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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Paragraph [0031] refers to reference signs 501a and 501b not depicted in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0034] refers to both the “adjustment means” and “adjustment command” using reference number 401.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites: “The mass spectrometer according to The mass spectrometer according to…” It appears Applicant intended to write “The mass spectrometer according to
The objection can be overcome by correcting the limitation to: “The mass spectrometer according to”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“Ionization means intended to ionize a tracer gas”
“Means for detecting said ionized tracer gas”
“Means for adjusting the magnetic field B generated by said source”
The corresponding structure for the “ionization means intended to ionize a tracer gas” comprises of an ion source and an electrode.
The corresponding structure for a “means for detecting said ionized tracer gas” comprises of a mass spectrometer, an ionization means, and at least one magnetic field source.
The corresponding structure for a “means for adjusting the magnetic field B generated by said source” comprises two distinct adjustment commands, a circuit for controlling the current of said electromagnet, and a combinatorial circuit for said commands.
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 1-11 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 limitation “means for adjusting the magnetic field” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As interpreted under 112(f) the “means for adjusting the magnetic field” includes two distinct adjustment commands. It is not clear whether the term “commands” refers to electrical quantities (said at least two adjustment commands are electrical quantities, such as voltages (para. 11)), or the object capable of producing said electrical quantities (the magnetic field B depends on the values of the electrical quantities of said at least two adjustment commands (para 12)).
For the purposes of this examination the term “command” will be interpreted as the object capable of producing said electrical quantities, for example, voltage.
Therefore, the claims 1-11 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language.
Claim 9 states “The mass spectrometer according to The mass spectrometer according to characterized in that wherein.” The utilization of the phrase “according to” implies dependency. However, claim 9 does not disclose the claim to which it is dependent on.
For the purposes on the examination Claim 9 will be taken to be dependent on Claim 5 because Claim 5 introduces the control circuit to which Claim 9 references.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustathios et al. (WO 2005098900 A2), hereinafter referred to as “Eustathios”, in view of Russell et al. (US 3742228 A), hereinafter referred to as Russell.
Regarding claim 1:
Eustathios teaches a mass spectrometer (10) for detecting leakages via a tracer gas, said spectrometer (10) comprising: an ionisation means (14) intended to ionise said tracer gas;
at least one magnetic field source (120) generating a magnetic field B dependent on the electric current I (Using the electromagnetic field produced by the coil 220g to fine tune the magnetic flux (page. 15)) supplying said source (120) intended for sorting the ionised elements;
a means for detecting said ionised tracer gas (14, 120);
said spectrometer comprises a means for adjusting the magnetic field B generated by said source, said adjustment means being configured to allow at least two distinct adjustments, said adjustments having different sensitivities (and a controller in communication with the magnetic sensor and the coil, the controller configured to receive the signals indicative of the measurement of the magnetic flux from the magnetic sensor and to regulate the current passing through the coil to controllably maintain the magnetic flux within a desired range).
Eustathios does explicitly not teach that said spectrometer comprises a means for adjusting the magnetic field B (as interpreted under 112(f)) generated by said source, said adjustment means being configured to allow at least two distinct adjustments, said adjustments having different sensitivities.
Russel teaches that said spectrometer comprises a means for adjusting (interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) above. Fig 1 as annotated below discloses the corresponding structures) the magnetic field B generated by said source (magnet current generator means responsive to said linearly varying voltage and to said compensation voltage for establishing a magnet current which causes said magnetic field strength to be directly proportional to the square root of said linearly varying voltage(claim 5)), said adjustment means being configured to allow at least two distinct adjustments (variable setting of the input voltage (para. 5)) said adjustments having different sensitivities (said magnetic field being responsive to magnet current (claim 5)).
Both the magnet control circuit disclosed in Russell and the means for adjusting disclosed in the present invention allow for at least two voltage adjustments to manipulate the magnetic field produced by an electromagnet. Both mechanisms do so using a combinatorial circuit to generate an output of the voltage commands and a command circuit for controlling the current being provided to the electromagnet. Therefore, the magnet control circuit disclosed in Russel (Fig. 1 as annotated below) performs the identical function specified in claim 1 in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
For this reason, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the controller 142m taught in Eustathios with the magnet control circuit disclosed in Russell, which is equivalent to the disclosed invention, such that the means for adjusting the magnetic field includes two distinct adjustment commands, allowing for at least two adjustments with different sensitivities made up of a circuit for controlling the current of said electromagnet, and a combinatorial circuit for said commands, as disclosed in Russel. Doing so would have yielded the predictable result of allowing for a more precise control over the magnetic field produced by the electromagnet (Russell para. [0006]).
PNG
media_image1.png
845
1581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Eustathios does not explicitly teach the adjustment means comprises a pre-adjustment and a fine adjustment.
Russell teaches said adjustment means comprises a pre-adjustment (junction points providing voltages (para. 4)) and a fine adjustment (ramp input (para. 4)) (the junction points providing voltages of, for example, 1 volt, 2 volts, and 3 volts, representing mass numbers 100, 200, and 300, respectively. Such voltage values may be utilized as a base voltage at which the ramp output will start the sweep (para. 4)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Eustathios such that the adjustment means comprises a pre-adjustment and a fine adjustment to obtain the predictable result of improved manipulation over the magnetic field.
