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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objections to drawings of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The objections to specification of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The objections to claims 3, and 18-19 of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The indefiniteness rejections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The U.S.C. 102 rejections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to U.S.C. 103 rejections of record 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.
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, 3, 5-7, 13-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 193 as being unpatentable over US20230147220A1[hereinafter Hager] in view of US 2011/0174969 A1 [hereinafter SEYFARTH].
Regarding Claim 1:
Hager teaches a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer (Abstract: a mass spectrometer system) comprising:
an ion source (Fig. 1-ion source 110);
an ion source enclosure (Fig. 1- ion enclosure region 115);
a first vacuum chamber (Fig.1- vacuum chamber 120) in fluid communication with said ion source enclosure via a first orifice (Fig. 2- opening 210) (Figs. 1-2 and paras. [0061]: “the interface 190 is configured to fluidly connect the ion source region 115 and the first ion guide chamber 120,” and “the interface 290 can include an opening 210”);
an isolation valve (Fig. 2-valve 230) for at least partially closing said first orifice (Fig. 2 and para. [0059 and 0061]: “the interface 290 can include an opening 210... a valve 230,” which “can be configured and/or positioned in... a closed state, an opened state, and/or various states in between a fully closed state and a fully opened state”);
wherein the spectrometer is configured to open the isolation valve, cause the ion source to generate ions in the ion source enclosure, and transmit the ions through the first orifice and into the first vacuum chamber (para. [0061]: “[when] the valve is in the opened state, the ion source region 115 can be fluidly connected to the first ion guide chamber 120” and “the interface 190 is configured to allow gas, ions, and neutrals to freely move from the ion source region 115 through the interface 190 and into the first ion guide chamber 120).
However, Hager does not specifically note that a first pump for evacuating the ion source enclosure when the isolation valve is closed; and control circuitry configured to operate the spectrometer in a first mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit having a gas passage therethrough that is relatively restricted, and to then subsequently operate in a second mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit having a gas passage therethrough that is less restricted.
SEYFARTH teaches a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer (abstract) comprising:
an ion source enclosure (Fig. 1A - an interlock chamber 120);
a first pump (Figs. 1A-172) for evacuating the ion source enclosure when the isolation valve is closed (paras. [0024, 0058]: describes evacuating the interlock chamber 120 using a backing pump 172 (and describes evacuation processes for the interlock chamber), also explains that once the interlock chamber has been purged and evacuated, then the valve 140 between chambers is opened, i.e., evacuation occurs before opening the isolation valve between chambers); and
control circuitry (Figs. 1A-180) configured to operate the spectrometer (para. [0029]: describes automation under a processing unit 180 for purge/evacuation operations and for opening valve 140 based on reaching target pressure)
PNG
media_image1.png
456
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in a first mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit (see annotated Fig. 1A above – “first conduit”) having a gas passage therethrough that is relatively restricted (para. [0060]: teaches a first evacuation mode in which the backing pump 172 evacuates the interlock chamber 120 through an evacuation conduit/flow path between chamber 120 and pump 172 that is relatively restricted, by opening a first gas evacuation valve 142 so that gas is pumped from the interlock chamber 120 by the backing pump 172, where the first gas evacuation valve 142 “may be a bleed valve…having a restriction…which restricts the flow…exiting the interlock chamber 120”), and
to then subsequently operate in a second mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit (see annotated Fig. 1A above - “second conduit”) having a gas passage therethrough that is less restricted (para. [0062]: teaches subsequently operating in a second evacuation mode in which the backing pump 172 evacuates the interlock chamber 120 through an evacuation conduit/flow path between chamber 120 and pump 172 that is less restricted, by opening a second gas evacuation valve 144, where the second gas evacuation valve 144 “does not have a restriction” and has a “larger orifice…than the first gas evacuation valve 142,” enabling more unobstructed flow from the interlock chamber 120 to the backing pump 172).
Hager teaches a mass spectrometry system that controls the communication between an ion source region and downstream ion guide/vacuum chambers using a valve-controlled interface to limit downstream gas/neutral loading and contamination. Seyfarth teaches improving serviceability and vacuum recovery in a mass spectrometer by evacuating a source-side/interlock chamber in stages before opening it to a main vacuum chamber, to protect the downstream vacuum system/pumps from gas surges and contamination while reducing downtime. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Seyfarth’s two-stage evacuation arrangement to Hager’s ion source region/interface system so that the source-side region is initially pumped down gently through a restricted conduit and then more rapidly through a less-restricted conduit before the Hager interface valve is opened for ion transmission, to reduce pressure shock/gas loading at the downstream ion guide/vacuum chamber and protect the downstream vacuum environment and pump system from contamination, and allow the Hager system to transmit generated ions through the opened interface into the first ion guide chamber under more controlled vacuum conditions.
Regarding Claim 3:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer of claim 1. SEYFARTH further teaches:
a first conduit (see annotated Fig. 1A above - “first conduit”) between the first pump and the ion source enclosure that comprises a first valve (Fig. 1A-142) (para. [0060]: the first embodiment of SEYFARTH teaches the first conduit/path between interlock chamber 120 and backing pump 172 via a first gas evacuation valve 142), and
a second, different conduit (see annotated Fig. 1A above - “second conduit”) between the first pump and the ion source enclosure that comprises a second valve (Fig. 1A-144) (para. [0060]: the first embodiment of SEYFARTH teaches the second conduit/path between interlock chamber 120 and backing pump 172 via a second gas evacuation valve 144);
wherein the spectrometer comprises control circuitry (Fig. 1A-180) configured such that
in a first mode the spectrometer opens the first valve whilst maintaining the second valve closed such that the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through the first conduit (para. [0060]: the first embodiment of SEYFARTH teaches a first evacuation mode in which only open the first gas evacuation valve 142 so that the gas is pumped from the interlock chamber 120 by the backing pump 172 via the conduit/path including the first gas evacuation valve 42), and
in a second, subsequent mode the spectrometer opens both the first and second valves such that the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through both the first and second conduits (para. [0062]: the first embodiment of SEYFARTH teaches “the second gas evacuation valve 144 may be opened in parallel with the first gas evacuation valve 142... enables unobstructed flow of the purge gas...pumped from the interlock chamber 120 by the backing pump 172).
Regarding Claim 5:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer of claim 1. SEYFARTH further teaches wherein the spectrometer is configured to switch from operating in said first mode to starting to operate in said second mode when the pressure in the ion source enclosure has decreased to a first threshold pressure, or after a first pre-set amount of time (paras. [0060-0062]: monitors pressure/time after opening first gas evacuation valve 142 in the first mode, then checks whether pressure drops below a second target value (example: ~50 torr) within a second time period (example: ~5 minutes) – “first threshold pressure/time”, if yes, switches to the second mode and opens second gas evacuation valve 144 (i.e., transitions into the next evacuation stage), and this opening may be triggered automatically when the pressure reaches the target).
Regarding Claim 6:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer of claim 5. SEYFARTH further teaches the spectrometer is configured to open the isolation valve when the pressure in the ion source enclosure has decreased to a second threshold pressure that is lower than the first threshold pressure or after a second pre-set amount of time that is longer than the first pre-set amount of time (paras. [0061-0063, 0072]: determines whether the pressure inside the interlock chamber drops below a predetermined third target value within a predetermined third time period (e.g., 100 mtorr within 5 min) – “a second threshold pressure that is lower than the first threshold pressure”, if so, the interlock chamber 120 has been evacuated, and then open the valve 140 (“isolation valve”) between the interlock chamber 120 and the vacuum chamber 150).
Regarding Claim 7:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer of claim 1. SEYFARTH further teaches control circuitry configured to control the spectrometer such that the first pump is able to start evacuating the ion source enclosure only after the isolation valve has been closed (paras. [0053, 0058, 0072]: in step 514, purge the interlock chamber 120 before opening the valve 140 (“isolation valve”); in step 516, evacuate the interlock chamber 120 using the backing pump 172; in step 518, once the interlock chamber 120 has been purged and evacuated, open the valve 140, i.e., the evacuation operation starts only after the isolation valve has been closed).
Regarding Claim 13:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer of claim 1. SEYFARTH further teaches a second pump (Fig. 1A -170) having an inlet for evacuating the first vacuum chamber and/or an inlet for evacuating the second vacuum chamber (paras. [0023-0024]: high vacuum pump 170 (“second pump”) is coupled to the vacuum chamber 150 (“first vacuum chamber”), and evacuates/pumps down the vacuum chamber, i.e., the pump’s inlet side is in fluid communication with the vacuum chamber being evacuated), and
one or more outlet for expelling the gas evacuated from the first and/or second vacuum chamber (see annotated Fig. 1A below: illustrates the high vac pump 170 evacuates gas from vacuum chamber 150, and because the high vac pump 170 is backed by backing pump 172, pump 170 necessarily discharges the evacuated gas through its exhaust/foreline outlet into the line leading to backing pump 172, i.e., the gas is expelled from the evacuated chamber through the outlet side of pump 170);
wherein the one or more outlet of the second pump is connected to an inlet of the first pump (see annotated Fig. 1A below: the depicted line between high vac pump 170 and backing pump 172 is the backing/foreline connection; thus the outlet (exhaust/foreline) of pump 170 is connected to the inlet (suction) of backing pump 172).
PNG
media_image2.png
353
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although SEYFARTH does not specifically label “inlet” and “outlet,” the disclosed “backing pump” arrangement in Fig. 1A inherently requires the high vac pump to have an exhaust/foreline outlet connected to the backing pump inlet, because backing is performed by removing gas discharged from the high vacuum pump.
Regarding Claim 14:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer of claim 13. SEYFARTH further teaches wherein the second pump is a turbomolecular pump (para. [0023]: “the high vacuum pump 170 may be a turbo molecular pump”).
Regarding Claim 15:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer of claim 1. SEYFARTH further teaches wherein the first pump is a roughing pump (para. [0023]: a roughing or backing pump 172).
Regarding Claim 18:
Hager teaches a method of mass and/or ion mobility spectrometry (Abstract: “methods disclosed herein utilize an interface positioned between an ion source and an ion guide of a mass spectrometry system that can be useful to control transmission ions from an ion source to a downstream mass analyzer”) comprising:
providing a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer having an ion source, a first vacuum chamber having a first orifice, an isolation valve for at least partially closing said first orifice (Fig. 1: providing the mass spectrometer as shown in Fig. 1 which includes an ion source 110 inside an ion source enclosure region 115, connecting to a vacuum chamber 120 via an interface 190, which includes a valve 230 and an opening 210);
maintaining said isolation valve in a closed position so as to prevent or reduce gas flow from the ion source enclosure into the first vacuum chamber (para. [0061]: “[when] the valve is in the closed (i.e. a substantially sealed) state, the ion source region is mechanically disconnected and/or fluidly isolated from the ion guide chamber” and “the interface 190 is configured to substantially inhibit the flow of any gas, ions, and neutrals from the ion source region 115 through the interface 190 and into the first ion guide chamber 120 when in a closed state.”);
opening the isolation valve; generating ions, via the ion source, in the ion source enclosure; and passing the ions from the ion source enclosure, through the first orifice, and into the first vacuum chamber (para. [0061]: “[when] the valve is in the opened state, the ion source region 115 can be fluidly connected to the first ion guide chamber 120” and “the interface 190 is configured to allow gas, ions, and neutrals to freely move from the ion source region 115 through the interface 190 and into the first ion guide chamber 120).
However, Hager does not specifically note that the provided mass spectrometer further comprises and a first pump for evacuating the ion source enclosure, and the method further comprises mounting the ion source enclosure to the first vacuum chamber about said first orifice; operating said first pump so as to evacuate the ion source enclosure whilst the isolation valve is closed by operating the spectrometer in a first mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit having a gas passage therethrough that is relatively restricted, and then subsequently operating the spectrometer in a second mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit having a gas passage therethrough that is less restricted.
