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 .
Response to Arguments
Drawings and Specification
In view of new Figure 4 and the arguments on pg. 9 of the Remarks filed 03/30/2026, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and the amendments of those rejected claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Consequently, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 102/103
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 with regard to the rejection under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Stuke have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because Stuke does disclose each platform as having a separate set of pillars. When interpreting 56 (annular body) as a platform, and 82 (flange/square plate as another platform, 56 can be interpreted as having set of pillars 52 (metal tube/tubular member), while 82 can be interpreted as having set of pillars 66 (rods). See Figs. 2 and 4 of Stuke.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 with regard to the rejection under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Gohlke, et. al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks state that “this reference appears to disclose an arrangement in which no separate columns or rods are used to mount individual functional units of a time-of-flight mass spectrometer. Instead, the individual units are either arranged on an inlet-side or outlet-side flange of a tube or connected to each other by a tube section that encloses or holds the functional groups.” Gohlke, et. al., under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, does teach a separate set of pillars for each of the plurality of platforms, as seen in Fig. 5 which shows the interpreted platforms having a separate set of pillars: 182 (metal annular member) has 168 (tubular element), 200 has 194, 208 has 205, and 226 has 222. The interpreted platforms are disclosed as mounting functional elements, as also seen in Fig. 5.
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.
Claims 9, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stuke (US 4686366 A) (From IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Stuke teaches a time-of-flight mass analyzer (Col. 1, lines 51-54) comprising:
a plurality of functional parts including: an ion source (laser 32 and ionization chamber 20), an extraction region (acceleration space 25), a drift region (essentially field-free separation or time-of-flight path 28 in cylindrical electrode 30), a reflectron (Fig. 1, Fig. 4), and a detector (ion detector 18);
a single vacuum flange configured to connect on a vacuum chamber (flange 10, Fig. 2, Col. 2, lines 26-31);
a plurality of platforms stacked on top of each other with respect to the single vacuum flange (annular body 56, Fig. 2, plate 82, Fig. 4);
a separate set of pillars for each of the plurality of platforms, configured for fixing and distancing the corresponding platform either to the single vacuum flange or to a neighboring platform from the plurality of platforms (metal tube 52, Fig. 2 and rods 66, Fig. 4);
each of the plurality of platforms being configured to mount at least one of the plurality of functional parts or a subset thereof to obtain a subassembly (56 forms seat means 58 for ion detector 18, Col. 4, lines 9-11; 82 mounts lens and other functional components as seen in Figs. 4 and 6, Col. 4, lines 29-41, 45-55); and
the subassemblies and the single vacuum flange being arranged to form a stacked analyzer assembly in which each of the platforms defines a mechanical reference in the longish elongated assembly (Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 10, Stuke teaches wherein the platforms are stacked on top of each other onto the single vacuum flange (Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 15, Stuke teaches further comprising:
at least a screw system configured to fix at least one of the plurality of platforms to the corresponding set of pillars (screw 64, Figs. 2 and 4).
Claims 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gohlke, et. al. (US 3471735 A), hereinafter Gohlke.
Regarding claim 9, Gohlke teaches a time-of-flight mass analyzer (abstract) comprising:
a plurality of functional parts including: an ion source, an extraction region, a drift region, a reflectron, and a detector (Fig. 1);
a single vacuum flange configured to connect on a vacuum chamber (24, Fig. 1);
a plurality of platforms stacked on top of each other with respect to the single vacuum flange (metal annular members 182, 200, 208, 226 Fig. 5);
a separate set of pillars for each of the plurality of platforms, configured for fixing and distancing the corresponding platform either to the single vacuum flange or to a neighboring platform from the plurality of platforms (tubular elements 168, 194, 205, 222);
each of the plurality of platforms being configured to mount at least one of the plurality of functional parts or a subset thereof to obtain a subassembly (Fig. 5 showing ion source and flight tube assembly); and
the subassemblies and the single vacuum flange being arranged to form a stacked analyzer assembly in which each of the platforms defines a mechanical reference in the stacked analyzer assembly (Fig. 5, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Gohlke teaches wherein the platforms are stacked on top of each other onto the single vacuum flange (Fig. 1, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Gohlke teaches further comprising at least one additional platform mounted directly on the single vacuum flange by means of a corresponding set of additional pillars (flange opposite 34 is connected to 34 via a cylindrical pillar).
Regarding claim 12, Gohlke teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of platforms and the at least one additional platforms is defined as a first level platform, the time-of-flight mass analyzer further comprising:
for each first level platform (flange opposite 34) at least one second level platform mounted on the first level platform by means of a set of corresponding second level pillar (tube connecting to ion source).
Regarding claim 15, Stuke teaches further comprising:
at least a screw system configured to fix at least one of the plurality of platforms to the corresponding set of pillars (screw 64, Figs. And 4).
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.
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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gohlke (US 3471735 A) in view of Mordehai, et. al. (US 5352892 A), hereinafter Mordehai.
Regarding claim 13, Gohlke teaches wherein the single vacuum flange comprises an opening (opening connecting to vacuum system 28), the time-of-flight mass analyzer further comprising:
an annex vacuum chamber mounted on the opening of the single vacuum flange (vacuum system 28); and
Gohlke does not explicitly teach at least a further annex platform located inside the annex vacuum chamber, however adding a platform to the annex vacuum chamber is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” Absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape, the prior art renders obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Regarding claim 14, Gohlke does not teach further comprising: a particle shield located on a side of the single vacuum flange that is oriented toward the at least one platform, wherein the particle shield is configured to protect an inside of the annex vacuum chamber from charged particles.
Mordehai teaches a particle shield located on a side of the single vacuum flange that is oriented toward the at least one platform, wherein the particle shield is configured to protect an inside of the annex vacuum chamber from charged particles (shield 60 on side of flange 48).
Mordehai modifies Gohlke by suggesting a particle shield on the vacuum flange toward the platform because the shield protects the inlet sampling orifice of the vacuum portion of the system, (Mordehai, Col. 4, lines 3-6),
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights