DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on November 25th, 2025. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are pending.
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 Interpretation
The original disclosure posits two forms of detector. One form is a unitary detector with an engineered discontinuity to act as an input aperture. The claims do not recite this embodiment. The second for is a detector “comprising: (i) first and second detector elements associated so as to form an interface … wherein the associated first and second detector elements … define on one side an environment internal the detector and on the other side an environment external the detector”. The independent claim clearly references this form of detector, as shown by the fact that it claims “first and second housing elements defining a space therebetween; … the first and second housing elements … defining on one side an environment internal the particle detector and on another side an environment external the particle detector”. In this form of detector, the interface forms a natural opening which can, and generally will, function as the input aperture.
Examiner can find no mention in the original disclosure of a detector including both an interface and a discontinuity. Therefore, the “input aperture to admit a particle beam” is not present in configuration with first and second housing elements, unless the interface is itself considered to be the input aperture. It does not appear this is the case, and examiner will proceed with 112(a) and 102(a)(1) rejections on the assumption that the “input aperture to admit the particle beam” is a discontinuity in one or both of the housing elements. However, to cover all bases, examiner will also reject on 101 grounds under an alternative interpretation of the “input aperture to admit the particle beam” as meaning the interface is the input aperture.
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on November 25th, 2025. These drawings are acceptable in that they do not include new matter and clarify the relationships between the electron emissive surfaces and will be entered. However, they still fail to show the electron emissive surfaces being surrounded as claimed. They also fail to show the newly claimed input aperture, unless that input aperture is the space itself.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more emissive surfaces surrounded by the first and second housing elements must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The replacement drawings show the electron emissive surfaces adjacent to first and second housing elements, but not surrounded by them. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the input aperture must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). If applicant intends the input aperture to be the interface itself, they do not need to submit new drawings, but will need to state on the record that the input aperture is the space between the first and second housing elements. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims now recite a particle detection system comprising both “an input aperture to admit a particle beam;” and “first and second housing elements defining a space therebetween”. The input aperture is understood here to refer to a discontinuity or opening in one of the detector elements. There is no evidence that applicant considered the use of such a discontinuity in a non-unitary detector. The use of such discontinuities is disclosed as an alternative to interfacing detector elements, and always as part of a unitary detector housing (see “In one embodiment of the first aspect, the detector comprises one or more electron emissive surfaces, the detector comprising: (i) first and second detector elements associated so as to form an interface, or (ii) a unitary detector element having a discontinuity,”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following rejection is an alternative to the 112(a) rejection, covering the interpretation where the “input aperture to admit a particle beam” is considered to be the interface, that is, as the “space” between the first and second housing elements that the deformable member occupies.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
Claim 1, from which all the other claims depend, recites a particle detection system comprising detection surfaces for detecting particles (electron emissive surfaces) surrounded by housing elements and a deformable member between them “wherein the deformable member or the deformable mass comprises a central region which when contacted by the first and/or second housing elements is deformed so as to inhibit or prevent passage of a gas through the space”. Such a configuration completely seals the internal environment and occludes the “input aperture” that is the interface, which prevents the particles the detector is meant to detect from reaching the detection surfaces. The application includes other embodiments that use tortuous paths or discontinuities to allow for the ions to reach the inner space while inhibiting a gas flow, but no such opening is disclosed for the deformable member.
While the claim language appears to allow for the space to be only partially filled by the deformable member/mass (“a deformable member or a deformable mass some or all of which occupies the space,”), the deformation by contact with the housing elements requires that the entire space be filled since there needs to a surface on the opposing side to push against. Claims 2 and 11 also specifically claim that the deformable member seals the opening, and that the deformable mass is compressed between the two elements, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2009/0294654 (Steiner).
The following annotated figure from Steiner is referenced in the rejections that follow;
PNG
media_image1.png
744
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Steiner discloses a particle detection system comprising:
a vacuum chamber (fig. 1, element 160); and
a particle detector disposed within the vacuum chamber (fig. 1, elements 102 & 104), the particle detector comprising:
an input aperture to admit a particle beam (fig. 3, element 312);
one or more electron emissive surfaces (fig. 2, element 310, wherein it is understood that electron multipliers include dynodes) surrounded by first and second housing elements defining a space therebetween (fig. 3, element 304, first and second housing elements as annotated above); and
a deformable member or a deformable mass some or all of which occupies the space, the first and second housing elements and the deformable member or the deformable mass defining on one side an environment internal the particle detector and on another side an environment external the particle detector, wherein the deformable member or the deformable mass comprises a central region which when contacted by the first and/or second housing elements is deformed so as to inhibit or prevent passage of a gas through the space, thereby inhibiting or preventing contact of the gas with the one or more electron emissive surfaces (fig. 3, element 306, wherein “An O-ring or gasket 306 may be provided on the housing 304 for creating a vacuum seal.” P 51).
Regarding claim 2, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the deformable element or the deformable mass forms a seal between the first and second housing elements (“An O-ring or gasket 306 may be provided on the housing 304 for creating a vacuum seal.” P 51).
Regarding claim 3, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the deformation is caused at least in part by a force applied to the deformable member or the deformable mass by the first and/or second housing elements (“An O-ring or gasket 306 may be provided on the housing 304 for creating a vacuum seal.” P 51).
Regarding claim 4, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the deformable member or the deformable mass extends beyond one or more edges of the first and/or second housing element (fig. 3, element 306 extends beyond the edges of the housing elements).
Regarding claim 5, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the deformable member or the deformable mass extends beyond all edges of the first and/or second housing element (fig. 3, element 306 extends beyond all of the edges of the housing elements).
The following annotated figure from Steiner is referenced in the rejection below;
PNG
media_image2.png
744
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the first and second housing elements provide opposing faces, and the deformable member or the deformable mass is deformed in the space between the opposing faces (fig. 3, as annotated above).
Regarding claim 7, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the deformable member or deformable mass is elastically deformable (“An O-ring or gasket 306 may be provided on the housing 304 for creating a vacuum seal.” P 51).
Regarding claim 8, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the deformable member or the deformable mass is biased to a first shape or geometry and the deformation causes the deformable member or the deformable mass to adopt a second shape or geometry (inherent in deformation, deformation is defined by Oxford Dictionary as “the action or process of changing in shape or distorting, especially through the application of pressure.”).
Regarding claim 9, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein upon deformation the deformable member or the deformable mass flexes or bows in the central region (“An O-ring or gasket 306 may be provided on the housing 304 for creating a vacuum seal.” P 51).
Regarding claim 10, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 9, wherein the flexing or bowing occurs in a central region of the deformable member or deformable mass thereby causing a peripheral region of the deformable member or deformable mass to extend outwardly and away from the central region (“An O-ring or gasket 306 may be provided on the housing 304 for creating a vacuum seal.” P 51).
Regarding claim 16, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein when the particle detector is in operation within a vacuum chamber of a mass spectrometer the inhibition or prevention of passage of the gas through the space is sufficient so as to cause an environment about the electron emissive surface(s) or a collector/anode surface of the particle detector to be different to the environment immediately external to the particle detector with regard to: presence, absence or partial pressure of a gas species in the respective environments; and/or presence, absence or concentration of a contaminant species in the respective environments (intended use, also “The ion processing system 180 may, for example, be a mass spectrometry (MS) system (or apparatus, device, etc.) configured to perform a desired MS technique (e.g., single-stage MS, tandem MS or MS/MS, MSn, etc.).” P 43 and “An O-ring or gasket 306 may be provided on the housing 304 for creating a vacuum seal.” P 51).
Regarding claim 17, Steiner discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the first and second housing elements, and the deformable member or the deformable mass are configured so as to together decrease a vacuum conductance of the particle detector (“An O-ring or gasket 306 may be provided on the housing 304 for creating a vacuum seal.” P 51).
