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 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 limitations are:
“first engaging member” in claims 1-3, and 6.
“second engaging member” in claims 1-6.
“detection unit” in claim 8 interpreted to be a switch and a driven portion.
“pressing member” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are also 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.
An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. An original claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
Claim limitations “first engaging member”, “second engaging member”, and “pressing member” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As claimed, the “first engaging member” and the “second engaging member” are configured to engage with each other in a locked state. However, the specifications do not provide the structure that would allow for this engagement. The specifications explain “In this state, since the center (rotation shaft) of the first engaging member 321 is located on the opposite side to the rotation direction of the lever 301 at the time of locking from the straight line connecting the center (rotation shaft) of the rotation shaft 311 and the center (rotation shaft) of the second engaging member 322, it is possible to prevent the locked state from being released when an external force such as an impact is applied to the ion source 200 in the locked state.” However, no structure is provided for the first engaging member that explains how the position of the first engaging member relative to the lever or the second engaging member prevents the locked state from being released. The first engaging member is denoted by reference number 321 where it appears to be a circular piece. The second engaging member is denoted by reference number 322 which is represented by another circular piece. Two circular pieces is not sufficient structure for maintaining a locked state. Neither the drawings nor the specifications provide evidence for how the first and second engaging members maintain a locked state. For the purposes of examination the first engaging member will be interpreted to be a pin and a second engaging member will be interpreted to be a cam.
As claimed, the “pressing member” is configured to press the ion source in a direction away from the main body as the lever rotates. The specifications do not provide any structure for the pressing member outside of the fact that is pressing member is provided on the support plate. The pressing member is denoted by reference number 303 in the drawings which is a circle drawn in dotted lines. The drawings nor the text of specifications provide sufficient structure for pressing the ion source in a direction away from the main body as the lever rotates. For the purposes of examination the “pressing member” will be interpreted to be any 3 dimensional part.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph are also 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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "lock mechanism" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, and 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melvin Park (US 6809312 B1), hereinafter referred to as Park, in view of Tomohito Nakano (US 20110204223 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nakano.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a mass spectrometry device comprising: an ion source in which an ionization chamber for ionizing a sample is formed (spray chamber 20);
a main body in which a vacuum chamber into which ions generated in the ionization chamber are introduced (second pumping region 33) is formed and to which the ion source is attached in an openable and closable manner (Turning next to FIG. 5, shown is the ionization source of FIG. 4 in which flange 25 is in the open position thereby exposing capillary exit 23 and first skimmer 26 (col.8, lines 34-36)) (Fig. 5 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
570
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a connection pipe attachable to and detachable from the main body and configured to introduce ions from the ionization chamber into the vacuum chamber (capillary 21);
a flange portion that holds the connection pipe (flange 25) and is pressed toward the main body by a pressing surface (source block 37) formed on the ion source as the ion source is closed with respect to the main body (First pumping region 34 is formed by mounting flange 25 on source block 37 where a vacuum tight seal is formed between flange 25 and source block 37 by o-ring 27 (col. 7, lines 47-49));
a first sealing member provided between the flange portion and the pressing surface (o-ring 27);
Park fails to teach and a locking mechanism for locking the ion source in a closed state with respect to the main body, wherein the locking mechanism includes: a lever that is provided in the main body or the ion source and is rotatable between a locked state in which the ion source is maintained in a closed state with respect to the main body and an unlocked state in which the ion source is openable with respect to the main body; and an engaging portion which includes a first engaging member and a second engaging member at least one of which is rotatably provided, and in which the first engaging member and the second engaging member are engaged with each other in the locked state, and at least one of the first engaging member and the second engaging member rotates while contacting each other as the lever rotates from the unlocked state to the locked state.
However, Nakano teaches and a locking mechanism for locking the ion source in a closed state with respect to the main body, wherein the locking mechanism includes: a lever that is provided in the main body or the ion source (lever 60) and is rotatable between a locked state in which the ion source is maintained in a closed state with respect to the main body and an unlocked state in which the ion source is openable with respect to the main body (FIG. 9(a) shows the door and the cover in the locked state. FIG. 9(b) shows the door and the cover in the unlocked state (para. [0060]));
and an engaging portion which includes a first engaging member (pin 62) and a second engaging member (cam 61) at least one of which is rotatably provided (cam 61 rotates around its rotational axis and to the rear of the pin 62 (para. [0059])), and in which the first engaging member and the second engaging member are engaged with each other in the locked state (This arrangement means that, when the door 50 is closed, the cam 61 is positioned at the same height h as pin 62 but to the rear of pin 62 (locked state). Since cam 61 and pin 62 are at the same height, the door 50 cannot be opened or closed by rotating about the first edge 50a (para. [0058])),
and at least one of the first engaging member and the second engaging member rotates while contacting each other as the lever rotates from the unlocked state to the locked state (When the door 50 is opened, the person taking the measurements rotates the one end of the straight-shaped section 60a of the lever 60 so that the cam 61 rotates around its rotational axis and to the rear of the pin 62 so as to position itself at position h' which is lower than the height of the pin 62 (unlocked state) (para. [0059])).
PNG
media_image2.png
760
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park teaches an ion source with is openable and closeable with respect to the main body. To maintain the desired pressure inside each chamber, Park employs a seal between the flange and the main body. Nakano also uses an o-ring seal between the door and the chamber. Nakano improves upon the invention of Park because Nakano acknowledges the problem that the door will often become stuck to the body of the chamber due to the o-ring seal (para. [0025]). Nakano teaches a lever system with first and second engaging portions such that the door can be easily opened and closed even when the door becomes stuck (para. [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Park to include the teachings of Nakano by incorporating the lever and the first and second engaging members so that the door can be opened even when it becomes stuck due to the o-ring seal.
Regarding claim 6, Park fails to teach the mass spectrometry device according to claim 1, wherein when the ion source is closed with respect to the main body, the first engaging member and the second engaging member come into contact with each other before the first sealing member comes into contact with the flange portion or the pressing surface.
However, Nakano teaches the mass spectrometry device according to claim 1, wherein when the ion source is closed with respect to the main body, the first engaging member and the second engaging member come into contact with each other before the first sealing member comes into contact with the flange portion or the pressing surface (Fig. 3 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
654
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Park fails to teach the mass spectrometry device according to claim 1, wherein the lever is rotatably provided with respect to the main body.
However, Nakano teaches wherein the lever is rotatably provided with respect to the main body (A person taking measurements operates the one end of the straight-shaped section 60a of lever 60 and rotates the lever 60 in the forward direction and the reverse direction (para. [0053])).
Regarding claim 9, Park fails to teach the mass spectrometry device according to claim 7, wherein the lock mechanism further includes a pressing member that presses the ion source in a direction away from the main body as the lever rotates from the locked state to the unlocked state and further rotates from the unlocked state
However, Nakano teaches the mass spectrometry device according to claim 7, wherein the lock mechanism further includes a pressing member (the other end of the straight-shaped section 60a) that presses the ion source in a direction away from the main body as the lever rotates from the locked state to the unlocked state and further rotates from the unlocked state (When the one end of the straight-shaped section 60a of the lever 60 is rotated so that it moves away from the front surface 110e, the other end of the straight-shaped section 60a of the lever 60 presses against the top right extension plate 11d of the front surface 110c, causing the door 50 to open (para. [0056])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described In Park to include the teachings of Nakano such that the section 60a presses the ion source in a direction away from the main body as the lever rotates from the locked state to the unlocked state. This pressing force is what creates the leverage to open the door.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nakano as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Nishimura Koji (JP H09113259 A), hereinafter referred to as Koji, and Inoue Katsuhiro (JP H10122848 A), hereinafter referred to as Katsuhiro.
Regarding claim 8, Park fails to teach the mass spectrometry device according to claim 7, further comprising: a detection unit provided in the main body and configured to detect rotation of the lever; and a cover member that covers an outer side of the detection unit.
However, Koji teaches a detection unit provided in the main body and configured to detect rotation of the lever (switch 6a and cam surface 2a (driven portion)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed intention to modify the device described in Park to include the detection unit of Koji. Doing so allows a user to detect the angle of the lever, and therefore if the door is open or not. This system prevents outside contamination during ionization and spectrometry operations.
Further, Katsuhiro teaches and a cover member that covers an outer side of the detection unit (protective cover 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Park to include the teachings of Katsuhiro by incorporating the protective cover 6 over the switch such that a user does not accidentally touch the switch and therefore, cause an improper reading on the state of the lever.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nakano, and in further view of Michael Ugarov (US 8952326 B1), hereinafter referred to as Ugarov, and Randall Mielke (US 20140360586 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mielke.
Regarding claim 10, Park fails to teach the mass spectrometry device according to claim 1, wherein a gas outlet through which a gas to be supplied into the ionization chamber is led out is formed in the main body, and in the ion source, a gas inlet which is close to the gas outlet in a state where the ion source is closed with respect to the main body and into which gas from the gas outlet is introduced is formed, and an annular second sealing member is attached to a peripheral edge portion of the gas inlet.
However, Ugarov teaches wherein a gas outlet through which a gas to be supplied into the ionization chamber is led out is formed in the main body (gas source 166 inherently possesses an outlet such that gas can be lead from the source to the ionization chamber), and in the ion source, a gas inlet which is close to the gas outlet in a state where the ion source is closed with respect to the main body and into which gas from the gas outlet is introduced is formed (gas inlet 164).
The specifications of the present disclosure define manifold 102, a block for supplying gas to the ion source 200, to be part of the main body. Therefore, gas source 166 of Ugarov will also be interpreted to be a part of the main body 116 and 174 of Ugarov.
Park teaches an atmospheric pressure ionization chamber. Ugarov also teaches an atmospheric pressure ionization chamber (112) containing a gas 164. Attached to such gas inlet is a gas source 166. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in park to include the gas source 166 and gas inlet 164 for introducing a drying gas into the ionization chamber of Park. Drying gas assists in the evaporation of the solvent and aids in sweeping the solvent towards the mass spectrometer.
Further Mielke teaches and an annular second sealing member is attached to a peripheral edge portion of the gas inlet (The O-rings (11) located on the sample holder tube (16) and gas outlet tube (7) (para. [0045])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Park to include the teachings of Mielke by incorporating the o-ring seal of Mielke around the peripheral edge of the gas inlet. Doing so minimizes gas leakages (para. [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights