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 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections on record have been withdrawn in light applicant’s amendment.
The 35 U.S.C. 112b rejections on record have been withdrawn in light applicant’s amendment.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections on record have been withdrawn in light applicant’s amendment.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 1 and 20
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 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 § 112
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 11 and 17 are 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 recite continuously decreasing the pump speed as the temperature increases above a maximum operating temperature, and increasing the pump speed as the temperature decreases below the maximum operating temperature. The specification does not disclose this particular threshold-based control relationship. The specification discloses “the pump speed may be continuously adjusted over time based on the value of the condition… continuously decreased as a temperature level associated with the mass spectrometer increases… continuously increased as the temperature level decreases” (para. [0072]), but does not tie those continuous adjustment to the temperature being above or below a maximum operating temperature. Although paragraphs [0066] and [0071] separately disclose temperature thresholds, including a maximum operating temperature, the specification does not disclose combining those threshold conditions with the continuous-control scheme of paragraph [0072] in the manner now claimed. Accordingly, the amended subject matter is not supported by the original disclosure and contains new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0032101 A1 [hereinafter Spanu] in view of US20150056060A1 [hereinafter Makarov].
Regarding Claim 1:
Spanu teaches a method (Abstract: “A method of operating a mass spectrometer vacuum interface”) comprising:
determining, by a pump management system, an operating mode for a mass spectrometer (Fig. 2 and paras. [0034]: a mass spectrometer 10 includes an ion source 6, “The controller 50 preferably controls the operating conditions of the plasma ion source 6, for example in accordance with a selection of an operating condition…for example input by a user”)
setting, by the pump management system based on the operating mode, a pump speed of a turbo pump used to create one or more vacuum stages for the mass spectrometer (Fig. 2 and paras. [0013, 0018, 0029]: “The control of the throughput of the vacuum pump is preferably dependent on one or more operating modes of the spectrometer… the vacuum pump is controlled directly… so as to vary its speed,” where “The operating modes can include a plasma condition and/or a measurement mode (e.g. an analysis of a specific element).” Fig. 2 further illustrates multiple vacuum stages 3, 5, and 7 “pumped by a split flow turbomolecular pump (not shown), the exhaust of which is pumped by the fore vacuum pump 40”);
the pump speed specifies the definable frequency (para. [0036]: table I identifies vacuum pump speed in “pimp cycles or rotating per second, Hz,” it shows specific speeds such as 130Hz and 160 Hz and changes those speed to obtain the desired vacuum condition); and
causing, by the pump management system, the turbo pump to operate at the pump speed while the mass spectrometer operates in accordance with the operating mode (para. [0013]: “using a controller to automatically control or regulate the throughput of the interface vacuum pump to control the interface pressure…The control of the throughput of the vacuum pump is preferably dependent on one or more operating modes of the spectrometer… the vacuum pump is controlled directly… so as to vary its speed”).
However, Spanu does not expressly teach wherein the turbo pump comprises one or more rotor blades configured to rotate at a definable frequency to generate a vacuum, at least one of the one or more vacuum stages corresponds to a mass analyzer of the mass spectrometer, and a command is transmitted to the turbo pump to set the pump speed while the mass analyzer performs a mass analysis
Makarov teaches a mass spectrometer vacuum system in which a turbomolecular pump arrangement pumps the downstream mass spectrometer volumes (Abstract).
Specifically, Makarov teaches wherein:
the turbo pump (Fig. 1- split-flow turbomolecular pump) comprises one or more rotor blades configured to rotate at a definable frequency to generate a vacuum (Abstract: “The turbomolecular pump has at least five pumping stages separated by rotor blades”),
at least one of the one or more vacuum stages corresponds to a mass analyzer of the mass spectrometer, (Fig. 1 and paras. [0038, 0041]: pump 15 has pumping ports 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 30, where pumping port 24 evacuates volume 4 which encloses “a time-of-flight mass analyzer”).
As such, the combined references teach a command is transmitted to the turbo pump to set the pump speed while the mass analyzer performs a mass analysis. In the modified system, the same known controller/pump-control scheme of Spanu is applied to the turbomolecular pump of Makarov, and Spanu expressly teaches “performing mass analysis on the spectrometer” using feedback to controller 50.
Spanu teaches a mass spectrometer in which a controller changes the speed of vacuum pump based on the operating mode of the spectrometer, and the vacuum pump evacuates an interface vacuum while a split-flow turbomolecular pump evacuates a high-vacuum stage which encloses the mass analyzer. Makarov teaches that a rotor-blade split-flow turbomolecular pump is used to evacuate multi-stage/volumes of a mass spectrometer, including the region containing the mass analyzer. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Spanu to employ the multi-stage turbomolecular pump arrangement of Makarov for evacuating the multiple vacuum regions of the mass spectrometer, so that the speed of the multi-stage turbomolecular pump would be controlled according to the operating condition of the spectrometer, as taught by Spanu, The resulting arrangement would cause the common turbomolecular pump including the stage evacuating the mass-analyzer region, to operate at a speed selected according to the spectrometer operating mode, to simplify and reduce the cost of the vacuum pumping system while maintaining reliable evacuation of the multiple spectrometer vacuum regions.
Regarding Claim 20:
SPANU teaches a system (Abstract: a system for operating a mass spectrometer vacuum interface), comprising:
a mass spectrometer (Fig. 2-10) configured to analyze molecules of a sample, the mass spectrometer comprising a mass analyzer (Fig. 2 – mass analyzer 30;
a turbo pump configured to create one or more vacuum stages for the mass spectrometer, wherein (Fig. 2 and para. [0028]: vacuum pump 40 creates interface vacuum stages 3, a turbomolecular pump vacuum stages of intermediate vacuum stage 5 and high-vacuum stage 7);
the pump speed specifies the definable frequency (para. [0036]: table I identifies vacuum pump speed in “pimp cycles or rotating per second, Hz,” it shows specific speeds such as 130Hz and 160 Hz and changes those speed to obtain the desired vacuum condition); and
a computing device (Fig. 2-controller 50) communicatively coupled with the mass spectrometer and configured to perform a process comprising determining an operating mode for the mass spectrometer; setting, based on the operating mode, a pump speed of a turbo pump used to create one or more vacuum stages for the mass spectrometer; and causing the turbo pump to operate at the pump speed while the mass spectrometer operates in accordance with the operating mode (same steps as recited in claim 1, see claim 1 discussion)
however,
However, Spanu does not expressly teaches wherein: the turbo pump comprises one or more rotor blades configured to rotate at a definable frequency to generate a vacuum, at least one of the one or more vacuum stages corresponds to a mass analyzer of the mass spectrometer, and a command is transmitted to the turbo pump to set the pump speed while the mass analyzer performs a mass analysis
Makarov teaches a mass spectrometer vacuum system in which turbomolecular pump arrangement pumps the downstream mass spectrometer volumes (Abstract).
Specifically, Makarov teaches wherein:
the turbo pump (Fig. 1- split-flow turbomolecular pump) comprises one or more rotor blades configured to rotate at a definable frequency to generate a vacuum (Abstract: “The turbomolecular pump has at least five pumping stages separated by rotor blades”),
at least one of the one or more vacuum stages corresponds to a mass analyzer of the mass spectrometer, (Fig. 1 and paras. [0038, 0041]: pump 15 has pumping ports 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 30, where pumping port 24 evacuates volume 4 which encloses “a time-of-flight mass analyzer”).
As such, the combined references teach a command is transmitted to the turbo pump to set the pump speed while the mass analyzer performs a mass analysis. In the modified system, the same known controller/pump-control scheme of Spanu is applied to the turbomolecular pump of Makarov, and Spanu expressly teaches “per firming mass analysis on the spectrometer” using feedback to controller 50.
