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 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Abramson in view Marshon are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
The previous claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained. Although applicant amended claim 1 to recite “a fixing member configured to fix…”, the term still invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The MPEP expressly identifies “configured to” as one of the linking words besides “for” that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See MPEP 2181 (I)(B).
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Jarrell in view Hayashida:
Applicant first argues that Hayashida is non-analogous because Hayashida concerns a micrometer rather than a mass spectrometer. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the problem addressed by the claimed invention is securing two interfitting structures together in a manner that permits controlled attachment and detachment. The fact the claimed structure is used in mass spectrometer does not make that mechanical problem meaningfully different from the same problem encountered in another field. Hayashida is directed to the same type of problem, namely, releasably retaining a cylindrical member within a surrounding support structure using a spring-biased locking element. Accordingly, despite its micrometer context, Hayashida is reasonably pertinent to the problem of securing interfitting components together, and therefore constitutes analogous art.
Applicant’s next assertion of hindsight is likewise unpersuasive. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Jarrell already provides the relevant cylindrical interface, and Hayashida merely supplies a known spring-biased pin arrangement for releasably securing such interfaces. One of ordinary skill would have had reason to apply Hayashida’s locking mechanism to Jarrell’s corresponding cylindrical structure to provide secure retention while permitting axial removal and reattachment.
Applicant further argues that Hayashida’s mechanism would compromise Jarrell’s vacuum integrity. This argument is not persuasive because the proposed modification does not replace Jarrell’s sealing structure, which would remain intact, and Hayashida is relied upon only for an additional mechanical retention mechanism. Accordingly, applicant has not shown that the addition of a spring-biased retaining pin would necessarily impair Jarrell’s vacuum performance.
Applicant’s asserted unexpected advantages are also not persuasive. Hayashida teaches that its spring-bias pin arrangement permits the retained member to be pulled out and reinserted, providing predictable ease of assembly and disassembly. Applicant has not provided evidence of any expected result beyond what would be expected use from the use of such a known releasable locking mechanism.
Finally, applicant’s reference to former claim 2 doses not establish patentability of the present claims. As will be discussed in more detail below, Jarrell in view of Hayashida teaches the amended claim 1.
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(s) is/are:
“a fixing member for fixing the connection pipe to the connection main body portion” as recited in claim 1.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0307744 A1 [hereinafter Jarrell] in view of US 2007/0018658 A1[hereinafter Hayashida].
Regarding Claim 1:
Jarrell teaches a mass spectrometer (Fig. 1 entirety) that introduces an ion generated by ionization of a sample in an ionization chamber (Fig. 1- surrounding area of electrospray nebulizer 101) into a vacuum chamber (Fig. -1 chamber 106) and detects the ion by a detector, the mass spectrometer comprising:
a connection pipe (see annotated Fig. 3 below- channel defined by inner bore 211) that allows the ionization chamber and the vacuum chamber to communicate with each other (Fig .1 shows the electrospray interface 200 connecting the ionization area and the chamber 106, where Fig. 3 shows the interface 200 comprises the tube 202/203 (and inner bore 211) pass through);
PNG
media_image1.png
725
1117
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a connection main body portion (Figs. 1/3: block portion encloses tube 202/203 and heater coil 204) through which the connection pipe is inserted and which heats the connection pipe (para. [0059]: heater coil 204 heats inner bore 211);
a sampling cone (Fig. 1- front cone 201) having a cylindrical shape through which an end portion of the connection pipe is inserted (annotated Fig. 3 shows the front cone 201 is cylindrical shaped and the connection pipe pass through left end of the front cone 201), the sampling cone being provided on an ionization chamber side with respect to the connection main body portion (Fig. 1 shows the front cone 201 is next to the electrospray nebulizer 101 area, also see para. [0058]: “an entrance orifice 210 positioned to receive charged particles flowing from electrospray nebulizer 101”);
a fixing member (Figs. 1/3- end piece 205) is configured to fix the connection pipe to the connection main body portion (para. [0058]: “A first ceramic tube 203 has an inner bore 211 extending from orifice 210 to and through end piece 205 to exit orifice 212 in end piece 205,” where the end piece 205 is “fabricated from stainless steel or from other similarly electrically and thermally conductive and corrosion-resistant materials.”);
a through hole is formed in the fixing member, and an end portion of the connection pipe is inserted so as to be in contact with an inner peripheral surface of the through hole (Fig. 3A shows passage through end piece 205 ending at exit orifice 212).
However, Jarrell does not specially note that a locking portion for locking an object to be locked to the connection main body portion when the object to be locked is at least one of the sampling cone and the fixing member, wherein one of the connection main body portion and the object to be locked can be attached to and detached from the locking portion provided on another one of the connection main body portion and the object to be locked, the locking portion includes at least an elastic member, and the object to be locked can be attached to and detached from the connection main body portion by the locking portion by the object to be locked being displaced along an axial direction of the connection pipe without rotation, thereby causing the elastic member to elastically deform.
PNG
media_image2.png
632
1189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hayashida teaches:
a locking portion (annotated Fig. 1 - locking structure 421/422) for locking an object to be locked (annotated Fig. 1 – rotor bushing 423/420) to the connection main body portion (annotated Fig. 1 – spindle 300) when the object to be locked is at least one of the sampling cone and the fixing member (Figs. 4 and 10: paras. [0104, 0163]: a locking mechanism, including the engaging pin 421 and the leaf spring 441 (442), engaging a spindle 300 into the rotor 420, especially the rotor bushing 423);
wherein one of the connection main body portion and the object to be locked can be attached to and detached from the locking portion provided on another one of the connection main body portion and the object to be locked (Figs. 5A - 5B and paras. [0103-0104 and 0163]: spindle 300 is releasably engaged with the rotor-side locking portion carried by rotor bushing 423, the engaging pin 421 and leaf spring 442 are provided on the rotor brush 423 and rotor 420 (“locking portion provided on the object to be locked”), Fig. 5A shows leaf spring 442 biases engaging pin 421 into engaging groove 320 of spindle 300 so that spindle 300 is locked into the rotor brushing 423/rotor 420 (“connection main body portion attached to the locking portion”), Fig. 5B shows the engaging pin 421 not engaged into the groove 320 so that allow spindle 300 to pull out from rotor 420 (“connection main body portion detached from the locking portion”);
the locking portion includes at least an elastic member (leaf spring 442), and the object to be locked can be attached to and detached from the connection main body portion by the locking portion by the object to be locked being displaced along an axial direction without rotation, thereby causing the elastic member to elastically deform (spindle 300 cand be secured into the rotor 420/rotor bushing 423 when engaging pin 421 is biased toward axial engaging groove 320 by leaf spring 442, and spindle 300 also can be pulled out from rotor 420/rotor bushing 423 and subsequently reset once the engaging pin 421 stop engaging).
As such, the combined references teach the locking portion includes at least an elastic member, and the object to be locked can be attached to and detached from the connection main body portion by the locking portion by the object to be locked being displaced along an axial direction of the connection pipe without rotation. In the modified system, Hayashida’s spring-biased pin arrangement is provided between Jarrell’s cylindrical connection main body portion 2-202 and fixing member/end-piece structure 205, which is attachable to and detachable from the connection main body portion by relative axial displacement along connection pipe 203, without requiring rotation of the locking mechanism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Hayashida’s spring-biased pin engagement as a suitable mechanism for releasably securing Jarrell’s corresponding cylindrical connection body-end piece interface, thereby maintaining secure retention while facilitating axial removal and reattachment without requiring a threaded locking connection.
Regarding Claim 4:
Jarrell in view of Hayashida teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1. Hayashida further teaches wherein the elastic member is a leaf spring (leaf spring 441/442).
Regarding Claim 5:
Jarrell in view of Hayashida teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1. Hayashida further teaches:
the locking portion includes a displacement member (engaging pin 421) that is displaced along by a restoring force of the elastic member (paras. [0103-0104]: leaf spring 441/442 bias a base end of the engaging pin 421 toward the spindle 300), and
when one of the connection main body portion and the object to be locked is attached to or detached from the locking portion provided on another one of the connection main body portion and the object to be locked, the displacement member is displaced by contacting the another one of connection main body portion and the object to be locked, thereby causing elastic deformation of the elastic member (Figs. 5A - 5B and paras. [0103-0104, 0163: spindle 300 is releasably engaged with the rotor-side locking portion carried by rotor bushing 423, the engaging pin 421 and leaf spring 442 are provided on the rotor brush 423 and rotor 420. Fig. 5A shows leaf spring 442 biases engaging pin 421 into engaging groove 320 of spindle 300, spindle 300 is locked into the rotor brushing 423/rotor 420. Fig. 5B shows the engaging pin 421 not engaged into the groove 320 and allow spindle 300 to pull out from rotor 420).
Regarding Claim 6:
Jarrell in view of Hayashida teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1. Hayashida further teaches wherein the locking portion includes a protruding portion (engaging pin 421) or a recessed portion (engaging groove 320) for locking the object to be locked to the connection main body portion.
Regarding Claim 7:
Jarrell in view of Hayashida teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1. Jarrell further teaches the connection main body portion includes a heater and a heating block that transfers heat from the heater to the connection pipe (Fig. 3A and para. [0063, 0074]: the tube 202 includes heating coils 204 and cover 250 (together as heating block) that heats the tube 203)
In addition, Jarrell in view of Hayashida teaches the locking portion is provided on the heating block (in the pin-leaf locking mechanism as taught by Hayashida can be provided on the heating structure taught by Jarrell).
Regarding Claim 9:
Jarrell in view of Hayashida teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1. The combined references further teach one of the connection main body portion and the fixing member can be attached to and detached from the second locking portion provided on another one of the connection main body portion and the fixing member, as discussed in claim 1.
Although the combined references do not expressly teach the locking portion includes an additional locking portion and one of the connection main body portion and the sampling cone can be attached to and detached from the first locking portion provided on another one of the connection main body portion and the sampling cone. It would have been obvious to provide Hayashida’s spring-biased locking mechanism at each of Jarrell’s two end interfaces, namely between sampling cone 201 and connection main body 202, and between fixing member 205 and connection main body 202. Jarrell provides interfitting structures at both ends of the cylindrical connection body, and provide Hayashida’s spring-biased pin mechanism at sample cone -connection body interface the same manner as at the end piece connection body interface would permit both end components to be securely retained while independently allowing attachment and removal.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrell in view of Hayashida, and further in view of US 2018/0017534 A1 [hereinafter Robson].
Regarding Claim 8:
Jarrell in view of Hayashida teaches the mass spectrometer of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note the mass spectrometer further comprising a voltage application unit that applies voltage to the locking portion to energize the connection pipe via the locking portion.
Robson teaches the mass spectrometer further comprising a voltage application unit that applies voltage to the locking portion to energize the connection pipe via the locking portion (paras. [0061-0062 and 0065]: the high voltage contact point may be an electrically conductive ball 155, this spring-loaded ball 155 engaging the groove and sapping/locking the assembly into space, the electrical path runs from the HV ball contact 155, through the conductive sheath/fitting structure, to the emitter tip).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to combine Jarrell/Hayashida to obtain Abramson’s MS inlet assembly with a voltage-application arrangement in which an electrically engaging locking/contact member applies to the capillary-side component through the locking interface, as taught in Robson. One of ordinary skilled would have wanted to do so because Abramson already relies on electrical potential at the inlet side to drive ions into and through the capillary, while Robson teaches compact locking/contact structure that both secures the assembly and provides reliable high-voltage electrical path. Thus, using Robson’s voltage applying locking/contact arrangement in Jarrell/Hayashida would have predictably provided a convenient way to energize the replaceable inlet-side component while maintaining secure mounting and reliable electrical transfer.
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
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights