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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-11 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/16/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is:
“Tuning unit” in claims 12 and 15-17. As explained by the specifications of the present disclosure “[t]he tuning unit may comprise a transistor, such as MOSFET, connected between input and the output” (para. [0027]). Therefore, the “tuning unit” will be interpreted to be a transistor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The preamble of claim 12 recites “[a] regulator for supplying a regulated HV voltage to an electrode of a mass analyser of a mass spectrometer, the regulator configured for receiving HV voltage of positive or negative polarity”. Figure 5A illustrates an HV supply circuit with two switches and four regulators. The specifications also draw a distinction between what is referred to as a “regulator” and a “regulator circuit” (para. [0030]). Later, paragraph 104 recites “[r]eferring in more detail to figure 9, regulator 210 corresponds to transistor 210 in figure 8.” It is unclear if the regulator as referred to in the preamble is a regulator as displayed in figure 5A, a regulator circuit which the limitations of claim 12 further limit, or a transistor. For the purposes of examination, the “regulator” referred to in the preamble of claim 12 will be interpreted to be a “regulator circuit.”
Further, claim 12 recites “the tuning unit regulates the HV output voltage based on the one or more reference voltages and the first and second feedback signals.” As interpreted under 112(f) above, the tuning unit is a transistor. Paragraph 110 of the specifications explain “U4 adds the combined feedback signal S2 with the reference voltage, and capacitance C4 across amplifier U4, which may take the value of 10nF, integrates the signals over a time constant… The integrated signal is supplied via resistor R4 to the input side of optocoupler U1 which controls the current through the MOSFET M1 and hence the voltage on the output line.” Based on this explanation, it is unclear how the transistor itself can be said to regulate the output voltage based on the three claimed signals. The reference voltage and feedback signal are combined using the integrated amplifier U4. The combined signal travels to the transistor M1, and then is output. For the purposes of examination, the transistor regulating the output voltage “based on the one or more reference voltages and the first and second feedback signals” will be interpreted to mean the signal provided to the transistor and output to the load is a function of the one or more reference voltages and the first and second feedback signals.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the first feedback path is configured to filter out DC and/or low frequency leakage currents from the capacitor when the polarity of the HV voltage is switched.” It is unclear how a path could be configured to filter out currents. Further, as written, it is unclear if the path is configured to filter DC signals and/or low frequency leakage currents from the capacitor, or if the path is configured to filter DC leakage currents and/or low frequency leakage currents. Paragraph [0104] of the specifications recites “Block 240 is a high pass filter which filters out DC signals including the DC leakage current of the capacitor C1’ resulting from polarity switching and caused by dielectric absorption (DA).” For the purposes of examination claim 14 will be interpreted to mean the first feedback path is configured to filter out DC signals and/or low frequency currents.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "HV output signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephen Gabeler (US 20090242751 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gabeler in view of Yasushi Aoki (US 20200357623 A1), hereinafter referred to as Aoki.
Regarding claim 12, Gabeler teaches a regulator for supplying a regulated HV voltage to an electrode of a mass analyser of a mass spectrometer, the regulator configured for receiving HV voltage of positive or negative polarity, the regulator comprising:
an input for receiving a HV voltage from a source (The circuit topology includes a power supply 200A (para. [0038]));
The circuit 210 includes a power supply for supplying a high voltage. Therefore, the circuit 210 inherently possesses an input for receiving a HV voltage from a source.
an output for supplying regulated HV voltage (The power supply circuit 210 is responsive to the feedback signal to regulate the value of the output voltage after a charge transfer from the power supply circuit 210 to the load 240 at the output node 218 of the power supply circuit 210 (para. [0051])) to the electrode (One example of a suitable load can be an electrode in a time of flight mass spectrometer system (para. [0044]));
one or more reference inputs for receiving one or more reference voltages (The control amplifier 272 receives the summed signal from the summing circuit 268 and receives a reference signal 270 from a reference source (not shown) (para. [0051]));
Circuit 220 receives a reference signal 270. Therefore, the circuit inherently possesses an input for receiving a reference voltage.
