DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
By amendment all rejections have been overcome, with the exception of Agilent in view of Peterson.
Here, the remarks take the position that Peterson fails to disclose the beads received in any surface of the mass analyzer. This has not been found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Agilent already discloses the claimed sealing surfaces wherein a recess of the mass analyzer receives a first sealing surface. Peterson was merely used to demonstrate that it was known to the art to add protrusions to flange surfaces, such that the recess of Agilent would receive an annular projection of a corresponding sealing flange (i.e. cone flange shown in Agilent video). As clearly shown in Peterson (see annotated figures below), a recess of the receiving flange receives a projection from the top flange to deform (i.e. crush) the gasket within the recess. Since the modification would naturally result in the claimed functionality, the amendment to the claims is insufficient overcome this grounds of rejection.
Therefore, this rejection stands as discussed herein below. It is noted that the amendment raises new issues that necessitated a new grounds of rejection discussed herein below.
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.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agilent technologies (Agilent Technologies, “PerkinElmer NexION Series ICP-MS – Part 1: Removal, cleaning and replacement of the interface cone”, PerkinElmer NexION Series ICP-MS - Part 1: Removal, cleaning and replacement of the interface cone, “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWyrLV0TMao” April 15, 2016) (copy of screenshots provided in parent application 16/662545 submitted with the office action of 19 May 2021) in view of “Flange sealing guide” (submitted with IDS received 10/05/2022 in parent application 16/662545).
Alternatively, claims 2-3, 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected over Agilent in view of KR (KR200480413) (copy of publication submitted herewith)
Regarding claim 2, Agilent teaches a system (title) comprising:
a mass analyzer cone comprising a first sealing surface (at five mins., 24 seconds, the following annotated screenshot),
PNG
media_image1.png
669
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first surface comprises a projection (as evidenced by Flange sealing guide, page 10, right column, “even flanges with an apparently smooth finish have microscopic peaks and valleys”, thus flange of cone has microscopic projections, one being interpreted to be the claimed projection);
a mass analyzer comprising a second sealing surface, wherein the second surface comprises a recess configured to receive the projection (see annotated figures below at 2 mins, 22 seconds and at 2 mins, 31 seconds);
PNG
media_image2.png
686
1477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
424
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A treaded surface of the mass analyzer cone configured to engage with a threaded surface of the mass analyzers (see first annotated figure above)
and a metal gasket disposed between the first surface and the second surface (at 2 mins, 31 seconds see the following annotated screen shot),
PNG
media_image4.png
588
1169
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the first sealing surface and the second sealing surface are configured to provide a substantially fluid-tight seal by crushing the metal gasket into the recess based on the mass analyzer cone being coupled to the mass analyzer via the treaded surface of the mass analyzer cone and the threaded surface of the mass analyzer (see at 5 mins., 27 seconds, the following annotated screenshot. Note a gasket inherently seals two components together by screwing the sample cone to the MS interface with the gasket therebetween. As evidence by flange sealing guide, page 10, right column, the microscopic surface features require the gasket to create an effective seal (i.e. fluid tight), thus microscopic crushed gasket).
PNG
media_image5.png
591
886
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Agilent fails to disclose the first sealing surface comprises an annular projection, the second sealing surface comprises an annular recess corresponding to the annular projection and configured to receive the annular projection.
However, flange sealing guide teaches on page 9 and 10 “tongue and groove faces” and “male and female faces” (figure on page 10 and on page 9 respectively), in each flange face design a annular projection and a corresponding annular recess. Page 9, fight column above the figure “male and female faces” teaches for the male and female a raised face that extends from the ID (inner diameter) of the pipe to somewhere inside the bolt holes and the mating flange has a recessed face with an OD slightly smaller than the ID of the male flange (i.e. suggesting annular construction of male and female). Additionally the same paragraph teaches the tongue and groove has a similar set up (i.e. annular groove and tongue). Lastly, Flange guide teaches the advantage of these structures is that the recess area restricts the gasket improving blow out resistance and creating a tighter seal.
PNG
media_image6.png
630
903
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Flange guide modifies Agilent by suggesting a tongue and groove flange design for the first and second surfaces of the cone and analyzer of Agilent.
Since both inventions are directed towards flange faces for engaging a gasket to seal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and second surface of Agilent to have the annular tongue and groove projection and recess as suggested by Flange guide because it would better restrict the gasket and create a tighter seal (see page 9 of flange guide).
