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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 02/24/2026 with the above RCE have been entered. Claims 2, 4, and 8 have been canceled. New claim 16 has been added. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-16 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 10/01/2025, hereinafter FOA1001.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended limitations not present at the time of FOA1001.
Nevertheless, Applicant’s relevant arguments will be addressed for clarity of the record, so as to clarify where Applicant’s arguments would apply to a potential rejection of these limitations.
Applicant’s arguments are that the prior art Covey does not teach the limitations (added by way of amendment) “wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole” and “wherein the gas spray tube has a guide portion disposed between the deflection site and the tip hole, and an inner diameter of the guide portion decreasing toward a downstream side”.
In regards to the first limitation, Examiner agrees that Covey does not reasonably teach or suggest the limitation taken as a whole, in the relevant context of the claim. It is Examiner’s opinion that Figs. 2D-2F of Covey teach ‘wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube’, however, these figures of Covey clearly do not disclose ‘such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole’, as the deflection site of Covey lies on an axis through a sidewall of the tip hole, and Covey provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the size of item 45 to achieve such a configuration. However, see below for further discussion.
In regards to the second limitation, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assessment of Covey’s disclosure. As indicated in the previously presented rejection of now-canceled claim 8, Figs. 2D-2F of Covey disclose these limitations. As shown in Figs. 2D-2F, the gas spray tube has a guide portion disposed between the deflection site (i.e., item 45) and the tip hole (i.e., the downstream end of item 44) in the portion that tapers until the tip hole at the downstream end of item 44, which is disposed downstream of item 45. Furthermore, an inner diameter of the guide portion decreases toward a downstream side as it tapers from the full width to the minimum radius at the tip hole.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 recite “wherein the gas spray tube has a guide portion disposed between the deflection site and the tip hole, and an inner diameter of the guide portion decreasing toward a downstream side”, which should read ‘wherein the gas spray tube has a guide portion disposed between the deflection site and the tip hole, and an inner diameter of the guide portion decreases toward a downstream side’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covey (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019034978 A1) in view of O’Brien (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20160217992 A1).
Examiner notes that Covey is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 12/10/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Covey teaches an ion source (See Figs. 1-2; [0021]-[0022]; Claim 1) comprising:
a capillary (See Figs. 2D-2F, item 43; [0022]); and
a gas spray tube into which the capillary is inserted, the gas spray tube spraying a gas to an outer side of the capillary (See Figs. 2D-2F, items 43 and 44; [0022]; [0029]),
wherein the gas spray tube has a deflection site on an upstream side of a tip hole of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F, item 45; [0032]), the deflection site deflecting a downstream end of the capillary with respect to a central axis of the tip hole of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F, item 45; [0032]-[0034]),
wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F, item 45 being approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the tube 44)
wherein the gas spray tube has a guide portion disposed between the deflection site and the tip hole (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing tube 44 with a guide portion disposed between the deflection site (i.e., item 45) and the tip hole (i.e., the downstream end of item 44) in the portion that tapers until the tip hole at the downstream end of item 44, which is disposed downstream of item 45), and an inner diameter of the guide portion decreasing toward a downstream side (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing an inner diameter of the guide portion decreases toward a downstream side as it tapers from the full width to the minimum radius at the tip hole).
Covey does not explicitly teach wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole (Emphasis added by Examiner).
O’Brien teaches teach wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole (See Fig. 3, item 130, which deflects the capillary 124 off the center axis and has its inner face aligned with a central axis of the tip hole; [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Covey to include wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by O’Brien.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as both O’Brien and Covey disclose their respective deflection sites as being used to position their respective capillaries to better control the sample spray output in [0153] and [0032]-[0034], respectively, and an ordinarily skilled artisan could combine such teachings with a reasonable expectation of success, which would allow one to ensure firm control of the capillary, as disclosed in [0153] of O’Brien, which could aid in more precisely positioning the capillary 43 of Covey to achieve a desired angle of spray output relative to the central axis of the vaporization tube 46, as discussed in [0032]-[0034] of Covey.
Regarding claim 3, Covey in view of O’Brien teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey further teaches wherein a cross-sectional shape of the guide portion is a tapered shape (See Figs. 2D-2F).
Regarding claim 6, Covey in view of O’Brien teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
O’Brien further teaches wherein the gas spray tube includes a plurality of deflection sites provided at different positions in a longitudinal direction of the gas spray tube and at different radial directions (See Fig. 3, items 130, at opposite radial directions and at different positions in the longitudinal direction; [0153]).
Regarding claim 11, Covey in view of O’Brien teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
O’Brien further teaches wherein the deflection site is a plate-shaped member (See Fig. 3, item 130, which is interpreted as ‘plate-shaped’).
Regarding claim 12, Covey in view of O’Brien teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey further teaches wherein the deflection site is a protrusion protruding radially inward of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F).
Regarding claim 13, Covey in view of O’Brien teaches a mass spectrometer (Covey: [0002]-[0003]; [0006]; [0009]) comprising the ion source according to claim 1 (See claim 1 for claim mapping of claim 1 limitations).
Regarding claim 14, Covey in view of O’Brien teaches the mass spectrometer according to claim 13.
Covey further teaches wherein the deflection site is disposed to make the downstream end of the capillary directed to an extension line of an inlet of the mass spectrometer (See Fig. 1; [0020]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 15, Covey teaches a capillary insertion method for inserting a capillary into a gas spray tube ([0022]; [0029]; [0032]-[0034]; Examiner interprets inserting the capillary as inherent, as the capillary is disposed within the gas spray tube), the method comprising:
bringing the capillary into contact with a deflection site (See Figs. 2D-2F; [0032]-[0034]); and
bringing the capillary into contact with a tip hole of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F; [0032]-[0034]),
wherein the gas spray tube is configured to be capable of spraying a gas to an outer side of the capillary (See Figs. 2D-2F; [0032]-[0034]), the deflection site, which deflects a downstream end of the capillary with respect to a central axis of the tip hole of the gas spray tube, is provided at an upstream side of the tip hole of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F; [0032]-[0034]),
wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F, item 45 being approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the tube 44)
wherein the gas spray tube has a guide portion disposed between the deflection site and the tip hole (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing tube 44 with a guide portion disposed between the deflection site (i.e., item 45) and the tip hole (i.e., the downstream end of item 44) in the portion that tapers until the tip hole at the downstream end of item 44, which is disposed downstream of item 45), and an inner diameter of the guide portion decreasing toward a downstream side (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing an inner diameter of the guide portion decreases toward a downstream side as it tapers from the full width to the minimum radius at the tip hole).
Covey does not explicitly teach wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole (Emphasis added by Examiner).
O’Brien teaches teach wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole (See Fig. 3, item 130, which deflects the capillary 124 off the center axis and has its inner face aligned with a central axis of the tip hole; [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Covey to include wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by O’Brien.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as both O’Brien and Covey disclose their respective deflection sites as being used to position their respective capillaries to better control the sample spray output in [0153] and [0032]-[0034], respectively, and an ordinarily skilled artisan could combine such teachings with a reasonable expectation of success, which would allow one to ensure firm control of the capillary, as disclosed in [0153] of O’Brien, which could aid in more precisely positioning the capillary 43 of Covey to achieve a desired angle of spray output relative to the central axis of the vaporization tube 46, as discussed in [0032]-[0034] of Covey.
Claims 5, 9-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covey (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019034978 A1) in view of O’Brien (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20160217992 A1) and Mordehai (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090250608 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Covey in view of O’Brien teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey does not teach wherein the tip hole includes a plurality of portions having different inner diameters, and a downstream portion out of the plurality of portions has a larger inner diameter.
Mordehai teaches wherein the tip hole includes a plurality of portions having different inner diameters, and a downstream portion out of the plurality of portions has a larger inner diameter (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 46 and 48, which have differing inner diameters, wherein 46 is downstream of 48 and has a larger inner diameter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Covey to include wherein the tip hole includes a plurality of portions having different inner diameters, and a downstream portion out of the plurality of portions has a larger inner diameter, as taught by Mordehai.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to control the flow as desired, as discussed in Mordehai [0037]-[0040].
Regarding claim 9, Covey in view of O’Brien teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey does not teach wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, and wherein a space is provided between an outer wall surface of the first tube and an inner wall surface of the second tube.
Mordehai teaches wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 46 and 48; [0037]-[0040]), and
wherein a space is provided between an outer wall surface of the first tube and an inner wall surface of the second tube (See Figs. 1, 3-4; [0037]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Covey to include wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, and wherein a space is provided between an outer wall surface of the first tube and an inner wall surface of the second tube, as taught by Mordehai.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to control the flow as desired, as discussed in Mordehai [0037]-[0040], and, for example, would allow one to flow heated sheath gas between the two spray tube elements so as not to boil the sample and have signal drop outs ([0040]), while maintaining the functionality of the deflection site of Covey.
Regarding claim 10, Covey in view of O’Brien and Mordehai teaches the ion source according to claim 9.
Covey further teaches wherein the deflection site has a bent structure provided at a tip portion of the first tube (See Figs. 2D-2F).
Examiner notes that were the elements of Mordehai combined with Covey as discussed above, in order for the deflection site of Covey to function as intended, it would necessarily be disposed on item 46 of Mordehai, which is the more upstream of the two tubes.
Regarding claim 16, Covey in view of O’Brien teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey does not teach wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, wherein the second tube being disposed on an outer side of the first tube via a fitted portion configured to prevent leakage of the gas, and wherein the deflection site is provided in the first tube and deflects the downstream end of the capillary with respect to the central axis of the tip hole of the second tube.
However, Covey teaches wherein the deflection site…deflects the downstream end of the capillary with respect to the central axis of the tip hole…(See Figs. 2D-2F, item 45; [0032]-[0034]).
Mordehai teaches wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, wherein the second tube being disposed on an outer side of the first tube via a fitted portion configured to prevent leakage of the gas (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 46 and 48; [0037]-[0040]; Examiner notes that the arrangement of items 46 and 48 are such that no gas is capable of leaking, and the gas may only exit at the output end, and that their disposal such that no gas can leak is interpreted as reading on ‘a fitted portion’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Covey to include wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, wherein the second tube being disposed on an outer side of the first tube via a fitted portion configured to prevent leakage of the gas, as taught by Mordehai, in order to achieve wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, wherein the second tube being disposed on an outer side of the first tube via a fitted portion configured to prevent leakage of the gas, and wherein the deflection site is provided in the first tube and deflects the downstream end of the capillary with respect to the central axis of the tip hole of the second tube, because were the elements of Mordehai combined with Covey, in order for the deflection site of Covey to function as intended, it would necessarily be disposed on item 46 of Mordehai, which is the more upstream of the two tubes.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to control the flow as desired, as discussed in Mordehai [0037]-[0040], and, for example, would allow one to flow heated sheath gas between the two spray tube elements so as not to boil the sample and have signal drop outs ([0040]), while maintaining the functionality of the deflection site of Covey.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Andrien (US 6326616 B1);
Park (US 6753521 B1);
Trivett’806 (US 20250157806 A1);
Hirabayashi (US 20050056781 A1);
Trivett’789 (US 20210398789 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881