Regarding claim 3:
Eustathios teaches one of the adjustments (magnet 120a) makes it possible to establish a nominal magnetic field (magnet 120a creates a nominal magnetic field) while the other adjustment (electromagnetic controller 142m) makes it possible to generate a variation in magnetic field around the value of the nominal magnetic field (The electromagnet controller 142m receives magnetic flux information from the magnetic sensor 120f and regulates a current passing through the coil 120g (page 13)).
Regarding Claim 4:
Eustathios teaches said magnetic-field source (120) comprises an electromagnet (electric coil 120g is disposed at least partially around the yoke 120b).
Regarding claim 5:
Eustathios does not teach the mass spectrometer according to claim 1 wherein said adjustment means comprises at least two adjustment commands, a combinatorial circuit configured to combine the values of said at least two commands, and a circuit for controlling the current I circulating in said magnetic field source.
Russell teaches said adjustment means comprises at least two adjustment commands (Fig. 1 as annotated below), a combinatorial circuit (Fig. 1 as annotated below) configured to combine the values of said at least two commands (Fig. 1 as annotated below), and a circuit for controlling the current I circulating in said magnetic field source (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device describes in Eustathios that the adjustment means comprises at least two commands, with a combinatorial configured to combine the values of at least two commands, and a circuit for controlling the current circulating in the magnetic field source to obtain the predictable result of precise control over the magnetic field.
Regarding claim 6:
Eustathios does not teach the mass spectrometer according to claim 5, wherein said at least two adjustment commands are electrical quantities Vi and V2, such as voltages.
Russell teaches wherein said at least two adjustment commands are electrical quantities Vi and V2, such as voltages (fig. 1 as annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device describes in Eustathios such that the commands are voltages in order to obtain the predictable result of control over the current through the coil of the electromagnet.
Regarding claim 7:
Eustathios does not explicitly teach the mass spectrometer according to claim 6, wherein the magnetic field depends on the values of the electrical quantities Vi and V2 of said at least two adjustment commands.
Russell teaches the magnetic field depends on the values of the electrical quantities Vi and V2 of said at least two adjustment commands (fig. 1 as annotated below).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Eustathios to use electrical quantities to modify the magnetic field to obtain the predictable result of precise manipulation over the magnetic field.
PNG
media_image2.png
749
947
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10:
Eustathios does not teach N adjustment commands (as interpreted under 112b for the purposes of examination to be an object capable of producing electrical quantities such as voltages) and/or N magnetic field sources, where N is an integer greater than or equal to 3.
Russel teaches N adjustment commands (fig. 1 as annotated below) and/or N magnetic field sources, where N is an integer greater than or equal to 3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eustathios to add additional adjustments commands as disclosed in Russel, in order to generate multiple variations around the value of the nominal magnetic field.
PNG
media_image3.png
592
978
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11:
Eustathios teaches a system for detecting leakages via tracer gas (the product is inherent to the system given the system could not exist without the product taught in Claim 1 of the present disclosure), comprising the mass spectrometer according to Claim 1 (see discussion in claim 1 above).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustathios in view of Russel, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Santiago et al. (WO 2022144621 A1), hereinafter referred to as Santiago.
Regarding claim 8:
Eustathios does not teach the mass spectrometer according to claim 5, wherein the combinatorial circuit comprises: a plurality of resistors R1, R2, R3 and R4; an operational amplifier AO1 associated with said resistors R1, R2, R3 and R4 to form a non-inverting summing circuit.
Santiago teaches wherein the combinatorial circuit comprises: a plurality of resistors R1, R2, R3 and R4; (fig. 22 as annotated below) an operational amplifier AO1 (fig. 22 as annotated below) associated with said resistors R1, R2, R3 and R4 (fig. 22 as annotated below) to form a non-inverting summing circuit (fig 22 as annotated below).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Eustathios, in view of Russel, such that the combinatorial circuit for combining the values of the commands incorporates 4 resistors and an operational amplifier associated with said resistors to form a non-inverting summing circuit. Doing so allows for multiple voltage adjustments for improved agency over the magnetic field and allows for the production of a stronger magnetic field.
Regarding claim 9:
Eustathios does not teach the mass spectrometer according to claim 5 (as interpreted under 112(b) above) wherein the control circuit comprises an operational amplifier AO2 associated with a grounding resistor (Rs) and with a transistor (T1), the assembly forming a circuit of the voltage to current converter type.
Santiago teaches wherein the control circuit comprises an operational amplifier AO2 (fig. 22 as annotated below) associated with a grounding resistor (Rs) (fig. 22 as annotated below) and with a transistor (T1) (fig. 22 as annotated below), the assembly forming a circuit of the voltage to current converter type (fig. 22 as annotated below).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Eustathios in view of Russel such that the circuit used to control the magnetic field includes an operational amplifier with a grounding resistor and a transistor, used to form a voltage to current converter type circuit. Doing so produces the predictable result of converting the input voltage from the combinatorial circuit into an output current to provide current to the electromagnet, in turn producing the desired electric field. The advantage this provides is the ability to generate a stronger magnetic field stemming from multiple voltage sources.
PNG
media_image4.png
545
729
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 22)]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Thierry (FR 3115951 A1) is cited to teach a variable voltage regulation system for a mass spectrometer (adjustment means), relevant to claims 1-11 of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mica Einhorn whose telephone number is (571) 272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached on (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
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881