It is noted that the combination would inherently result in annular projection (tongue of flange guide) crushing the metal gasket of Agilent into the annular recess (groove of flange guide) based on the analyzer cone being coupled to the mass analyzer via the threaded cone and threaded surfaces of the mass analyzer because by screwing the complimentary threads (as indicated in the annotated figure of Agilent) the tongue of the first surface in flange guide would be forced into the groove of the second surface resulting in the gasket of Agilent being crushed into the recess (i.e. groove). MPEP 2112 (IV) recites “[I]n order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis – the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art." Id. at 1195-96, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. But see, Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations LTD., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191, 2019 USPQ2d 494084 (Fed. Cir. 2019)”
Here, as discussed above, there is motivation to add a annular projection (tongue) to the first surface of Agilent and a corresponding annular recess (groove) to the second surface. Since both references suggest a gasket in between flange surfaces and the analyzer/cone suggested in Agilent are threaded, by modifying the surfaces of Agilent to have the tongue and groove design of flange guide the design would inherently result in the crushing of the gasket by the force of the screwing the tongue into the groove of the combined device.
Alternatively, KR teaches annular projections 24 on flange surface 20 and annular grooves 14 on flange 10 (see figures 1-2). Where figure 3 shows a gasket 30 crushed between into grooves by projections.
KR modifies Agilent by suggesting a tongue and groove structure for the flange surfaces of Agilent.
Since both inventions are directed towards sealing flange surfaces via a gasket, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tongue and groove structure suggested in KR to the flange surfaces of Agilent because the flange surfaces can be more closely joined to each other because grooves and protrusions with which the uneven parts are interlocked with each other, the airtightness can be significantly increased ([0018]).
As discussed above the functional result of the last clause is a natural result of the modification of the flange surfaces of Agilent to have the protrusions on one flange and grooves on the second.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 15, Agilent in view of KR teach wherein the projection and the recess each comprise a substantially triangular-shaped cross-section (KR see figure 1 and paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 16, Agilent in view of flange guide teaches wherein the recess comprises: a substantially square-shaped cross-section; or a substantially rectangular-shaped cross-section (flange guide shows square shaped cross section for recess)
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, Agilent teaches wherein the mass analyzer cone comprises a sampler cone (at five mins., 24 seconds, shows the sample cone with a sample orifice).
Claims 9 and 14 are commensurate in scope with claim 1 and is taught in the citations discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, Agilent teaches wherein the metal casket comprises aluminum (aluminum gasket for NexION see 4 min. 31 seconds).
Claims 2, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agilent technologies (Agilent Technologies, “PerkinElmer NexION Series ICP-MS – Part 1: Removal, cleaning and replacement of the interface cone”, PerkinElmer NexION Series ICP-MS - Part 1: Removal, cleaning and replacement of the interface cone, “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWyrLV0TMao” April 15, 2016) (second interpretation, interpreting the inherent surface roughness not to be the claimed projection) in view of Peterson et al. (USPN 2,528,665)
Regarding claim 2, Agilent teaches the same limitations as discussed herein above (however not including the surface roughness of the flange as the projection).
Agilent fails to disclose a projection on the first surface, therefore fails to disclose wherein the first surface comprises a projection, wherein the second surface comprises the recess configured to receive the projection; wherein the first surface and the second surface are configured to provide a substantially fluid-tight seal by crushing the metal gasket into the recess based on coupling components.
However, Peterson et al. teach wherein the first surface (fig. 1, joining surface 14) comprises a projection (sealing bead 13), wherein the second surface (joining surface) comprises the recess configured to receive the projection (see annotated figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image7.png
626
1104
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the first surface and the second surface are configured to provide a substantially fluid-tight seal by crushing the metal gasket into the recess based on coupling components (col. 2, lines 3-11).
Peterson et al. modifies Agilent by suggesting sealing beads on each of the surfaces facing the gasket such that the bead of the first surface is received in the recess.
Since both inventions are directed towards creating a seal between components via a metal gasket, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first surface and recessed second surface of Agilent to have the beads as suggested by Peterson because the beads make it possible to concentrate enough pressure on the intervening metal gasket to indent or distort it sufficiently to provide an efficient seal (col. 2, lines 3-7), therefore improving the sealing properties of the surfaces to the gasket of Agilent. Additionally, Peterson acknowledges when sealing with a hard durable gasket material such as metal, it is difficult to apply sufficient pressure to the metal gasket to provide an efficient seal against high pressure (col. 1, lines 29-35). Agilent also uses a metal gasket sealing against the relatively high pressure of atmosphere to the vacuum conditions of the MS, therefore, in Agilent, as evidenced by Peterson it is difficult to provide an efficient seal against the high pressure. Thus it would be obvious to include the sealing beads of Peterson to improve the sealing ability of Agilent to ensure an efficient seal of the MS chamber against the exterior atmospheric pressure, thus limiting the vacuum loss of the MS.
Note as discussed above the combination would naturally result in the protrusions of Peterson crushing the gasket of Agilent into the recess of Agilent in vi3ew of Peterson via the treaded coupling between the cone and the MS interface of Agilent.
Claims 9 and 14 are commensurate in scope with claim 1 and is taught in the citations discussed above.
Claims 4, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agilent technologies (Agilent Technologies, “PerkinElmer NexION Series ICP-MS – Part 1: Removal, cleaning and replacement of the interface cone”, PerkinElmer NexION Series ICP-MS - Part 1: Removal, cleaning and replacement of the interface cone, “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWyrLV0TMao” April 15, 2016) (second interpretation, interpreting the inherent surface roughness not to be the claimed projection) in view of Peterson et al. (USPN 2,528,665) and further in view of Ohmi (USPN 5,720,505).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 16, Agilent in view of Peterson teaches wherein the recess comprises: a substantially square-shaped cross-section; or a substantially rectangular-shaped cross-section (Agilent recess is rectangular in cross section in screen shot of recess seen above. Alternatively, Peterson also shows a rectangular recess in annotated figure 1 above).
Peterson fails to disclose the shape of the projection, therefore the combined device fails to disclose a rectangular projection.
However, Ohmi teaches a rectangular projection (figure 10 shows rectangular protrusions 47/48).
Ohmi modifies the combined device by suggesting a suitable shape for a sealing projection.
Since both inventions are directed towards sealing projections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the shape suggested by Ohmi because the rectangular shape is suitable for forming a seal (i.e. resolving the problem as to what shape would be appropriate for the sealing bead of Peterson).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agilent in view of Flange guide or KR and further in view of Weeks (USPN 4,842,287).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Agilent teaches wherein the mass analyzer cone and the metal gasket comprises a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion (inherent to the sample cone and aluminum gasket).
Agilent fails to disclose the gasket to have a similar coefficient of thermal expansion to the sealing first/second surfaces
However Weeks teaches wherein the first surface feature, the second surface feature and the gasket each comprises a material with a substantially similar coefficient of thermal expansion (col. 4, lines 12-16).
Weeks modifies Agilent by suggesting a matching of thermal expansion coefficients between the gasket and the materials of the first and second surfaces.
Since both inventions are directed towards sealing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to match the thermal expansion coefficients as done in Weeks because it would insure the integrity of the seal during thermal transitions (col. 4, lines 12-16).
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agilent in view of Flange guide or KR and further in view of Ajvs (“https://www.ajvs.com/new/index.php?cPath=038_173_186_413”, 2016) (copy of publication submitted in the parent application 16/662,545 in the office action of 05/19/2021)
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Agilent teaches wherein the gasket comprises a metal gasket (aluminum see 4 mins and 32 seconds).
Agilent fails to specifically disclose the thickness to be of about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm.
However Ajvs teaches a thickness of an aluminum high vacuum gasket to be 0.11 mm.
Ajvs modifies the combined device by suggesting a thickness of an aluminum gasket.
Since both devices are directed towards aluminum vacuum gaskets it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness of Ajvs because it would be suitable thickness for the vacuum environment of Agilent.
Relevant art of interest to the applicant:
Nakata et al. (US pgPub 2011/0031745) teaches “The gasket (4) is made of a nickel alloy or the like. The gasket (4) is plastically deformed between the abutment ends of the coupling members (2) and (3), thereby providing sealability. Annular gasket pressing projections (13) and (14) are formed at the abutment ends of the coupling members (2) and (3). FIG. 1 shows an adequately tightened state. Here, the gasket pressing projections (13) and (14) bite both surfaces of the gasket (4), thereby securing a strong sealability.” (paragraph [0050]).
Additional relevant references are cited throughout the prosecution of 16/662545.
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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights