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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 recites “a first evacuation tube fluidically connecting the first vacuum chamber and the first vacuum pump, a second vacuum pump configured to evacuate the second vacuum chamber.” It appears that claim 1 is directed to two vacuum chambers where each evacuated by a different vacuum pump. However, para. [0016] of the specification states, “The first vacuum chamber 2 is evacuated with a rotary pump (RP) 15, while the second and third vacuum chambers 3 and 4 are evacuated with the rotary pump 15 and a turbo molecular pump (TMP) 16, respectively”, which indicates the first vacuum chamber 2 and the second vacuum chamber 3 are both evacuated by the same rotary pump 15. Therefore, the specification needs to be corrected to reflect the same vacuum-pump arrangement recited in claim 1 and demonstrated in Fig. 1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second evacuation tube” as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 1-4 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 1 recites “the mass spectrometer further comprising: a first passage fluidically connected to the cell; a second passage fluidically connected to the second evacuation tube.” This language renders the scope of the claim unclear. As written, each passage is only defined by one recited connection, leaving unclear what the opposite end of each claimed passage is connected to as part of the claimed structure. This lack of clarity is particular problematic in view of the specification, which describes gas introduction passage 22 as supplying gas from gas supplier 20 to collision cell 9, and purge passage 23 as connecting the three-way valve side to intake-side tube 17. Thus, the disclosed passages are not merely generic passages within the MS, but parts of the gas supply routing as shown in Figs. 1 and 4. Because claim 1 recites the passages as elements of the mass spectrometer without clearly defining their full structure relationship, it is unclear whether the claimed first and second passages are part of the gas supplier, part of the MS apart from the gas supplier, or both. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Further, the last clause of claim 1 recites that the controller controls the flow regulator “so as to set a gas flow rate to a predetermined non-zero flow rate during the three-way valve sends the predetermined gas into the second passage.” This clause is unclear because the temporal relationship introduced by “during” is grammatically and substantially uncertain. It is not reasonably clear whether the claim requires the controller to newly set the flow rate while the valve is already sending gas into the second passage, to maintain the flow rate throughout that period, or to set the flow rate before switching and merely preserve it during that period. This ambiguity heightened by the specification, which describes the relevant control differently. In particular, the specification states that the gas may be supplied to the second passage at a lowered flow rate during no-gas analysis or a non-analyzing period, and the controller may set the gas flow rate at equal levels before and after the three-way valve is switched from sending gas into second passage to sending gas into the first passage (See Spec. paras. [0038-0039]). Thus, the claim language concerning setting the flow rate “during” delivery to the second passage does not clearly corresponding to the control described in the specification, and the scope of the last clause is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0210241 A1 [hereinafter Badiei] in view of US 20160233073 A1 [hereinafter in view of Gordon].
Regarding Claim 1:
Badiei discloses a mass spectrometer (Abstract) including:
a second vacuum chamber (Fig.2 -vacuum chamber 224);
a cell (Fig. 2 (214)) located within the second vacuum chamber (Fig. 2-224) (Claim 1: “a cell positioned inside a vacuum chamber), for causing an ion originating from a sample to come in contact with a predetermined gas (paras. [0006 and 0033]: “Elemental composition of samples is analyzed …by first exposing the sample to an ionization source… analyzed by a mass analyzer …may include collusion cells,” “collision or reaction gas can pressurize the cell 214 and ions can experience and increased pressure of collision or reaction gas as they pass through the cell”);
a second vacuum pump configured to evacuate the second vacuum chamber (para. [0031]: “…the first output of the first three-way valve 222 can be coupled to a roughing pump or a turbomolecular vacuum pump that is used to evacuate the mass spectrometer vacuum chamber with the cell 214”);
a second evacuation tube fluidically connecting the second vacuum pump (to evaluate gas from a vacuum chamber necessarily requires connecting the chamber to a pump through some evaluation flow path, such as a tube, conduit, line, or passage);
a mass spectrometry unit configured to perform a mass spectrometric analysis of an ion ejected from the cell or an ion originating from the ejected ion (paras. [0006 and 0033]: teaches mas analysis is performed in both vented and pressurized modes, and explains ions are generated from a sample and “analyzed by a mass analyzer,” i.e., collision/reaction processes occurring in the cell, and ions reacted/changed in the cell while passing through the cell), the mass spectrometer further comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
893
1107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first passage fluidically connected to the cell (see annotated Fig. 2 above);
a second passage fluidically connected to the second evacuation tube (see annotated Fig. 2 above)
a gas supplier (Fig. 2 -206/206’) comprising a three-way valve (Fig. 2-222/222’) configured to receive a predetermined gas supplied from a gas supply source (paras. [0029 and 0031-0032]: a three-way valve 222/222’ is configured to receive gas from gas source 206/206’ via a mass flow controller 210/210’) and selectively send the predetermined gas into either a first passage (Fig. 2: 222/222’[Wingdings font/0xE0]228/228’) (paras. [0031-0032]: gas is sent from the second output of the three-way valve 222/222’ to an inlet of the cell) or a second passage (Fig. 2: 222/222’[Wingdings font/0xE0] 226/226’) (paras. [0031-0032]: gas is sent from the first output of the three-way valve 222/222’ to a vacuum system); and
a flow regulator (Fig. 2 -210/210’) located on a passage between the gas supply source and the three-way valve;
a controller configured to control switching of the three-way valve (Claim 5: “the three-way valves is electrically controlled and a signal to the three-way valve opens the second output of the three-way valve to provide the gas to the cell”)
so as to send the predetermined gas into the second passage during a period of time where an analysis is performed in which ions are not caused to come in contact with the predetermined gas within the cell and/or a period of time where no analysis is performed (paras. [0032-0034]: “In the vented mode of operation…the second output of the first and second three-way valves 222,222’ is closed so that no gas flows to the manifold 212,” “the output of the gas manifold 212 is coupled …into the collision cell 214,” i.e., no gas enters the cell, “Mass analysis can be performed in the vented mode of operation”),
as well as to send the predetermined gas into the first passage during a period of time where an analysis is performed in which ions are caused to come in contact with the predetermined gas within the cell (paras. [0033 and 0035]: “in the pressurized mode of operation…the second output of the first or second (or both) three-way valves 222,222’ are open to allow gas to flow…into the manifold 212,” the collision gas “flows into the cell 214 in the vacuum chamber until the desired gas pressure is reach…the collision gas molecules can collide with certain ions thereby lowing the energy of these ions,” “Mass analysis can also be performed in the pressurized mode of operation” where collision gas “can pressurize the cell 214 and ions can experience an increased pressure of collision gas as they pass through the cell”),
wherein the controller is further configured to control the flow regulator so as to set a gas flow rate to a predetermined non-zero flow rate during the three-way valve sends the predetermined gas into the second passage (Claim 16 and para. [0031]: “The output of the first mass flow controller 210 is coupled to an input of the first three-way valve 222,’ and the mass flow controller is configured to “metering the gas”).
However, Badiei does not specially note the mass spectrometer includes a first vacuum chamber; a first vacuum pump; a first evacuation tube fluidically connecting the first vacuum chamber and the first vacuum pump; a second evacuation tube fluidically connecting the first evacuation tube.
Gordon teaches:
a first vacuum chamber (Fig.1- first chamber 2);
a second vacuum chamber (Fig. 1- second chamber 4);
a first vacuum pump (Fig. 1- first vacuum pump 8);
a first evacuation tube (Fig.1- outlet path 14) fluidically connecting the first vacuum chamber and the first vacuum pump;
a second vacuum pump (Fig. 1- second vacuum pump 10) configured to evacuate the second vacuum chamber;
a second evacuation tube (Fig. 1- outlet path 12) fluidically connecting the first evacuation tube and the second vacuum pump.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to combine Gordon and Badiei, so that the vacuum foreline destination in Badiei would be implemented with the first vacuum chamber and its associated pumping and tubing arrangement from Gordon, to provide a defined evacuated destination for gas diverted away from the cell and passage ways and would have integrated that diverted has path into a staged vacuum system for controlled gas removal.
Regarding Claim 3:
Badiei in view of Gordon discloses a mass spectrometer of claim 1. Gordon further teaches the first vacuum pump is a rotary pump, and the second vacuum pump is a turbo molecular pump (para. [0112]: “. A first vacuum pump 8… as a roughing pump or backing pump… may be… a rotary pump. A second vacuum pump 10, known in the art as a turbomolecular pump”).
Regarding Claim 4:
Badiei in view of Gordon discloses a mass spectrometer of claim 1. Badiei further teaches an inductively coupled plasma ion source, wherein the cell is a collision cell for removing interfering ions (paras. [0006] and [0035]: expressly describes “Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometers may include collision and/or reaction cells that remove interfering ions through collisions or ion/molecule reactions…” and teaches a cell 214, which is a collision reaction cell use din pressurized mode with collision/reaction gas).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badiei in view of Gordon, further in view of US 2020/0081459 A1 [hereinafter MSK].
Regarding Claim 2:
Badiei in view of Gordon discloses a mass spectrometer of claim 1. Badiei further teaches the controller is further configured to control the flow regulator …the three-way valve is switched from a position for sending the predetermined gas into the second passage to a position for sending the predetermined gas into the first passage (as discussed in claim 1, Badiei teaches a mass flow controller is coupled to the three-way valve and control the flow rate supplied to the three-way valves, which can switch between two positions related to different flow passages).
However, the combined references does not teach control the flow regulator so as to set a gas flow rate at equal levels before and after the three-way valve switched from different positions.
MKS teaches control the flow regulator so as to set a gas flow rate at equal levels before and after the three-way valve switched from different positions (para. [0031]: “a mass flow controller (MFC) is operated in a constant flow mode and a host controller switches a downstream three-way valve in order to divert the flow into the process chamber and the dump line in pulses,” i.e., maintain the flow rate at a consistent flow rate regardless the pressure changes, e.g., caused by the valve position switching).
Badiei teaches a gas delivery system for a mass spectrometer including a flow regulator upstream of a three-way valve, where the valve is switched to direct gas either to a cell or to a vacuum passage. Sun teaches a comparable gas-routing arrangement in which a mass flow controller provides a regulated gas flow to a three-way valve, which selectively directs the regulated flow to a first path (to operate a device) or to a second path (to a bypass/balancing path). MSK teaches that the flow supplying to the downstream three-way valve is maintained at a constant level by the flow regulator. Therefirem it would have been obvious to an ordinary person in the art before the effective time of filing, to apply MSK’s constant-flow control approach to Badiei’s gas delivery system to maintain the regulated gas flow at the same level immediately before and after switching between directing gas to the discharge/vacuum passage and directing gas to the cell, thereby reducing flow pressure transients during mode switching and improving settling time and data availability. An ordinary person of skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Badiei expressly seeks faster venting/pressurizing and reduced switching delay, and attributes improved switching performance at least in part to avoiding gas burst during valve transitions (See Badiei paras. [0037-0039]), which MSK’s constant-flow control directly helps archives.
Response to Arguments
The new drawings were received on 04/21/2026. Previous objection to drawings is withdrawn. However, the new drawing is objected in light of the amended claim 1, and thus these new drawings are not accepted.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections are based on different facts and claims than those applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
This Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this
Office Action. Accordingly, THS 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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights