DETAILED ACTION
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 7 and 20 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.
The term “similar” in claims 7 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification is devoid of any standard to determine what range or closeness is required for the thermal coefficient of expansion to be similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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) as evidenced by “Flange sealing guide” (submitted with IDS received 10/05/2022 in parent application 16/662545).
Regarding claim 2, Agilent teaches a system (title) comprising:
a mass analyzer cone comprising a first 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 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
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 surface and the second 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 (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
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).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, Agilent teaches wherein: the mass analyzer cone further comprises first threads; the mass analyzer further comprises second threads; and the mass analyzer cone is configured to be coupled to the mass analyzer by engaging the first threads with the second threads (at 2 mins, 31 seconds see MS interface configured to couple to sample cone by threads, wherein MS must inherently have complementary threads to facilitate coupling).
PNG
media_image6.png
668
1247
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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).
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, 3, 9-10 and 14-15 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 Colgate (USPN 5,188,402)
Regarding claim 2, Agilent teaches a system (title) comprising:
a mass analyzer cone comprising a first surface (mass analyzer cone seen in annotated screenshots above, wherein the threaded region is interpreted to be the first surface), wherein the first surface comprises a projection (projections formed by thread);
a mass analyzer comprising a second surface (interior diameter of aperture that receives the thread from the sampling cone to attach the sampling cone to the MS inlet),
wherein the second surface comprises a recess configured to receive the projection (recesses of complementary thread to receive thread of sampling cone); and
wherein the mass analyzer cone being coupled to the mass analyzer (via screwing the threads of the cone to the mass analyzer as seen in the figures above).
While Agilent teaches a gasket, Agilent fails to disclose the gasket between the threads 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 the threaded element coupled to the complementary threads.
However, Colgate teaches a metal gasket (fig. 1, metal gasket 10, col. 6, lines 13-14) disposed between the first surface and the second surface (gasket between the male and female threads see col. 6, lines 4-8 (i.e. complementary threads of Agilent forming the first and second surface)), 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 the threads being coupled to each other (col. 6, lines 4-8 teach the material of gasket 10 ooze and flows into all available space between male member threads and female member threads, thus deform. Col. 8, lines 20-30expressly teaches deforming to effect a hermetic seal at this zone). Note Colgate also envisioned the gasket between threads of a cylindrical tube (col. 3, lines 29-40)
Colgate modifies Agilent by suggesting a gasket between the treaded portions of the cone and mass analyzer.
Since both inventions are directed towards coupling components via threads to separate vacuum systems from vacuum regions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the gasket between the threads as suggested by Colgate between the complementary threads of the sampling cone and mass spectrometer of Agilent because it would provide effective seal to pressures less than 10-8 torr (col. 2, lines 18-22 and ) and eliminating any leakage around the threaded portion of Agilent (col. 2, liens 64-66).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 15, Agilent in view of Colgate teach wherein the projection and the recess each comprise a substantially triangular-shaped cross-section (Colgate, best seen in figures 3 showing gasket 10 between triangular male and female threads).
Claims 9 and 14 are commensurate in scope with claim 1 and is taught in the citations discussed above.
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 a system (title) comprising:
a mass analyzer cone comprising a first surface (first surface of sampling cone seen in annotated screen shots above);
a mass analyzer comprising a second surface (second surface in annotated screen shots above), wherein the second surface comprises a recess (recess in second surface in screen shots above); and a metal gasket disposed between the first surface and the second surface (gasket between first and second surfaces in screen shots above), wherein the mass analyzer cone being coupled to the mass analyzer (as indicated in screenshots above via threading sampling cone is coupled to the mass analyzer).
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.
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 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 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
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