and a feedback circuit coupled between the output and the tuning unit , the feedback circuit arranged to monitor one or more voltages indicative of the regulated HV voltage supplied at the output, the feedback circuit comprising a first feedback path comprising a capacitor (capacitor 401) and configured to monitor AC coupled currents on the output and provide a first feedback signal (In operation, the second feedback loop 290 is responsive to an AC component of the output voltage at the output node 218 of the power supply circuit 210 and is configured to produce a second feedback signal that represents the AC component of the output voltage (para. [0049]))
and a second feedback path configured to monitor a DC level on the output and provide a second feedback signal (The first feedback loop 280 is responsive to a DC component of an output voltage at the output node 218 of the power supply circuit 210 and is configured to produce a first feedback signal that represents the DC component of the output voltage (para. [0046])).
The specifications of the present disclosure define HV to “voltages greater than around 1000V” (para. [0010]). Gabeler discloses “[i]n various embodiments, a power supply provides a voltage that is in the range between about 5,000 volts to about 30,000 volts” (para. [0080]). Therefore, the regulator of Gabeler is configured for receiving HV as defined by the present disclosure.
Further, Gabeler teaches a tuning circuit for regulating the HV voltage supplied at the output and the tuning circuit (The power supply circuit 210 is responsive to the feedback signal or error signal to regulate the output voltage of the power supply circuit 210 after a charge transfer from the power supply circuit 210 to the load 240 (para. [0039])) regulates the HV output voltage based on the one or more reference voltages and the first and second feedback signals (The control amplifier 272 receives the summed signal from the summing circuit 268 and receives a reference signal 270 from a reference source (not shown) and outputs a feedback signal to the power supply circuit 210 (para. [0051])).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Amplifier 272 receives a reference signal 270 from a reference source. Amplifier 272 also receives a sum of the first and second feedback signal. Amplifier 272 then provides a feedback signal based on the reference signal and first and second feedback signal to the circuit 210. Circuit 210 then regulates the voltage supplied to the electrode.
However, Gabeler fails to teach a tuning unit (as interpreted under 112f above) for regulating the HV voltage supplied at the output; and the tuning unit regulates the HV output voltage based on the one or more reference voltages and the first and second feedback signals.
However, Aoki teaches a tuning unit for regulating the HV volage supplied at the output (in FIG. 1. The switching element is generally a power MOSFET (para. [0044])).
To be clear, Gabeler teaches a voltage regulating circuit in which a control amplifier receives a sum of two feedback signals as well as a reference signal. The control amplifier takes the difference between the summed signal and the reference signal and outputs said difference to a circuit 210 which is responsive to the feedback signal to regulate the output voltage (para. [0051]). Further, the circuit 210 is connected to the load via a switch. Therefore, the voltage provided to the switch, and output to the load is a function of the one or more reference voltages as well as the first and second feedback signal.
Aoki teaches a high voltage power supply for a mass spectrometer configured to apply a DC high voltage to a load. The device of Aoki comprises of a main voltage generator and a main switch unit to open and close a line which connects a voltage output end to the load (para. [0014]). Aoki teaches the switching elements in the main switch unit are power MOSFETS. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Gabeler to include the teachings of Aoki by replacing the switch of Gabeler with a MOSFET. As explained by Aoki, using a MOSFET as a switching element is preferable because for the MOSFETS high withstand voltage (Aoki; para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 13, Gabeler fails to teach the regulator of claim 12, wherein the tuning unit comprises a MOSFET connected between input and the output.
However, Aokie teaches wherein the tuning unit comprises a MOSFET connected between input and the output (In general, the main switch circuits 3 and 4 respectively include one or a plurality of MOSFETs as semiconductor switching elements (para. [0007])).
