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 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1 in view of Zehavi:
Applicant argues that Zehavi’s funnel 52 is used to convey solid silicon pellets from the broad portion of the funnel through orifice 54, whereas amended claim 1 recites that the skimmer cone is configured to receive plasma through the orifice and direct the plasma through the conical interior from the top areas toward the base section. Applicant therefore contends that Zehavi discloses neither the claimed material nor the claimed direction of movement. This argument is not persuasive because the amendment does not recite any new structural feature distinguishing the claimed cone from the structurally corresponding conical funnel disclosed by Zehavi. Rather, the added language describes the material that is introduced into the cone and the manner in which the already-recited cone is used. In In re Schreiber, the Federal Circuit affirmed an anticipation rejection of a conical popcorn-dispending top based on a prior-art conical spout disclosed for dispensing oil. Although the reference did not describe using the spout for popcorn, the court held that “the absence of a disclosure relating to function does not defeat” anticipation where the prior art structure inherently possessed the claimed capability. The court further explained that a reference may anticipate even though it arises from a different field or addresses a different problem. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The same reasoning applies here. Zehavi discloses a hollow conical funnel 52 having a substantially conical interior and exterior and a narrow orifice 54. Zehavi further expressly states that funnel 52 may be made of high-purity silicon. The claimed cone does not recite any structural feature that causes flow only in the recited direction. Accordingly, when plasma is introduced through Zehavi’s orifice 54, the open conical interior is inherently capable of receiving that plasma and directing it from the narrow orifice end toward the wider base section. The fact that Zehavi describes using the same structure to pass pellets in the opposite direction does not establish that the structure is incapable of being used in the claimed manner. Apparatus claims concern the structure of the apparatus, and a manner of operating an otherwise structurally identical apparatus does not distinguish it from the prior art.
Regarding Claims 13 and 15 in view of Hinrichs and Kamata:
Applicant argues that Kamata teaches only a conventional member having a high-purity silicon surface or coating, rather than a member made substantially entirely of silicon. This argument is not persuasive since that characterization considers only one of Kamata’s disclosed embodiments and overlooks Kamata’s express disclosure of whole-silicon beam-path members. Kamata initially explains that “the members disposed on the passage (or beam line) of the ion beam IB, such as … are or have their surfaces made of highly pure silicon” (7:20-27), thereby expressly identifying both a whole-silicon alternative and a silicon-surface alternative. Kamata further states that “individual ones of the aforementioned members disposed on the passage of the ion beam IB may be made of silicon of low resistance (i.e., doped silicon)” (7:47-50). Thus, Kamata is not limited to coating a graphite or aluminum core with silicon. Kamata expressly teaches that an aperture or slit member positioned in an ion-beam path may itself be formed from high-purity silicon. Hinrichs teaches ICP-MS plasma interface containing skimmer 22, which is a conical beam-path component having aperture 25 through which sampled plasma ions pass toward the sample analyzer. Because Hinrichs’ skimmer is an ion-contacting aperture member corresponding to Kamata’s beam-path slit or aperture member, it would have been obvious to form Hinrichs’ skimmer from Kamata’s high purity silicon to reduce contamination resulting from sputtering, deterioration, or material released from the ion-contacting surface.
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 configured to receive a plasma through the orifice and to direct the plasma through the conical interior from the top area toward the base section wherein (Zehavi’s funnel 52 can be configured to receive a plasma through the orifice and to direct the plasma through the conical interior from the top area towards the base section. Funnel 52 is a follow conical member having orifice 54 at its narrow end and a wider opening toward it base. When plasma is introduced through orifice 54, the existing conical interrail necessarily receives and directs the plasma from the narrow orifice end toward the wider base section); and
wherein the skimmer cone is made substantially entirely 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)”) or machining followed by grinding.
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, 18, and 20 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 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.
Regarding Claim 18:
Zehavi in view of Fuchs teach the skimmer cone of claim 3. Fuchs further teaches wherein the substantially flat top area defines a terminal end of the skimmer cone (Page 3: “the conically shaped inlet nozzles... consists of a commercial skimmer…with a flat top.” Since the flat top is located at the distal tip of the conical nozzle and therefore defines a terminal end of the skimmer cone).
Regarding Claim 20:
Zehavi teach the skimmer cone of claim 1. However, Zehavi does not expressly teach where the base section and the cone section are separate parts joined to each other. Fuchs teaches where the base section and the cone section are separate parts joined to each other (Page 3: “the short inlet consists of a commercial skimmer…which is welded on a stainless steel flange,” wherein the skimmer constitutes the cone section and the flange constitutes the base section, and the welding joins the two separate parts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to construct Zehavi’s silicon funnel using a separately formed conical section and base section joined together, as taught by Fuchs. A two-piece construction would permit the conical portion and mounting base to be separately manufactured and subsequently joined, thereby facilitating manufacture, mounting, repair, and replacement or the cone section.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claims 7-8 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi in view of US20180233343A1 [hereinafter Syms].
Regarding Claim 11:
Zehavi teaches the skimmer cone of claim 1. However, Zehavi does not specifically note that wherein the cone section has a smaller wall thickness than the base section. Syms teaches wherein the cone section has a smaller wall thickness than the base section (paras. [0018-0019]: the skimmer cone includes a “the metal layers together then form a blind, thin-walled conical pyramid” and the cone-forming nickel layer is desirably only “several microns thick.” In contrast, the cone is supported on a silicon substrate which is etched to depths that may be “several hundred microns”).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the conical section of Zehavi’s silicon cone with a smaller wall thickness than its supporting base section, as taught by Syms, because Syms teaches that a thin-walled cone can be integrally supported by a thicker base or bulkhead to provide the sharp conical skimmer geometry required for sampling a collimated gas-and-ion stream while the thicker base provides structural support and mounting to the vacuum interface.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi in view of WO2015102183A1 [hereinafter Park].
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, wherein the skimmer cone comprises:
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, “the members disposed on the passage (or beam line) of the ion beam IB, such as … are or have their surfaces made of highly pure silicon” and that “individual ones of the aforementioned members disposed on the passage of the ion beam IB may be made of silicon of low resistance (i.e., doped silicon)” (7: 7:20-27, 47-50). 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:
Hinrichs in view of Kamata teach the sampling cone having the same structure as recited in claim 13. Hinrich further teaches a mass spectrometer comprising the skimmer cone (para. [0017]: “Also disclosed is a mass spectrometer comprising a plasma sampling interface”).
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)”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi in view of US5352893A [hereinafter Freeman].
Regarding Claim 19:
Zehavi teaches the skimmer cone of claim 1. However, Zehavi does not specifically note that wherein the top area is substantially round and flat, and the cone section protrudes from a top surface of the base section. Freeman teaches wherein the top area is substantially round and flat, and the cone section protrudes from a top surface of the base section (Fig. 2 and 8: 54-57: shows a body 22 comprises a “circular flange 26” and a “concentrically disposed inner circular portion 27” supporting skimmer member 28, which is a hollow cone having a hole in its apex. Fig. 2 further shows the circular flange and supporting portion as a substantially flat base structure, with the hollow conical skimmer member protruding from the plasma-facing surface thereof).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to provide the silicon cone of Zehavi with the substantially round and flat base configuration taught by Freeman, with the conical section protruding from a surface of the base, to provide a stable mounting surface, maintain axial alignment of the cone and orifice, and facilitate attachment of the skimmer cone to the mass-spectrometer interface.
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