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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5 January 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 19. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 9-14 and 17 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 claim 9, the claim recites a number of ratios, however it is not clear as to which ratio is being claimed. Additionally, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites a number of ratios, however it is not clear as to which ratio is being claimed. Additionally, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a number of areas, however it is not clear as to which area is being claimed. Additionally, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites a number of ratios, however it is not clear as to which ratio is being claimed. Additionally, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites a number of gaps, however it is not clear as to which gap value is being claimed. Additionally, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 1 which is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim refers to “the vacuum chamber” which lacks antecedent basis. Since claim 16 previously discloses a vacuum chamber, it is not clear if claim 17 should depend from claim 14 as written, or from claim 16.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litzinger et al. Developing an Effusion Cell to Measure Low Outgassing Rates from Europa Clipper Hardware1 and Dietrich et al. US 2020/0332958.
Regarding claim 1, Litzinger teaches an effusion cell (page 2) comprising an enclosure structure seen on page 6, including:
a loading door LD (front lid) having an LD-open state and an LD-closed state (the lid can be removed for access to the interior of the cell - “removable half to install and uninstall hardware from the box”, page 6),
a back lid having a TD-open state and a TD-closed state (“removable half where the QCMs are mounted”),
an outgassing orifice (the back lid or trapdoor includes three mouseholes, page 8), wherein
the enclosure structure defines an internal compartment (interior of the cell) when the LD is in the LD-closed state and the TD is in the TD-closed state, and
the outgassing orifice connects the internal compartment to an external environment (the effusion cell is placed within the chamber as seen in figure on page 2). Litzinger does not explicitly teach the back lid as being a “trap door” as claimed. Dietrich discloses as seen in fig. 5-6, a chamber 316 for holding a sample which comprises a trap door 334 in one of the surfaces to allow access to the interior for placement of a test sample (paragraph 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Dietrich with those of Litzinger in order to provide a similar sample door as the trapdoor in the system to allow for a quicker loading or unloading of the sample in the effusion cell.
Regarding claim 2, the effusion cell of Litzinger has a box structure as seen in the drawing on page 6 and at least one stationary wall (see for example the heat exchange plate which forms the bottom of the cell on pages 6 and 10).
Regarding claim 3, Litzinger when combined with Dietrich teaches a first stationary wall including the TD formed therein or attached thereto as claimed (Dietrich fig. 5-6).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, in combination as above, Dietrich teaches a TD actuator (hinges, paragraph 0022) to adjust the TD from the TD open state to the TD closed state which includes the manually-operated mechanical connection in the form of the hinges.
Regarding claim 6, Litzinger teaches a temperature-control element (heat exchange plate, page 6) configured to increase, decrease, or hold constant an internal temperature of the internal compartment as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, page 11 of Litzinger discloses the heat exchange plate as comprising a tubing system configured to be connected to a heating source and or a cooling source separate from the effusion cell.
Regarding claim 8, the tubing system of Litzinger is located on an exterior surface of the effusion cell as claimed (see the figures on page 6 and 10 for example).
Regarding claim 9, the tubing of Litzinger comprises a total path length in contact with the exterior surface (page 11) of the effusion cell when the LD is in the LD-closed state and the TD is in the TD-closed state and the exterior surface defines an external volume of the effusion cell. Litzinger does not explicitly teach the claimed ratio between the total path length and the external volume, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used any ratio desired as length and volume would inherently have a ratio when compared. Since no teaching of criticality has been given in the present application with regard to the benefits of the claimed ratios, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used any ratio desired to ensure proper heat control in the system, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, the tubing of Litzinger comprises a total path length in contact with the exterior surface (page 11) of the effusion cell when the LD is in the LD-closed state and the TD is in the TD-closed state and the exterior surface defines an external surface area of the effusion cell. Litzinger does not explicitly teach the claimed ratio between the total path length and the external surface area, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used any ratio desired as length and area would inherently have a ratio when compared and since no teaching of criticality has been given in the present application with regard to the benefits of the claimed ratios, to ensure proper heat control in the system, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, Litzinger teaches the outgassing orifice as defining an open area of 1.2 cm2 rather than the 3-20 mm2 claimed. Since no teaching of criticality has been given in the present application with regard to the benefits of the orifice area, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used any orifice diameter desired to allow for gas to vent from the effusion cell during operation and temperature changes, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 12, in Litzinger, the outgassing orifice as defining an open area and the internal compartment inherently has an internal volume. Since no teaching of criticality has been given in the present application with regard to the benefits of the ratio between the open area of the orifice area and the internal volume, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used any dimensions desired to allow for gas to vent from the effusion cell during operation and temperature changes, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Litzinger shows on page 9, the addition of a mounting bracket to which a quartz crystal microbalance assembly is attached as claimed. The QCM is outside the outgassing orifice along an imaginary line extending perpendicularly through the outgassing orifice at least when the LD is in the LD-closed state and the TD is in the TD-closed state since any line could be drawn which would be extend through the orifice and the QCM. Litzinger does not explicitly teach a gap between a mounted CQCM and the outgassing orifice as being in the claimed values. Since no teaching of criticality has been given in the present application with regard to the benefits of the gap size, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used any gap distance desired to allow for gas to vent from the effusion cell during operation and be detected by the QCM placed outside in an accurate manner, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Litzinger, Dietrich and Kirkman Material Outgassing Kinetics: The Development of a Testing Capability.
Regarding claim 14, Litzinger teaches an effusion cell (page 2) comprising an enclosure structure seen on page 6, including:
a loading door LD (front lid) having an LD-open state and an LD-closed state (the lid can be removed for access to the interior of the cell - “removable half to install and uninstall hardware from the box”, page 6),
a back lid having a TD-open state and a TD-closed state (“removable half where the QCMs are mounted”),
an outgassing orifice (the back lid or trapdoor includes three mouseholes, page 8), wherein:
the enclosure structure defines an internal compartment (interior of the cell) when the LD is in the LD-closed state and the TD is in the TD-closed state, and
the outgassing orifice connects the internal compartment to an external environment (the effusion cell is placed within the chamber as seen in figure on page 2).
Litzinger includes the addition of a mounting bracket to which a cryogenic quartz crystal microbalance assembly is attached as claimed. The CQCM is outside the outgassing orifice along an imaginary line extending perpendicularly through the outgassing orifice at least when the LD is in the LD-closed state and the TD is in the TD-closed state since any line could be drawn which would be extend through the orifice and the CQCM, but does not explicitly teach the residual gas analyzer as claimed. Litzinger further does not explicitly teach the back lid as being a “trap door” as claimed. Dietrich discloses as seen in fig. 5-6, a chamber 316 for holding a sample which comprises a trap door 334 in one of the surfaces to allow access to the interior for placement of a test sample (paragraph 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Dietrich with those of Litzinger in order to provide a similar sample door as the trapdoor in the system to allow for a quicker loading or unloading of the sample in the effusion cell.
Kirkman teaches an effusion cell for monitoring a sample in which a Residual Gas Analyzer (RGA) is provided to detect the chemical composition of the outgassing vapors (“Introduction,” page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Kirkman with those of Litzinger and Dietrich to include the RGA in the system for Litzinger in order to monitor the state of outgassing occurring from the effusion cell to determine the chemical composition thereof and identify any contaminants.
Regarding claim 15, in combination, Litzinger teaches heating means in the form of the heat exchange plate (page 11) which would increase the temperature of the internal compartment as claimed. Litzinger does not explicitly disclose the cooling source as claimed, however Kirkman teaches cooling means in the form of a liquid nitrogen level controller and temperature control system (page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Kirkman with those of Litzinger in order to provide similar cooling means in addition to the heat in order to better control the temperature during the outgassing operation.
Regarding claim 16, the Litzinger and Kirkman references each teach the test chamber as being at a vacuum level (Litzinger page 13 and Kirkman page 3) as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose alone or in combination, the TD-actuator comprising a manually-operated mechanical connection operatively connected to the TD and extending through the first vacuum chamber-orifice for engagement by a user, and an electrically motorized mechanical drive or an air-powered mechanical drive operatively connected to the TD where power lines and/or air lines extend through the first vacuum chamber-orifice. Such a configuration would allow for the control of the trap door via electronics and/or air lines from the outside of the vacuum chamber without the need for manual interaction as taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 A copy has been provided by Applicant.