Regarding claim 14, Gabeler teaches the regulator of claim 12, wherein the first feedback path is configured to filter out DC and/or low frequency leakage currents from the capacitor when the polarity of the HV voltage is switched (The signal conditioning circuit 262 is operable to rectify the second feedback signal, thus converting the second feedback signal into a DC signal… The second feedback signal then passes through the filter 256, which functions to filter the second feedback signal (para. [0049])).
After the second signal is converted into a DC signal it then passes through a filter 256. Therefore, the first feedback path (second feedback loop 290) is configured to filter out DC signals.
Regarding claim 15, Gabeler teaches the regulator of claim 12, wherein the regulator is configured to combine the first and second feedback signals into a combined feedback signal and provide the combined feedback signal to the tuning unit (The summing circuit 268 operates to sum the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal to produce a summed signal. The summed signal is output from the summing circuit 268 to the control amplifier 272 … The control amplifier 272 receives the summed signal from the summing circuit 268 and receives a reference signal 270 from a reference source (not shown) and outputs a feedback signal to the power supply circuit 210 (para. [0050]- para. [0051])).
Regarding claim 20, Gabeler teaches a mass spectrometer comprising the regulator of claim 12 (The load 240 can be any component that can be connected to the output of the power supply circuit 210. One example of a suitable load can be an electrode in a time of flight mass spectrometer system (para. [0044])).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabeler in view of Aoki, and in further view of Darryl Whitford (US 4288727 A), hereinafter referred to as Whitford.
Regarding claim 16, Gabeler fails to teach the regulator of claim 12, further comprising a bridge rectifier, wherein the tuning unit is coupled within the bridge rectifier such that current from the input to the output flows in the same direction through the tuning unit whether the HV output signal is positive or negative polarity.
However, Whiford teaches a bridge rectifier, wherein the tuning unit is coupled within the bridge rectifier such that current from the input to the output flows in the same direction through the tuning unit whether the HV output signal is positive or negative polarity (Fig. 2 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
520
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gabeler teaches a voltage regulating circuit which generates an output voltage based on reference and feedback voltages (para. [0051]). Whitford teaches a voltage regulating circuit with an output which varies in response to different correction and reference voltages (col. 2, lines 44-47). Said voltage is passed through a series pass transistor before being sent to the load (in the case of Whitford, the load being a motor). As shown in Figure 2 above, the transistor is used on combination with a bridge rectifier. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Gabeler to include the teachings of Whitford by placing a bridge rectifier circuit around the transistor. Doing so ensures current flows through the transistor in the same direction regardless of the polarity.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabeler in view of Aoki, and in further view of Jeffrey Melvin (US 20230107042 A1), hereinafter referred to as Melvin.
Regarding claim 17, Gabeler fails to teach the regulator of claim 12, further comprising one or more voltage suppression devices connected across the tuning unit to limit the voltage dropped across the tuning unit to a maximum predetermined voltage.
However, Melvin teaches one or more voltage suppression devices (two suppressors D.sub.126a, D.sub.126b) to limit the voltage dropped across the tuning unit to a maximum predetermined voltage (Fig. 5F below) (where two transistors Q.sub.124a, Q.sub.124b, an NPN transistor and a PNP transistor, respectively, two suppressors D.sub.126a, D.sub.126b, and two diodes D.sub.128a, D.sub.128b, allow operation with a bipolar power supply 112 (para. [0045])).
PNG
media_image3.png
492
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As explained by the specifications of the present disclosure “The number and rating of the bipolar suppression diodes used is selected to provide the required voltage magnitude at the output (para. [0099]).” Therefore, a suppression diode is sufficient for limiting the voltage dropped across the tuning unit to a maximum predetermined voltage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Gabeler to include the teachings of Melvin by placing a bipolar suppression diode on the tuning unit. Doing so protects the circuit from sudden voltage spikes.
Regarding claim 18, Gabeler fails to teach the regulator of claim 17, wherein the one or more voltage suppression devices are bipolar suppression diodes.
However, Melvin teaches wherein the one or more voltage suppression devices are bipolar suppression diodes (Fig. 5F above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights