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 .
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) 1-3, 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giles (US 2012/0056085) in view of Ferenc (US 2013/0112856).
Regarding claim 1, Giles teaches a mass spectrometer (Fig. 5) comprising
a chamber (chamber for all P1, P2 and P3 areas) communicated with external environment only through one or more vacuum interface (64, 68, 12 or 82), the chamber comprising a first chamber (chamber for P1 and P2 areas) and a second chamber (chamber for P3 area),
a pump (vacuum pump 82) located in the second chamber, and
a flow restricting structure (aperture 78) through which the first chamber and the second chamber are communicated with each other (Fig. 5).
Giles fails to explicitly teach that the chamber is a hermetical chamber, nor that the pump is an adsorption pump.
Ferenc teaches a vacuum sealed sensor device (Fig. 3) comprising a first chamber (52) in communication with a second chamber (54), wherein hermetic sealing is used in order to achieve the desired vacuum environment (¶ 0028 and 0069). Ferenc further teaches using adsorption pumps (ion pump; ¶ 0069) in the chamber to control the vacuum level and low pressures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a hermetical chamber in Giles’s mass spectrometer because hermetic sealing is used in order to achieve the desired vacuum environment, as taught by Ferenc. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use an adsorption pump to further control the spectrometer’s vacuum level, as taught by Ferenc.
Regarding claim 2, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1, characterized in that an ion trap (76) is arranged in the first chamber (Giles Fig. 5), and the gas pressure range of the first chamber is P1>10-2 Pa (Giles ¶ 0239).
Regarding claim 3, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 2, characterized in that a mass analyzer (DMS 120) also disposed in the first chamber (Giles Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1, characterized in that the vacuum interface comprises a vacuum pump interface (82) communicated with the second chamber (chamber for P3 area), and the second chamber (chamber for P3 area) communicates with the external vacuum pump via the vacuum pump interface, whereby the gas pressure of the second chamber is pre-pumped to a low-enough safe pressure for adsorption pump activation operation (Giles ¶ 0241).
Regarding claim 7, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1, characterized in that the adsorption pump is a primary pump of the mass spectrometer (pump 82 maintains the high vacuum conditions in system; Giles ¶ 0238).
Regarding claim 8, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1, characterized by further comprising a sample introducing means (inlet capillary 64) for introducing a sample into the first chamber (Giles ¶ 0238).
Regarding claim 9, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 8, characterized in that the sample introduction means (64) is a capillary sample introducing means (Giles ¶ 0238).
Regarding claim 10, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 9, but fails to further teach that the carrier gas of the gas chromatography is hydrogen, helium or nitrogen. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate hydrogen as a carrier gas in a gas analyzing system, because hydrogen is well known and used as a carrier gas, as shown by evidentiary reference: Voss (US 5,426,300).
Regarding claim 11, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 9, but fails to further teach that the sample introducing means further comprises a thermal desorption assembly. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a thermal desorption assembly as the sample introducing means, because a thermal desorption assembly is well known and used way to introduce samples in analytical systems, as shown by evidentiary reference: Van (US 2014/0331744).
Regarding claim 12, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1, but fails to further teach that the mass spectrometer is a compact mass spectrometer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a compact size for the spectrometer, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to scale the size of the spectrometer to be compact in order to achieve easier mobility of the device. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
Regarding claim 13, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1, characterized in that the flow restricting structure is a flow restricting aperture (aperture 78).
Regarding claim 14, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1, characterized in that the adsorption pump is an ion pump (Ferenc ¶ 0069).
Regarding claim 15, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 14, but fails to further teach that the adsorption pump comprises a first adsorption pump and a second adsorption pump, the first adsorption pump is a getter pump using alloy as getter material, and the second adsorption pump is an ion pump, the getter pump is a primary pump of the mass spectrometer, and the ion pump communicates with the first chamber or the second chamber. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate two pumps (a first adsorption pump and a second adsorption pump) in the vacuum chamber, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would also be motivated to also incorporate a getter pump in the system, as shown in the prior art of record: Ferenc.
Regarding claim 16, Giles in view of Ferenc teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 14, characterized in that the adsorption pump is an ion pump (Ferenc ¶ 0069), the mass spectrometer includes a sector magnetic deflection mass analyzer, and the sector magnetic deflection mass analyzer and the ion pump share the magnet (Ferenc ¶ 0176).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are 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.
Claim 17 is allowed.
Regarding claim 4, the following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowability:
The prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest a mass spectrometer characterized by comprising:
a hermetical chamber communicated with external environment only through one or more vacuum interface, the chamber comprising a first chamber and a second chamber;
an adsorption pump located in the second chamber; and
a flow restricting structure through which the first chamber and the second chamber are communicated with each other;
wherein the gas pressure of the second chamber is kept below activation gas pressure of the adsorption pump.
The claims in the instant application are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art of record, particularly Giles (US 2012/0056085), who teaches a mass spectrometer comprising a first vacuum chamber and a second vacuum chamber, a pump located in the second vacuum chamber, and a flow restricting structure between the first and second chambers; however Giles fails to further teach that the gas pressure of the second chamber is kept below activation gas pressure of the adsorption pump.
Furthermore, Ferenc (US 2013/0112856) teaches a vacuum sealed sensor device comprising a first chamber in communication with a second chamber, wherein hermetic sealing and adsorption pumps are used; however Ferenc fails to further that the teach gas pressure of the second chamber is kept below activation gas pressure of the adsorption pump.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims is the combination of the mass spectrometer’s hermetical chamber communicated with external environment only through one or more vacuum interface, the chamber comprising a first chamber and a second chamber, the adsorption pump located in the second chamber, and the flow restricting structure through which the first chamber and the second chamber are communicated with each other, wherein the gas pressure of the second chamber is kept below activation gas pressure of the adsorption pump
Regarding claim 17, the following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance
The prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest a method for establishing a vacuum system of a mass spectrometer, the vacuum system comprising a first chamber and a second chamber communicated by means of a flow restricting structure, an ion trap disposed in the first chamber, and an adsorption pump disposed in the second chamber, and the method comprising the steps of:
pre-pumping, by an external vacuum pump, the second chamber until the gas pressure of the second chamber is reduced below activation gas pressure of the adsorption pump;
activating the adsorption pump;
starting the adsorption pump to reduce the gas pressure of the first chamber to be within the working gas pressure range of the ion trap, and
sealing the first chamber and the second chamber, disconnecting the external vacuum pump, and using the adsorption pump as a primary pump of the vacuum system to maintain vacuum level of the first chamber and the second chamber.
The claims in the instant application are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art of record, particularly Giles (US 2012/0056085), who teaches a mass spectrometer system comprising pumping a first vacuum chamber and a second vacuum chamber to reduce gas pressure in the chambers and sealing the chambers to maintain the vacuum levels; however Giles fails to further teach a step of pre-pumping, by an external vacuum pump, the second chamber until the gas pressure of the second chamber is reduced below activation gas pressure of the adsorption pump.
Furthermore, Ferenc (US 2013/0112856) teaches a vacuum sealed sensor device comprising pumping a first vacuum chamber and a second vacuum chamber to reduce gas pressure in the chambers and sealing the chambers to maintain the vacuum levels; however Ferenc fails to further teach a step of pre-pumping, by an external vacuum pump, the second chamber until the gas pressure of the second chamber is reduced below activation gas pressure of the adsorption pump.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims is the combination of the method’s steps of pre-pumping, by an external vacuum pump, the second chamber until the gas pressure of the second chamber is reduced below activation gas pressure of the adsorption pump; activating the adsorption pump; starting the adsorption pump to reduce the gas pressure of the first chamber to be within the working gas pressure range of the ion trap; and sealing the first chamber and the second chamber, disconnecting the external vacuum pump, and using the adsorption pump as a primary pump of the vacuum system to maintain vacuum level of the first chamber and the second chamber.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSIEN C TSAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday (8-5).
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 571-272-2293. 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.
/HSIEN C TSAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881