Regarding claim 18, Steiner discloses a mass spectrometer comprising the system of claim 1 (“The ion processing system 180 may, for example, be a mass spectrometry (MS) system (or apparatus, device, etc.) configured to perform a desired MS technique (e.g., single-stage MS, tandem MS or MS/MS, MSn, etc.).” P 43).
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 12-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,770,858 (Fuchs et al.)
Regarding claim 1, Fuchs et al. discloses a particle detection system comprising:
a vacuum chamber (“The vacuum flange 14 has a vacuum side 18 and an atmosphere side 20.”); and
a particle detector disposed within the vacuum chamber (“The detector 12 is adapted to be secured in a first recess 22 formed in the vacuum side 18 of the flange 14.”), the particle detector comprising:
an input aperture to admit a particle beam (“The cap 74 has an opening 80 formed at the input end 16 of the detector 12, for allowing the particles to enter the cartridge 74 at the input face 82.”);
one or more electron emissive surfaces surrounded by first and second housing elements (“a removable MCP cartridge 74 which is captured between base 70 and the cap 72.”); and
a deformable member or a deformable mass some or all of which occupies the space, the first and second housing elements and the deformable member or the deformable mass defining on one side an environment internal the particle detector and on another side an environment external the particle detector, wherein the deformable member or the deformable mass comprises a central region which when contacted by the first and/or second housing elements is deformed so as to inhibit or prevent passage of a gas through the space, thereby inhibiting or preventing contact of the gas with the one or more electron emissive surfaces (fig. 4 & 6, element 128).
Regarding claim 3, Fuchs et al. discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the deformation is caused at least in part by a force applied to the deformable member or the deformable mass by the first and/or second housing elements (“spring 128 is captured between the bottom of the opening 122 in the resistor 120 for urging the resistor upwardly.”).
Regarding claim 7, Fuchs et al. discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the deformable member or deformable mass is elastically deformable (“spring”).
Regarding claim 8, Fuchs et al. discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the deformable member or the deformable mass is biased to a first shape or geometry and the deformation causes the deformable member or the deformable mass to adopt a second shape or geometry (inherent in deformation, deformation is defined by Oxford Dictionary as “the action or process of changing in shape or distorting, especially through the application of pressure.”).
Regarding claim 9, Fuchs et al. discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein upon deformation the deformable member or the deformable mass flexes or bows in the central region (“spring”).
Regarding claim 12, Fuchs et al. discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the first housing element is orthogonal to the second housing element, or vice-versa (upper face of base 170 is orthogonal to side of cap 72).
Regarding claim 13, Fuchs et al. discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein at least a part of the first housing element extends about or surrounds at least part of the second housing element, or vice-versa (fig. 4, where sides of cap 72 surround at last part of base 70).
Regarding claim 14, Fuchs et al. discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the deformable member or the deformable mass is not an O-ring, or an O-ring-like structure having a non-circular geometry (“spring”).
Regarding claim 16, Fuchs et al. discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein when the particle detector is in operation within a vacuum chamber of a mass spectrometer the inhibition or prevention of passage of the gas through the space is sufficient so as to cause an environment about the electron emissive surface(s) or a collector/anode surface of the particle detector to be different to the environment immediately external to the particle detector with regard to: presence, absence or partial pressure of a gas species in the respective environments; and/or presence, absence or concentration of a contaminant species in the respective environments (intended use, also “A detector assembly for a time-of-flight (TOF) mass spectrometer”).
Regarding claim 17, Fuchs et al. discloses the particle detection system of claim 1, wherein the first and second housing elements, and the deformable member or the deformable mass are configured so as to together decrease a vacuum conductance of the particle detector (threaded connections form a closed connection that reduces vacuum conductance).
Regarding claim 18, Fuchs et al. discloses a mass spectrometer comprising the system of claim 1 (“A detector assembly for a time-of-flight (TOF) mass spectrometer”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights