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 18 December 2025, with respect to the claims have been entered. Claims 1 and 5-15 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 13-15 are 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.
Claim 13 recites the following limitations:
"the inlet" in lines 19 and 23;
“the outlet” in lines 20 and 24;
“the component desorbed from the sample” in line 21;
“the guide flow path” in line 22.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the limitations as follows:
“the inlet formed in the first side wall”;
“the outlet formed in the second side wall”;
“the material separated from the sample”;
“a guide flow path”.
Claims 14-15 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 13.
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 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattendorf (EP Patent No. 3240014 A1), hereinafter Hattendorf.
Regarding claim 1, Hattendorf discloses a remote chamber, comprising:
a lower chamber (FIG. 1, element 21) configured to receive a sample accommodated therein (FIG. 1, element 23); and
an upper chamber (FIG. 1, interior portions of element 10) which is coupled to an upper end of the lower chamber (FIG. 1) and in which a guide flow path is formed (FIG. 2, elements 11, 12, 14, 15),
wherein the upper chamber defines therein a first space configured to receive a component desorbed from the sample from the lower chamber (FIG. 6, space surrounding desorbed component 25), the lower chamber defines therein a second space configured to receive the sample therein (FIG. 1, space surrounding sample 23), and the first space and the second space are connected to each other (FIG. 6 shows that the space surrounding sample 23 is connected to the space surrounding desorbed component 25),
wherein the upper chamber comprises a sidewall part having open upper and lower portions (FIGs. 1, 2: side walls of element 10 with open upper and lower portions at the upper and lower edges of elements 11, 12), a ceiling coupled to an upper end of the sidewall part (FIG. 1, top surface of element 10), an inlet formed in a first side wall of the sidewall part (FIG. 1, inlet at the edge of the rightmost side of element 10, in communication with conduit 11), the inlet configured to receive an injection of a carrier gas therethrough (FIG. 2, gas G2), an outlet formed in a second side wall of the sidewall part (FIG. 2, outlet at the rightmost side of element 10, in communication with conduit 12), the outlet configured to receive a discharge of the carrier gas and the component desorbed from the sample (paragraph 0040), and a gas guide which is disposed in the first space and in which the guide flow path is formed (FIG. 2, elements 11, 12, 14, 15),
wherein the gas guide comprises a first opening facing the inlet (FIG. 3, opening facing the inlet in communication with element 11), a second opening facing the outlet (FIG. 3, opening facing the outlet in communication with element 12), and a third opening configured to face the sample (FIG. 3, opening facing sample 23; also shown in FIG. 2 at element 13), and wherein the first opening is located at a first end of the guide flow path, the second opening is located at a second end of the guide flow path, and the third opening is located below a center of the guide flow path (FIG. 3),
wherein a direction perpendicular to a vertical direction is a first direction (the first direction is the horizontal direction in FIG. 3), and a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction and the first direction is a second direction (the second direction is the vertical direction in FIG. 2), and wherein the guide flow path extends in the first direction (FIG. 3: guide flow path from 11 to 12 extends along the horizontal direction), the third opening is located between the first opening and the second opening in the first direction (FIG. 3), a length of the guide flow path in the second direction becomes shorter as it is closer to the first opening from the center of the third opening (FIG. 2: the vertical size of portions 14, 15 of the guide flow path becomes shorter in the direction from the opening at element 13 toward the first opening at element 11), and the length of the guide flow path in the second direction becomes shorter as it is closer to the second opening from the center of the third opening (FIG. 2: the vertical size of the portion of the guide flow path becomes shorter in the direction from the opening at element 13 toward the second opening at element 12), and
wherein a pair of side walls connecting the first opening and the second opening may be provided as a curved surface of a shape that is plane-symmetrical to each other (FIG. 2 shows the sidewalls of the flow path following a curve that is symmetrical about a plane formed in the horizontal direction/direction into the page).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have considered it an obvious matter of design choice to form the sidewalls in FIG. 2 of Hattendorf to be curved at both ends of the guide flow path, since the applicant has not disclosed that the curvature of the sidewalls solves any problem or is for a particular reason. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Hattendorf as applied to claim 1 discloses the remote chamber of claim 1.
In addition, Hattendorf discloses that in a cross-section perpendicular to a vertical direction of the gas guide (view shown in FIG. 2), the guide flow path has a streamlined shape with a major axis in the first direction (FIG. 2, horizontal direction) and a minor axis in the second direction (FIG. 2, vertical direction).
