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 § 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 22 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. It is unclear what is meant by “wherein moving the magnet assembly from the first position to the second position including moving a component outside of a vacuum chamber that is magnetically coupled to the magnet assembly, the magnet assembly, ionization assembly, and the electron source are within the vacuum chamber.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thermo Scientific, ISQ 7000 Mass Spectrometers Hardware Manual, December, 2018; cited in IDS, copy in IFW.
Regarding claim 1, Thermo Scientific discloses a mass spectrometer, comprising:
A removable ionization assembly including an ionization chamber and at least one ion lens, the removable ionization assembly having a primary axis defined by the direction of an ion beam exiting the ionization assembly, the ionization chamber and the at least one ion lens arranged along the primary axis (pp. 83, 86; Figs. 79 and 84);
An electron source aligned along the primary axis of the ionization assembly and configured to provide an electron beam parallel to the primary axis (Fig. 82); and
A magnet assembly including a magnet (pp. 375-376; Figs. 425-426);
The magnet assembly movable between a first position in which the magnet is positioned to allow removal of the ion source (when the manifold door is removed as in Fig. 426) and a second position in which the magnet is aligned with the electron source (When the manifold door is closed. P. 378, Fig. 431 shows it open, but it is clear from Figs. 431 combined with 436 and Fig. 49, pg. 62 that closing it will align the magnet with the ion source assembly.).
Regarding claim 2, Thermo Scientific discloses wherein the magnet assembly includes a second magnet (p. 375, “source magnets” implies at least two).
Regarding claim 4, Thermo Scientific discloses wherein the magnet assembly is thermally coupled to a portion of the vacuum chamber, the portion of the vacuum chamber acting as a heat sink (Figs. 426 and 427, the magnets are attached to the manifold door).
Regarding claim 5, Thermo Scientific discloses wherein the electron source includes a thermionic filament (p. 84, point 5).
Regarding claim 7, Thermo Scientific discloses wherein the magnet assembly rotates around a pivot point between the first position and the second position (p. 378, Fig. 431 – the magnet moves around the hinge of the door).
Claim 11 is drawn to the method of using the ion source of claim 1, and the same rejection applies mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 12, Thermo Scientific discloses inserting the ionization assembly or a replacement ionization assembly into the ion source, and moving the magnet assembly from the second position to the first position (pp. 375-378).
Regarding claim 13, the first position described in claim 11 is the position in which the manifold door of Thermo Scientific’s electron source is closed; therefore, the electron source is used to ionize a sample when the magnet is in the first position.
Claims 14, 16, 17, and 19 are drawn to the method of using the ion source of claims 2, 4, 5, and 7, and the same rejections apply mutatis mutandis.
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) 3, 6, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thermo Scientific.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Thermo Scientific teaches the ion source of claims 1 and 11, but fails to specify if the magnet is an electromagnet. The choice to use an electromagnet is one of a finite list of options (i.e. a permanent magnet or an electromagnet), which one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try using electromagnets as Thermo Scientific’s magnets. See MPEP 2143(E).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Thermo Scientific teaches the ion source of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the electron source includes a field emitter. Field emitters are one of a finite list of options for electron sources, which one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an electron source including a field emitter as Thermo Scientific’s electron source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 20 and 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 8, 9, 20 and 21, Thermo Scientific’s magnet assembly is moved by removing and replacing the manifold door, not by slidably translating or using a motor to move the magnet between the first position and the second position. Regarding claim 10, while Thermo Scientific teaches wherein the magnet assembly, ionization assembly, and electron source are within a vacuum chamber, it fails to teach wherein movement of the magnet assembly is controlled by a component outside the vacuum chamber and magnetically coupled to the magnet assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MASKELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10A-6P.
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.
/MICHAEL MASKELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881 07 January 2026