DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on June 24th, 2026. Claims 1-2, 15-19, and 21-30 are pending, with claims 21-30 being new.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites a controller configured to “determine when the vacuum interlock reaches the operating pressure based on an amount the second valve is open.” Examiner can find no mention of determining when the vacuum interlock reaches the operating pressure “based on an amount the second valve is open” in the original disclosure. The only method of determining when the vacuum interlock reaches the operating pressure described in the specification is through measuring the pressure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 18 & 22 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 18 recites “calculating an initial position of the second valve based on the one or more positions of the second valve and the one more pressure valves stored in memory during the first operational cycle”. Similarly, claim 22 recites a controller configured to calculate “a starting position of the second valve based on pressure measurements and positions of the second valve in memory during processing of the first sample”. It is unclear how an initial or starting position can be calculated from this data, since the initial or starting position is not limited by prior pressure readings or prior positions.
Based on the specification it appears applicant intends to claim calculating an initial or starting position that would correspond to a pressure just below the safety pressure (see “As a nonlimiting example, the controller 62 can determine the valve position V where detected pressure P is less than the safety pressure. The valve position V can be implemented as the starting position VS. In addition, or alternatively, the controller 62 can calculate a moving average for the cycles C of the valve position V where detected pressure P is less than the safety pressure, and implementing that moving average valve position V as the starting position VS.”). Examiner will interpret accordingly.
Claim 25 is 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 25 recites a controller configured to “determine when the vacuum interlock reaches the operating pressure based on an amount the second valve is open.” It is unclear what it means for the determination of when the vacuum interlock reaches the operating pressure to be “based on an amount the second valve is open”. While the amount of opening will affect the pressure in the vacuum chamber, there does not appear to be any way to determine when the operating pressure is reached based on amount of opening. For the purposes of comparison to the prior art, the clause “based on an amount the second valve is open” will simply be ignored. That is, examiner will only check if the prior art discloses a controller configured to determine when the vacuum interlock reaches the operating pressure.
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 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/017969 (Seyfarth).
Regarding claim 16, Seyfarth discloses a method of evacuating a vacuum interlock in a vacuum system of a mass spectrometer, the vacuum system including a first vacuum region fluidly connected to the vacuum interlock by a first valve, a second vacuum region fluidly connected to the vacuum interlock by a second valve, a first pump decreasing a pressure within the first vacuum region, and a second pump decreasing a pressure within the second vacuum region (fig. 1A), the method comprising a first operational cycle including:
closing the first and second valves to fluidly isolate the vacuum interlock from the first and second vacuum regions (“In an embodiment, the processing unit 180 receives a signal from the interlock chamber 120 or a remote sensor (not shown) indicating when the interlock chamber 120 is closed and sealed.” P 52);
measuring the pressure (fig. 7A, step 724);
opening the second valve incrementally to decrease the pressure in the vacuum interlock, the second valve opened incrementally in response to the pressure (“In an embodiment, the opening of the second gas evacuation valve 144 may be triggered automatically when the pressure reaches the second target value.” P 62 see also “The first gas evacuation valve 142, equipped with a restrictor, is opened between the backing pump 172 and the interlock chamber 120. … once the interlock chamber 120 is evacuated to about 50 torr, then the subsequent gas flow through the second (non-restrictive) valve 144, bringing the pressure to about 100 mtorr, is too low to cause any adverse effects to either the high vacuum pump 170 or the MS 160.”);
closing the second valve in response to the vacuum interlock reaching an operating pressure (fig. 7A, step 736); and
opening the first valve in response to the vacuum interlock reaching the operating pressure to facilitate a transfer of at least one of a sample, an ion source cartridge, or a source plug from the vacuum interlock to the first vacuum region (fig. 5, step 518).
Seyfarth does not disclose measuring pressure in the second pressure region, measuring the pressure in the interlock chamber instead. However, another embodiment discloses measuring the pressure in the second vacuum region (fig. 7C, steps 764 and 766).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to monitor the pressure in the second vacuum region rather than, or in addition to, the interlock because the pressure in the second vacuum region is the one that the high vacuum pump will experience, so the pressure at that location is a better indicator of whether opening the second valve to a greater extent would be harmful to the high pressure pump. Note that Seyfarth discloses that a desire to prevent large influxes of gas at the high-pressure pump is the reason for waiting for a smaller pressure before opening further (“The restriction prevents a large influx of purge gas (e.g., nitrogen) from traveling toward the high vacuum pump 170 and backward up into the vacuum chamber 150. Such a sudden rush of purge gas would cause the high vacuum pump 170 to turn off, potentially compromising its life.” P 64).
Seyfarth also differs in using two valves to create an adjustable total opening, whereas the claimed method incrementally adjusting the opening amount or position of a variable valve. Adjustable valves are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute a single adjustable valve for the two valves of differing opening amounts, and to control the valve to incrementally adjust the opening, because this allows for greater freedom in adjusting the opening size.
Regarding claim 17, Seyfarth discloses the claimed method except for storing, in memory, one or more positions of the second valve as determined during the operational cycle and storing, in memory, one or more pressure values within the second vacuum region as measured during the first operational cycle. Storing measured values in memory is well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to store this information for later access.
Claim(s) 1-2, 14-15, 21-22, and 24-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/017969 (Seyfarth) in view of US 2024/0266162 (Whatley).
Regarding claim 1 Seyfarth discloses a vacuum system for a mass spectrometer, the vacuum system comprising:
a first vacuum region (fig. 1A, element 150);
a second vacuum region (fig. 1A, unlabeled pipe connecting backing pump to high vacuum pump);
a vacuum interlock fluidly connected to the first vacuum region by a first valve, the vacuum interlock fluidly connected to the second vacuum region by a second valve, the vacuum interlock configured to receive a first sample (fig. 1A, interlock is element 120, first valve is element 140, second valve is a two-valve system comprising elements 142 & 144);
a first pump fluidly connected to the first vacuum region, the first pump configured to decrease a pressure within the first vacuum region and exhaust air to the second vacuum region (fig. 1A, element 170);
a second pump fluidly connected to the second vacuum region, the second pump configured to decrease a pressure within the vacuum interlock (fig. 1A, element 172);
a pressure sensor configured to determine the pressure (“the pressure inside the interlock chamber 120 is monitored using the pressure gauge (not shown),” P 60) the second vacuum region positioned between the first pump and the second pump ((fig. 1A, unlabeled pipe connecting backing pump to high vacuum pump); and
a controller configured to control a release of fluid in the vacuum interlock after the first sample is received by
activating the second pump to exhaust the fluid in the second vacuum region (fig. 7A, step 722),
receiving a pressure measurement from the pressure sensor (fig. 7A, step 724),
increasing opening the second valve when the pressure measurement is less than a predetermined safety pressure (fig. 7A, step 730), and
continuing to receive a pressure measurement from the pressure sensor until the vacuum interlock reaches an operating pressure (fig. 7A, steps 732 & 734).
Seyfarth does not disclose configuring the pressure sensor to measure the pressure in the second pressure region, measuring the pressure in the interlock chamber instead. However, another embodiment discloses configuring the pressure sensor in the second pressure region and making decisions based on such pressure measurements (“In block 764, the foreline pressure of the high vacuum pump 170 is monitored. For example, the foreline pressure may be monitored in real time using a gauge (e.g., different from the gauge used to monitor the pressure of the interlock chamber 120).” P 69).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to monitor the pressure in the second vacuum region rather than, or in addition to, the interlock because the pressure in the second vacuum region is the one that the high vacuum pump will experience, so the pressure at that location is a better indicator of whether opening the second valve to a greater extent would be harmful to the high pressure pump. Note that Seyfarth discloses that a desire to prevent large influxes of gas at the high-pressure pump is the reason for waiting for a smaller pressure before opening further (“The restriction prevents a large influx of purge gas (e.g., nitrogen) from traveling toward the high vacuum pump 170 and backward up into the vacuum chamber 150. Such a sudden rush of purge gas would cause the high vacuum pump 170 to turn off, potentially compromising its life.” P 64).
Seyfarth also fails to disclose a controller configured to incrementally open the second valve, using a set of two valves to adjust the opening rather than incrementally opening a valve, and further fails to disclose continuing to incrementally open the valve after reaching the safety pressure.
Whatley discloses a vacuum system for a mass spectrometer which includes the same essential elements of Seyfarth and further discloses that the valve system used to control the flow of fluid from the vacuum interlock to the second region take the form of a proportional valve which is incrementally opened (“In this embodiment the conduit may have a variable pump valve located therein that is configured to be operable in a first mode in which the pump valve provides a relatively great restriction to a gas flow through the conduit, and to then be operable in a second mode in which the pump valve provides a lesser restriction to a gas flow through the conduit.” P 82), as well as continuing to adjust the opening amount after the safety pressure is reached (“It is also contemplated that after a further period of time, such as a pre-set period of time or after the ion source has dropped below a further pre-set pressure, the spectrometer may operate in a third mode in which the control circuitry opens both the first and second pump valves 30, 32 so as to allow gas flow through the first and second conduits 26, 27.” P 77).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the incrementally opening valve from Whatley for the two-valve system of Seyfarth to provide greater freedom in adjusting the opening. It would also have been obvious to obvious to modify the controller of Seyfarth to include additional incremental opening steps to increase the speed of the pumping down, as disclosed in Whatley (“This third mode may be used to pump the ion source enclosure 2 down to the desired pressure even more quickly.” P 77).
Regarding 2, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the vacuum system of claim 1, wherein the second vacuum region has a higher pressure than the first vacuum region (intended use, also true of Seyfarth during most of the method as shown in fig. 7A).
