DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0054106A1 [hereafter Zehavi].
Regarding Claim 1:
Although the preamble of claim 1 recites “for a mass spectrometer,” the body of the claim recites a complete skimmer cone structure and does not require any structural connection to, operation within, or modification for a mass spectrometer. Therefore, the phrase “for a mass spectrometer” is interpreted as an intended use and does not further limit the claimed structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zehavi teaches a skimmer cone for a mass spectrometer (Fig. 1- funnel 52), comprising
a base section (see annotated Fig. 1 above) and
a cone section protruding from the base section (see annotated Fig. 1 above),
the cone section having a substantially conical interior and a substantially conical exterior (see annotated Fig. 1) with a top area in which an orifice (Fig. 1- orifice 54) is provided,
wherein the skimmer cone is made of silicon (para. [0027]: “The funnel 52 may also be advantageously be made of high-purity silicon”).
Regarding Claim 2:
Zehavi the skimmer cone of claim 1. Zehavi further teaches wherein the silicon has at least 99.9% purity (para. [0022]: ZEHAVI defines “high purity silicon” as “EGS-grade silicon,” which is an ultra-pure form of polycrystalline silicon refined to 99.9999999 (9N) purity).
Regarding Claim 10:
Zehavi the skimmer cone of claim 1. Zehavi further teaches the skimmer cone is produced by machining (para. [0004]: the funnel 52 may be made of high purity silicon and the “silicon parts are advantageously machined from electronic grade silicon (EGS)”).
Regarding Claim 17:
Zehavi the skimmer cone of claim 2. Zehavi further teaches wherein the silicon has at least 99.9999% purity (para. [0022]: ZEHAVI defines “high purity silicon” as “EGS-grade silicon,” which is an ultra-pure form of polycrystalline silicon refined to 99.9999999 (9N) purity).
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 3-4, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi in view of Fuchs, H., et al., (2016). Investigation of potential interferences in the detection of atmospheric RO radicals by laser-induced fluorescence under dark conditions. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 9(4), 1431–1447 [hereinafter Fuchs].
Regarding Claim 3:
Zehavi teaches the skimmer cone of claim 1. However, Zehavi does not specifically note that wherein the top area is substantially flat. Fuchs teaches wherein the top area is substantially flat (Page 3: “the conically shaped inlet nozzles... consists of a commercial skimmer…with a flat top (diameter 2.5 mm), through which the orifice is drilled).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the orifice end of Zehavi’s silicon funnel with a substantially flat top as taught by Fuchs, because both structures are conical inlet/funnel structure having an orifice for admitting material/flow through a narrow opening, and a flat truncated orifice end makes the orifice easier and more accurately formed and provides a mechanically robust and readily machinable region for forming the orifice.
Regarding Claim 4:
Zehavi in view of Fuchs teach the skimmer cone of claim 3. Fuchs further teaches wherein the substantially flat top area has a diameter of at least 1 mm (Page 3: “the conically shaped inlet nozzles…consists of a commercial skimmer…with a flat top (diameter 2.5 mm), through which the orifice is drilled).
Regarding Claim 18:
Zehavi in view of Fuchs teach the skimmer cone of claim 4. Fuchs further teaches wherein the substantially flat top area has a diameter of at least 2 mm (Page 3: “the conically shaped inlet nozzles... consists of a commercial skimmer…with a flat top (diameter 2.5 mm), through which the orifice is drilled).
Regarding Claim 9:
Zehavi teaches the skimmer cone of claim 1. However, Zehavi does not specifically note that wherein the cone section defines an angle between 30° and 80°. Fuchs teaches wherein the cone section defines an angle between 30° and 80° (Page 3: “the conically shaped inlet nozzles (both have an opening angle of 70°) ... consists of a commercial skimmer…with a flat top (diameter 2.5 mm), through which the orifice is drilled).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the flat orifice end of Zehavi’s silicon funnel with the known 70 ° conical opening angle as taught by Fuchs because both structures are conical inlet/funnel structure having an orifice for admitting material/flow through a narrow opening, and selecting known nozzle/skimmer dimensions would be a routine design choice to provide a stable, manufacturable orifice region.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi in view of Fuchs, further in view of WO 2008132070A2 [hereinafter Rebs].
Regarding Claim 5:
Zehavi in view of Fuchs teach the skimmer cone of claim 3. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the substantially flat top area defines a shoulder at the interior of the cone section. Rebs teaches wherein the substantially flat top area defines a shoulder at the interior of the cone section (Page 2, last paragraph: “Starting from the end face associated with the distributor body 2, a circumferential inner shoulder is formed in the funnel-shaped recess 47”).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to provide the silicon funnel of Zehavi with the shoulder geometry taught by Rebs, because both references relate to conical structure having a narrowed orifice for controlling the passage of material/flow, and the shoulder is a known structural result of forming a smaller orifice through a substantially flat terminal tip area.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi in view of Fuchs and Rebs, and further in view of WO 2021219529A1 [hereinafter Miguel].
Regarding Claim 6:
Zehavi in view of Fuchs and Rebs teach the skimmer cone of claim 5. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the shoulder has a width between 0.1 mm and 3 mm.
Miguel teaches spray nozzle orifice diameter ranges preferably be 1.05-1.5 (17:30-33: “if a bi-fluid nozzle is used, the spray drying in step c) is carried out … an orifice diameter ranging …most preferably from 1.05 to 1.5 mm”). As such, in the modified nuzzle/funnel structure, where the flat top diameter is 2.5mm (Fuchs) and two shoulders are defined at the interior of the cone section (Rebs), the width of shoulder would be with the range of 0.5 -0.725mm (defined by half of the difference between the flat top diameter and the orifice diameter), within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to select the shoulder/orifice dimensions as taught in Miguel for the shoulder defined in the conical funnel of Fuchs-Rebs, as a routine design choice to provide sufficient material around the orifice for support and machinability while maintaining the desired orifice size for flow passage.
Regarding Claim 19:
Zehavi in view of Fuchs, Rebs and Miguel teach the skimmer cone of claim 6. Miguel further teaches wherein the shoulder has a width between 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm (at least the lower range of the shoulder width 0.5mm falls with the claimed range).
Claims 7-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi in view of GB2243213A [hereinafter Livesley].
Regarding Claim 7:
Zehavi teaches the skimmer cone of claim 1. However, Zehavi does not specifically note that wherein the orifice has a diameter of between 0.5 mm and 2.0 mm. Livesley teaches wherein the orifice has a diameter of between 0.5 mm and 2.0 mm (3: 13-15: “The funnel may be of conical shape… and the orifice is preferably of diameter between 0.5 and 2.0 mm”).
It would have been obvious to size the orifice of Zehavi’s high purity silicon funnel according to Livesley’s known particle delivery funnel dimensions because both references use a funnel to deliver solid particles through an orifice and Livesley teaches such dimensions as suitable for providing a controlled stream of particles.
Regarding Claim 8:
Zehavi teaches the skimmer cone of claim 1. However, Zehavi does not specifically note that the skimmer cone has a diameter of between 10 mm and 50 mm. Livesley teaches a diameter of between 10 mm and 50 mm (Fig. 1 and 4: 14-16: “The apparatus10 comprises a glass tube 12… and of diameter 50mm.” Fig. 1 shows the base of funnel 15 enclosed in the tube 12, therefore the diameter (width of base) is also close/up to 50mm).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to size cone/funnel diameter of Zehavi’s high purity silicon funnel according to Livesley’s known particle delivery funnel dimensions because both references use a funnel to deliver solid particles through an orifice and Livesley teaches such dimensions as suitable for providing a controlled stream of particles.
Regarding Claim 20:
Zehavi in view of Livesley teach the skimmer cone of claim 7. Livesley further teaches wherein the orifice has a diameter of between 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm (4:17-19: “a funnel 15 defining an orifice 16 of diameter 1 mm at its lowest point”).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi in view of WO2015102183A1 [hereinafter Park].
Regarding Claim 11:
Zehavi teaches the skimmer cone of claim 1. However, Zehavi does not specifically note that the skimmer cone is produced by machining followed by grinding. Park teaches the skimmer cone is produced by machining followed by grinding (para. [018]: “the present invention provides a method of manufacturing a single crystal silicon component for a plasma device…comprising: … A multistage grinding step of smoothing a surface of the silicon plate and the silicon ring manufactured in the slicing step”).
Zehavi teaches a conical funnel made of pure silicon by machining. Park teaches producing single crystal silicon parts by machining silicon material and them performing multi-stage grinding to smooth the surface. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply such machining followed by grinding to Zehavi’s high purity silicon funnel because both references involve forming precision silicon components, and grinding was a known finishing step for improving surface smoothness of silicon parts.
Regarding Claim 12:
Zehavi teaches the skimmer cone of claim 1. However, Zehavi does not specifically note that wherein the orifice is provided by drilling. Park teaches wherein the orifice is provided by drilling (para. [074]: “After machining the outer diameter of the silicon plate 140 … A plurality of through holes 141 are formed through a drilling process using a drill or an ultrasonic wave”).
Zehavi teaches a conical funnel made of pure silicon by machining. Park teaches forming through-holes in silicon parts by a drilling process using a drill or ultrasonic wave. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to form Zehavi’s funnel orifice by drilling because drilling was a known process for making through-holes in silicon components.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200194247A1 [hereinafter Hinrichs] in view US 5134301A [hereinafter Kamata].
PNG
media_image2.png
607
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13:
Hinrichs teaches a plasma interface (Abstract: a plasma sampling interface) comprising a skimmer cone according to claim 1, including:
a base section (see annotated Fig. 1 above) and
a cone section protruding from the base section (see annotated Fig. 1 above),
the cone section having a substantially conical interior and a substantially conical exterior with a top area in which an orifice (Fig. 1- orifice 25) is provided (para. [0064]: “a second conical structure called a skimmer 22, having an aperture or orifice 25”).
However, Hinrichs does not specifically note the skimmer cone is made of silicon.
Kamata teaches that, in an ion-bean apparatus, beam-path members including slit/aperture members may have surfaces made of high-purity (over 99.9999999%) silicon because ion impingement can sputter beam-path surfaces and cause contamination, and high-purity silicon reduces such contamination (see 3:32-46; 4:53-62 of Kamata). As such, in light of the teaching from Kamata, the skimmer cone of Hinrichs can be modified to be made of silicon, because the skimmer cone itself defines the ion-passing office and is directly exposed to the plasma/ion beam, making it the component corresponding to Kamata’s ion beam path slit/aperture members.
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to form Hinrichs’ skimmer cone from silicon, because Hinrichs’ skimmer cone is the beam/plasma-path aperture component through which sample ions pas, and using the known high-purity silicon material for such ion contacting aperture surfaces would reduce contamination caused by material released from the skimmer surface.
Regarding Claim 14:
Hinrichs in view of Kamata teach the plasma interface of claim 13. Hinrichs further teaches a sampling cone (Fig. 1- conical sampler 70).
Regarding Claim 15:
As discussed in claim 13, Hinrichs in view of Kamata teach the sampling cone according claim 1. Hinrich further teaches a mass spectrometer comprising the skimmer cone according to claim 1 (para. [0017]: “Also disclosed is a mass spectrometer comprising a plasma sampling interface,” which includes the skimmer cone of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 16:
Hinrichs in view of Kamata teach the mass spectrometer of claim 15. Hinrich further teaches an inductively coupled plasma source (para. [0017]: “Also disclosed is a mass spectrometer comprising a plasma sampling interface as described herein. Such a mass spectrometer can in particular be an Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS)”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights