DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/20/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-10, 20-26 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 20-26 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected.
Domestic Priority
The ADS of 5/5/23 appears to inadvertently claim priority to a provisional application 63/311075 not filed by the same applicant. Correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baba et al. (US 20190378703 A1) [hereinafter Baba] in view of Wang (US 20160172146 A1) and Thermo Fisher ISQ 7000 Mass Spectrometers Hardware Manual, 1R120617-0002 Revision C December 2018, https://docs.thermofisher.com/v/u/ISQ-7000-Mass-Spectrometers-Hardware-Manual [hereinafter ISQ7000] and Tona et al. (US 20120061564 A1) [hereinafter Tona].
Regarding claim 1, Baba teaches an ion source comprising: an ionization assembly (see e.g. fig 3a) including an ionization chamber (see interior of fig 3a) and at least one ion lens (see e.g. 320a-d), wherein the ionization assembly (see e.g. 311-314)
a second electron source (see e.g. 330) adjacent to the ionization assembly (see fig 3a) and configured to provide an electron beam orthogonal to the primary axis (see fig 3a, e.g. [0041]); and
a magnet assembly (see [0041]) including a magnet (see [0041]),
Baba may fail to explicitly disclose a first electron source aligned along the primary axis of the ionization assembly and configured to provide an electron beam parallel to the primary axis.
However, Wang teaches a known effective ion source system that enables flexible operation at low and high electron energies (see e.g. Wang, [0053]), and providing high intensity soft ionization (see e.g. [0006]), comprising a first electron source (see e.g. fig 2: 116) aligned along the primary axis of the ionization assembly (axially aligned, see e.g. [0054]) and configured to provide an electron beam parallel to the primary axis (see [0034]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Wang in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of providing an ion source, while also enabling the additional control over ionization energies and additional axial ionization techniques, in the manner taught by Wang. It is additionally noted Wang teaches using axial or orthogonal electron beams (see e.g. Wang, claim 3, [0061,71]), and it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to provide a plurality of election and/or ion sources to flexibly enable the different operational modes discussed by Wang.
The combined teaching of Baba and Wang may fail to explicitly disclose the ionization assembly being removable.
However, it was well known in the art to provide removable parts to facilitate cleaning, replacement, and servicing (see e.g. ISQ7000, p66-67). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide a removable ionization assembly as a routine skill in the art to enable the ability to facilitate cleaning, replacement, and servicing. Additionally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
The combined teaching of Baba and Wang may fail to explicitly disclose the magnet assembly being mechanically movable relative to the ionization assembly between (i) a first operational position in which the magnet is aligned with the first electron source to constrain the electron beam emitted by the first electron source along the primary axis, and (ii) a second operational position in which the magnet is aligned with the second electron source to constrain the electron beam emitted by the second source along a direction orthogonal to the primary axis.
However, Tona teaches a system that uses removable superconducting magnet assemblies (see Tona, [0067,77]) which enables the use of consumer superconductor products as well as the ability to flexibly service the magnetic components without breaking vacuum (see [0067]), as well as enabling the additional ability to provide high density beams of electrons and ions (see e.g. [0075]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Tona in the electron and/or ion sources of the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable the improved serviceability, replaceability, and range of beam currents, in the manner taught by Tona. Therefore, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, and Tona teaches the magnet assembly being mechanically movable relative to the ionization assembly (see Tona, [0077], fig 4) between (i) a first operational position in which the magnet is aligned with the first electron source to constrain the electron beam emitted by the first electron source along the primary axis (during normal operation), and (ii) a second operational position in which the magnet is aligned with the second electron source to constrain the electron beam emitted by the second source along a direction orthogonal to the primary axis (the consumer superconductor component may be interchangeably swapped between the plurality of ion and/or electron beam sources in the system).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona teaches the ion source operates in an electron ionization mode when the magnet assembly is in the first position (see e.g. Baba, [0004]; Wang, abstract, [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona teaches the ion source operates in a chemical ionization mode (see e.g. Wang, [0072]) when the magnet assembly is in the second position (e.g. in altered positions for e.g. orthogonal ion-electron beam, see Wang, claim 3, [0061,71]).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona teaches at least one of the first electron source and the second electron source includes a thermionic filament (see e.g. Wang, [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona teaches the ionization assembly is removable when the magnet assembly is in the second position (entire assembly removable, see e.g. ISQ7000, p66-67; see also removable magnets, Tona, [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona teaches the magnet assembly includes a second magnet (see e.g. Wang, [0061]; see also multiple superconducting magnets for each ion/electron source).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona teaches the magnet assembly is thermally coupled to a portion of the vacuum chamber, the portion of the vacuum chamber acting as a heat sink (see Baba, [0077]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guckenberger et al. (US 20180286647 A1) [hereinafter Guckenberger].
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona may fail to explicitly disclose at least one of the first electron source and the second electron source includes a field emitter. However, the use of field emitter electron sources was well known in the art. For example, Guckenberger teaches that thermionic and field emitter sources were known to be suitable electron sources for ionization (see Guckenberger, claim 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective field emitter source as a routine skill in the art to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Artaev et al. (US 20210233760 A1) [hereinafter Artaev].
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona may fail to explicitly disclose wherein a direct insertion probe (DIP) and direct exposure probe (DEP) can be inserted into the ionization assembly when the magnet assembly is in the second position. However, the use of ion sources compatible with DIPs and DEPs was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Artaev teaches to provide vaporized samples via these probes to ion sources (see Artaev, [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Artaev in the system of the prior art to enable the additional ability to provide vaporized samples via the known effective probes, in the manner taught by Artaev.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ongun et al., Fabrication and mechanical characterization of rare earth permanent magnet SmCo5 films, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Volume 694, Pages 726-732 (2017) [hereinafter Ongun].
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and Tona may fail to explicitly disclose the magnet is a temperature compensated samarium cobalt magnet. However, Ongun teaches a hybrid SmCo5-superconducting system that enables the ability to better control superconductivity properties including field strength and channeling (see Ongun, p117, col 1, para 2-3), as well as raise superconductivity transition temperatures (see Ongun, p120, sec. 4.2.2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to try to combine the use of additional samarium cobalt magnets in at least part of the superconduting magnet of the prior art, in order to try to improve control of the field only where it is needed, as well as raising transition temperatures, in the manner taught by Ongun. It is also noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baba et al. (US 20190378703 A1) [hereinafter Baba] in view of Wang (US 20160172146 A1) and Thermo Fisher ISQ 7000 Mass Spectrometers Hardware Manual, 1R120617-0002 Revision C December 2018, https://docs.thermofisher.com/v/u/ISQ-7000-Mass-Spectrometers-Hardware-Manual [hereinafter ISQ7000] and McCauley et al. (US 10490396 B1) [hereinafter McCauley].
Regarding claim 1, Baba teaches an ion source comprising: an ionization assembly (see e.g. fig 3a) including an ionization chamber (see interior of fig 3a) and at least one ion lens (see e.g. 320a-d), wherein the ionization assembly (see e.g. 311-314)
a second electron source (see e.g. 330) adjacent to the ionization assembly (see fig 3a) and configured to provide an electron beam orthogonal to the primary axis (see fig 3a, e.g. [0041]); and
a magnet assembly (see [0041]) including a magnet (see [0041]),
Baba may fail to explicitly disclose a first electron source aligned along the primary axis of the ionization assembly and configured to provide an electron beam parallel to the primary axis.
However, Wang teaches a known effective ion source system that enables flexible operation at low and high electron energies (see e.g. Wang, [0053]), and providing high intensity soft ionization (see e.g. [0006]), comprising a first electron source (see e.g. fig 2: 116) aligned along the primary axis of the ionization assembly (axially aligned, see e.g. [0054]) and configured to provide an electron beam parallel to the primary axis (see [0034]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Wang in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of providing an ion source, while also enabling the additional control over ionization energies and additional axial ionization techniques, in the manner taught by Wang. It is additionally noted Wang teaches using axial or orthogonal electron beams (see e.g. Wang, claim 3, [0061,71]), and it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to provide a plurality of election and/or ion sources to flexibly enable the different operational modes discussed by Wang.
The combined teaching of Baba and Wang may fail to explicitly disclose the ionization assembly being removable.
However, it was well known in the art to provide removable parts to facilitate cleaning, replacement, and servicing (see e.g. ISQ7000, p66-67). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide a removable ionization assembly as a routine skill in the art to enable the ability to facilitate cleaning, replacement, and servicing. Additionally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
The combined teaching of Baba and Wang may fail to explicitly disclose the magnet assembly being mechanically movable relative to the ionization assembly between (i) a first operational position in which the magnet is aligned with the first electron source to constrain the electron beam emitted by the first electron source along the primary axis, and (ii) a second operational position in which the magnet is aligned with the second electron source to constrain the electron beam emitted by the second source along a direction orthogonal to the primary axis.
However, it is noted that the use of interchangeable serviceable components was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. To the extent the first and second electron sources are identical parts (and/or the ion sources are identical), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide mechanically movable (replaceable during servicing) parts including magnets, as a routine skill in the art (note also well known use of discrete magnets, e.g. McCauley, fig 3: 302). It is noted it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. It is further noted that it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, the combined teaching suggests the magnet assembly being mechanically movable relative to the ionization assembly (during servicing and/or assembly) between (i) a first operational position in which the magnet is aligned with the first electron source to constrain the electron beam emitted by the first electron source along the primary axis (during normal operation), and (ii) a second operational position in which the magnet is aligned with the second electron source to constrain the electron beam emitted by the second source along a direction orthogonal to the primary axis (during normal operation after repair/servicing. Also note the magnet could read on the magnets used in the ion sources, which are naturally aligned indirectly with the electron sources).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Baba, Wang, ISQ7000, and McCauley teaches the magnet is a temperature compensated samarium cobalt magnet (see e.g. McCauley, col 6, lines 19-29, with low temperature coefficient and heatsink).
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881