Regarding 14, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the claimed invention, except it is silent as to whether the second pump consumes less than 50 Watts of power. Vacuum pumps that consume less than 50 Watts of power are known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to select a backing pump that consumes less than 50 Watts of power to reduce the overall power requirements of the system.
Regarding 15, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the claimed invention except for the controller is configured to receive the pressure measurement of the second vacuum region at a rate of at least 5 Hertz. Controllers capable of reading in data at rates of at least 5 Hertz are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the controller to receive the pressure measurements at rate of at least 5 Hertz so that pressure fluctuations could be detected and responded to as quickly as a possible.
Regarding 21, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the vacuum system of claim 1, wherein the second valve is a proportional valve, and wherein incrementally opening the second valve includes opening the proportional valve a predetermined incremental amount (“In this embodiment the conduit may have a variable pump valve located therein that is configured to be operable in a first mode in which the pump valve provides a relatively great restriction to a gas flow through the conduit, and to then be operable in a second mode in which the pump valve provides a lesser restriction to a gas flow through the conduit.” P 82).
Regarding 22, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the vacuum system of claim 1, wherein the vacuum interlock is at a starting pressure when the first sample is received, and wherein the controller is further configured to determine an evacuation time based on an amount of time that elapses for the vacuum interlock to go from the starting pressure to the operating pressure (controller is currently configured to measure evacuation time, as shown by the fact that it compares this time to predetermined time periods).
Regarding 24, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the claimed invention except for configuring the controller to incrementally close the second valve when the pressure measurement in the second vacuum region is greater than the predetermined safety pressure until a subsequent pressure measurement in the second vacuum region is less than the predetermined safety pressure. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the controller of Seyfarth in view of Whatley to incrementally close the second valve when pressure exceeds the safety margin to better protect the high-pressure pump, which is a primary intend of both arts.
Regarding 25, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the vacuum system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to determine when the vacuum interlock reaches the operating pressure (fig. 7A, step 734).
Regarding 26, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the vacuum system of claim 25, wherein the vacuum interlock is at the operating pressure when the second valve is completely open (fig. 7A, step 734).
Regarding 27, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the vacuum system of claim 1, further comprising a second pressure sensor positioned in the vacuum interlock and operatively connected to the controller (For example, the foreline pressure may be monitored in real time using a gauge (e.g., different from the gauge used to monitor the pressure of the interlock chamber 120).” P 69).
Regarding 28, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the vacuum system of claim 27, wherein the controller is further configured to receive a pressure measurement from the second pressure sensor to determine whether the vacuum interlock has reached the operating pressure (fig. 7A, step 734).
Regarding 29, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the vacuum system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to close the second valve (fig. 7A, element 736) and open the first valve when the vacuum interlock reaches the operating pressure (fig. 9, step 918).
Regarding 30, Seyfarth in view of Whatley discloses the vacuum system of claim 29, wherein the controller is further configured to move the first sample into the first vacuum region for processing (fig. 9, step 920).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and further amended to overcome the 112(b) rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 18-19, the prior art of record does not disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising a second operational cycle for facilitating a transfer of a second one of a sample, an ion source cartridge, or a source plug from the vacuum interlock to the first vacuum region, the second operational cycle including calculating an initial position of the second valve based on the one or more positions of the second valve and the one or more pressure values stored in memory during the first operational cycle and opening the second valve to the initial position to decrease the pressure in the vacuum interlock.
The closest prior arts of record are US 2011/017969 (Seyfarth) and US 2025/0054724 (Tanokuchi et al.).
Seyfarth discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising a second operational cycle for facilitating a transfer of one of a sample, an ion source cartridge, or a source plug from the vacuum interlock to the first vacuum region (fig. 9, steps 912-920, where it is understood that the operation can be carried out multiple times as multiple cycles), the second operational cycle including opening the second valve to an initial position to decrease the pressure in the vacuum interlock (fig. 7A, step 722).
Seyfarth does not disclose the second operational cycle including calculating an initial position of the second valve based on the one or more positions of the second valve and the one or more pressure values stored in memory during the first operational cycle.
Tanokuchi discloses a method of evacuating a vacuum interlock comprising facilitating a transfer of a sample from a vacuum interlock into a higher vacuum region including calculating an initial position of conductance valve and opening the second valve to the initial position to decrease the pressure in the vacuum interlock (fig. 6, step 104C). Tanokuchi calculates the initial position based on wafer type, rather than values of pressures and valve positions from a prior operational cycle.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is allowable for substantially the same reasons as claims 18-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that it would not have been obvious to modify Seyfarth to monitor the pressure in the second vacuum region because Seyfarth does not consider the effects on the backing pump or the operational efficiency of the backing pump in its system.
The second vacuum region connects to not only the backing pump but also the high vacuum pump, and it is the detrimental effects of pressure at the high vacuum pump that provide the motivation for monitoring the pressure at the second vacuum region. Seyfarth clearly does consider the effects on the high vacuum pump.
Applicant’s remaining arguments 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.
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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights