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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11 May 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Claims 24-29 and 31-44 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Yasuda discloses that “[t]he first vacuum pump 106 is connected to the first vacuum chamber 101, and evacuates air from the first vacuum chamber 101” (paragraph 0030, lines 4-6), and “first, the first vacuum pump 106 is operated to operation to drop the pressures of the first vacuum chamber 101 and the second vacuum chamber 102 to about a few hundreds pascals. After that, the second vacuum pump 105 is operated to drop the pressure of the second vacuum chamber 102 to about a few pascals” (paragraph 0033, lines 3-8, emphasis added). The first vacuum pump 106 actively controls the operating pressure of the first chamber 101 (“evacuates air from the first vacuum chamber 101”) so as to maintain the operating pressure of each of the first chamber and the second chamber (“drop the pressures of the first vacuum chamber 101 and the second vacuum chamber 102”). The second vacuum pump is only operated to actively control the operating pressure of the second chamber after the first vacuum pump has actively controlled the operating pressure of the first chamber. Omission of a step or an element and its function is obvious if the step or the function of the element is not desired or required. See MPEP 2144.04 II A; Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the case at hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to omit the step of actively controlling the operating pressure of the second chamber in circumstances where the active control of the second chamber is not desired or required, such as applications in which the operating pressure of the second chamber is required to be in the range of “a few hundreds pascals” as achieved by the first vacuum pump.
Furthermore, features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Yasuda teaches the structural limitations of the differentially pumped chambers as claimed, i.e., a plurality of differentially pumped chambers (paragraph 0028) and a controller in communication with a pressure sensor (paragraph 0044) which is capable of actively controlling the operating pressure of the first chamber so as to maintain the operating pressure of each of the first and second chambers within a respective target range or at a respective target value (paragraph 0033, “a few hundreds pascals”) without actively controlling the operating pressure of the second chamber. Therefore, the limitations of independent apparatus claim 24 are met.
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 24-29, 31, 33-39, and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN Patent No. 111477533 A), hereinafter Xu (English machine translation provided in a prior office action), in view of Yasuda et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0270868 A1), hereinafter Yasuda.
Regarding claim 24, Xu discloses a mass spectrometry system, comprising:
a differentially pumped vacuum stage (FIG. 2, chambers 116, 117, 118) comprising:
a plurality of chambers differentially pumped to have different pressures (page 6, paragraph beginning “the primary vacuum chamber 116 is provided…”) including at least a first chamber (FIG. 2, element 116) positioned upstream of a second chamber (FIG. 2, element 118) and in fluid communication therewith (page 5, last paragraph, lines 1-3),
a first ion guide (FIG. 2, element 105) positioned in said first chamber (FIG. 2, element 116) and a second ion guide (FIG. 2, element 107) positioned in said second chamber (FIG. 2, element 118), wherein said second ion guide includes a plurality of rods arranged in a multipole configuration so as to provide a passageway for transit of ions therethrough (paragraph spanning the end of page 6 to the beginning of page 7), and the first and second ion guides are configured to provide radial confinement of the ions passing through the passageway (page 6, paragraph beginning “In the specific experiment process…” discloses that the ion guides perform “efficient transmission and focusing” by the action of the electric field, i.e., the electric field is configured to confine the ions to a desired path; the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use and therefore meets the claimed limitation), and
a controller configured to generate one or more control signals to actively control the operating pressure (page 5, paragraph labeled (4)) of the first chamber so as to maintain the operating pressure of the first chamber (page 6, paragraph beginning “In this embodiment…”, lines 6-7) within a target range or at a target value (page 6, paragraph beginning “In this embodiment…”, lines 6-7); and
a mass analyzer disposed downstream of the differentially pumped vacuum stage (FIG. 2, mass analyzer 108).
Xu fails to disclose that an operating pressure of the first chamber is greater than an operating pressure of the second chamber; wherein said first ion guide includes a plurality of rods arranged in a multipole configuration, a pressure sensor operably coupled to said first chamber for measuring the operating pressure of said first chamber and generating one or more pressure signals, and wherein the controller is in communication with said pressure sensor and configured to generate one or more control signals in response to said one or more pressure signals to actively control the operating pressure of the first chamber so as to maintain the operating pressure of the second chamber within a target range or at a target value without actively controlling the operating pressure of the second chamber.
However, Yasuda discloses that an operating pressure of the first chamber is greater than an operating pressure of the second chamber (paragraph 0030, last sentence);
wherein said first ion guide (FIG. 1A, element 108) includes a multipole configuration (paragraph 0036; while Yasuda fails to disclose that the multipole configuration of the ion guide comprises rods, the disclosure of Xu demonstrates that an ion guide including a plurality of rods arranged in a multipole configuration is known in the art; furthermore, applicant has not established that the particular shape, i.e., rods, hold significance (see, e.g., page 5 of applicant’s specification, “the rods of the ion guide can be replaced with ring electrodes”); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the ion guide multipole disclosed in Yasuda to include rods; see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)),
a pressure sensor (FIG. 1A, element 112) operably coupled to said first chamber (FIG. 1A, element 101) for measuring the operating pressure of said first chamber and generating one or more pressure signals (paragraph 0044), and
wherein the controller (FIG. 1A, element 111) is in communication with said pressure sensor and configured to generate one or more control signals in response to said one or more pressure signals (paragraph 0044) to actively control the operating pressure of the first chamber (paragraph 0045) so as to maintain the operating pressure of the second chamber (FIG. 1A, element 102) within a target range or at a target value without actively controlling the operating pressure of the second chamber (paragraph 0033, lines 3-6).
Therefore, 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 Xu to include that an operating pressure of the first chamber is greater than an operating pressure of the second chamber; wherein said first ion guide includes a plurality of rods arranged in a multipole configuration, a pressure sensor operably coupled to said first chamber for measuring the operating pressure of said first chamber and generating one or more pressure signals, and wherein the controller is in communication with said pressure sensor and configured to generate one or more control signals in response to said one or more pressure signals to actively control the operating pressure of the first chamber so as to maintain the operating pressure of the second chamber within a target range or at a target value without actively controlling the operating pressure of the second chamber, based on the teachings of Yasuda that this enables greater flexibility in terms of the level of vacuum to be achieved in the second chamber (Yasuda, paragraph 0032).
Furthermore, omission of a step or an element and its function is obvious if the step or the function of the element is not desired or required. See MPEP 2144.04 II A; Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the case at hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to omit the step of actively controlling the operating pressure of the second chamber (Yasuda, paragraph 0033, lines 6-8) in circumstances where the active control of the second chamber is not desired or required, such as applications in which the operating pressure of the second chamber is required to be in the range of “a few hundreds pascals” as achieved by the first vacuum pump (Yasuda, paragraph 0033, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 25, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 24 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 24.
In addition, Xu discloses a first pump operably coupled to said first chamber via a first opening for applying a negative pressure to said first chamber (page 6, paragraph beginning “the primary vacuum chamber 116 is provided…”, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 26, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 25 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 25.
In addition, Xu discloses that said controller is configured to apply the one or more control signals to said first pump for adjusting at least one operational parameter thereof so as to actively control the operating pressure of the first chamber (page 3, last paragraph, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 27, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 26 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 26.
In addition, Xu discloses that said at least one operational parameter of the first pump comprises any of a pumping speed and a frequency of the pump (page 3, last paragraph, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 28, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 25 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 25.
In addition, Xu discloses an adjustable flow restrictor (FIG. 2, valve 110) coupled to said first opening and configured to adjust a flow conductance between the first chamber and the first pump so as to actively control the operating pressure of the first chamber (page 3, last paragraph, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 29, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 28 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 28.
In addition, Xu discloses that said adjustable flow restrictor comprises an adjustable aperture (FIG. 2, valve 110; Merriam-Webster.com defines “valve” as “any of numerous mechanical devices by which the flow of liquid, gas, or loose material in bulk may be started, stopped, or regulated by a movable part that opens, shuts, or partially obstructs one or more ports or passageways”, i.e., valve 110 comprises an “adjustable aperture” by definition) and said one or more control signals adjust a size of said adjustable aperture (page 6, paragraph beginning “In this embodiment…”, lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 31, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 24 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 24.
In addition, Xu discloses that any of said target range and said target value corresponds to a pressure range or a pressure value providing an optimal transmission of ions having m/z ratios in a predefined range through any of said first and said second ion guide (page 6, paragraph beginning “In the specific experiment process…”).
Regarding claim 33, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 24 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 24.
In addition, Xu discloses that said first chamber is in fluid communication with an upstream sampling orifice of said mass spectrometer (FIG. 2, element 101) for receiving ions generated by an ion source of the mass spectrometer (page 6, paragraph beginning “In this embodiment…”, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 34, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 24 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 24.
In addition, Xu discloses a third chamber positioned between said first and said second chamber and in fluid communication therewith (FIG. 2, third chamber 117).
Regarding claim 35, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 34 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 34.
In addition, Xu discloses that the one or more control signals are further configured to actively control, in addition to the operating pressure of the first chamber, an operating pressure of the third chamber (page 6, paragraph beginning “the primary vacuum chamber 116 is provided…”; first chamber 116 and third chamber 117).
In addition, Yasuda discloses that the operating pressure of the third chamber (paragraph 0028 discloses that “[t]he number of vacuum chambers may be three or more”) is actively controlled so as to maintain the operating pressure of the second chamber within the target range or at the target value without actively controlling the operating pressure of the second chamber (paragraphs 0028 and 0032-33; a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious from the disclosure of Yasuda that including a third pumped vacuum chamber would have a similar effect on the operating pressure of the second chamber as the effect generated by the first pumped vacuum chamber, i.e., actively controlling the operating pressure of the third chamber would maintain the operating pressure of the second chamber).
Therefore, 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 Xu in view of Yasuda to include that the operating pressure of the third chamber is actively controlled so as to maintain the operating pressure of the second chamber within the target range or at the target value without actively controlling the operating pressure of the second chamber, based on the additional teachings of Yasuda that this enables greater flexibility in terms of the level of vacuum to be achieved in the second chamber (Yasuda, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 36, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 35 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 35.
In addition, Yasuda discloses a second pump operably coupled to said third chamber (paragraph 0028 discloses that “[t]he number of vacuum chambers may be three or more”) via a second opening for applying a negative pressure thereto (paragraphs 0028 and 0032-33; a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious from the disclosure of Yasuda that including a third pumped vacuum chamber would have a similar effect on the operating pressure of the second chamber as the effect generated by the first pumped vacuum chamber, i.e., adjusting the operating pressure of the third chamber would adjust the operating pressure of the second chamber).
Therefore, 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 Xu in view of Yasuda to include a second pump operably coupled to said third chamber via a second opening for applying a negative pressure thereto, based on the additional teachings of Yasuda that this enables greater flexibility in terms of the level of vacuum to be achieved in the second chamber (Yasuda, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 37, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 36 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 36.
In addition, Yasuda discloses that the one or more control signals are configured to adjust at least one operational parameter (paragraph 0045, exhaust velocity) of said second pump for adjusting said operating pressure of the third chamber (paragraphs 0028 and 0045-0046: a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious from the disclosure of Yasuda that the operating pressure of a third vacuum chamber would be adjusted in the same way as the operating pressure of the first and second vacuum chambers, i.e., by adjusting the exhaust velocity of a vacuum pump of the third vacuum chamber).
Therefore, 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 Xu in view of Yasuda to include that the one or more control signals are configured to adjust at least one operational parameter of said second pump for adjusting said operating pressure of the third chamber, based on the additional teachings of Yasuda that this enables greater flexibility in terms of the level of vacuum to be achieved in the second chamber (Yasuda, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 38, Xu discloses, in a mass spectrometry system including a differentially pumped vacuum stage (FIG. 2, chambers 116, 117, 118) and a mass analyzer disposed downstream of the differentially pumped vacuum stage (FIG. 2, mass analyzer 108), a method for maintaining an operating pressure of a target chamber (FIG. 2, element 118) of the differentially pumped vacuum stage within a desired range or at a desired value (page 6, paragraph beginning “the primary vacuum chamber 116 is provided…”, lines 4-5), the method comprising:
actively controlling an operating pressure of one or more upstream chambers of the differentially pumped vacuum stage (page 6, paragraph beginning “In this embodiment…”, lines 6-7) positioned in tandem and upstream of the target chamber (FIG. 2: upstream chambers 116 and 117 are positioned in tandem and upstream of target chamber 118) and in fluid communication therewith (page 5, last paragraph, lines 1-3),
wherein a first ion guide (FIG. 2, elements 105, 106; page 7, paragraph 2 defines element 106 as comprising a “migration tube”) is positioned in each of the one or more upstream chambers (FIG. 2, elements 116, 117) and a second ion guide (FIG. 2, element 107) is positioned in said target chamber (FIG. 2, element 118), wherein each of said first ion guide (page 5, last paragraph, lines 4-5) and said second ion guide provides a passageway for transit of ions therethrough (page 6, first paragraph, lines 2-3) and provides radial confinement of the ions passing through the passageway (page 6, paragraph beginning “In the specific experiment process…” discloses that the ion guides perform “efficient transmission and focusing” by the action of the electric field, i.e., the electric field is configured to confine the ions to a desired path; the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use and therefore meets the claimed limitation).
Xu fails to disclose monitoring an operating pressure of the one or more upstream chambers; and actively controlling the operating pressure of the one or more upstream chambers in response to the monitored pressure of the one or more upstream chambers so as to maintain the operating pressure of the target chamber within said desired range or at said desired value without actively controlling the operating pressure of the target chamber.
However, Yasuda discloses monitoring an operating pressure of the one or more upstream chambers (paragraph 0044); and
actively controlling the operating pressure of the one or more upstream chambers (paragraph 0045) in response to the monitored pressure of the one or more upstream chambers (paragraph 0044) so as to maintain the operating pressure of the target chamber within said desired range or at said desired value without actively controlling the operating pressure of the target chamber (paragraph 0033, lines 3-6).
Therefore, 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 Xu to include monitoring an operating pressure of the one or more upstream chambers; and actively controlling the operating pressure of the one or more upstream chambers in response to the monitored pressure of the one or more upstream chambers so as to maintain the operating pressure of the target chamber within said desired range or at said desired value without actively controlling the operating pressure of the target chamber, based on the teachings of Yasuda that this enables greater flexibility in terms of the level of vacuum to be achieved in the second chamber (Yasuda, paragraph 0032).
Furthermore, omission of a step or an element and its function is obvious if the step or the function of the element is not desired or required. See MPEP 2144.04 II A; Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the case at hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to omit the step of actively controlling the operating pressure of the second chamber (Yasuda, paragraph 0033, lines 6-8) in circumstances where the active control of the second chamber is not desired or required, such as applications in which the operating pressure of the second chamber is required to be in the range of “a few hundreds pascals” as achieved by the first vacuum pump (Yasuda, paragraph 0033, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 39, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 38 discloses the method of claim 38.
In addition, Yasuda discloses that the operating pressure of any one of the one or more upstream chambers is greater than an operating pressure of the target chamber (paragraph 0030, last sentence).
Therefore, 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 Xu in view of Yasuda to include that the operating pressure of any one of the one or more upstream chambers is greater than an operating pressure of the target chamber, based on the additional teachings of Yasuda that this enables greater flexibility in terms of the level of vacuum to be achieved in the second chamber (Yasuda, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 41, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 38 discloses the method of claim 38.
In addition, Xu discloses that the step of actively controlling the operating pressure of the one or more upstream chambers comprises adjusting at least one operational parameter of one or more pumps operably coupled to said one or more upstream chambers (page 3, last paragraph, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 42, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 41 discloses the method of claim 41.
In addition, Xu discloses that said at least one operational parameter comprises any of a pumping speed and frequency of said one or more pumps (page 3, last paragraph, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 43, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 38 discloses the method of claim 38.
In addition, Xu discloses that said step of actively controlling the operating pressures of the one or more upstream chambers comprises adjusting aperture size (FIG. 2, valve 110; Merriam-Webster.com defines “valve” as “any of numerous mechanical devices by which the flow of liquid, gas, or loose material in bulk may be started, stopped, or regulated by a movable part that opens, shuts, or partially obstructs one or more ports or passageways”, i.e., valve 110 comprises an “adjustable aperture” by definition) of at least one adjustable flow restrictor (FIG. 2, valve 110) operably coupled to at least one of said one or more chambers (page 3, last paragraph, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 44, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 24 discloses the mass spectrometer of claim 24.
In addition, Xu discloses that said first and said second ion guides are positioned in tandem (FIG. 2: second ion guide 107 is positioned downstream of, or behind, first ion guide 105 (Merriam-Webster.com, “tandem” definition 3, “consisting of things or having parts arranged one behind the other”)).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 24 above, and is further rejected under Xu in view of Yasuda as evidenced by Helicon (Ed.), “Torr”, hereinafter Helicon.
Regarding claim 32, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 24 discloses the mass spectrometry system of claim 24.
In addition, Yasuda discloses that said target range is from 3 mTorr to 8 Torr (paragraph 0031: the first vacuum chamber has a target range of “about a few hundreds pascals”, i.e., on the order of 100 pascals, and the second chamber has a target range of “about a few pascals”, taken in context to be on the order of 1-10 pascals; Helicon discloses that 1 Torr is equivalent to 133.322 pascals; therefore, pressures on the order of 1-100 pascals equate to approximately 8 mTorr to 0.8 Torr).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case at hand, Yasuda teaches a range of 8 mTorr to 0.8 Torr, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 mTorr to 8 Torr. Therefore, 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 Xu in view of Yasuda to meet the claimed range of target pressure.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Dowell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,385,185 B2), hereinafter Dowell.
Regarding claim 40, Xu in view of Yasuda as applied to claim 38 discloses the method of claim 38.
Xu in view of Yasuda fails to disclose utilizing a pressure sensor operably coupled to said target chamber for monitoring the pressure of the target chamber.
However, Dowell discloses utilizing a pressure sensor (FIG. 2, element 184) operably coupled to said target chamber (FIG. 2, element 128) for monitoring the pressure of the target chamber (column 4, lines 48-51).
Therefore, 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 Xu in view of Yasuda to include utilizing a pressure sensor operably coupled to said target chamber for monitoring the pressure of the target chamber, based on the teachings of Dowell that this enables more accurate pressure control in the system as a whole (Dowell, column 4, lines 42-62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Doherty et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0194679 A1), hereinafter Doherty, teaches a mass spectrometry system, comprising: a differentially pumped vacuum stage comprising: a plurality of chambers differentially pumped to have different pressures including at least a first chamber positioned upstream of a second chamber and in fluid communication therewith.
Schlueter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0320294 A1), hereinafter Schlueter, teaches a pressure sensor operably coupled to a chamber for measuring the operating pressure of said chamber and generating one or more pressure signals, and a controller in communication with said pressure sensor and configured to generated one or more control signals in response to said one or more pressure signals to actively control the operating pressure of the chamber.
Tsutsumi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,889,995 A), hereinafter Tsutsumi, teaches an adjustable flow restrictor configured to adjust a flow conductance between a first chamber and a first pump so as to actively control the operating pressure of the first chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights