DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the indefiniteness rejection, therefore the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 5 overcomes the previous indefiniteness rejection, however upon further consideration, the amendment introduces a new indefiniteness problem. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Radzelovage (US 20030080847 A1).
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) filed on 12/07/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the primary winding includes a core portion and a plurality of portions that are radially arranged, from the core in a development view, and each of the plurality of portions are wound around the toroidal core”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, it is unclear and consequently indefinite if ‘the core’ is referring to ‘the toroidal core’ of claim 1, or the ‘a core portion’ of claim 5, or some other core.
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:
“an ionizer unit that ionizes a sample” in claim 1
An ionizer unit will be interpreted as described in [0025] of the specification of the instant application as a filament that ionizes the sample gas with thermoelectrons emitted from the filament.
“a voltage applying unit that applies a voltage obtained by superimposing a high-frequency voltage over a DC voltage to each pair of the two opposing electrodes” in claim 1
The voltage applying unit will be interpreted as described in paragraphs [0031] and [0030] of the specification of the instant application
“An ion detecting unit that detects the ions having passed through the quadrupole unit” in claim 1
An ion detecting unit will be interpreted as described in [0029] of the specification of the instant application as a Faraday cup.
“a control unit that controls the voltage applying unit, wherein the control unit controls the voltage applying unit to measure a specific mass-to-charge ratio continuously over a predetermined time period” in claim 9
The voltage applying unit will be interpreted as described in paragraphs [0031] and [0030] of the specification of the instant application
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 1-2, 4-5, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthington, et. al. (US 20220130655 A1), hereinafter Worthington, in view of Sasai (US 20110291002 A1) and Radzelovage (US 20030080847 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Worthington teaches a quadrupole mass spectrometer (quadrupole mass analyser, mass spectrometer, [0032], [0067]) comprising:
a quadrupole unit that includes two pairs of opposing electrodes selectively passing ions ([0077]-[0078], Fig. 1A);
a control unit that controls a DC voltage and a high-frequency voltage based on a specific mass-to-charge ratio ([0078], [0093], [0038]-[0041]);
a voltage applying unit that applies a voltage obtained by superimposing the high- frequency voltage over the DC voltage by the control unit to each pair of the two pairs of opposing electrodes (RF voltage supply and DC voltage supply, [0077]); and
the voltage applying unit (voltage controller, [0038]-[0041], processor, [0093]) includes a transformer that transforms the high-frequency voltage (transformer 4, [0079], Fig. 2),
the transformer includes a toroidal core (transformer 4 comprises toroidal core 8, [0079]), and a primary winding and a secondary winding that are wound around the toroidal core (primary winding 10, [0079], secondary winding portions 13, 15, [0079], [0080], Fig. 2), and
the primary winding is formed of a metal conductor ([0022]).
Although Worthington teaches an ion detector that detects the ions having passed through the quadrupole unit, (ion detector, [0038]), Worthington does not teach an ionizer unit that ionizes a sample (as interpreted under 112(f) as having a filament that emits electrons) and an ion detecting unit that detects the ions having passed through the quadrupole unit (as interpreted under 112(f) as being a Faraday cup). Further, Worthington does not teach the primary winding having a flat, circular shape.
Sasai teaches an ionizer unit that ionizes a sample, as interpreted under 112(f) as having a filament that emits electrons, ([0035] the ionizing part 211 comprises a filament and ionizes the sample gas by a thermal electron emitted from the filament) and an ion detecting unit that detects the ions having passed through the quadrupole unit, as interpreted under 112(f) as being a Faraday cup, ([0038], ion detecting part 214 is the Faraday cup).
Radzelovage teaches the primary winding having a flat, circular shape (primary windings 103, 105, Fig. 1b).
Sasai modifies the combination by suggesting ionizing a gas sample by emitting thermal electrons from a filament and by suggesting the ion detecting unit is a Faraday cup. Radzelovage modifies the combination by suggesting the primary winding has a flat, circular shape.
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 Sasai because a Faraday cup is capable of capturing and detecting the ions separated by the quadrupole part (Sasai, [0038]) and because a filament allows for ionization of a sample gas to be analyzed, (Sasai, [0035]). 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 Radzelovage because the shape allows for a cost-effective and well-suited transformer ([0009], [0010], [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Worthington teaches wherein the secondary winding wound around the toroidal core ([0080]) includes:
a first secondary winding connected to a first pair of the two pairs of opposing electrodes (13 Fig. 1B); and
a second secondary winding connected to a second pair of the two pairs of opposing electrodes (15 Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 4, Worthington teaches wherein the primary winding is wound radially around the toroidal core (Fig. 1A shows 10 winding radially around toroidal core 8, [0079]).
Regarding claim 5, Worthington teaches wherein the primary winding includes a core portion (part of primary winding 10 that goes through the center of toroid 8, Fig. 1A) and a plurality of portions that are radially arranged, from the core in a development view ([0079] teaches that the primary winding 10 may be formed of multiple turns (plurality of portions). Fig. 1A shows the primary winding is wound radially around the toroid 8 from the central part.), and
each of the plurality of portions are wound around the toroidal core (Fig. 1A shows that the primary winding 10 is wound around toroidal core 8. [0079] teaches that there may be several/a plurality of turns/wounds).
Regarding claim 9, Worthington teaches further comprising the control unit (processor, [0093]) controls the voltage applying unit (voltage controller, [0038]-[0041], wherein
the control unit controls the voltage applying unit to measure the specific mass-to-charge ratio continuously over a predetermined time period ([0093], [0038]-[0041] where the predetermined time period is the time until optimization is achieved).
Regarding claim 10, Worthington in view of Sasai and Radzelovage teaches the quadrupole mass spectrometer according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Worthington does not explicitly teach a residual gas analysis method comprising: analyzing a residual gas in a vacuum chamber.
Sasai teaches a residual gas analysis method comprising analyzing a residual gas in a vacuum chamber ([0031]).
Sasai modifies the combination by suggesting a residual gas analysis method in a vacuum chamber.
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 Sasai because residual gas analysis can be used to monitor gas in a vacuum chamber during a semiconductor manufacturing process or after a semiconductor manufacturing device is cleaned, (Sasai, [0031]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthington (US 20220130655 A1) in view of Sasai (US 20110291002 A1) and Radzelovage (US 20030080847 A1) further in view of Fischer, et. al. (EP 0601225 A1), hereinafter Fischer.
Regarding claim 3, Worthington in view of Sasai and Radzelovage does not teach wherein the toroidal core is configured as a stack of two or more toroidal core elements.
Fischer teaches wherein the toroidal core is configured as a stack of two or more toroidal core elements ([0012])
Fischer modifies the combination by suggesting the toroidal core is configured as a stack of two or more toroidal core elements.
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 Fischer because stacking toroidal cores allows for forming a compact, self-contained structure of the transformer core (Fischer, [0012]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthington (US 20220130655 A1) in view of Sasai (US 20110291002 A1) and Radzelovage (US 20030080847 A1), further in view of Schaffer, et. al. (US 20120058676 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Worthington in view of Sasai and Radzelovage does not teach wherein the primary winding comprises: a base plate that includes a first metal conductor on one surface; a center pin member that includes a second metal conductor, and that is connected to a central portion of the base plate and that is disposed at a center of the toroidal core; and a plurality of peripheral pin members that are connected to a peripheral portion of the base plate, and that includes a metal conductor disposed around the toroidal core.
Schaffer teaches the primary winding comprises:
a base plate that includes a first metal conductor on one surface (wire-less substrate headers 102 and 108 with 102 having winding portions 104 on its surface, Fig. 1, [0148]);
a center pin member that includes a second metal conductor, and that is connected to a central portion of the base plate and that is disposed at a center of the toroidal core (inner winding vias 116 on raised center 114, [0150], Fig. 1); and
a plurality of peripheral pin members that are connected to a peripheral portion of the base plate, and that includes a metal conductor disposed around the toroidal core (outer winding vias 106, [0150], Fig. 1).
Schaffer modifies the combination by suggesting the primary winding comprises a base plate provided with conductive center pins connecting to peripheral conductive pins around the toroidal core.
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 Schaffer because the configuration provides a low-cost and high-precision inductive device, (Schaffer, Abstract and [0137]-[0141]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthington (US 20220130655 A1) in view of Sasai (US 20110291002 A1) and Radzelovage (US 20030080847 A1), further in view of Brookes (US 20160118176 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Worthington teaches primary winding (primary winding 10, [0079]).
Worthington in view of Sasai and Radzelovage does not teach wherein a space between the toroidal core and the primary winding is filled with an adhesive having thermal conductivity.
Brookes teaches wherein a space between the toroidal core and the winding is filled with an adhesive having thermal conductivity ([0035] teaches that the potting creates a thermal conduction path between the windings of the toroid and the PCB that the transformer is mounted to. [0037] teaches that the potting fills the central hole of the toroid and in this way the potting can help to draw more of the heat generated by the toiroid windings and core losses out of the device. This indicates that the potting must exist in a space that contacts both the toroid core and the windings. [0022]-[0023] teaches the potting can be a resin loaded with thermally conductive particles and has thermal conductivity.).
Brookes modifies the combination by suggesting an adhesive having thermal conductivity that exists in an area between the toroidal core and primary winding.
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 Brookes because the potting provides a path for conductive heat flow which can improve thermal performance of the device, allowing the use of smaller devices with higher power densities, (Brookes, [0012]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthington (US 20220130655 A1) in view of Sasai (US 20110291002 A1) and Radzelovage (US 20030080847 A1), further in view of Prager, et. al. (US 20170154726 A1), hereinafter Prager.
Regarding claim 8, Worthington in view of Sasai and Radzelovage does not explicitly teach wherein the transformer is fixed to a circuit board by fixing the primary winding to the circuit board.
Prager teaches wherein the transformer is fixed to a circuit board by fixing the primary winding to the circuit board ([0040] teaches the transformer coupled with a printed circuit board having a plurality of feedthroughs for the primary winding).
Prager modifies the combination by suggesting that the transformer is fixed to a circuit board via the primary winding.
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 Miller because the configuration allows for the primary winding to electrically couple with the primary circuitry, (Miller, [0047]).
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasai (US 20110291002 A1) in view of Worthington (US 20220130655 A1) and Radzelovage (US 20030080847 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sasai teaches a quadrupole mass spectrometer ([0001]), comprising:
a sensor that ionizes a sample (sensor part 21, [0034], Fig. 2);
the sensor that includes two pairs of opposing electrodes that selectively pass ions generated from the sample (quadrupole part 213, [0034], Fig. 2);
a processor (calculating part 22, [0040], Fig. 1) that controls a DC voltage and a high-frequency voltage based on a specific mass-to-charge ratio ([0037]);
the processor that applies a voltage obtained by superimposing the high-frequency voltage over the DC voltage to each pair of the two pairs of opposing electrodes ([0037]); and
the sensor that further detects the ions having passed therethrough as an ion current ([0038]), wherein
Sasai does not teach wherein the processor includes a transformer that transforms the high-frequency voltage, the transformer includes a toroidal core, and a primary winding and a secondary winding that are wound around the toroidal core, and the primary winding is formed of a metal conductor having a flat, circular shape.
Worthington teaches the processor includes a transformer that transforms the high-frequency voltage (transformer 4, [0079], [0093], Fig. 2), the transformer includes a toroidal core (toroidal core 8, [0079]), and a primary winding and a secondary winding that are wound around the toroidal core (primary winding 10, [0079], and secondary winding portions 13, 15, [0079], [0080], Fig. 2), and the primary winding is formed of a metal conductor ([0022]) having a flat, circular shape.
Radzelovage teaches the primary winding having a flat, circular shape (primary windings 103, 105, Fig. 1b).
Worthington modifies the combination by suggesting a transformer including a toroidal core and metal conductor primary and secondary windings wound around the toroidal core. Radzelovage modifies the combination by suggesting the primary winding has a flat, circular shape.
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 Worthington because the transformer can apply voltage to electrodes of an ion optical device in order to balance or adjust another AC voltage applied to the electrode, for example to counteract imperfect electric fields, (Worthington, [0005]-[0007], [0055], [0065]). 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 Radzelovage because the shape allows for a cost-effective and well-suited transformer ([0009], [0010], [0043]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasai (US 20110291002 A1) in view of Worthington (US 20220130655 A1) and Schaffer (US 20120058676 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sasai teaches a quadrupole mass spectrometer ([0001]), comprising:
a sensor that ionizes a sample (sensor part 21, [0034], Fig. 2);
the sensor that includes two pairs of opposing electrodes that selectively pass ions generated from the sample (quadrupole part 213, [0034], Fig. 2);
a processor (calculating part 22, [0040], Fig. 1) that controls a DC voltage and a high-frequency voltage based on a specific mass-to-charge ratio ([0037]);
the processor that applies a voltage obtained by superimposing the high-frequency voltage over the DC voltage to each pair of the two pairs of opposing electrodes ([0037]); and
the sensor that further detects the ions having passed therethrough as an ion current ([0038]), wherein
Sasai does not teach the processor includes a transformer that transforms the high-frequency voltage, the transformer includes a toroidal core, a primary winding, and a secondary winding that is wound around the toroidal core, and the primary winding is composed of at least one metal conductor, the at least one metal conductor including a flat base plate, at least one center portion that extends into a center of the toroidal core, and a plurality of peripheral portions disposed around the toroidal core.
Worthington teaches the processor includes a transformer that transforms the high-frequency voltage (transformer 4, [0079], [0093], Fig. 2), the transformer includes a toroidal core (toroidal core 8, [0079]), a primary winding, and a secondary winding that is wound around the toroidal core (primary winding 10, [0079], and secondary winding portions 13, 15, [0079], [0080], Fig. 2).
Schaffer teaches the primary winding is composed of at least one metal conductor ([0020], [0145]), the at least one metal conductor including a flat base plate (winding portions 104 on 102 are flat, Fig. 1, [0148]), at least one center portion that extends into a center of the toroidal core (inner winding vias 116, [0150], Fig. 1), and a plurality of peripheral portions disposed around the toroidal core (outer winding vias, [0150], Fig. 1).
Worthington modifies the combination by suggesting a transformer including a toroidal core and metal conductor primary and secondary windings wound around the toroidal core. Schaffer modifies the combination by suggesting the primary winding comprises a base plate provided with conductive center pins connecting to peripheral conductive pins around the toroidal core.
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 Worthington because the transformer can apply voltage to electrodes of an ion optical device in order to balance or adjust another AC voltage applied to the electrode, for example to counteract imperfect electric fields, (Worthington, [0005]-[0007], [0055], [0065]). 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 Schaffer because the configuration provides a low-cost and high-precision inductive device, (Schaffer, Abstract and [0137]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 13, Sasai does not teach wherein the center portion is a first pin member and the peripheral portions are second pin members.
Schaffer teaches wherein the center portion is a first pin member and the peripheral portions are second pin members (116 is a winding via, interpreted to be a first pin member, and 106 are winding vias, interpreted to be second pin members because the winding vias have extended ends that electrically connect the windings and act as conductive pins, [0007], Abstract).
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 Schaffer because the configuration provides a low-cost and high-precision inductive device, (Schaffer, Abstract and [0137]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 14, Sasai does not teach wherein the secondary winding passes between the primary winding and the toroidal core and is wound around the surface of the toroidal core.
Worthington teaches wherein the secondary winding passes between the primary winding and the toroidal core and is wound around the surface of the toroidal core (Figs. 1, 1A, 1B, 2).
Worthington modifies the combination by suggesting the secondary winding passes between the primary winding and the toroidal core and is wound around the surface of the toroidal core.
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 Worthington because the configuration of the windings of the transformer can apply voltage to electrodes of an ion optical device in order to balance or adjust another AC voltage applied to the electrode, for example to counteract imperfect electric fields, (Worthington, [0005]-[0007], [0055], [0065]).
Regarding claim 15, Sasai does not teach wherein the plurality of peripheral portions is disposed at four locations around a periphery of the toroidal core.
Schaffer teaches wherein the plurality of peripheral portions is disposed at four locations around a periphery of the toroidal core (Fig. 1, 1A, 1B, 1C).
Schaffer modifies the combination by suggesting the peripheral portions are disposed at four locations around the periphery of the toroidal core.
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 Schaffer because the configuration provides a low-cost and high-precision inductive device and because the configuration of winding vias can be used to produce the electical/magnetic characteristics desired, (Schaffer, Abstract and [0137]-[0141], [0150], [0153]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881