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 .
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-15 recite “the controller configured to prevent pressure fluctuations in the second vacuum region.” It is unclear what programming or circuitry the controller must have in order to prevent pressure fluctuations in the second vacuum region. For the purposes of comparison to prior arts, examiner will assume this is an intended result of the incremental adjustment and therefore met by any controller that performs incremental adjustment.
Claims 3-8 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.
Claims 3-8 recite “a first operational cycle”. Claims 4-8 further recite “a second operational cycle”. It is unclear what constitutes an operational cycle. Claim 3 only specifies the cycle includes adjusting to an initial position, and a single step is not a cycle.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the completion of the first operational cycle by reaching an operating pressure.
Claims 4-8 recite “a second operational cycle after the first operational cycle”. The claim is predicated on the first operational cycle being completed, but the condition for completing is never claimed. According to the disclosure, an operational cycle is completed when the pressure at the interlock is less than or equal to an operating pressure (see fig. 6, step 348 or 384). This step is essential to the completion of the first operational cycle, without which the second operational cycle cannot begin.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the completion of the first and second operational cycles by reaching an operating pressure.
Claims 4-8 recite “a third operational cycle after the first and second operational cycles”. The claim is predicated on the first and second operational cycles being completed, but the condition for completing is never claimed. According to the disclosure, an operational cycle is completed when the pressure at the interlock is less than or equal to an operating pressure (see fig. 6, step 348 or 384). This step is essential to the completion of the first and second operational cycles, without which the third operational cycle cannot begin.
Claim 6 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 6 recites “wherein the second calculated position is different than the first predetermined initial position.” It is unclear what programming or circuitry the controller must have in order to ensure this. For the purposes of comparison to prior arts, examiner will assume this is an intended result of the calculation and therefore met by any controller that performs the calculation.
Claim 8 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 8 recites “wherein the third calculated position is different than the first predetermined initial position and the second calculated initial position.” It is unclear what programming or circuitry the controller must have in order to ensure this. For the purposes of comparison to prior arts, examiner will assume this is an intended result of the calculation and therefore met by any controller that performs the calculation.
Claims 10-11 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.
Claims 10-11 recite “wherein the controller is configured to minimize the evacuation time.” It is unclear what programming or circuitry the controller must have in order to minimize the evacuation time. For the purposes of comparison to prior arts, examiner will assume this is an intended result of the incremental adjustment and therefore met by any controller that performs incremental adjustment.
Claim 12 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 12 recites “wherein in response to opening the second value, pressure within the second vacuum region increases.” This does not appear to add any structural or functional limitations to the system. It is therefore unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 13 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 13 recites “wherein the pressure fluctuations in the second vacuum region cause damage to the first pump.” This does not appear to add any structural or functional limitations to the system. It is therefore unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 20 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 20 recites “the second evacuation time is less than the first evacuation time.” It is unclear what method steps, if any, are taken to ensure this. For the purposes of comparison to prior art, examiner will simply treat the limitation as a statement of an intended result of calculating the initial position as claimed, and therefore as non-limiting (see MPEP 2111.04, which notes that a clause is “not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.”).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/017969 (Seyfarth).
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 pipes connecting backing pump to interlock chamber & hi 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 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); and
a controller configured to adjust an opening amount of the second valve in response to the pressure within the second vacuum region, the controller configured to prevent pressure fluctuations in the second vacuum region (“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.”).
Seyfarth does not disclose the pressure sensor being within the second vacuum region, placing it in the interlock instead. 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 the interlock because the pressure in the second vacuum region is the one that the vacuum pumps will experience, and therefore more accurately determine when the pressure at the pumps drops to the desired level.
Seyfarth also differs in using two valves to create an adjustable total opening, whereas the claimed system uses a single valve with adjustable opening, and a controller configured to incrementally adjusting the opening amount or position of the 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 2, Seyfarth 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 3, Seyfarth discloses the vacuum system of claim 1, wherein in a first operational cycle, the controller adjusts the position of the second valve to a first predetermined initial position (fig. 7A, element 722). Seyfarth does not disclose the position of the second valve over time is stored in a memory, and a pressure of the second vacuum region over time is stored in the memory. 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.
Regarding 4, Seyfarth discloses the vacuum system of claim 3, wherein in a second operational cycle after the first operational cycle, the controller adjusts the position of the second valve to a second initial position (repeat of step 722 for another operation). Seyfarth does not disclose the second initial position being a calculated position or a position of the second valve over time is stored in the memory, and a pressure of the second vacuum region over time is stored in the memory. Calculation of the initial position is obvious when using an incrementally adjustable valve, because there is more than one possible position and a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to determine which initial position to use. 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.
Regarding 5, Seyfarth discloses the claimed invention except for the second initial position being calculated being in response to the stored position of the second valve over time and the pressure of the second vacuum region over time from the first operational cycle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to calculate the initial position from this data set because past performance is a good predictor of future performance.
Regarding 6, Seyfarth discloses the vacuum system of claim 5, wherein the second calculated initial position is different than the first predetermined initial position (intended result).
Regarding 7, Seyfarth discloses the vacuum system of claim 5, wherein in a third operational cycle after the first and second operational cycles, the controller adjusts the second valve to a third initial position (repeat of step 722 for another operation). Seyfarth does not disclose the third initial position being calculated in response to the stored position of the second valve over time and the pressure of the second vacuum region over time from the first and second operational cycles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to calculate the initial position from this data set because past performance is a good predictor of future performance.
Regarding 8, Seyfarth discloses the vacuum system of claim 7, wherein the third calculated initial position is different than the first predetermined initial position and the second calculated initial position (intended result).
Regarding 9, Seyfarth discloses the vacuum system of claim 1, wherein in response to receiving the sample, the vacuum interlock is at a starting pressure, in response to the second valve being completely opened, the vacuum interlock is at an operating pressure, and the starting pressure is greater than the operating pressure (intended use, only functional requirement needed to fulfill is the second valve must be capable of being completely opened, which is met, also fig. 7A shows opening the second valve reduces the pressure from a starting pressure to a final operating pressure).
Regarding 10, Seyfarth discloses the vacuum system of claim 9, wherein an evacuation time is defined between the vacuum interlock at the starting pressure and the operating pressure, and wherein the controller is configured to minimize the evacuation time (intended result).
Regarding 11, Seyfarth discloses the vacuum system of claim 10, wherein the first valve is opened in response to the vacuum interlock reaching the operating pressure (“In an embodiment, the valve 140 is opened automatically under control of the processing unit 180, based on a signal indicating that the pressure inside the interlock chamber has dropped to the appropriate target valve.” P 72), and wherein the operating pressure is a pressure at which the first pump safely operates (“Following the evacuation operation, the pressure inside the interlock chamber 120 is substantially lower, for example, below a coded or manually observed set point pressure, such that it is safe to open the valve 140 while a vacuum is maintained in the vacuum chamber 150.” P 86).
Regarding 12, Seyfarth discloses the vacuum system of claim 1, wherein in response to opening the second valve, pressure within the second vacuum region increases (intended result, only requires that the second valve be opened, also pressure in second vacuum region will increase after opening if the pressure is higher in the interlock, as in steps 722-734).
Regarding 13, Seyfarth discloses the vacuum system of claim 12, wherein the pressure fluctuations in the second vacuum region cause damage to the first pump (“Such a sudden rush of purge gas would cause the high vacuum pump 170 to turn off, potentially compromising its life.”).
Regarding 14, Seyfarth discloses the claimed invention, except it is silent as to whether the second pump requires less than 50 Watts of power. Vacuum pumps that require 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 requires less than 50 Watts of power to reduce the overall power requirements of the system.
Regarding 15, Seyfarth discloses the claimed invention except for the controller reading the pressure 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 read in the pressure valves at rate of at least 5 Hertz so that pressure fluctuations could be detected and responded to as quickly as a possible.
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 within the second vacuum region (“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 the pressure sensor being within the second vacuum region, placing it in the interlock instead. 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 the interlock because the pressure in the second vacuum region is the one that the vacuum pumps will experience, and therefore more accurately determine when the pressure at the pumps drops to the desired level.
Seyfarth also differs in using two valves to create an adjustable total opening, whereas the claimed system uses a single valve with adjustable opening, and a controller configured to incrementally adjusting the opening amount or position of the 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 a position of the second valve over time and storing the pressure within the second vacuum region over time. 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.
Regarding claim 18, Seyfarth discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising a second operational cycle including and opening the second valve to the initial position to decrease the pressure in the vacuum interlock (fig. 7A, step 722 for a second cycle).
Seyfarth does not disclose calculating an initial position in response to the stored position of the second valve over time and the stored pressure within the second vacuum region over time in the first operational cycle. Calculation of the initial position is obvious when using an incrementally adjustable valve, because there is more than one possible position and a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to determine which initial position to use. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to calculate the initial position based on the previously measured values, because past performance is a good predictor of future performance.
Regarding claim 19, Seyfarth discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the second operational cycle includes opening the second valve incrementally to decrease the pressure in the vacuum interlock (“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.”).
Regarding claim 20, Seyfarth discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the first operational cycle defines a first evacuation time, the second operational cycle defines a second evacuation time, and the second evacuation time is less than the first evacuation time (desired result, non-limiting).
Conclusion
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