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.
Claim 7 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 7 recites “a second vacuum pump having… an outlet port for discharging the evacuated gas,” but then states “wherein the discharge port is connected in fluid communication with said conduit…” The claim does not clearly establish whether the “discharge port” is the previously introduced “outlet port” of the second vacuum pump, or some other port/structure. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
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 “a tube connects the discharge port of the second vacuum chamber to said port”. As written, it is unclear what is meant by a “discharge port” of the second vacuum chamber, since claim 7 (which claim 8 dependents on) previously associates the discharge/outlet function with the second vacuum pump (not the chamber). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 8 are unclear. For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
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 “a method of mass and/or mobility spectrometry,” which does not clearly set forth what the method is of (e.g., operating/using the spectrometer), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear. For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a (1) as being anticipated by US 5,844,195 [hereinafter Fairbairn].
Regarding Claim 1:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the preamble (“A mass and/or mobility spectrometer”) is not limiting because claim 1’s body recites a complete structural apparatus (vacuum housing defining a chamber, a vacuum pump connected by a conduit, and a portion of the conduit extending within the housing wall) and the preamble does not add any additional structural limitation beyond those recited elements. Accordingly, Fairbairn anticipates the recited vacuum housing/pump/conduit structure regardless of whether Fairbairn describes its overall system as a mass and/or mobility spectrometer, because Fairbairn discloses the same claimed vacuum chamber evacuation structure.
Fairbairn teaches an apparatus comprising:
a vacuum housing (Fig. 19-106) having a first vacuum chamber (Fig. 19-618/620) therein (Col. 12, Lls. 5-9 and 16-20: a chamber 106 including chamber wall/body (e.g., walls 612/614/616) forming the vacuum enclosure, and processing regions 618 and 620 are within the chamber defined by those walls); and
a first vacuum pump (Fig. 22A-720) connected to said first vacuum chamber by a conduit (Figs. 19, 21 and 22A: Col. 12, Lls. 43-50 and Col.16, Lls. 27-29: in Fig. 19, each of the processing region 618/620 (“vacuum chamber”) is connected to a pump (not shown in Fig. 19, shown as pump 702 in Fig. 22A) via an evacuation passage (“conduit”), implemented by the pumping channel 625[Wingdings font/0xE0] exhaust conduits 621[Wingdings font/0xE0] exhaust channel 619[Wingdings font/0xE0] exhaust line 722 (to pump 720), as shown in Figs. 19, 21 and 22A);
wherein at least a part of the conduit (Figs. 19/21-625) extends along the vacuum housing within a wall of the vacuum housing (Col. 12, Lls. 16-20: part of the evacuation passage, e.g., the pumping channel 625, is formed in the chamber wall and runs circumferentially, i.e., extends “along” the housing wall).
Regarding Claim 2:
Fairbairn teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fairbairn further teaches at least part of the conduit has an axis therethrough that extends substantially parallel to said wall of the vacuum housing (Col. 12, Lls. 16-20: teaches the in-wall portion of the evacuation conduit as circumferential pumping channel 625 formed in the chamber walls. A circumferential channel formed in the wall necessarily has a channel centerline/axis that runs along (i.e., “substantially parallel to”) the wall as it wraps around the processing region perimeter).
Regarding Claim 3:
Fairbairn teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fairbairn further teaches wherein the conduit within the wall of the housing extends from an upstream end, that is coincident with a first aperture (Fig. 19-631) in a wall of the first vacuum chamber (Col.12, Lls.27-32: the liner 627 “formed in the wall 612, 614” and includes exhaust ports 631, or circumferential slot (“upstream end coincident with a first aperture in a wall”) which is “in communication with the pumping channel 625 formed in the chamber wall),
to a downstream end (Col. 12, Lls. 43-50: the in-wall pumping channel connects onward to pump 720 – i.e., downstream end leading to the pump); and
wherein the conduit has a bend therein between its upstream and downstream ends (since the circumferential channel 625 is “formed in the chamber walls”, it inherently follows a curved/circumferential path (a bend/turning geometry) between the chamber-side entry points (ports 631) and the outlet connection region leading toward the pump 720).
Regarding Claim 6:
Fairbairn teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fairbairn further teaches the conduit extends at least 2 cm within the wall of the vacuum housing (Fairbairn teaches a “circumferential pumping channel 625” formed in the chamber wall. A circumferential channel extends around the perimeter of the processing region; therefore, its in-wall run necessarily has a length substantially greater than 2 cm (e.g., any circumferential path around a region having a diameter greater than about 6.4mm has circumference greater than 2cm) meeting the “extends at least 2 cm within the wall” limitation).
Regarding Claim 11:
Fairbairn teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fairbairn further teaches wherein the first pump is a roughing pump (Col. 16, Lls. 26-28: “...connecting to a pump 720, such as a roughing pump”).
Regarding Claim 12:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the preamble of claim 12 (“a method of mass and/or mobility spectrometer”) is not limiting because the body of the claim sets forth a complete method by reciting the operative steps. The preamble merely states the intended environment or field of use and does not add any additional affirmative step or structural/functional limitation beyond the recited evacuation steps. Accordingly, the claim is reasonably interpreted as a method of evacuating a vacuum chamber using a pump and conduit as recited, regardless of whether the reference expressly describes the method as being “of mass and/or mobility spectrometry.” Therefore, Fairbairn anticipates the method steps of claim 12 because Fairbairn discloses performing the same recited evacuation steps.
Fairbairn teaches a method comprising:
providing a spectrometer as claimed in claim 1 (Fairbairn discloses the apparatus (chamber 106 with processing regions and exhaust system to pump as discussed in claim1; such that the step of “providing the spectrometer of claim 1” is met by providing Fairbairn’s disclosed apparatus); and
evacuating gas from the first vacuum chamber via said conduit using said first vacuum pump (Figs. 19, 21, 22A and Col. 12, Lls. 43-53: each of the processing region 618 and 620 is “pumped down… by the pump” through the connected exhaust system (“conduit”- pumping channel 625/exhaust conduits 621/exhaust channel 619/exhaust line 722/ pump 720).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5, 7-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairbairn, in view of US 9,368,335 B1 [hereinafter Quarmby]
Regarding Claim 4:
Fairbairn teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fairbairn further teaches wherein the conduit extends from a first aperture in a wall of the first vacuum chamber, within the wall of the vacuum housing in a direction extending from said front end to said rear end, and to a downstream end of the conduit that is connected to the vacuum pump (Figs. 19 and 22A; Col.12, Lls.27-32 and 43-50: teaches the evacuation passage including the in-wall pumping channel runs from exhaust port/slot 631to downstream end leading to a pump 720). However, Fairbairn does not specifically note that the vacuum housing has a front end at which an ion source is mounted and an opposite, rear end.
Quarmby teaches the vacuum housing has a front end (Fig. 3- 314) at which an ion source is mounted and an opposite, rear end (Fig.3 and Col. 3, Lls.2-15: teaches a spectrometer vacuum system having an inlet 314 for receiving ions from a source and a rear end including chamber 312).
Quarmby describes a spectrometer vacuum system include multiple vacuum chambers 306/308/310/312 connecting to a foreline pump via an external vacuum hose 348 to evacuate the chambers. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Fairbairn’s wall-embedded evacuation routing to the vacuum housing/manifold arrangement of Quarmby (which explicitly is for a mass spectrometer) to obtain a compact, integrated evacuation path along the housing wall while evacuating the source-adjacent chamber. An ordinary skilled person would be motivated to do so because both references address evacuating gases from enclosed vacuum/process chambers and routing exhaust to a pump, and Fairbairn’s in-wall routing is a known way to package/route evacuation passage in a housing wall.
Regarding Claim 5:
Fairbairn teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Fairbairn does not specifically note that the spectrometer comprising an ion source; wherein the first vacuum chamber is adjacent the ion source or the ion source is within the first vacuum chamber.
Quarmby teaches the spectrometer comprising an ion source; wherein the first vacuum chamber (Fig. 3-306) is adjacent the ion source or the ion source is within the first vacuum chamber (Fig. 3 and Col. 3, Lls.2-15: teaches a spectrometer vacuum system having an inlet 314 for ions from a source that is adjacent to the foreline chamber 306, i.e., ion source adjacent to the first vacuum chamber).
Regarding Claim 7:
Fairbairn teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Fairbairn does not specifically note that the vacuum housing further comprises a second vacuum chamber configured to receive ions from said first vacuum chamber and a second vacuum pump having an inlet port for evacuating gas from said second vacuum chamber and an outlet port for discharging the evacuated gas, wherein the discharge port is connected in fluid communication with said conduit such that said first vacuum pump pumps gas from the discharge port.
Quarmby teaches wherein the vacuum housing (Fig. 3 -302) further comprises a second vacuum chamber (Fig. 3-308) configured to receive ions from said first vacuum chamber (Fig. 3-306) (Fig. 3 and Col. 6, Lls. 2-7: ion is received from a source through inlet 314 to the foreline chamber 306, and to the intermediate vac chamber 308 via the aperture 318 connecting these two chambers), and
a second vacuum pump (Fig. 3-304) having an inlet port (Fig.3-340) for evacuating gas from said second vacuum chamber (Fig. 3 and Col. 6, Lls. 16-21: the “inlet port” of the high vacuum pumping housing 304 corresponds to the port/connection by which the intermediate vacuum chamber 308 is coupled to a vacuum stage of high vacuum pump 328 (e.g., vacuum outlet 340 coupling the intermediate vacuum chamber 308 to the drag stage 334)
and an outlet port (Fig. 3-342) for discharging the evacuated gas (Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Lls. 21-15: the high vacuum pump 328 coupled to the foreline inlet 344 via foreline port 342 so that the high vacuum pump can forces gas molecules to the foreline region and then they go out to the foreline pump);
wherein the said first vacuum pump pumps gas from the discharge port (Fig. 3 and Col. 6, Lls. 25-26: the foreline port 342 of the high vacuum pump 328 is coupled to downstream evacuation plumbing (e.g., hose 348) so that a foreline pump (“first vacuum pump”) removes the gas discharged from that port).
Although neither Fairbairn or Quarmby explicitly describes the discharge port is connected in fluid communication with said conduit, the combined references teach the discharge port is connected in fluid communication with said conduit. In the proposed combination, instead of routing hose 348 to Quarmby’s separate foreline pump, the hose (or an equivalent tube) is routed into Fairbairn’s conduit at exhaust channel/port 619 and/or exhaust line 722, so the Fairbairn’s pump 720 pumps gas coming from the discharge port (foreline outlet 342) of the high vacuum pump.
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filling, to connect Quarmby’s high-vacuum pump foreline discharge into Fairbairn’s existing exhaust manifold/line (619/722) being pumped by pump 720, because Quarmby expressly uses a backing/foreline evacuation path (foreline outlet+hose) to remove the high vacuum pump discharge, and Fairbairn already provides a common exhaust channel/line to a pump for pumping down/equalizing regions. This substitution simply uses the existing pump and exhaust line of Fairbairn to perform the same foreline pumping function of Quarmby already requires, yielding the predictable benefit of simpler packaging/fewer separate exhaust connections while maintaining staged evacuation.
Regarding Claim 8:
Fairbairn in view of Quarmby teaches the spectrometer of claim 7. Fairbairn further teaches a port through said wall of the vacuum housing for allowing gas to pass from outside the vacuum housing into the conduit (Fig. 19: Col. 16, Lls. 27-39: an in-wall exhaust port 631 “in communication with the pumping channel 625 formed in the chamber wall” and an exhaust line 722 connecting to pump 720 (a tube-to-port connection through the chamber boundary), and
Quarmby further teaches wherein a tube (Fig. 3-348) connects the discharge port (Fig. 3- 342) of the second vacuum chamber (Col. 6, Lls. 23-26: the high vacuum pump exhaust to a foreline outlet 346 that couples to a foreline pump via a vacuum hose).
Although neither Fairbairn or Quarmby explicitly teaches the tube connects the discharge port of the second vacuum chamber to said port, the combined references teach the tube connects the discharge port of the second vacuum chamber to said port. In the proposed combination, the gas discharged from Quarmby’s downstream chamber is routed (via Quarmby’s tube/hosing from the discharge port) to the Fairbairn exhaust port through the chamber wall that opens to Fairbairn’s in-wall exhaust passage (conduit), so that the downstream pump can pump gas from the discharge port through the Fairbairn wall port and into the in-wall conduit, as claimed.
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filling, to connect Quarmby’s discharge-port tubing to Fairbairn’s in-wall exhaust port/conduit to consolidate exhaust routing into an integrated in-wall passage leading to a vacuum connection, thereby reducing external hardware/penetrations, simplifying packaging and assembly, and improving system compactness, while still achieving the expected staged evacuation of the multiple chambers (a predictable result of routing a chamber outlet to an established vacuum/exhaust conduit).
Regarding Claim 9:
Fairbairn in view of Quarmby teaches the spectrometer of claim 7. Quarmby further teaches wherein the vacuum housing further comprises a plurality of vacuum chambers configured to receive ions from said first vacuum chamber (Fig.3 and Col. 6: Lls. 2-15: vacuum system 300 further includes vacuum chambers 308/320/321, ion received from source enter the foreline chamber 306 (“first vacuum chamber”) through inlet 314, then to subsequent chambers308/310/312 through apertures 318/322/326, respectively), and
wherein said second vacuum pump has a plurality of inlet ports (Fig.3 and Col. 6, Lls. 16-22: the high vacuum pumping housing 304 includes connection/port 336/338/340, i.e., the chamber-side “outlets”, but they are also the pump’s intake connections in the sense that gas flows from the chamber into the pump at those interfaces),
wherein each inlet port is for evacuating gas from a respective vacuum chamber of said plurality of vacuum chambers (Fig.3 and Col. 6, Lls. 16-22: high vacuum pump has multiple pumping stages, chamber 312 coupled to mainstage via port 336, intermediate vacuum chamber 310 coupled to interstage via port 338, intermediate vacuum chamber 308 coupled to drag stage via port 340); and
a single outlet port (Fig. 3 -342) for discharging the evacuated gas (Fig.3 and Col. 6, Lls. 25-26: foreline port/outlet 342 coupled to foreline inlet 344, through which the high vacuum pump forces gas molecules to the foreline region and then they go out to the foreline).
Regarding Claim 10:
Fairbairn in view of Quarmby teaches the spectrometer of claim 7. Quarmby further teaches wherein the second pump is a turbomolecular pump (Col. 4, Lls. 31-32: the high vacuum pump “include a turbomolecular stage”).
Regarding Claim 13:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the preamble of claim 13 (“a method of manufacturing a vacuum housing”) is not limiting because the claim body positively recites the manufacturing steps that define the method, namely, forming the housing…and forming the conduit… The preamble merely states the intended article being manufactured (“vacuum housing”) and not add additional process step beyond those recited in the body.
Fairbairn teaches a method and the structural results of the method. Specifically, Fairbairn teaches:
a vacuum housing (Fig. 19-106) having a first vacuum chamber (Fig. 19-618/620) therein (Fig. 19 and Col. 12, Lls. 5-9 and 16-20: a chamber 106 including chamber wall/body (e.g., walls 612/614/616) forming the vacuum enclosure, and processing regions 618 and 620 are within the chamber defined by those walls); and
a conduit within and along a wall of the vacuum housing that extends to a first end that opens into the first vacuum chamber (Figs. 19, 21 and 22A: Col. 12, Lls. 43-50 and Col.16, Lls. 27-29: a pumping channel 625 that is formed in the chamber wall to exhaust gas from the processing regions, which communicate with the pumping channel via exhaust opening ports (e.g., exhaust ports 631), i.e., the wall-formed conduit opens into the chamber/region)
However, Fairbairn does not specifically note the manufacturing process of the housing/conduit it teaches.
Quarmby teaches a method of manufacturing and the manufacturing approach consistent with internal passage (Col. 5, Lls. 65-68 and Col. 6, Lls. 1-2: teaches the vacuum manifold may be implemented as a monolithic manifold machined from a single block, or as a multi-component manifold formed from multiple components (e.g., machined parts) assembled together, either approach allowing formation of internal passage/opening in the manifold housing body).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to manufacture Fairbairn’s well-embedded evacuation conduit arrangement by forming the housing and then forming the internal conduit/passage (e.g., by machine/drilling) as taught by Quarmby’s monolithic machine manifold approach, to obtain predictable benefits of integration (fewer joints/leak paths, compact routing).
Regarding Claim 14:
Fairbairn in view of Quarmby teaches the method of claim 13.
Quarmby further teaches forming the conduit by drilling through the vacuum housing; or during casting or three-dimensional printing of the vacuum housing (Col. 5, Lls. 65-68: teaches that the MS vacuum manifold can be “machined from a single block of material” and includes multiple apertures/ports/outlets (e.g., baffle apertures and vacuum outlets/inlets). Forming such opening in a machined housing/manifold would have been accomplished by conventional machine operations, including drilling/boring).
Regarding Claim 15:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the preamble of claim 15 (“a method of manufacturing a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer”) is not limiting because the claim body positively recites the complete manufacturing/assembly steps (claim 13 steps plus connecting the first pump to the conduit). The preamble merely states the intended end product (“spectrometer”) and does not impose an additional structural or process limitation beyond the recited steps.
Fairbairn teaches a method; as discussed in claim 13, Fairbairn in view of Quarmby teach the method of claim 13. Quarmby further teaches connecting a first vacuum pump to a second end of the conduit that is opposite to the first end (Col. 16, Lls. 27-29: shows the assembly relationship of connecting the exhaust system to a pump (exhaust line 722 to a pump 720).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to substitute Quarmby’s taught vacuum-system pump coupling/assembly approach for Fairbairn’s implicit assembly detail, i.e., after forming Fairbairn’s wall-embedded conduit structure, to connect the vacuum pump to the conduit’s downstream end. Once the vacuum housing is formed with an internal/along-wall conduit that opens into the chamber (claim 13). A POSITA would have been motivated to connect the vacuum pump to he “second end” (downstream end) of that conduit (opposite the chamber-opening first end) because (i) the conduit is only functional for evacuation/controlling pressure when its downstream end is connected to a pump, (ii) both Fairbairn and Quarmby show this exact “exhaust path[Wingdings font/0xE0]exhaust line/hose[Wingdings font/0xE0] pump” arrangement as standard practice, and (iii) doing so yield the predictable result of enabling evacuation and pressure regulation/equalization in the chamber/region using eh formed conduit.
Conclusion
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