SEYFARTH teaches a method of mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer (Abstract) comprising providing a mass spectrometer having an ion source enclosure and a first pump for evacuating the ion source enclosure (Fig. 1A and para. [0023]: backing pump 172 for evaluating the interlock chamber 120);
mounting the ion source enclosure to the first vacuum chamber about said first orifice (para. [0052]: the interlock chamber 120 is “attached to the vacuum chamber 150 at the valve 140”, i.e., the interface/opening controlled by valve between the two chambers);
operating said first pump so as to evacuate the ion source enclosure whilst the isolation valve is closed by operating the spectrometer in a first mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit having a gas passage therethrough that is relatively restricted (para. [0060]: teaches opening first evacuation valve 142 (a bleed valve with a restriction) so purge gas is pumped from interlock chamber 120 by backing pump 172, and the restriction limits flow exiting the interlock chamber. The restricted evacuation conduit/flow path is interlock chamber 120 → restricted valve 142 → backing pump 172), and then
subsequently operating the spectrometer in a second mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit having a gas passage therethrough that is less restricted (para. [0062]: teaches that the backing pump 172 evacuates the interlock chamber 120 via a second evacuation valve 144 having no restriction, i.e., a less restricted evacuation path for subsequent pumping. The less restricted conduit/flow path is interlock chamber 120 → non-restrictive valve 144 → backing pump 172).
Hager teaches a mass spectrometry system in which an ion source region is fluidly connected to a downstream first ion guide/vacuum chamber through a valve-controlled interface, so that ions generated at the ion source may be selectively transmitted through the interface into the downstream chamber. Seyfarth teaches a source-side/interlock chamber that is attached or closed onto a vacuum chamber at a valve/orifice interface to allow controlled communication between the chambers while maintaining the downstream vacuum. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Seyfarth’s mounting and staged-pumpdown arrangement to Hager’s source-region/interface system by mounting the ion source enclosure to the first vacuum chamber about the first orifice, to allow Hager’s source-side enclosure to be mounted about the ion-transfer orifice and brought toward vacuum in a controlled manner, thereby reducing sudden gas loading, contamination risk, and recovery time when the interface is opened for ion transmission.
Regarding Claim 19:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the method of the mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer of claim 18. SEYFARTH further teaches wherein said step of operating said first pump so as to evacuate the ion source enclosure comprises: operating the spectrometer in a first mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a first conduit (para. [0060]: teaches a first evacuation mode in which only open the first gas evacuation valve 42 so that the gas is pumped from the interlock chamber 120 by the backing pump 172 via the conduit/path including the first gas evacuation valve 142), and then
subsequently operating the spectrometer in a second mode in which the first pump simultaneously evacuates the ion source enclosure through both a first and second conduit (para. [0062]: “the second gas evacuation valve 144 may be opened in parallel with the first gas evacuation valve 142... enables unobstructed flow of the purge gas...pumped from the interlock chamber 120 by the backing pump 172 via the conduit/path including the first gas evacuation valve 142 and the second gas evacuation valve 144).
Claims 8, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hager in view of SEYFARTH, and further in view of WO 2019/122921 A1[hereinafter Murray].
Regarding Claim 8:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the spectrometer of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the ion source enclosure houses a target plate for holding an analytical sample to be ionized. Murray teaches the ion source enclosure houses a target plate for holding an analytical sample to be ionised (p. 26, Lls. 33-35, p. 28, Lls. 5-8 and p. 13, Lls. 9-18: discloses an “MALDI ion source may be provided within a housing which may form a door assembly” (“ion source enclosure”) that contains and supports a sample plate (i.e., a target plate) used for ionisation (e.g., by MALDI laser irradiation)).
Murray teaches that in a mass spectrometry system, placing the target plate within the source enclosure (e.g., a door assembly housing) enables straightforward loading and positioning of analytical samples for ionization (such as MALDI) while maintaining the downstream vacuum environment, and SEYFARTH likewise teaches a source-side enclosure (interlock chamber) designed for controlled evacuation/venting during source handling. Both references address mass spectrometry systems in which an upstream source-side enclosure is repeatedly isolated, vented, and pumped down for servicing or sample exchange. Therefore, it would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the spectrometer of SEYFARTH to include a target/sample plate housed within the ion source enclosure as taught by Murray. Incorporating Murray’s target-plate-in-enclosure arrangement into SEYFARTH’s would therefore represent a predictable use of a known sample holding structure in the same portion of a spectrometer (the source enclosure) to facilitate sample introduction and ionization, without requiring a change to SEYFARTH’s evacuation/valving architecture.
Regarding Claim 12:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the spectrometer of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note a second vacuum chamber arranged downstream of the first vacuum chamber and in fluid communication with said first vacuum chamber via a second orifice. Murray teaches a second vacuum chamber arranged downstream of the first vacuum chamber and in fluid communication with said first vacuum chamber via a second orifice (p. 4, Lls. 11-13: teaches an upstream section of a vacuum chamber (first vacuum chamber) and a downstream section of a vacuum chamber (second vacuum chamber), and “When the isolation valve is in an open position the first upstream section of a vacuum chamber...may be in fluid communication with the second downstream section of the vacuum chamber”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify SEYFARTH’s spectrometer to include a second vacuum chamber arranged downstream of the first vacuum chamber and in fluid communication via a second orifice, as taught by Murray. A POSITA would be motivated to do so because multi-stage/differential pumping (upstream chamber + downstream chamber coupled through an orifice/conductance limit) is a well-known and predictable design in mass spectrometers to (i) maintain a lower pressure in the analyser region while (ii) allowing a higher pressure in an upstream region during source/sample introduction. Incorporate Murray’s downstream chamber/orifice structure into SEYFARTH would therefore have been an expected design choice to improve vacuum management without changing the basic operational of SEYFARTH’s source-side isolation/evacuation architecture.
Regarding Claim 16:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the spectrometer of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the spectrometer is configured such that the ion source enclosure is removably mounted to the first vacuum chamber about said first orifice such that the ion source enclosure is repeatedly mountable to, and demountable from, the first vacuum chamber. Murray teaches the spectrometer is configured such that the ion source enclosure is removably mounted to the first vacuum chamber about said first orifice such that the ion source enclosure is repeatedly mountable to, and demountable from, the first vacuum chamber (p.12, Lls. 12-17: teach the “vacuum chamber having an ion inlet orifice...in a first mode of operation the [ion source housing] assembly may be secured to the vacuum chamber so as to align the first ion source with the ion inlet orifice and wherein in a second mode of operation the assembly may be detached thereby enabling a second different ion source to be located adjacent the ion inlet orifice”).Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify SEYFARTH’s spectrometer, where the interlock/ion source enclosure is already attached/mounted to the vacuum chamber at the valve//orifice interface, to make the enclosure removable and repeatedly mountable/demountable, as taught by Murray. A POSITA would be motivated to do so to facilitate routine source servicing, cleaning, and source/module exchange with reduced downtime. This modification is thus a predictable mechanical implementation (using known detachable mounting approaches) applied at the same interface location already disclosed in SEYFARTH, and would not change SEYFARTH’s underlying isolation /evacuation operation.
Regarding Claim 17:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the spectrometer of claim 1. SEYFARTH further teaches a circuitry (Figs. 1A-180) configured to operate the spectrometer. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the spectrometer comprising a vent valve for venting the ion source enclosure to atmospheric pressure, and to open the vent valve so as to vent the ion source enclosure only after the isolation valve is closed.
Murray teaches the spectrometer comprising a vent valve for venting the ion source enclosure to atmospheric pressure (p. 26, Lls. 27-28: raising pressure inside the ion housing to atmospheric pressure by opening a vent valve), and
to open the vent valve so as to vent the ion source enclosure only after the isolation valve is closed (p. 26, Lls. 25-28: open the vent valve once the isolation valve is closed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to add Murray’s vent valve and interlock sequence (vent the source enclosure only after the isolation valve is closed) to SEYFARTH, because the sequence is a standard and predictable vacuum system safeguard to protect the downstream vacuum/analyser and void contamination, sudden gas surges, and pressure shocks. As such, implementing Murray’s vent after isolation logic in SEYFARTH would therefore be an obvious control modification that improves operational safety/reliability while using the same isolation then vent approach in the same source-side region of the instrument.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hager in view of SEYFARTH and Murray, and further in view of US 2005/0027488 A1 [hereinafter Sesumi].
Regarding Claim 9:
The combined references teach the spectrometer of claim 8. The combined references further teach the ion source enclosure houses a MALDI target plate (see Murray p. 26, Lls. 33-35 and p. 28, Lls. 5-8: discloses an “MALDI ion source may be provided within a housing which may form a door assembly” (“ion source enclosure”) that contains and supports a sample plate (i.e., a target plate)). However, the combined references do not specifically note that the MALDI target plate may be a MALDI plate having sample wells in a microtitre format. Sesumi teaches a MALDI target plate, such as a MALDI plate having sample wells in a microtitre format (paras. [0007 and 0032]: describes MALDI sample plates where the sample spots/wells are spaced to correspond with microtitre specifications (e.g., 2.25 mm pitch) .... the sample plate may be arranged in a microtitre format).
Murray teaches an ion source enclosure housing a MALDI sample/target plate used to hold samples for ionisation in a MALDI source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to configure the MALDI target plate of Murray to be in a microtitre format, as taught in Sesumi. An ordinary skilled person in the art would have been motivated to make this selection as a predictable design choice to use a standardized, high-density plate format compatible with established sample handling/spotting practices, without changing the underlying MALDI source enclosure and vacuum arrangement.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hager in view of SEYFARTH, and further in view of US 2019/0252173 A1 [hereinafter Bullock].
Regarding Claim 11:
Hager in view of SEYFARTH teaches the spectrometer of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the ion source enclosure, when mounted to the first vacuum chamber, defines an enclosed region having a void volume of ≥50 cc. Bullock teaches the ion source enclosure, when mounted to the first vacuum chamber, defines an enclosed region having a void volume of ≥50 cc (paras. [0120 and 0152]: describes a load lock chamber 55 used to load a sample slide into an acquisition vacuum chamber 60, the load lock chamber assembly is mounted to a wall of the vacuum chamber via a flange (mounted to wall 60w of chamber 60), and can have a small volumetric capacity and explicitly lists about 50 cc (and also gives broader ranges up to 100 cc / 200 cc)).
SEYFARTH teaches an ion source enclosure (interlock chamber 120) that is mounted/connected at the interface to the vacuum chamber (e.g., via isolation valve 140) and defines an enclosed region that is evacuated/vented during ion source handling operations. Bullock teaches that an upstream chamber used in a mass spectrometry vacuum system (load lock chamber 55) is designed with a small volumetric capacity, and explicitly lists example chamber volumes including “about 50 cc.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to configure/select the enclosed region (ion source enclosure) of SEYFARTH to have a void volume of at least 50 cc, as taught in Bullock. Making this volume selection is a predictable design choice because chamber volume directly affects gas load and pumpdown/venting time for repeatedly accessed upstream chambers, and adopting a taught small-volume value such as about 50 cc would improve evacuation efficiency/throughput without changing the overall vacuum architecture of SEYFARTH.
Alternatively, Claims 1, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hager in view of SEYFARTH in view of “MSK Two-Stage Valves” [hereinafter MSK Specification].
Regarding Claim 1:
Hager teaches a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer (Abstract: a mass spectrometer system) comprising:
an ion source (Fig. 1-ion source 110);
an ion source enclosure (Fig. 1- ion source enclosure region 115);
a first vacuum chamber (Fig.1- vacuum chamber 120) in fluid communication with said ion source enclosure via a first orifice (Fig. 2- opening 210) (Figs. 1-2 and paras. [0061]: “the interface 190 is configured to fluidly connect the ion source region 115 and the first ion guide chamber 120,” and “the interface 290 can include an opening 210”);
an isolation valve (Fig. 2-valve 230) for at least partially closing said first orifice (Fig. 2 and para. [0059 and 0061]: “the interface 290 can include an opening 210... a valve 230,” which “can be configured and/or positioned in... a closed state, an opened state, and/or various states in between a fully closed state and a fully opened state”);
wherein the spectrometer is configured to open the isolation valve, cause the ion source to generate ions in the ion source enclosure, and transmit the ions through the first orifice and into the first vacuum chamber (para. [0061]: “[when] the valve is in the opened state, the ion source region 115 can be fluidly connected to the first ion guide chamber 120” and “the interface 190 is configured to allow gas, ions, and neutrals to freely move from the ion source region 115 through the interface 190 and into the first ion guide chamber 120).
However, Hager does not specifically note that a first pump for evacuating the ion source enclosure when the isolation valve is closed; and control circuitry configured to operate the spectrometer in a first mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit having a gas passage therethrough that is relatively restricted, and to then subsequently operate in a second mode in which the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit having a gas passage therethrough that is less restricted.
SEYFARTH teaches a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer (abstract) comprising:
an ion source enclosure (Fig. 1B -120);
a first pump (Figs. 1B-175) for evacuating the ion source enclosure when the isolation valve is closed (paras. [0037, 0058]: describes evacuating the interlock chamber 120 using a backing pump 175 (and describes evacuation processes for the interlock chamber), also explains that once the interlock chamber has been purged and evacuated, then the valve 140 between chambers is opened—i.e., evacuation occurs before opening the isolation valve between chambers); and
control circuitry (Figs. 1B-180) configured to operate the spectrometer (para. [0036]: describes automation under a processing unit 180 for purge/evacuation operations and for opening valve 140 based on reaching target pressure)
PNG
media_image3.png
312
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through a conduit having a gas passage (see annotated fig. 1B above: the gas is evacuated from the interlock chamber 120 using the pump 175 via the gas evacuation valve 145).
However, the second embodiment of SEYFARTH does not specifically note the spectrometer can operate in two modes where in the first mode gas is pumped through a conduit having a relatively restricted gas passage, and in the second mode gas is pumped through a conduit having a less restricted gas passage.
MSK Specification teaches a two-stage valve consists of a main isolation valve and a soft start bypass valve. Specifically, MSK Specification teaches:
in a first mode in which … pump evacuates … through a conduit having a gas passage therethrough that is relatively restricted (p.2: in the first stage uses the bypass valve to allow slow pumping (restricted) from atmosphere to a user-specified pressure; this is done via a small orifice in the bypass (standard 0.225 in), i.e., a conduit via the bypass valve which creates a relatively restricted gas passage), and
to then subsequently operate in a second mode in which …pump evacuates…through a conduit having a gas passage therethrough that is less restricted (p. 2: in the second stage the main valve opens, allowing full pumping speed (less restricted than the bypass stage) i.e., a conduit via the main valve which creates a less restricted gas passage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective filing date, to substitute the single gas-evacuation valve 145 in the second embodiment of SEYFARTH (FIG. 7B) with the two-stage valve at the same evacuation location between the interlock chamber 120 and the backing pump 175, as taught in MSK Specification, since both components are vacuum-valve assemblies used in the same position for the same purpose (controlling evacuation of the interlock chamber) and are known to be interchangeable choices in vacuum system design. This substitution would predictably provide staged evacuation of the interlock chamber 120, including an initial soft-start mode in which gas is evacuated through a relatively restricted bypass passage (interlock chamber 120 → bypass small-orifice stage → backing pump 175), followed by a subsequent mode in which gas is evacuated through a less-restricted main passage (interlock chamber 120 → main valve stage → backing pump 175). A POSITA would have been further motivated to make this modification because the second embodiment of SEYFARTH teaches that the FIG. 7B embodiment uses a dedicated backing pump and a high-conductance evacuation path for efficient pumpdown, while MSK Specification teaches that integrating a bypass path into an isolation valve provides soft-start pumpdown that reduces turbulent flow and contamination and then transitions to full pumping speed. The combination therefore represents a predictable substitution yielding the desired staged-restriction behavior without otherwise altering the FIG. 7B architecture of the second embodiment of SEYFARTH.
PNG
media_image4.png
309
399
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4:
The combined references teach the mass spectrometer of claim 1. SEYFARTH further teaches the spectrometer comprising a conduit (see annotated fig. 1B above) between the first pump (Fig. 1B-175) and the ion source enclosure (Fig. 1B-120) that comprises a valve (Fig. 1B-145), and comprising control circuitry (Fig. 1B-180) configured to control the valve.
MSK Specification further teaches the spectrometer:
a valve for controlling the gas flow rate through the conduit (p.2: a two-stage valve assembly (a single valve body) providing thumbscrew/micrometer for the bypass valve, and that it “allows for flow adjustment by limiting the stroke”), and
the valve is controlled to open by a first amount in a first mode and to open by a greater amount for a second, subsequent mode (p.2: first mode corresponds to a smaller effective opening/conductance (bypass flow / small stroke) and second mode corresponds to a greater effective opening/conductance (main valve open / larger stroke).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combined references teach the mass spectrometer of claim 1. MSK Specification further teaches the first orifice has a diameter of ≥15 mm; ≥16 mm; ≥17 mm; ≥18 mm; ≥19 mm; or ≥20 mm (p.2: the Two-Stage Valve is “available in five port diameters ranging from 1–4 inches”, i.e., more than 25.4 mm , which satisfies ≥15, ≥16, ≥17, ≥18, ≥19, ≥20 mm; Alternatively, MKS’s specifications table lists a port size “1.0 (25)” and larger, again satisfying the claimed minimum diameter).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hager in view of SEYFARTH and MSK Specification, and further in view of “MSK Two-Stage Valves Manual Addendum” [hereinafter MSK Manual].
Regarding Claim 2:
The combined references teach the spectrometer of claim 1. The combined references further teach:
a first conduit between the first pump and the ion source enclosure that comprises a first valve (See SEYFARTH Fig. 1B and MSK Specification p. 2: the combined references teach a bypass passage (“first conduit”) between the interlock chamber 120 and the backing pump 175, comprises a bypass valve (“first valve”)) and
a second, different conduit between the first pump and the ion source enclosure that comprises a second valve (See SEYFARTH Fig. 1B and MSK Specification p. 2: the combined references teach a main passage (“second, different conduit”) between the interlock chamber 120 and the backing pump 175, comprises a main valve (“second valve”));
wherein the spectrometer comprises control circuitry (See SEYFARTH Fig. 1B-180) configured such that
wherein the first conduit provides a gas passage therethrough, when the first valve is open, that is relatively restricted (MSK Specification: the bypass stage is the “slow pumping” stage and includes a small orifice (standard 0.225 in) to vary slow pump speed) and
the second conduit provides a gas passage therethrough, when the second valve is open, that is relatively less restricted (MSK Specification: the “second stage” is “main valve opens … full pumping speed,” i.e., less restricted than the bypass stage).
in a first mode… the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through the first conduit (See SEYFARTH Fig. 1B and MSK Specification p. 2: in a first stage, the backing pump 175 evacuates the interlock chamber 120 through the bypass passage),
in a second mode… the first pump evacuates the ion source enclosure through the second conduit See SEYFARTH Fig. 1B and MSK Specification p. 2: in a second stage, the backing pump 175 evacuates the interlock chamber 120 through the main passage),
However, the combined references of SEYFARTH and MSK Specification do not specifically note that in a first mode the spectrometer opens the first valve whilst maintaining the second valve closed, in a second, subsequent mode the spectrometer opens the second valve whilst maintaining the first valve closed.
MSK Manual teaches:
in a first mode the spectrometer opens the first valve whilst maintaining the second valve closed (p.3: “the bypass valve is opened (the main valve remaining closed) to allow slow pumping”),
in a second, subsequent mode the spectrometer opens the second valve whilst maintaining the first valve closed (p.3: “the bypass valve is closed and the main valve is opened, which allows full pumping speed as pumpdown continues”).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate the two-mode valve control operation, as taught in MSK Manual, to the combined references of SEYFARTH and MSK Specification. The rejection of claim 1 already relies on the MSK two-stage vale product disclosure (“MSK Specification”), it would have been obvious to additionally rely on the corresponding MSK Manual, as a further description of the same commercially available two-stage valve (and its normal operating sequence), since a POSITA would routinely consult the manufacture’s manual to understand how to operate and control that product in the intended manner (e.g., bypass open/main closed, then bypass closed/main open).
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 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