an internal wall that is disposed between the conical section and a straight bore section and that is substantially orthogonal to the straight bore section that is fluidly coupled to the main bore.
Krutchinksy teaches includes a main bore having an inside diameter smaller than an inside diameter of the outlet (150 in Fig. 5B), wherein the ion transfer device further comprises a conical section (section of 150 after 160 that diverges conically as seen in Fig. 5B) that terminates to a cylindrical section at the outlet (end of 150 (outlet) is cylindrical as seen in Figs. 5A and 5B), and wherein the conical section extends from an internal wall (wall at the end of 160 in Figs. 5A and 5B. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, this wall can be considered “internal” because it is internal to the conical portion, not extending beyond the conical portion, Figs. 5A, 5B) that is disposed between the conical section and a straight bore section (section 160 of 150 is straight (no bends)) and that is substantially orthogonal to the straight bore section that is fluidly coupled to the main bore (perpendicular wall at the end of 160 in Figs. 5A and 5B).
Krutchinsky modifies the combination by suggesting a main bore with a conical section fluidly coupling the main bore to the outlet via a straight bore section, the conical section extending from an internal wall that is orthogonal to the straight bore section.
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 Krutchinsky because a slowly diverging conical duct provides a superior interface as an ion transfer device for coupling ions from the ion source at atmosphere to a mass spectrometer at vacuum, demonstrating an improved total transmitted current, (Krutchinsky, [0035]).
Regarding claim 14, Kurulugama teaches a vacuum housing to receive ions from the reduced-pressure chamber (vacuum housing 144, [0036], Fig. 1); and an ion analyzer (ion analyzer 116, [0036], Fig. 1) in the vacuum housing ([0036], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Kurulugama teaches wherein the ion analyzer (ion analyzer 116, [0036], Fig. 1) comprises an ion mobility drift cell or a mass analyzer ([0036]).
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurulugama (US 20180053640 A1) in view of Krutchinsky (US 20140217281 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kurulugama teaches a method implemented by a spectrometry system to analyze a sample, the method comprising: producing, based on performance of atmospheric-pressure ionization, ions from the sample in an ionization chamber; transferring the ions from the ionization chamber to a reduced-pressure chamber maintained at a sub-atmospheric pressure; and subjecting the ions emitted into the reduced-pressure chamber to an electric field that accelerates the ions to a collision energy that is effective to induce ion activation of the ions without voltage breakdown ([0014], [0048]).
Kurulugama does not explicitly teach an ion transfer device or wherein the ion transfer device comprises a conical section that terminates to a cylindrical section, and wherein the conical section extends from an internal wall that is substantially orthogonal to a bore of the ion transfer device.
Krutchinsky teaches wherein the ion transfer device further comprises a conical section that terminates to a cylindrical section (middle conical part of 150 terminates to cylindrical section as seen in Figs. 5A and 5B), and wherein the conical section extends from an internal wall that is disposed between the conical section and a bore (wall between 160 of 150 and the middle conical part of 150, as seen in Figs. 5A and 5B, this wall can be considered “internal” because it is internal to the conical portion, not extending beyond the conical portion) and that is orthogonal to the bore of the ion transfer device (Figs. 5A and 5B).
Krutchinsky modifies Kurulugama by suggesting that the ion transfer device can comprise a conical section that terminates to a cylindrical section and the conical section extends from an internal wall that is substantially orthogonal to a bore of the ion transfer device.
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 Krutchinsky because a slowly diverging conical duct provides a superior interface as an ion transfer device for coupling ions from the ion source at atmosphere to a mass spectrometer at vacuum, demonstrating an improved total transmitted current, (Krutchinsky, [0035]).
Regarding claim 19, Kurulugama teaches wherein transferring the ions further comprises emitting the ions from an outlet of the ion transfer device (outlet 138 of ion transfer device 132, [0048]), and wherein subjecting the ions emitted into the reduced-pressure chamber to the electric field further comprises imparting a potential difference between the outlet and an electrode in the reduced- pressure chamber to accelerate the ions to the collision energy ([0048]).
Regarding claim 20, Kurulugama teaches wherein transferring the ions further comprises emitting the ions into an ion guide positioned in the reduced-pressure chamber ([0045]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurulugama (US 20180053640 A1) in view of Krutchinsky (US 20140217281 A1), further in view of Papanastasiou (US 20150340218 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Kurulugama teaches wherein the ions and neutral gas molecules are emitted into the reduced-pressure chamber, further comprising: positioning the electric field in overlapping relation to the emitted ions and neutral gas molecules ([0041]).
Kurulugama does not explicitly teach as an expanding beam comprising a low-gas density zone enveloped by a high-gas density region that includes a gas density that is higher than the low-gas density zone.
Papanastasiou teaches as an expanding beam (free jet expansion of the free jet stream, Fig. 1, [0042],[0057]) comprising a low-gas density zone (region 108, Fig. 1 is low density comparted to surround high density high velocity boundary 109, [0054]) enveloped by a high-gas density region (high velocity boundary 109, [0054], Fig. 1) that includes a gas density that is higher than the low-gas density zone ([0054], generally [0040]-[0062]).
Papanastasiou modifies Kurulugama by suggesting that the ions are emitted as an expanding beam comprising a low-gas density region enveloped by a high-gas density region. Further, Papanastasiou modifies Kurulugama by suggesting a low-gas density zone such that the electric field overlaps this zone.
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 Papanastasiou because emitting ions as an expanding beam is well-known in the art (art-known equivalent, see MPEP 2144.06 (II))) and is typically how ions are emitted in mass spectrometry systems due to characteristic properties of gas and ion flow as taught by Papanastasiou ([0040]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Kurulugama teaches transferring the ions (ion transfer 132 device transfers ions, [0035], Fig. 1).
Kurulugama does not explicitly teach controlling the expanding beam such that the low-gas density zone transitions to a Mach disk.
Papanastasiou teaches controlling the expanding beam such that the low-gas density zone transitions to a Mach disk ([0040]-[0062]).
Papanastasiou modifies Kurulugama by suggesting transferring the ions further comprises controlling the expanding beam such that the low-gas density zone transitions to a Mach disk.
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 Papanastasiou because emitting ions as an expanding beam such that a Mach disk is created is well-known in the art (art-known equivalent, see MPEP 2144.06 (II))) and is a feature of attempts of the under-expanded gas flow to arrive into equilibrium with the background gas pressure and temperature, (Papanastasiou, [0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are patentable over the prior art for claim 1’s recitation requiring “a conical section fluidly coupling, via a straight bore section of constant diameter, the main bore to the outlet, wherein the conical section extends from a wall that is disposed between the conical section and the straight bore section and that is substantially orthogonal to the straight bore section, and the conical section has an inside diameter that increases from the wall to the inside diameter of the outlet”.
Conclusion
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 GOURLIE
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