Spanu teaches a mass spectrometer in which a controller changes the speed of vacuum pump based on the operating mode of the spectrometer, and the vacuum pump evacuates an interface vacuum while a split-flow turbomolecular pump evacuates a high-vacuum stage which encloses the mass analyzer. Makarov teaches that a rotor-blade split-flow turbomolecular pump is used to evacuate multi-stage/volumes of a mass spectrometer, including the region containing the mass analyzer. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Spanu to employ the multi-stage turbomolecular pump arrangement of Makarov for evacuating the multiple vacuum regions of the mass spectrometer, so that the speed of the multi-stage turbomolecular pump would be controlled according to the operating condition of the spectrometer, as taught by Spanu, The resulting arrangement would cause the common turbomolecular pump including the stage evacuating the mass-analyzer region, to operate at a speed selected according to the spectrometer operating mode, to simplify and reduce the cost of the vacuum pumping system while maintaining reliable evacuation of the multiple spectrometer vacuum regions.
Regarding Claim 3:
Spanu in view of Makarov teaches the method of claim 1. Spanu further teaches wherein the determining the operating mode during a temporary shutdown period of the mass spectrometer (para. [0035]: Spanu teaches a standby/switch-off operating condition in which the plasma ion source is turned off and the spectrometer is not performing normal analysis).
Regarding Claim 4:
Spanu in view of Makarov teaches the method of claim 1. Spanu further teaches:
obtaining, by the pump management system, input data provided by a user, wherein the input data comprises one or more operating parameters of the mass spectrometer, wherein the input data comprises at least one of a data acquisition rate, a calibration frequency, a gas flow rate, a fragmentation voltage, or a resolution setting (para. [0042]: “a user can override the automatic control and the set interface pressure that may be provided by the software of the computer-based controller…The user can thereby adjust the vacuum pump throughput,” i.e., gas flow rate);
wherein the determining the operating mode for the mass spectrometer is based on the input data provided by the user (para. [0043]: “the GUI can be used by the user to input a selection of an operating condition…In this way, the controller can automatically control the throughput of the vacuum pump…depending on the selection of operating condition”).
Regarding Claim 6:
Spanu in view of Makarov teaches the method of claim 1. Spanu further teaches:
determining, by the pump management system, that the mass spectrometer will operate to perform a [specific type] of mass spectrometry process (para. [0032]: determine an operation condition of the plasma ion source of a mass spectrometer, for example, determine operating the plasma ion source at either hot plasma condition or cold plasma condition);
wherein the determining the operating mode for the mass spectrometer is based on the determining that the mass spectrometer will operate to perform the [specific type] of mass spectrometry process (para. [0032]: “the throughput of the vacuum pump 40 is automatically controlled depending upon the operating conditions of the plasma ion source 6”).
Markov teaches the mass spectrometer operates the collision cell to perform collision process and turbo pump evacuates the collision cell.
As such, the combined references teach determining, by the pump management system, that the mass spectrometer will operate to perform a collision-based mass spectrometry process comprising a collision-induced dissociation process; wherein the determining the operating mode for the mass spectrometer is based on the determining that the mass spectrometer will operate to perform the collision-induced dissociation process, as claimed.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spanu in view of Makarov, further in view of US20170098535A1 [hereinafter Ramsey].
Regarding Claim 2:
Spanu in view of Makarov teaches the of claim 1. Spanu further teaches wherein the determining the operating mode for the mass spectrometer comprises:
determining that the operating mode is one of a first operating mode and a second
operating mode; and the setting the pump speed comprises setting the pump speed to a first pump speed for the first operating mode, and setting the pump speed to a second pump speed for the second operating mode (para. [0034]: changing … operating conditions from a first operating condition to a second operating condition, or vice versa, and respectively automatically adjusting the throughput of the interface vacuum pump from a first throughput when operating … at the first operating condition to a second through put when operating…at the second operating condition”).
However, SPANU does not specifically note that the first pump speed generating a pressure level of less than 150 mTorr in a first vacuum region; the second pump speed being lower than the first pump speed, wherein the second pump speed generates a pressure level of greater than 150 mTorr in the first vacuum region after an ion funnel of an inlet associated with the mass spectrometer.
Ramsay teaches a mass spectrometer vacuum chamber connected to a vacuum pump (Fig. 1 and para. [0094]). Specially, Ramsay teaches:
a pressure level of less than 150 mTorr in a first vacuum region (para. [0095]: the first and second vacuum chambers 12 and 14 can be held at between 50 mTorr and 100mTorr);
a pressure level of greater than 150 mTorr in the first vacuum region (paras. [0092, 0094]: the mass analyzer resides in vacuum chamber 12 can also be held at a high pressure during operation, which can be above 150 mTorr) after an ion funnel of an inlet associated with the mass spectrometer (Figs, 3C/4C show ion funnel 48f upstream of mass analyzer 30 in vacuum chamber 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to operate the Spanu pumping arrangement at different speeds to established different pressure levels in the ion funnel vacuum region, as taught by Ramsay, because selecting an appropriate pressure in the ion-funnel region improves ion focusing and transmission into the downstream mass spectrometer.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spanu in view of Makarov, further in view of US20140250978A1 [hereinafter McCauley].
Regarding Claim 5:
Spanu in view of Makarov teaches the of claim 1. Spanu further teaches wherein the obtaining the input data comprises detecting a selection by the user of a particular operating mode from a list of predefined operating modes presented within a user interface provided by an application executed by a computing device configured to control the mass spectrometer (para. [0043]: “In some embodiments, the GUI can be used by the user to input a selection of an operating condition (e.g. the plasma temperature or power provided to the ICP torch), and / or an identification of one or more elements of interest to be mass analysed by the spectrometer”).
Makarov further teaches a collision-based mass spectrometry process operating mode (para. [0041]: pumping port 24 evacuates volume 4 of the mass spectrometer which encloses a collision cell).
However, the combined references do not expressly teach a bakeout process operating mode.
McCauley teaches a bakeout process operating mode (para. [0008]: a mass spectrometer system enables “a high temperature low pressure bakeout of inlet components,” with an “electronic controller can execute the operations of bakeout and/or standby in an automated fashion”).
As such, in the modified method, the list of predefined operating mode to the user can include a bakeout process operating modes and a collision-based mass spectrometer process operating mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to include McCauley’s bakeout operating mode to SPANU’s predefined user selecting list, allowing the system to perform a known bakeout operation with reduced pump usage when full pump operation is not needed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spanu in view of Makarov, further in view of US20100065736A1 [hereinafter Heiberg].
Regarding Claim 7:
Spanu in view of Makarov teaches the of claim 1. Spanu further teaches determining an operating mode of the ion source for the mass spectrometer (Fig. 2 and paras. [0034]: a mass spectrometer 10 includes an ion source 6, “The controller 50 preferably controls the operating conditions of the plasma ion source 6, for example in accordance with a selection of an operating condition…for example input by a user”).
However, the combined references do not expressly teach identifying, by the pump management system, a characteristic of a sample to be analyzed by the mass spectrometer, wherein the characteristic comprises a composition class comprising an oligonucleotide, a macromolecule, a polymer, an inorganic compound, or an environmental compound; wherein the determining the operating mode for the mass spectrometer is based on the identifying the characteristic.
Heiberg teaches that when the sample is an inorganic compound such as TiCl4, the ICP-MS is operated using operating conditions specially optimized for that condition, including a particular RF power applied to the ICP plasma source (Table 1 and paras. [0007, 0090]). As such, Spanu in view of Makarov and further in view Heiberg teaches identifying, by the pump management system, a characteristic of a sample to be analyzed by the mass spectrometer, wherein the characteristic comprises a composition class comprising an oligonucleotide, a macromolecule, a polymer, an inorganic compound, or an environmental compound; wherein the determining the operating mode for the mass spectrometer is based on the identifying the characteristic. In the modified method, the controller of Spanu determines an operating condition of the plasma source, by identifying the sample to be analyzed by the mass spectrometer comprises a composition class including an inorganic compound and determining the operating mode for the plasma source based on that specific inorganic compound, as taught in Heiberg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure Spanu’s operation according to the composition of the sample being analyzed, since Heiberg demonstrates that appropriate plasma source conditions are known to depend on sample composition and are optimized to obtain reliable ICP-MS analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 12-16 and 18-19 are allowed.
Claims 11 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection (s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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