Regarding claim 6, Hattendorf as applied to claim 1 discloses the remote chamber of claim 1.
In addition, Hattendorf discloses that the ceiling has a window formed therein of a material configured to transmit light therethrough (paragraph 0039), the gas guide further comprises a fourth opening at a position facing the window (FIG. 1, opening 13), and the remote chamber is configured to receive irradiation of a laser passing through the window (paragraph 0039), the fourth opening (paragraph 0039), and the third opening to be irradiated onto the sample (FIG. 3, laser beam 41 irradiating sample 23).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattendorf as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Akiyama (JP Patent No. 2004053314 A), hereinafter Akiyama (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 7, Hattendorf as applied to claim 1 discloses the remote chamber of claim 1.
Hattendorf fails to disclose a heater disposed within the second space, the heater configured to heat the sample, a lower end of the heater is fixed to a bottom surface of the lower chamber, and a side surface of the heater is separated from an inner surface of the lower chamber.
However, Akiyama discloses a heater (FIG. 1, element 108) disposed within the second space (FIG. 1: element 108 is disposed in the second space defined by the lower chamber 101, the upper chamber being the space between elements 103 and 104), the heater configured to heat the sample (page 4, paragraph 0014, line 6), a lower end of the heater is fixed to a bottom surface of the lower chamber, and a side surface of the heater is separated from an inner surface of the lower chamber (FIG. 1: heater 108 is fixed to the bottom surface of lower chamber 101, and there is empty space between the side surfaces of heater 108 and the interior walls of lower chamber 101).
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 Hattendorf to include a heater disposed within the second space, the heater configured to heat the sample, a lower end of the heater is fixed to a bottom surface of the lower chamber, and a side surface of the heater is separated from an inner surface of the lower chamber, based on the teachings of Akiyama that heating the sample advantageously increases the amount of material desorbed from the sample for analysis (Akiyama, page 5, paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 8, Hattendorf in view of Akiyama as applied to claim 7 discloses the remote chamber of claim 7.
In addition, Akiyama discloses that the heater is configured to heat the sample to a temperature of 20°C to 1000°C (page 5, paragraph 0015, lines 5-8).
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 Hattendorf in view of Akiyama to include that the heater is configured to heat the sample to a temperature of 20°C to 1000°C, based on the additional teachings of Akiyama that heating the sample to temperatures in this range advantageously increases the amount of material desorbed from the sample for analysis (Akiyama, page 5, paragraph 0015).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattendorf in view of Akiyama as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (EP Patent No. 3483925 A1), hereinafter Jeon.
Regarding claim 9, Hattendorf in view of Akiyama as applied to claim 8 discloses the remote chamber of claim 8.
Hattendorf in view of Akiyama fails to disclose that the heater comprises: a heating member configured to generate heat; and a sample mounting disk fixed to an upper end of the heating member.
However, Jeon discloses that the heater comprises:
a heating member configured to generate heat (FIG. 6, element 110); and
a sample mounting disk (FIG. 6, element 120) fixed to an upper end of the heating member (paragraph 0043).
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 Hattendorf in view of Akiyama to include that the heater comprises: a heating member configured to generate heat; and a sample mounting disk fixed to an upper end of the heating member, based on the teachings of Jeon that this arrangement ensures that heat generated by the heating member is uniformly transferred to the sample (Jeon, paragraphs 0010, 0017).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattendorf in view of Akiyama and Jeon as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ichino et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0115216 A1), hereinafter Ichino.
Regarding claim 10, Hattendorf in view of Akiyama and Jeon as applied to claim 9 discloses the remote chamber of claim 9.
In addition, Jeon discloses that the heater further comprises a ring-shaped guide ring (FIG. 6, element 130) coupled to an outer circumference of the sample mounting disk (paragraph 0067).
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 Hattendorf in view of Akiyama and Jeon to include that the heater further comprises a ring-shaped guide ring coupled to an outer circumference of the sample mounting disk, based on the additional teachings of Jeon that the ring provides the benefit of ensuring proper alignment of the sample mounting disk (Jeon, paragraph 0067).
Hattendorf in view of Akiyama and Jeon fails to disclose that a vertical length of the guide ring is longer than a vertical length of the sample mounting disk.
However, Ichino discloses that a vertical length of the guide ring (FIG. 3, element 202, which comprises elements 325, 326, and 327 in FIG. 4) is longer than a vertical length of the sample mounting disk (FIG. 4, element 306).
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 Hattendorf in view of Akiyama and Jeon to include that a vertical length of the guide ring is longer than a vertical length of the sample mounting disk, based on the teachings of Ichino that this ensures the sample is placed properly in the center of the guide ring (Ichino, paragraph 0168).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattendorf in view of Akiyama, Jeon, and Ichino as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Franzen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0057368 A1), hereinafter Franzen, and Itoi (U.S. Patent No. 6,006,584 A), hereinafter Itoi.
Regarding claim 11, Hattendorf in view of Akiyama, Jeon, and Ichino as applied to claim 10 discloses the remote chamber of claim 10.
Hattendorf in view of Akiyama, Jeon, and Ichino fails to disclose that the sample mounting disk and the guide ring are formed of gold coated copper or stainless steel.
However, Franzen discloses that the sample mounting disk is formed of gold coated copper or stainless steel (paragraph 0019, line 4)).
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 Hattendorf in view of Akiyama, Jeon, and Ichino to include that the sample mounting disk is formed of gold coated copper or stainless steel, based on the teachings of Franzen that stainless steel advantageously has a significantly smaller coefficient of thermal expansion than plastic sample support plates (Franzen, paragraph 0019).
Hattendorf in view of Akiyama, Jeon, Ichino, and Franzen fails to disclose that the guide ring is formed of gold coated copper or stainless steel.
However, Itoi discloses components of a chamber for mass spectrometry which are formed of stainless steel, with a function of providing increased thermal resistance (column 4, lines 46-57).
The disclosure of Itoi demonstrates that the function of stainless steel components is known in the art of mass spectrometry. Itoi also shows that substituting stainless steel for another material in a component of a mass spectrometer yields the predictable result of increasing the thermal resistance of said component. “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). 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 Hattendorf in view of Akiyama, Jeon, and Ichino to include that the guide ring is formed of gold coated copper or stainless steel because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattendorf in view of Akiyama as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yano et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,654,457 A), hereinafter Yano.
Regarding claim 12, Hattendorf in view of Akiyama as applied to claim 7 discloses the remote chamber of claim 7.
Hattendorf in view of Akiyama fails to disclose that the bottom surface of the lower chamber defines a cooling flow path therein configured to cool the second space.
However, Yano discloses that the bottom surface of the lower chamber defines a cooling flow path therein configured to cool the second space (FIG. 1, element 38).
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 Hattendorf in view of Akiyama to include that the bottom surface of the lower chamber defines a cooling flow path therein configured to cool the second space, based on the teachings of Yano that cooling the space prevents loss of desired insulation due to undesirable temperature increases (Yano, column 6, lines 36-41).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattendorf in view of You et al. (WO Patent No. 2020055133 A1), hereinafter You (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 13, Hattendorf discloses a mass spectrometry system (paragraph 0027), comprising:
a remote chamber (FIG. 1) configured to accommodate a sample therein (FIG. 1, element 23);
a light source unit (FIG. 9, element 40) configured to irradiate a laser (FIG. 9, element 41)to the sample through a window disposed at an upper end of the remote chamber (FIG. 1, window 13 is at the upper end of the upper chamber);
a carrier gas supply unit configured to a supply carrier gas to an internal space of the remote chamber through an inlet extending into the remote chamber (FIG. 9, gas G2, inlet 11);
a gas transfer tube having a first end connected to an outlet extending into the remote chamber (FIG. 9, outlet 12) and configured to discharge a material separated from the sample (paragraph 0040);
an ionization unit (FIG. 9, element 60) configured to ionize the material by emitting a beam to the material discharged from a second end of the gas transfer tube (paragraph 0051); and
a mass spectrometry unit (FIG. 9, element 70) configured to intake and analyze the material (paragraph 0051),
wherein the remote chamber comprises:
an upper chamber (FIG. 1, interior portions of element 10) having the window (FIG. 1, element 13), the inlet (FIG. 1, element 11), and the outlet (FIG. 1, element 12), the upper chamber defining a first space therein (FIG. 6, space surrounding desorbed component 25); and
a lower chamber (FIG. 1, element 21) which is coupled to a lower end of the upper chamber (FIG. 1, lower end of element 10), the lower chamber defining therein a second space configured to accommodate the sample (FIG. 1, space surrounding sample 23),
wherein the upper chamber comprises a sidewall part having open upper and lower portions (FIGs. 1, 2: side walls of element 10 with open upper and lower portions at the upper and lower edges of elements 11, 12), a ceiling coupled to an upper end of the sidewall part (FIG. 1, top surface of element 10), an inlet formed in a first side wall of the sidewall part (FIG. 1, inlet at the edge of the rightmost side of element 10, in communication with conduit 11), the inlet configured to receive an injection of a carrier gas therethrough (FIG. 2, gas G2), an outlet formed in a second side wall of the sidewall part (FIG. 2, outlet at the rightmost side of element 10, in communication with conduit 12), the outlet configured to receive a discharge of the carrier gas and the component desorbed from the sample (paragraph 0040), and a gas guide which is disposed in the first space and in which the guide flow path is formed (FIG. 2, elements 11, 12, 14, 15),
wherein the gas guide comprises a first opening facing the inlet (FIG. 3, opening facing the inlet in communication with element 11), a second opening facing the outlet (FIG. 3, opening facing the outlet in communication with element 12), and a third opening configured to face the sample (FIG. 3, opening facing sample 23; also shown in FIG. 2 at element 13), and wherein the first opening is located at a first end of the guide flow path, the second opening is located at a second end of the guide flow path, and the third opening is located below a center of the guide flow path (FIG. 3),
wherein a direction perpendicular to a vertical direction is a first direction (the first direction is the horizontal direction in FIG. 3), and a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction and the first direction is a second direction (the second direction is the vertical direction in FIG. 2), and wherein the guide flow path extends in the first direction (FIG. 3: guide flow path from 11 to 12 extends along the horizontal direction), the third opening is located between the first opening and the second opening in the first direction (FIG. 3), a length of the guide flow path in the second direction becomes shorter as it is closer to the first opening from the center of the third opening (FIG. 2: the vertical size of portions 14, 15 of the guide flow path becomes shorter in the direction from the opening at element 13 toward the first opening at element 11), and the length of the guide flow path in the second direction becomes shorter as it is closer to the second opening from the center of the third opening (FIG. 2: the vertical size of the portion of the guide flow path becomes shorter in the direction from the opening at element 13 toward the second opening at element 12), and
wherein a pair of side walls connecting the first opening and the second opening may be provided as a curved surface of a shape that is plane-symmetrical to each other (FIG. 2 shows the sidewalls of the flow path following a curve that is symmetrical about a plane formed in the horizontal direction/direction into the page).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have considered it an obvious matter of design choice to form the sidewalls in FIG. 2 of Hattendorf to be curved at both ends of the guide flow path, since the applicant has not disclosed that the curvature of the sidewalls solves any problem or is for a particular reason. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Hattendorf fails to disclose that the system is a DART-MS system; wherein the material is ionized by emitting a helium beam.
However, You discloses that the system is a DART-MS system (page 2, second paragraph from last); wherein the material is ionized by emitting a helium beam (page 3, paragraph 1).
The disclosure of You demonstrates that the function of a helium beam is known in the art of mass spectrometry. You also shows that substituting a helium beam for another laser beam in a mass spectrometry system yields the predictable result of ionizing an analyte with high efficiency (You, page 6, paragraph 4). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). 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 Hattendorf to include ionizing the material using a helium beam because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 14, Hattendorf in view of You as applied to claim 13 discloses the DART-MS system of claim 13.
In addition, Hattendorf discloses that the lower end of the upper chamber and an upper end of the lower chamber are each open such that the first space and the second space are connected (FIG. 3 shows the connection between the first and second spaces surrounding the area through which laser beam 41 passes through),
the window is disposed at an upper end of the upper chamber (FIG. 1, element 13 is at the upper end of the upper chamber), the light source unit is configured to irradiate a laser downward from an upper portion of the remote chamber (FIG. 3, laser beam 41), and remote chamber is configured to receive the laser reaching the sample by passing through the window (FIG. 3, laser 41 reaching sample 23 through the window).
Regarding claim 15, Hattendorf in view of You as applied to claim 13 discloses the DART-MS system of claim 13.
In addition, Hattendorf discloses a horizontal moving stage configured to adjust a position of the remote chamber, the horizontal moving stage being coupled to a lower end of the remote chamber (paragraph 0025).
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 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 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
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881